CEMENT DUST NUISANCE, THURROCK (Hansard, 29 April 1948)

§ Mr. Solley (Thurrock)
The House has been listening to much talk about monopolies, and I should like to draw attention to one particular kind of monopoly, the cement monopoly. I do not propose to deal with the cement industry at large, but only with certain of its activities which seriously affect thousands of people on both sides of the Thames Estuary, and in particular in my constituency of Thurrock.
In Thurrock we have the Tunnel Portland Cement Company, the Alpha Cement Company, and the Wouldham Cement Company, which is a subsidiary of the British Portland Cement Manufacturers Limited. On the south side of the Thames there are a number of works—the Kent Works, the Swanscombe Works, Bevan's Works and Johnson's Works. During the process of the manufacture of cement large quantities of finely ground solids enter the kilns and consequently the kiln gases are heavily laden with dust particles. Although perhaps not accurately as regards scientific analysis, usually this is referred to as cement dust.
The effect of this cement dust is as follows. About 65 tons of it are deposited per square mile of the area in 766 question every month of the year. When the wind is blowing from south to north, the cement dust produced by the Kent works find their deposit on Essex soil, and when the wind is blowing from north to south, the cement dust produced by the Thurrock works find their deposit on Kent soil. This figure of 65 tons per square mile per month is three times larger than the average pollution of the atmosphere of ordinary industrial areas.
The effect of the cement dust in the domestic domain is extremely serious. If windows are opened within a mile of these works, furniture inside the rooms become quickly covered with a fine layer of dust. Clothes which are kept on the line become covered. A few weeks ago I had a letter from one of my constituents, a lady who said she could not hang the children's "nappies" on the clothes line because they soon became covered with a layer of dust. The houses and trees next to these factories are smeared with cement dust. One can almost see a "white Christmas" in midsummer. The effect of these conditions on the health of persons living in the area is a matter on which medical opinion cannot speak with direct authority. Subject to this, there is no doubt that a considerable amount of anxiety and worry is engendered in the minds of housewives who have to fight valiantly against these extraordinary and difficult conditions.
The question therefore arises: how can this evil be avoided? I must tell the House it can be avoided, and avoided completely. A book published in 1934 by the works superintendent of the Associated Portland Cement Company, Mr. A. C. Davies, which I believe to be a standard textbook on portland cement, describes three main methods of avoiding this nuisance. It is interesting to note, with reference to the most efficient method of electrostatic precipitation, that this was first described in detail in the design of Cottrell in 1911. It is of further interest that the physics experiment which suggested the development of an electrostatic precipitator was started as long ago as 1824, the year that the Aston patent for Portland cement was filed. We had to wait over a hundred years in the course of industrial development before industry thought it worth while to develop a really efficient method of doing away with this cement dust nuisance.
767 The question arises why these cement monopolies have not taken adequate steps to remedy these nuisances. The answer is not far to seek. There is no doubt that the capital outlay in respect of these plants for dealing with cement dust, is fairly substantial, and the running costs are by no means insignificant. We arrive at this deduction, that the making of bigger and fatter profits, which is the be-all and end-all of the existence of the cement combines, is carried on with complete disregard for the public, and for the common law duties of the combines not to create any public nuisance. For instance, as far as my constituency is concerned, it was almost ancient history when the Thurrock urban district council came into being, in 1936, and it was one of the council's first tasks to consider this question of the public nuisance caused in Thurrock.
From then onwards, representations have been made at intervals by the inhabitants to the council, and by the council to the representatives of the cement industry. In 1938, in the case of the Tunnel Cement Works, there were certain kilns in operation, and as far as kilns 4 and 5 were concerned there was only one electrostatic precipitator between them. Kilns 1, 2 and 3 were pumping poison into the atmosphere of Thurrock with complete disregard for the health and convenience of the public. In 1948, we find, with respect to the same works, that kilns 1 to 3 are still without electrostatic precipitators.
Before the war the cement industry had no excuses about the shortage of steel; they had no excuse about difficulties of getting apparatus. Their only real excuse was that they were too stingey to spend money to safeguard the public from this nuisance. Today, under the pressure of the urban district councils on both sides of the Thames, councils which are under Labour jurisdiction, the cement companies have suddenly decided to do everything they can to remedy this nuisance. But of course, there is a snag in this apparent readiness; they put the blame on the Government and say that they cannot get the necessary steel. It is interesting to note that they should have waited until there was a Labour Government and they could make these excuses, when before the war they could have remedied the nuisance.
