HL Deb 02 July 1874 vol 220 cc863-8

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to, with Amendments.

THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH

moved to insert after Clause 5 the following clause:— If any person considers that any alkali work is carried on in contravention of the Alkali Acts of 1863 and 1874, or either of them, and that he is injuriously affected thereby, he may present to the Local Government Board a memorial in writing complaining thereof, and thereupon the Local Government Board, unless there appears to them good reason to the contrary, shall direct the Inspector to make a special examination of and report on the work, and if it appears to the Local Government Board on the report that there is reasonable ground for the complaint, they shall direct the Inspector to take, and the Inspector shall thereupon take, proceedings for the recovery of a penalty accordingly. He thought this provision would give further protection against the injury which persons who resided in the neighbourhood of alkali works now suffered. It in no degree interfered with the principle of the Act of 1863, and he was afraid that without it the Act would not be put in force at all. Practically the Act of 1863 was a dead letter, because the parties most interested were unable, and in many cases unwilling, to put it in motion themselves.

LORD WALSINGHAM

said, he quite agreed that it was desirable to make the Bill as effective as possible, and that pains should be taken to see that the remedies given to prevent the serious nuisance complained of should be made as effective as possible. He had no doubt that there had been a great escape of these noxious gases in contravention of the Act; some of which were preventable, though others might be due to accidental circumstances. But he considered that the clause proposed by the noble Earl was unnecessary, and that it was in some respects objectionable. It was unnecessary, because at the present time if any person felt aggrieved, he could, under the Act of 1863, make a complaint to the Local Government Board, and request that an Inspector should make an examination of the works and report the facts to the Board. If it were made compulsory upon the Board to take action against any owner of works, that would imply that there was a want of energy in the Department, and to that implication he took exception as the Local Government Board was at present constituted. The action of the Board should not be made subject to the dictation of private individuals. Moreover, it seemed to him that the clause would be utterly useless. Suppose a case should be brought before the Local Government Board. They would naturally enquire of their Inspector, whether there was any just cause of complaint—he would not be willing to admit that any illegal nuisance had escaped his notice; but if he did admit it, and a special Inspector was sent down, the managers of the works would have had ample notice during these preliminary proceedings, and would take care that, at least, on the occasion of this special inspection, nothing was going on in contravention of the Act. He hoped the noble Earl would not press the clause.

LORD EGERTON OF TATTON

contended that there ought to be more Inspectors and more frequent inspections, and that the law should be made in many respects more stringent, for at present it was almost a dead letter. The alkali works had largely increased in numbers, and the staff of Inspectors which was sufficient when the Act was passed was quite inadequate now. In that part of the county in which he lived, these alkali works were carried on very extensively, but the parties most usually affected by them were too poor to go to law.

LORD WINMARLEIGH

felt bound to state that the Act of 1863 did not meet the requirements of the case, so far at least as some districts in which these works were carried on were concerned; for though the Act had now been in operation for about 10 years the evils complained of had gone on extending from year to year, until a portion of that part of the country with which he was connected had been devastated by these noxious gases. The difficulties in the way of proceeding Under the Act were, he believed, the main cause—the Act had in truth become a perfect nullity. He believed that the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl would at least tend to force upon the Inspectors a greater attention to the duties imposed upon them by the Act. He had no complaint to make against them; but if the clause should be agreed to, and it became known that parties aggrieved could come before the Local Government Board for redress, it would have a great effect in checking this nuisance. He thought that the attention of the Government could not be directed to any subject of greater importance than this, because if the evil went on very serious consequences must ensue to a large portion of that part of the county with which he was connected.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that no noble Lords were more competent to speak from personal knowledge of the subject than his noble Friends who had just spoken—the noble Earl who had moved the clause (the Earl of Ravens- worth)and the two noble Lords who were connected with Cheshire and Lancashire; but he wished to point out that the clause was unnecessary, and would fail to accomplish the object for which it was intended. So far as it proposed to give to the Local Government Board more powers than it now possessed, it was no doubt advantageous; but he wished to know how, if the clause should become part and parcel of the Act, a jury would be in a better position for awarding compensation for injuries suffered from the operation of these works than at present?

