§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, this is a Bill dealing with damage done to crops by railway fires, and the Bill really represents a compromise between the representatives of railway interests and agricultural interests in the other House. As your Lordships are probably aware, possibly in some instances to your own cost, no compensation can be obtained under these circumstances at present unless negligence can be proved on the part of the railway company, and this has constituted an admitted grievance for some time to the agricultural community.
As a matter of fact, it is so difficult to prove negligence with regard to these fires that people very seldom make any attempt in this direction at all, because, as I need hardly point out, it is extremely difficult in the case of a field or crop which has been burnt by a railway fire to show what particular engine caused the damage. It is almost impossible to identify the engine, and this sort of thing might happen—that a farmer who had had great trouble, but had succeeded in identifying an engine and in tracking that engine to its home, would in addition have to prove that the engine was improperly constructed, and for this purpose he would in all probability have to employ an expert, costing him a large sum per hour. The railway company probably, on the other hand, would also employ an expert, or more than one expert, at an even more expensive rate, and if the plaintiff were eventually fortunate enough to convince a jury of the justice of his case he would obtain a victory of an expensive kind, and probably would eventually feel that it would have been much wiser not to-have taken any proceedings at all.
Under the Bill it is unnecessary for the aggrieved person to prove anything except that the fire was caused by a railway engine, and he is entitled under the Bill to recover up to an amount of £100. When this Bill was being discussed 1301 in the other House it was apparently viewed with unnecessary alarm by the representatives of the railway companies, who complained that it constituted an addition to the burdens which an unsympathetic Parliament was constantly placing on railway companies. I admit there is some force in this contention, because my experience in Committee-rooms upstairs has made it perfectly plain to me that railway companies do occasionally meet with somewhat harsh treatment. They have all sorts of obligations put upon them by Parliament. They have to contribute enormous sums to the rates, whereas they very often do not get any clear advantage out of that expenditure; but when the railway companies contend that on account of the benefits which they confer on an agricultural neighbourhood they should be exempt from responsibility for any damage which they may cause, I venture to think that is an unreasonable attitude for them to adopt, and I do not think it is one which will be admitted by this House.
The grievance which this Bill endeavours to remedy is an admitted grievance, and that it is a grievance is clearly shown by the fact that land which is within 100 yards of a railway has to be insured at a higher rate than land outside that limit. I think the railway companies have really made a very good bargain over this Bill. In the first place, it does not come into operation until January, 1908. Therefore, until that date railway companies can go on burning crops, trees, stocks, buildings, everything, in fact, that is combustible. After the date I have mentioned, they will still be able to go on burning practically everything, except trees and crops, and if they burn them they will in no case have to pay more than £100. Under Section 2 of the Bill the railway companies can take all reasonable precautions to prevent a fire breaking out at all, but they are unable to take these steps without the I permission of the owner. They cannot, I for instance, cut down or injure trees or shrubs, and they are practically limited to removing nothing except heather, grass, fern, and things of that description; and in addition they have to pay compensation in respect of losses of amenity 1302 in consequence of any operations of this nature which may be carried out.
If this Bill meets with any opposition, which I do not think probable, it may; take the form that it does not go far enough; but, as I have already pointed out, it is a compromise which has been arrived at with some difficulty between the two conflicting interests in the other House. At all events it removes a grievance, not a very heavy grievance, but one which has existed for a considerable time, and affects some improvement in the situation from the agricultural standpoint. I therefore hope no opposition will be offered to the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2."—(Lord Newton.)
*THE EARL OF LICHFIELDMy Lords, I should like to say one or two words in support of this Bill. The noble Lord who has just moved the Second Reading dealt with the main provisions of the Bill, which, AS he said, are in the nature of a compromise between the railway companies and the agricultural interest; but what I should like to emphasise is the great importance of this subject to the agricultural community generally. I do not know any subject that has been more frequently alluded to at the various meetings of chambers of agriculture; throughout the country, and I am asked on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture to state that it is their earnest hope that this Bill may be passed into law. It is true that we do not obtain under this Bill all that could be desired, but it has come from the House of Commons as a compromise between the interests concerned, and, therefore, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, I hope your Lordships will in the agricultural interests give this Bill a Second Reading, and not alter it materially in Committee.
LORD WOLVERTONMy Lords, this Bill is, as has been stated, a compromise, and it has received the approval of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade. It is an honourable compromise which has taken place in the other House between the agriculturists on the one side and the railway 1303 companies on the other, and I think I am entitled to say, on behalf of my right hon. friend, that during those negotiations the railway companies have behaved in a most friendly spirit. This Bill is undoubtedly a distinct advantage to the small agriculturists, and in these circumstances I am very happy to accept it on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and to offer to my noble friend, not only the support of the Government on this occasion, but their support in the future stages of the Bill, so long as it is not seriously altered in Committee.
§ LORD BURGHCLEREMy Lords, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, this Bill is essentially a compromise, and does not go as far as agriculturists would desire. But, on the other hand, as your Lordships know, this injury which is done to crops, and, above all, to plantations which are necessary for the afforestation of this country—this grievance has been so long before the country that as agriculturists we welcome even such a small measure as this. The whole gist of the Bill is in the first clause, which, as I understand, removes from the railway companies any statutory exemptions which they might have had hitherto, and brings the whole question of the damage under the common law. It would have been very desirable, if it had been possible, to induce the railway companies to adopt some preventive measures in their engines, either in the smoke-stacks or in the fuel, so as to prevent there being any sparks at all. I am told that in Germany, where this nuisance has been very prevalent in the past, it has practically been entirely done away with by improvements in the railway engines. The same, I believe, has taken place in Sweden, and also very successfully in Canada, where tracts of forest used to be burnt in old days in this way. But though the Bill does not go as far as agriculturists no doubt would desire, it seems to me an effectual compromise. It will benefit small cultivators of land, and therefore for my part I shall certainly strongly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ LORD NEWTONI may inform the noble Lord that as the Bill does not come into operation until 1908, there is ample time for the railway companies to make the improvements he suggests.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.