§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Amendment of 38 &39 Vict. c. 55, and 54 & 55 Vict. c. 76 in respect of smoke nuisances.
§ 1.—(1) The provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, relating to smoke nuisances shall be amended as follows: —
§ (e) Section three hundred and thirty-four of the Act shall have effect as if there were included amongst the processes specified in that section the processes of reheating, annealing, hardening, forging, converting and carburising iron and other metals:
§ Provided that the Minister may by Provisional Order at any time after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act exclude from the application of that section any processes specified in that section as amended by this paragraph so far as smoke nuisances are concerned.
§ (2) The provisions of the Public Health (London) Act. 1891. relating to smoke nuisances and smoke consumption shall be amended as follows: —
§ (e) In subsections (2) and (3) of section twenty-three of the Act (which relate to penalties for non-consumption of their own smoke by furnaces and steam vessels) "twenty-five pounds" and "fifty pounds" shall be substituted for "five pounds" and "ten pounds" respectively.
§ VISCOUNT NOVAR:Before we come to the Amendments on the Paper I should like to remind the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, of a question that I have previously addressed to him as to whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill dealing with smoke abate- 204 ment in Scotland. I may remind the noble Earl that, a year ago, a Bill was introduced for Scotland a few days after the English Bill was presented to the House. They were very moderate Bills— probably too moderate. The simplest course now might be for me to move to insert Scotland in this Bill, but there might be disadvantages in that procedure. I hope that the Government do intend to deal with this subject in Scotland, because it is even more pressing there, I think, than in England, by reason of the amount of soft coal that we burn. I do not see why Scotland should be excluded from such remedy as is given to England. The injury done by smoke pollution there in more than one branch of industry is very great.
Probably the best use to which the large amount of waste land in colliery districts could be put is planting, but the value of a silvicultural crop may be diminished by 50 per cent. owing to the prevalence of smoke in the atmosphere. I myself planted 800 acres around collieries, and I am well aware of the effect of this pollution on silviculture. As a matter of fact, this is not merely a Clydeside question. There are parts of Fife where you cannot go into a plantation unless you put on dungarees, and the effect on the trees is even worse than it is upon the clothes. Again, surrounding the towns you have a considerable extent of horticulture and that is probably one of the most important aspects of the land question. That industry is hampered by smoke. I think that pollution by smoke is even a more serious matter than pollution of the rivers. Even agriculture is affected by it, and certainly the stock. I am aware of the strength of the opposition, but I am satisfied from my own experience as provost of an industrial Scottish burgh that great improvement can be effected without any detriment to industry and with great advantage to the public.
§ EARL DE LA WARR:This Bill is an addition to the Public Health Code. Scotland has a separate code from England and therefore a separate Bill for Scotland will have to be introduced. I understand from my right hon. friend the Secretary for Scotland, that this will be done in the autumn.
§ LORD ASKWITHmoved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (1), immediately before 205 the proviso to insert "and in addition thereto the Minister may at any time by Provisional Order include any other process." The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment to allow new processes to be inserted by Provisional Order so as to give flexibility to the new prevision. Lord Gainford would have moved this Amendment, but he has been called away on business. It is supported by a large number of manufacturers and also by the Smoke Abatement Society, who consider that flexibility is necessary. Even at the present moment, although this Bill has had a certain amount of advertisement, there may be processes which should be brought under it, and particularly one in the pottery industry— to which Lord Gainford alluded on Second Reading—in which, according to the technical men inside the industry, very highly finished results in a particular kind of pottery cannot be got without adding smoke to the atmosphere. It would be a serious thing to interfere with the trade by suddenly depriving it altogether of the right of putting smoke into the atmosphere. Therefore I move this Amendment. It might be said that new processes could come to Parliament for a new Bill, but that, I think, would be entirely inadmissible in such cases. If it were done by Provisional Order, Parliament could amend or reject it.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 2, line 11, after ("metals") insert ("and in addition thereto the Minister may at any time by Provisional Order include any other process").—(Lord Askwith.)
