SECOND READING. (Hansard, 15 August 1887)

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord STANLEY of PRESTON),
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he did not propose to proceed further with the measure this year, his sole object at present being to ask the House to affirm the principle of the Bill, in order that its provisions might, during the Recess, have the advantage of being before the public and be subjected to the searching criticism which he hoped it would receive. The Government might thus, perhaps, get the means of ascertaining what was the general feeling on the subject, and how far they could deal with this matter at all. If the Bill were now read a second time he hoped next Session to move for the appointment of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House in order that the subject might be thoroughly examined. It would, perhaps, be convenient if he were to mention how the law stood at present with regard to this matter. Something like 20 years ago attention was drawn to this matter. In 1870 a Select Committee of the House of Commons had been appointed which went very carefully into the matter and reported in 1871. They expressed a doubt whether compulsory inspection was then advisable, and held that the steam-user was responsible for the efficiency of the boiler. In 1882 an Act was passed by which it became the duty of the Board of Trade to appoint 451 competent engineers to investigate all cases of boiler explosion, whether attended by loss of life or not. It was only, therefore, in the last five years that the Board of Trade had had officially submitted to them the task of inquiring into those explosions. The Reports of the Inspectors had been laid before both Houses of Parliament. His attention had been called to the subject especially by the Report of the Assistant Secretary under the Act, who had pointed out that the term "accident" as applied to many steam boiler explosions was a misnomer, and the only thing accidental about them was that the boilers had remained so long without exploding. Although he did not say that foreign countries should necessarily form a rule for ourselves, at the same time foreign countries for the most part insisted upon the inspection of boilers. What were the principal causes of the evils of which he had been speaking? They were, first of all, weak or defective designs in the first instance; secondly, bad condition, owing to deterioration; thirdly, want of proper inspection; fourthly, want of proper fittings; and, fifthly, undue working pressure. Another cause which could only partially be dealt with was ignorance or neglect on the part of the attendant. Since the time of the Report to which he had referred there had been a very great and remarkable increase in the use of steam by small owners. Steam was used in farms, as assistance to many minor manufactures, such as in carpenters' shops. Boilers, in fact, were used for purposes far in excess of those for which they had been used 20 years before. They were placed in closely crowded streets, with only a thin board in many instances between them and the crowd. There was a still growing increase caused by the use of dynamos for producing electric light; and engines were placed for different purposes in all sorts of positions, upon the tops of high scaffolds, &c, and they were often used by persons who were but little conversant with the dangers to be apprehended. With regard to what was the system in foreign countries—in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and Holland—boilers were subjected to periodical inspection. In Austria, France, and Germany the inspection was made partly by Government officials, and partly by the officials 452 of private associations; while in Denmark and Holland it was made by Government officials. In Italy only railway boilers—with which this measure did not propose to deal—were inspected. There was also an official inspection of boilers in many of the Colonies. In New Zealand there was a Government inspection; and in several of the States of the United States there was an inspection conducted by the Governments of the separate States. He mentioned this in order to show that it was a fallacy to suppose that the State inspection of boilers acted as a check upon trade. In this country there was a system of inspection by companies or private associations, some of them formed for the purpose of inspection only, some combining inspection and insurance. It was therefore impossible to ascertain with anything approaching to accuracy the number of boilers there were in this country. The number was estimated at from 115,000 up to 140,000, or even 150,000, and as far as he could ascertain about 70,000, or perhaps 50 per cent, were under inspection already. The Bill which he now submitted to their Lordships did not seek to provide for Government inspection, but to endeavour to make use of and to extend the benefits of the existing inspection associations. It was proposed that certain rules should be laid down by a central authority under which the inspections were to be conducted. It was not, however, possible wholly to rely upon the natural interest of the owner to insure. He (Lord Stanley of Preston) had placed himself in communication with most of those interested in the matter. The Mechanical Engineers' Institute of Civil Engineers, the Boiler Makers, Boiler Users, and the Boiler Inspecting Societies, and he was bound to recognize the very cordial help and assistance which he had received on all hands; the result was, he felt able to propose that the Board of Trade, acting as the central authority, should be assisted by a committee of experts gathered from all these different interests upon whose advice the Board of Trade should endeavour to act in framing its rules. Practically speaking, there was no such thing as accidents; and he was persuaded that the present lamentable loss of life from boiler explosions arose mainly from causes which could be foreseen, and, in 453 almost every case, prevented; and the object of the Bill was, as far as possible, to remove those causes. It was said that accidents could not be entirely prevented, no matter what precautions were taken. This was, no doubt, true; but, nevertheless, every attempt ought to be made to lessen accidents by requiring that employers should take every reasonable means of carrying on their business safely. In addition to evils which he had enumerated there was neglect on the part of those who tended boilers, and in certain cases the present Bill proposed to make that neglect criminal. It required that employers should take reasonable means for carrying on their business safely, gave increased protection to the owner, increased safety to the workmen, and an increased measure of security to the general public, who sometimes suffered from these boiler explosions. Though introduced by him as a Member of the Government, his Colleagues were not answerable for its details, nor even for all its principles. He had, however, closely inquired into this subject, and was firmly persuaded that a strong case for interference had been made out, and he hoped that their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading with a view to its being proceeded with next Session. The 2nd clause of the Bill provided that all boilers should be registered—new boilers when they were made, and every boiler now in use within three months after the passing of the Act. The necessity for registration arose from the fact that in almost all these explosions it was impossible to trace the age or previous history of the boiler. In many cases it appeared that the boiler had been bought second-hand, its age being unknown either to the seller or buyer, and the difficulty of establishing the responsibility of the employer was in consequence greatly increased. Clause 5 attempted to fix a little more closely than at present the responsibility in case of an explosion by providing that the owner might by an instrument in writing nominate some competent person to superintend, and who would be responsible for, the working of the boiler. Clause 6 provided that a boiler should not be used unless certificated. The 7th clause dealt with the constitution of the Committee which was to assist the Board of Trade in framing rules, and upon 454 whose advice the Board of Trade would act. Such Committee would be composed of one representative of Lloyd's, two from the Institution of Civil Engineers, two from the Mechanical Engineers, three gentlemen representing the Improved Boilers Company, three representing the Boiler Makers Society and other persons in the boiler trade, and four representing the general users of steam boilers. There were no means of forming a constituency to elect these gentlemen, and they would be selected from the names submitted to the Board of Trade. Clause 8 provided for surveys by surveyors acting on behalf of any society, company, or body whose rules were approved of by the Board of Trade, assisted by the committee of experts. Clause 11 made it a misdemeanour on the part of any surveyor to receive any fee or remuneration other than that sanctioned by the rules of the body appointing him, also for making any false declaration, and by Clause 12 any person who knowingly made, or caused to be made, any false statement or concealed any necessary information, or who forged or fraudulently gave a certificate, would be penally dealt with. Clause 14 imposed a penalty on the use of undue pressure on boilers. The certificate would contain the pressure to be used, and it was deemed necessary to deal with the common practice of working boilers far beyond the pressure they were designed to bear. By the 24th clause, the Bill was to apply—with certain exceptions—to every boiler in the United Kingdom, on land or afloat, within the territorial waters, the latter provision being necessary to take in steam launches and tugs, which did not come under marine inspection. Ships were exempted which were already classed at Lloyd's, and boilers used by Railway Companies were also exempted. There was practically no case against the Railway Companies, whose system of inspection was thorough, scientific, and complete. Neither did the Bill deal with domestic boilers. He had now laid before their Lordships the principal provisions of the Bill. He asked not that it should be passed into law this Session, but only that it should receive a very searching investigation at the hands of a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. We had a great and, he believed, a growing evil to con- 455 tend with. He earnestly hoped that while acting by all right and legitimate means and without any inquisitorial investigations or anything which was in any degree in restriction of trade, their Lordships would, nevertheless, so far assert the principles he had endeavoured to propound as to give this Bill pro formâ a second reading. As he had said, he did not propose to proceed with it further this year, but he hoped what he had said would show their Lordships what a great evil existed and what dangers could be avoided. In conclusion, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said, there were one or two points on which he thought his noble Friend had failed to give information. He did not dispute that it was the duty of the State to interfere when such interference was beneficial for the saving of life and limb. The question was whether legislation in this direction had always been successful. His noble Friend had told them that there were 150,000 boilers of all kinds in the United Kingdom. Did he include in that number all farm engines? Did he include kitchen boilers?

§ LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON
No.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
But accidents occurred through kitchen boilers as well as other boilers. He wanted to know why, if the principle of the Bill were sound, it should not be extended to kitchen boilers? Then his noble Friend had not stated the number of deaths occasioned by the bursting of boilers that had induced the Government to bring in this Bill. His noble Friend told them that already we had in this country, by voluntary inspection, something like 70,000 boilers inspected out of the 150,000. His noble Friend likewise mentioned that State inspection, existed in other countries. He should have been glad if his noble Friend had shown the relative number of accidents in those countries as compared with this country. These were valuable data which they ought to have. He should also like to know how many inspectors would be appointed under this Bill, what would be the cost of inspection, and who would bear the cost? Would it come out of the 456 local rates or out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of the pockets of the persons who owned the boilers? This was a Bill to enable the State to step in and do what individuals had hitherto done for themselves.

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, that as the noble Lord had not troubled the House with the statistics of the disasters which had happened, and as he was not going further with the Bill, he did not understand that their Lordships, by assenting to the second reading, would be affirming its principle in any way. Their Lordships were in total ignorance of the extent of the mischief intended to be removed; he, however, confessed he had a perfect horror of inspectors, who would have their own particular views up to which boiler makers would be acting, instead of, as at present, looking only to the improvement of boilers. In the circumstances he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill.

§ LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON
said, the number of cases which the Board of Trade had to deal with by Statute did not include collieries and mines, but he should hereafter propose that these be included. Apart from them there were 223 cases in five years, and 150 lives lost, or a yearly average of 44 cases and 30 lives. He could not at present state what was the percentage with regard to population in the inspected countries. But he would do his best to obtain information on the subject. As regards our own country there were on board uncertificated ships which were not inspected by the Board of Trade 35 casualties and 54 lives lost in 10 years, while in the corresponding class of certificated ships there were only seven, casualties and only 19 lives lost. The noble and learned Lord opposite hoped that by assenting to the second reading; their Lordships would not be understood to affirm the principle of the Bill. He admitted that many matters both of principle and of detail might be objectionable. All he asked was that it should be understood that their Lordships, by assenting to the second reading, would only commit themselves to an inquiry upon the subject, which inquiry would, he hoped, be followed by legislation.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
Does the inspection extend to Her Majesty's ships?

§ LORD STANLEY OF PRESTON
Certainly not.