LORD WINMARLEIGH

The probability would be that the parties would not have to go before a jury at all.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

There was nothing in the clause to lead to that supposition. At present, if the Local Government Board thought it expedient, it might take proceedings in any matter of complaint, and every man aggrieved could now come to the Board and point out in what respect he suffered from any works. His noble Friend who was connected with Cheshire (Lord Egerton of Tatton) said there were not enough Inspectors; but this clause would not help him; for it did not deal with that subject at all. Moreover, it implied a slur upon the Board—and that he objected to—it implied that supervision was not properly carried out, and that it should be put into an Act of Parliament that the Inspectors should do their duty. He did not think that the clause would in any way be beneficial, and therefore he hoped his noble Friend would not press it on their Lordships.

THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH

said, he would not press his Amendment against the wish of the Government, but at the same time, he knew that much importance was attached to it by the parties who were suffering damage from these works. They required more power to make their grievances known to the Government. The clause would give them greater protection, and at the same time it in no degree interfered with the principle of the Act of 1863. He had hoped that the Government would have accepted the clause, as it would have given the sufferers from these works more power to make their complaints known to the Local Government Board; but he could not press it if the Government thought it objectionable. At the same time, he might express a hope that the Local Government Board would pay more particular attention to the enforcement of the Act than they had hitherto done.

LORD DENMAN

, having been in every county in England, referred to the state of South Shields, in which vegetation was quite destroyed, and to Liverpool, where a Judge had been made ill, on circuit, and the air in the Judge's Lodgings was insupportably bad. He wished for prevention rather than damages, and would support the noble Lord's Amendment if it were pressed.

LORD WALSINGHAM

admitted that the clause of his noble Friend did not affect the principle of the Bill. The Department which he represented would see that more care was taken in this matter than had formerly been taken. He hoped the new Act would be more effective than the old one in diminishing these noxious vapours.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clauses 7, 8, and 9 agreed to.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

moved to add a proviso, giving the Small Debt Court the summary jurisdiction and the Sheriff Court summary jurisdiction on matters of complaint under this Act, for the purpose of giving a cheap and efficacious remedy to the poorer classes of persons who might be injured by noxious gases proceeding from alkali works. The noble Duke mentioned in illustration that in the neighbourhood of Glasgow there was a cemetery situated near some extensive alkali works, in which the trees planted for ornament, and the shrubs placed on the family graves were blasted and withered by the noxious vapours almost as soon as they were planted. Of course the poor people to whom they belonged could not venture to bring any action against the alkali works company, because they knew very well that they would be forced into ruinous expense. If, however, they could bring an action in the Sheriff Court or the Small Debt Court, and it was enacted that it should be disposed of without appeal, they would have a speedy and cheap remedy for the injury inflicted upon them.

LORD WALSINGHAM

said, he could not consent to the addition proposed to be made to the clause by the noble Duke, because, in the first place, it would be somewhat of a breach of faith on the manufacturers, who had consented to be put under statutory penalties ant liabilities, but had not consented tha the common law should be made more stringent upon them—which would be the effect of this proviso. This was the first occasion upon which the point had ever been brought forward. There might be many cases which would involve points which had never come before the Court before—for instance, whether certain things were or were not an infringement of the Act, for which damages might be given; and on such points as that the manufacturers would have as much right to appeal as any other portion of Her Majesty's subjects. He was at a loss to know on what ground they were to make the common law more stringent than it was at present. There was another reason why he could not admit the Amendment—because it would create a distinction between the administration of the law in Scotland as compared with its administration in England and Ireland; and if they withdrew the right of appeal from Scotland in such cases, there would soon be a, demand for its withdrawal from the English and Irish Courts. Moreover, it would create an invidious distinction between manufacturers and other classes of the population.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

said, he was sorry that the decision of the Government was adverse, but he rather thought that if people restricted the damages within the amount that could be tried within the Small Debts Court it would effect the same object. He was not quite certain upon that point, but of this he was sure, that it was desirable to give the people injured by these noxious exhalations a cheap and effectual remedy.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.