§ EARL DE LA WARR:This Bill is already very weak and emasculated, and the Minister is unwilling to accept an Amendment like this which will further weaken it. The Amendment would also cause certain difficulties in administration, and leave the Minister open to be continually approached by every sort of industry urging him to issue a Provisional Order. I might add that as the law is at present no complaints have been received by the Minister. With regard to new industries, if it is proposed that this Amendment should be passed in order to meet the case of new industries, the Ministry considers that it would be very unwise to legislate ahead of them, and that if new industries require some such treatment as this they can be dealt with at the time.
§ LORD NEWTON:I am certainly not in favour of weakening the Bill, but I venture to suggest that the point made by Lord Askwith might be met by inserting the word "new" in the place of "other" process. Everybody connected with the existing trade knows perfectly well that there might be some new process, and if the word "new" is inserted I do not see that any harm could be done.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:I would rather like to support what my noble friend has said. The noble Earl who speaks for the Government has told us that no complaint has been received from existing industries, but it is possible that a new industry might come along which would necessitate this Amendment and if you do not have some provision it would necessitate further legislation. Possibly the Government will consider it between now and Report, and endeavour to find some solution.
§ EARL DE LA WARR:I will certainly lay the matter before the Ministry.
§ LORD ASKWITH:I will withdraw my Amendment and put it down again on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD KYLSANTmoved, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out "which relate to penalties for non-consumption of their own smoke by furnaces and steam vessels." The noble Lord said: It is a small Amendment, but it is one in which the Chamber of Shipping is very much interested as they feel that the present law fairly deals with the question of steamers and that ship owners already do everything possible to reduce the amount of smoke produced. We all look forward to the day, perhaps not very many years hence, when there will be a great many motor vessels, producing no smoke at all, but the Chamber of Shipping is very much concerned with the wording of the Bill and I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 3, lines 2 to 3, leave out ("(which relate to penalties for non-consumption of their own smoke by furnaces and steam vessels)").— (Lord Kylsant.)
§ LORD NEWTON:A rumour has reached me that the Government are inclined to consider this Amendment favourably, and I trust that by the remarks which I am about to make I may induce them to alter 207 their decision. I would like to remind the Committee that this question of smoke pollution has been carefully investigated for several years. For two years I sat with a number of other gentlemen on an inter-Departmental Committee, and not a single representative of the shipping interest appeared before us during the whole of that time, nor was any representation made to us with regard to that particular industry. Now, at the eleventh hour, the noble Lord comes and wants his own particular industry to be excluded. This is the third time that the Smoke Abatement Bill has been introduced by the Government and the first time that any mention of the shipping industry has been made at all, except on the Second Reading of this Bill.
I am not at all influenced by the fears of the noble Lord. I do not think that the modest proposals in this Bill are likely prejudicially to affect the shipping interest to any important extent, and I am fortified in this view by the fact that recently I saw a notice that a shipowner had died leaving over £3,500,000. That does not look as if the shipping industry was in a bad way. I should, however, like to point out the position of shipping at the present moment. I do not know whether it is realised that ocean-going steamships are not liable to prosecution at all, so long as they are in motion. It is only with regard to the case of tugs and small coasting vessels when they are in rivers and in tidal waters, that there is any legislation. Ocean-going ships cannot be proceeded against so long as they are in motion, either coming or going, and, of course, when they get three miles away from this country they can do what they like. The result is that they are only liable to prosecution when they are at anchor or in a port; in other words, in exactly the same position as a manufacturer.
What possible reason is there why they should be exempt? For some reason or other, my noble friend only proposes under his Amendment to exempt the ships in the River Thames, but I submit that there is no sort of reason for making any exemption whatever with regard to this particular industry. If a manufacturer is under certain Regulations with regard to smoke, it is only fair that a steamer in harbour or at anchor should be placed in the same position. The difficulties are no Lord Newton. 208 greater. I sincerely hope, therefore, that no countenance will be given to this Amendment.
