HL Deb 29 April 1926 vol 63 cc1065-9

Amendment reported (according to Order).

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, I desire to make an apology to your Lordships about the appearance of the Amendments on the Paper for this stage of the Bill. They were drafted and quite ready for Notice at the proper time, but by some inadvertence they were not placed on the Paper so that they could not be circulated this morning. They are in print before your Lordships now, but if any noble Lord objects to taking them I need not say that I shall defer to his wishes. I may point out that they are all Amendments to carry out promises made by my noble friend during the Committee stage of the Bill that he would consider between that and the Report Stage how far he could meet the views of noble Lords who urged Amendments in Committee. All the points, therefore, have been already before your Lordships' House, though the Amendments are not exactly in the form in which they were then introduced.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

Are they on new principles or details?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My noble friend informs me that there no case of principle among them. The points were all discussed in Committee and he engaged that he would consider them between the Committee stage and the Report stage in a manner which is very usual in your Lordships' House. They are, of course, different to the form in which independent noble Lords moved them in Committee and that is one of the reasons why they had to be postponed. May I point out that the delay is not the fault of any member of His Majesty's Government but there was a misunderstanding about it?

Clause 1:

Amendment of 38 and 39 Vict. c. 55, and 54 and 55 Vict. c. 76 in respect of smoke nuisances.

(4) Where, in the opinion of any officer duly authorised by a local authority to act in that behalf, a smoke nuisance exists, he shall, as soon as practicable and before giving information to the authority, give notice thereof to the occupier of the premises on which the nuisance exists.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "as soon as practicable and before giving information to the authority, give notice thereof to" and insert "within twenty-four hours after he has become aware thereof, notify." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the clause as originally drafted provided that notice should be given to offenders before the local authority was notified of the existence of the nuisance. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, proposed the removal of this provision because he feared what he described as the "squaring" of inspectors. I take it that it was for the same reason that he also desired that written notice should be substituted for the notice mentioned in the Bill. The Government are most anxious to meet the noble Lord in regard to any point which may appear to weaken the Bill, but they do not desire unduly to limit the discretion of local authorities and so they have placed this Amendment on the Paper. It does not limit the discretion of local authorities in regard to the form in which notice is given or the priority of service, but it accedes to the legitimate desire of manufacturers that notice should be served in the shortest time possible after the offence has been noted. I hope the Amendment will meet the desire of the noble Lord and of the manufacturers. The co-operation of manufacturers and local authorities is very desirable, and the Ministry are of opinion that the Amendment affords the best means of attaining that end. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 23 to 25, leave out ("as soon as practicable and before giving information to the authority, give notice thereof to") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2:

Power to prescribe standards.

2.—(1) Any local authority may, and if so required by the Minister of Health, shall make by-laws regulating the emission of noxious smoke, and where such by-laws are in force the emission of noxious smoke for such period as may be prescribed in the by-laws either from buildings generally or from such classes of buildings as may be so prescribed shall, until the contrary is proved, he presumed to be a nuisance.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1), after "generally," to insert "to which the enactments relating to smoke nuisances apply "and after" of ["classes of building"] to insert "those." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment to an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton which was accepted by the Government. Your Lordships expressed doubts as to whether the Amendment might not be taken to involve dwelling houses as well as the class of buildings specified in the Bill. It was not the intention of the Ministry that it should include dwelling houses and this Amendment has been put down to guard against any possibility of that occurring. I think the meaning of the clause is now perfectly clear and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 32, after ("generally") insert ("to which the enactments relating to smoke nuisances apply"), and after ("of") insert ("those").—(Viscount Gage.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:—

Meaning of "chimney."

"For the purpose of Section ninety-one of the Public Health Act, 1875. Section twenty-four of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and of this Act, the expression "chimney" shall include structures and openings of any kind whatsoever capable of emitting smoke."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this new clause is moved in pursuance of an undertaking given on the last stage of the Bill to the noble Lord, Lord Newton. The Ministry has very carefully considered the definition of the word "chimney," and the clause now proposed is considered by the Ministry to be the most convenient and satisfactory way of meeting the intentions of the noble Lord. I understand that, as now worded, this gives no cause for disagreement and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 4, at end insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Gage.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack whether he will be good enough to give an assurance in regard to this Amendment. The words "openings of any kind whatsoever capable of emitting smoke" seem to me quite capable of a very wide interpretation. It is not an interpretation that I should regret, but I should like to be certain that it would not prevent noble Lords from indulging in the habit of smoking tobacco.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I also desire to raise a point on t his new clause. I want to know whether it will or will not include private houses. It is quite true that on the first page and in the first clause, in paragraph (a), the words appear: "For the purposes of Section ninety-one of the Act a chimney (not being the chimney of a private dwelling house)," etc. It seems to me to be rather involved to say in the first place that for the purposes of Section 91 of the Public Health Act, 1875, "a chimney not being the chimney of a private dwelling house," and then later on to insert a clause which says for the purposes of that very exception and for the purposes of this Act a chimney shall include "structures and openings of any kind whatsoever capable of emitting smoke." I am, unfortunately, not a lawyer, and I should not like to give any definite opinion, but the two provisions seem to me contradictory. I have always thought, I dare say I am wrong, that the later clauses overrule the earlier clauses. I do not know whether that is so or not, but I am quite certain that your Lordships would desire to have this Act so drawn as to be capable of easy interpretation and that you would not desire to encourage litigation to find out that one lawyer says one thing and another lawyer another thing. I should very much like to know the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack on this point.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, my noble friend has shown himself a most persistent and determined opponent of this Bill. It is a Bill of a most harmless nature. If we were to do what he wanted it would be of even less use than it is going to be. It is too mild a measure already. This is an Amendment which was put down in consequence of a definite pledge made to me and, as far as I am concerned, it carries out the intention of the people who are behind this Bill.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My noble friend says a definite pledge was made to him. A definite pledge was made to me that it should not include private houses.

LORD NEWTON

It does not include private houses. What I would venture to point out is that if this Amendment is good enough to satisfy the Ministry of Health, who do not want to create trouble for themselves, it surely is good enough for my noble friend behind me, and I hope therefore no attention will be paid to his complaint.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)

My Lords, I am quite satisfied that the adoption of this clause would not erase from the Bill the negative words in Clause 1 "not being the chimney of a private dwelling house." In other words the effect of this is that you must read Clause 1 as providing that for the purposes of Section 91 of the Act of 1875 and Section 24 of the Act of 1891 any structure or opening "capable of emitting smoke (not being a chimney of a private dwelling house)"—and so on.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.