§ LORD KYLSANT:I should like to point out to the noble Lord that whilst this particular Amendment only affects the port of London, I have a further Amendment later on which will deal with the whole question.
§ EARL DE LA WARR:All our sympathies are with Lord Newton. Unfortunately, the only chance that this Bill has of going through is if it is an agreed measure. As there is a considerable opposition from the shipping trade, the Minister has decided that he will have in some way to meet them. We do it under protest, but the Minister will consider the question of putting down some Amendment on the Report stage.
§ LORD KYLSANT:An Amendment fairly to meet the point raised?
§ EARL DE LA WARR:It would meet the principle.
§ LORD NEWTON:The noble Earl says this Bill is more or less an agreed Bill. That is perfectly true. It is an agreed Bill between the persons who are interested in smoke abatement and the Federation of British Industries. That Federation is a. very important body, the most important body of its kind in the country, and I am able to state that they arc against this Amendment. They are quite naturally in favour of the principle that all industries should be treated alike.
§ LORD PARMOOR:I hope the noble. Lord, Lord Kylsant, will allow this to stand over till the Report Stage. I think it would be much more convenient.
§ LORD KYLSANT:All right. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD ASKWITHmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection: —
(4) Within twenty-four hours after any alleged nuisance has occurred an intimation shall be given to the occupier of the premises in respect of which such nuisance is alleged.The noble Lord said: The object is that a notification should be made at once when a nuisance has either been reported or is seen. The present system in most towns would be that 209 an inspector would either observe or be told of a nuisance; that he would have to report it to the medical officer of Health; that that officer would report it to the local health authorities or the sanitary authorities; that they would refer it to the council; and that the council would tell the clerk to write a letter and the letter presumably would then be written by the clerk, perhaps a month after the nuisance had occurred. It has been found that quick inspection of a nuisance, which is very often due either to carelessness or to an omission which was not intended, will stop it or give the owner the opportunity of abating it, but that if time passes by it is impossible very often to find out how the nuisance arose. As this has been talked of as an agreed Bill I may mention that both the Federation of British Industries and the Smoke Abatement Society are anxious that this subsection should be inserted. It has been tried in a voluntary manner in one or two towns. It might be said that other towns would follow suit, but that has not happened and a mandatory injunction would have a great deal more effect.In Sheffield, a very smoky town, it is said that the results of such action are good. The major portion of Sheffield lies in a cup and it is a very smoky place. I remember seeing an engraving of a picture which was taken in a smokeless Sheffield when Queen Victoria visited it. The whole of the inhabitants determined that the Queen should not see a smoky Sheffield, and they put out their fires and stopped their blast furnaces for three or four days. So pleased were they with the result that they actually made pictures and engravings of it. I saw one engraving at Messrs. Vickers & Co. If that result could be brought about in a few more towns it would spread throughout the country, people would get the idea of a smokeless atmosphere and this Bill would be far more popular than any other Bill that has been passed by the present Government.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 3, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
§ EARL DE LA WARR:This Amendment would cause considerable difficulties in administration. The Minister is, however, prepared to meet the noble Lord by issuing a circular when this Bill is passed urging the local authorities to realise the 210 importance of working in the very closest co-operation with manufacturers and of communicating with them privately when possible. I hope this will satisfy the noble Lord and that he will not press his Amendment.
§ LORD ASKWITH:I cannot conceive that a circular to the local authorities would be of the slightest value, and I propose to press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:Perhaps my noble friend will explain how the administrative difficulties would arise. I think after what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, that this Amendment would be of advantage, especially as the principle has been already tried. As we know, all our local government has grown up on these experiments in different towns, and when they have succeeded they have been embodied in legislation. I do not want to press the Amendment, but perhaps my noble friend will explain a little further. Perhaps the difficulties might be overcome by a further Amendment on the Report Stage. It does seem to me that if there is a large demand for this Amendment something more could be done than issuing a circular to the local authorities.
§ VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE:It appears to me that the people who are producing these nuisances ought to be told immediately. It is not the case that those at the head of great factories know of them. The nuisance is concealed from them by the people who produce it, and it is only fair that they should be informed at once.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:It is obviously fair that the earliest possible notice should be given to the occupier of a factory that somebody thinks he has committed a breach of the Act by emitting smoke. But the fault of this Amendment is its hopeless ambiguity. It creates an obligation and does not say upon whom the obligation is laid.
§ LORD ASKWITH:The information would be given by the inspector.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:Then, why not say so?
§ EARL DE LA WARR:If this notice were not given I think it is perfectly clear that any further legal action would be void. Therefore, the notice would have to be given within twenty-four hours.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:It is possible that the Amendment might be bettor drafted, but what I think the majority of your Lordships really wish is that there should be something on the face of the Act of Parliament placing an obligation upon the requisite authority to give information as to the nuisance as soon as possible. The noble Earl opposite says that he will see that a circular is issued by the Government Department. Clearly that is not sufficient. We want something in the Bill itself. If the noble Earl would go a step further and say that, acting in the spirit of my noble friend's Amendment, he will do his best to frame words which will carry it out, that will be quite a different answer and we can put the words in on the Report stage.
§ LORD PARMOOR:I think that might be done. We do not want to have a contentious Bill here. Everyone is agreed, I think, that the suggestion the noble Marquess has made ought to be accepted, and we accept it.
§ LORD ASKWITH:I understand the noble and learned Lord to be prepared to pass an Amendment in these terms. I should much have preferred to have had this actually in the Bill and then to amend it on the Report stage‥
§ LORD PARMOOR:The noble Lord may take it either way.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:In that case we will put the Amendment into the Bill and then, I understand, that on Report the noble and learned Lord will ask your Lordships to alter it—he may not succeed—when the time comes.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2:
§ Onus of Proof.
§ 2.—(1) In any case in which by-laws for the purpose have been made by the local authority, the emission, during such period as may be prescribed by the by-laws, of black smoke of such density and volume as may be so prescribed, shall raise the presumption until the contrary is proved that the emission constitutes a nuisance.
§ (3) In the application of this section to London, the London County Council shall be the local authority within the area of the administrative county.
212§ LORD NEWTONmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "black." The noble Lord said: This is really a very important Amendment. I am sorry to be obliged to move it because I thought we had converted the Government to our view. It is difficult to prosecute anybody under the existing law, and the difficulty has been enormously enhanced owing to the fact that you have to show that the smoke is black. That, apparently, is an extremely difficult thing to do. I dare say there are noble Lords present who recollect a test case—the case of the Lots-road Power Station—where enormous trouble was taken to fight the point and it was lost because, the magistrate could not be convinced that the smoke complained of was black. It must be obvious to everybody that smoke can be equally objectionable even if it is not black. Whether it is dark grey, or brown, or green, or any colour of the rainbow, smoke is objectionable in any form.
What is the sense, therefore, of leaving that word in? This is a new Bill and is by way of amending the law. Black smoke is already a nuisance. It is already a thing upon which you can prosecute. What is the good of sticking to that particular point in this Bill? The result of including the word "black" is not only that prosecutions fail but that local authorities are very reluctant to prosecute. It is no good their making by-laws if the by-laws are liable to be nullified by an absurdity of this kind. I think my noble friend Lord Novar will corroborate me when I say that I do not think the word "black," in reference to smoke, occurs in the Scottish Health Acts at all. It is plain that you ought to be able to proceed against persons if the smoke is objectionable, and not simply because it is black. Unless this point is made clear it will be impossible to get local authorities to make bylaws and more impossible still to induce them to enforce those by-laws. In these circumstances I move the Amendment and I shall certainly divide the Committee upon it.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 3, line 16, leave out "black".— (Lord Newton.)
§ EARL DE LA WARR:The effect of the Amendment would be to make it impossible for by-laws to be made setting down 213 standards for any kind of smoke. It is agreed on all hands that no way has yet been discovered of fixing standards for smoke other than black smoke. Therefore, on general grounds it is obviously undesirable to include in a Bill provisions that cannot be enforced. It does not add to the effect of the law if it contains provisions which cannot be enforced.
§ VISCOUNT NOVAR:There certainly is no reference to "black" smoke in the Bill which I had the honour of presenting to your Lordships' House last year. "Smoke" was defined in that Bill as including soot, ash, grit and gritty particles. There was not a word about black smoke, and I am satisfied that the local authority would have great trouble in establishing that smoke was black or otherwise. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has said, smoke is just as offensive when it is not perfectly black as it is when it is of the blackest possible colour.
§ EARL DE LA WARR:If the House will understand that our acceptance of this Amendment is subject to revision by the Minister on the Report stage—
§ LORD NEWTON:You accept it?
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ EARL DE LA WARRmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "of such density and volume as may be so prescribed." The noble Earl said: Clause 2 has reference to the fixing of the standards for the emission of black smoke. If these particular words which we move to omit are retained in the Bill the implication will be that it is practicable to fix standards for density and volume. That is not practicable. Therefore we desire to omit those words. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 3, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("of such density and volume as may be so prescribed").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ EARL DE LA WARRmoved, in subsection (3), after "London," to insert "the port sanitary authority of the port of London shall be the local authority within the district of that authority, but save as respects that district." The noble Earl said: The Minister has been approached by the port sanitary authority of London in regard to placing this Amendment in the Paper, and he has been 214 convinced that it would be best to leave the matter in their hands, as their area goes right outside the area of the London County Council, and because they will be dealing particularly with subjects with which they are competent to deal, such as shipping. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 3, line 23, after ("London") insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEADmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out "administrative," and after "county" insert "of London and the Common Council within the City of London." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name is a very simple one, and I move it on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London. Clause 2, subsection (3), of the Bill proposes that the London County Council shall be the local authority for making by-laws within the Administrative County of London, which includes the City. The Amendment proposes to leave out the word "administrative," which will have the effect of excluding the City, and to add "the Common Council" as the local authority for that area.
The object of my Amendment is to preserve the existing independent position of the Corporation under the Ministry of Health in regard to public health matters, as indicated by Section 133 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, which is as follows:—
"In the application of this Act to the City of London the following modifications shall be made:
§ (a) There shall be no appeal under this Act from the commissioners of sewers to the county council:
§ (b) The by-laws made by the county council under this Act shall not extend to the city:
§ (c) The county council shall not have power under this Act to require the commissioners of sewers to provide and maintain a building for post-mortem examinations:
§ (d) The powers of the county council under this Act to proceed in case of default of a sanitary authority shall not extend to the commissioners of sewers."
§ The Commissioners of Sewers no longer exist. The Corporation of the City of London is now in their place, and I ven- 215 ture to say that these provisions are very specific in preserving the independence of the City.
§ It is understood that the objection to giving this power to the City is that it is intended that the by-law powers shall comprehensively cover large areas. There is little in this objection as regards the City, because all by-laws by whomsoever made have to be approved by the Minister of Health. He would, therefore, see that those made by the Corporation were not inconsistent with those made by the London County Council. As a matter of fact, in practice, in all cases of the making of by-laws and regulations, it is for the Corporation to see what by-laws and regulations the County Council make, and then for the City to base their by-laws and regulations upon them, with such alterations and additions as may be essential. I venture to direct the attention of the House to some of the more important measures under which the Corporation have statutory independence for the City—Public Health (London) Acts, Weights and Measures Acts, Explosive Acts, Shop Acts, Locomotives on Highways Acts, Advertisement Regulations Acts, Children Acts, and also, under the London County Council General Powers Acts, in respect of the following matters—employment agencies, sanitary provisions and massage establishments. I hope that the noble Earl, after hearing this explanation, may be able to see his way to accept this Amendment.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 3, line 25, leave out ("administrative") and after ("county") insert ("of London and the Common Council within the City of London").—(Lord Marshall of Chipstead).
THE EARL OF ONSLOW:I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this Amendment, because this Bill is one which seeks to give satisfaction, or at any rate to attain agreement, on all sides. If there is really a strong feeling, as my noble friend behind me has explained, in the City that this provision should be made, I hope my noble friend will accept it.
§ EARL DE LA WARR:The Minister does not like this Amendment, as he particularly wanted uniformity. As, 216 however, the feeling of the House appears to be in favour of it, and as the House is anxious to get on to other business, I will not resist it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ LORD NEWTONmoved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Chimneys possessed by Government Departments, public bodies and local authorities subject to Act.
… Notwithstanding the common law or any provision in any local or public Act, all Government Departments, public bodies and local authorities possessing works from the chimneys of which smoke is emitted shall be subject to this Act: Provided that in the case of Government Departments the person in control of the branch of the department from which the smoke- is emitted shall be deemed to be the person by whose act, default or sufferance the nuisance, if any, arises or continues.The noble Lord said: I do not like to be disrespectful of a Government measure, but it does seem to me a piece of monumental impudence to bring in a Bill dealing with a social evil and to exempt all Government establishments from the proposed penalties. It is almost as if you were to suggest that no person in Government employ should be prosecuted if he got drunk. The case is all the worse when you reflect that the present Government, as we have been told, intend to monopolise all the industries in the country—that is, supposing the industries are still going on after a, certain number of years. Consequently the whole of the industries of the country will be exempted, unless this Amendment is carried, from any penalties for producing smoke. Before the Committee there appeared most important witnesses from Government Departments, and they were more insistent than any one else upon the necessity of some alteration in the law. Now it is calmly proposed that Government establishments shall act precisely as they please, whereas every private manufacturer or merchant is to he heavily fined. I do not think it is really necessary to labour the point. I am sure it is a common-sense question, and that this Amendment will be adopted.
§ Amendment moved—
§ After Clause 2 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Newton.)
217§ EARL DE LA WARR:It is unnecessary to attempt, amongst so many distinguished lawyers, to argue that this Amendment is constitutionally impossible. Perhaps I might give the noble Lord an example of the difficulty. A nuisance may be due to a constructional fault, and the person in charge may have no authority to spend money on structural changes without getting central authority. Further, the consent of the Treasury may be required, and even of Parliament. Is Parliament to be brought before a magistrate if an estimate has been placed before it and has not been passed? Of course not. The responsible Minister can, however, always be brought to book in Parliament. There is, however, no intention of not bringing Government establishments up to the standard, and the Minister is prepared to try to form some sort of declaration that could be inserted in the Bill.
§ EARL DE LA WARR:I would not like to say that at the moment.
§ EARL DE LA WARR:We will try to do something.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:The Government must realise that a reply that this cannot be done will not satisfy your Lordships. It is clear that it must be done. You cannot exempt a Government establishment. I am not going into the constitutional question, for we are much too pressed for time to go into that, but I would assure the noble Earl that the Government will do well to be provided at any rate with words on the next stage of the Bill. I am certain that neither this House nor another place would endure to have Government establishments exempt.
§ LORD PARMOOR:We will accept the situation and endeavour to get suitable words. I quite understand what has been said with regard to the words as they stand.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEY:I think it should be borne in mind that local authorities who may offend are not 218 covered by the constitutional objection, and I hope their case will not be forgotten.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 3:
§ Power to make orders extending the provisions of 6 Edw. 7. c. 14.
§ (2) Any order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act:
§ Provided that, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such order is laid before it, praying that the order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the order and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.
§ LORD STRACHIEmoved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert the following new subsection:—
(2) Any Order made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of any new Order.The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment. It is to strike out the subsection regarding the laying of Orders before both Houses of Parliament and to insert a new one to make it mandatory and not permissive. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 4, lines 1 to 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.)
§ EARL DE LA WARR:The Government accept this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ EARL DE LA WARRmoved, at the end of the clause, to insert—
(3) Where the Minister of Health is of opinion that any work is of such a character as is likely to cause the evolution of any noxious or offensive gas, he may, notwithstanding that the provisions of the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906, may not apply to that work, authorise an inspector appointed under that Act to enter and 219 inspect such work, and the provisions of that Act relating to the powers of inspectors shall apply in respect of that work in the case of any inspector so authorised.The noble Earl said: This Amendment gives the Minister the right, in the case of noxious or offensive gases, to enter on the premises for the purpose of inquiry. It is obviously necessary that he should do that before he makes this order.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 4, line 11, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4:
§ Power to make by-laws respecting new buildings.
§ 4. The powers of an urban authority under section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875, and of the London County Council under section one hundred and sixty-four of the London Building Act, 1894, shall extend to the making of by-laws requiring the provision in new buildings other than private dwelling-houses of such arrangements for heating as are calculated to prevent or reduce the emission of smoke.
§ LORD NEWTONmoved to leave out "other than private dwelling houses." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment; I believe it will be accepted by the Government.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 4, line 17, leave out ("other than private dwelling-houses.")—(Lord Newton.)
§ EARL DE LA WARR:We accept this Amendment.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:The result of this will be that whenever there is a little smoke coming out of a private house, if your cook has allowed a little fat to drop in the fire, you will have a visit from an inspector, and will be hauled before a magistrate, your time will be wasted and you will probably be fined half a crown or something of that sort. I hope we are still going to have a little liberty left to us in this country. I appeal to the noble Lord—I nearly always support him—to withdraw this Amendment. It is really going too far.
§ LORD NEWTON:I have no intention whatever of withdrawing the Amendment. I can quite understand the noble Lord Earl De La Warr. 220 objecting to any change for the better. I have no doubt he thinks it much more economical and desirable that a housemaid should carry a coal scuttle up to the third or fourth floor rather than there should be a gas fire. As a matter of fact, that person will not be liable to prosecution because the Amendment only applies to new buildings. All I suggest is that local authorities should be authorised to make by-laws with regard to smoke abatement appliances in new buildings. It is purely optional, and I should have thought there was no harm in it whatever.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:Does this apply only to new buildings?
§ LORD NEWTON:Yes.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:That makes a little difference certainly, but I am not sure that it makes any great difference. The noble Lord says that he does not want a housemaid to carry a coal scuttle up three or four floors. He says there should be a gas fire. I have always believed that this was a free country, and if I want to have a coal fire there is no reason why the noble Lord should come and tell me that I must have a gas fire simply because he likes a gas fire. We are going back to the days when nobody could do anything at all without the consent of some official. I do not like the Amendment, and I am astonished the Government should have accepted it in such an easy way.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD NEWTON:The next Amendment is consequential.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 4, line 18, after ("heating") insert ("or cooking").—(Lord Newton.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
LORD RAGLAN:With reference to Lord Kylsant's Amendment, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause: "7. This Act shall not apply to any steamship or other vessel," which is not now moved, my noble friend has asked me to say that the reason why he has put this Amendment on the Paper is that he wants to be quite clear that the Amendment which the Government propose to insert on Report will cover this point.
§ EARL DE LA WARR:Yes, that will be considered.
§ Clause 7:
§ Short title and extent.
§ 7.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1924.
§ [(2) Section three of this Act shall be construed as one with the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Act, 1906, but save as aforesaid this Act shall be construed as one with the Public Health Acts, 1975 to 1907.]
§ (3) This Act shall not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
§ EARL DE LA WARR:The Amendments to this clause down in my name are purely drafting.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 5, line 2, at end insert ("and this Act and the Public Health Acts may be cited together as the Public Health Acts ")
§ Page 5, line 4, at end insert ("and the other provisions of this Act in their application to London shall be construed as one with the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 ")
§ Page 5, line 6, leave out ("1875 to 1907").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.