768 I know that the Minister will say that we must have regard to the shortage of steel and to the necessity of increasing production in the interest of the export drive, but I would say to him that, as far as this nuisance is concerned, I am confident, in the light of my researches and with such knowledge of the law as I possess, that the cement companies are guilty of a public nuisance. I am confident that any of the local authorities concerned could take civil proceedings in order to counteract this nuisance, and, in this connection, it is interesting to note that His Majesty's judges have ruled that it is no defence to a charge of this nature to say that the nuisance arises from the carrying on of a trade beneficial to the community, and that the nuisance is less than the advantage from the trade.
I submit that the Government ought not to say, as I fear may be said, that we are passing through a difficult period and that, on the whole, it is better that production should carry on in its present form rather than that there should be some temporary hold-up caused by the allocation of steel for the manufacture of the necessary equipment. In a sense, if the Government took up that attitude, they would be aiding and abetting the commission of a public nuisance, and I sincerely hope they will avoid that conclusion.
Just one further word on the question of exports. A tremendous amount of cement is being exported, and if the allocation of steel for this plant would necessarily remove from the sphere of exports a corresponding amount of goods, having regard to the fact that cement is one of our priority exports, this amount of steel could surely be well allowed. I ask my hon. Friend to say that he will do all he can in this matter—a matter affecting thousands of people residing on both sides of the Thames.

§ Mr. Dodds (Dartford)
I am grateful for the fact that my hon. Friend has included in his damning indictment "people on both sides of the Thames." I speak for the Kentish side of the river, where for more than 20 years the residents have had to put up with this scourge. It is time that effective action was taken. Kent is referred to as the "Garden of England" but only too often, and par- 769 ticularly during the summer months, the whole countryside is covered by a layer of grey cement dust. I well remember last summer that the people throughout the country had the benefit of an excellent summer, but in Kent—and I am sure it must have been the same in Thurrock—everything was covered by this cement dust. There was to be seen cement dust everywhere. Windows in the houses had to be closed because of the fact that the housewife had a terrific job with the dust which was coming in when the windows were open.
Now, it is rather interesting to note that an investigating committee which has been formed of representatives of the local authorities have met representatives of the cement works in the Dartford district, and they were specifically informed that the policy of the cement works was to control this dust nuisance but that this has been seriously interfered with because they cannot get the machinery necessary for the task. I few days ago, at a public inquiry in Lavington, in Wiltshire, where the cement people were making application to go ahead with some works in that beauty spot, it was mentioned that if approval were given, machinery would be introduced which would completely obviate the cement dust nuisance in the district. We in the Dartford district feel that if that is correct, we have had for a long time, and are continuing to have, a very raw deal indeed, and we look to the Parliamentary Secretary to inform his right hon. Friend that, so far as the social work and the great activities of the Ministry are concerned, it can have little effect in Kent unless this dust is dealt with. We hope that some statement will be made tonight of the steps to be taken to ensure that this scourge will not last for one day longer than is necessary.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards)
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to what, it will be admitted, is an extremely difficult problem, and I would not seek to minimise it in any way. Dust is a very great evil, and I am sure that to those who live in these areas it must be highly annoying. I would not want it to be thought however that there was any evidence to support the view that cement chimney dust causes a direct danger to health. My hon. Friend the Member for 770 Thurrock (Mr. Solley) who started this discussion tonight, suggested that there was a doubt, but there is no doubt whatever that cement chimney dust—which, let me make it plain, is not cement, but fine particles of clay and dust which come out of the kilns—does not have a direct effect on health. That does not mean that it is not annoying in a hundred and one ways, but I do not want to be alarmist about it.
We cannot be indifferent to the economic aspects of this question. The works in the region produce one-half of the cement made in Britain-4,500,000 tons a year. There is no comparable region in the world. By far the largest export of cement comes from this area. Therefore, it is not, so I am advised by my colleagues, possible to let up in production because of the terrific need we have for cement both at home and overseas.
May I now turn to the aspects of this question which concern my Department? The law relating to cement works says that the owner shall use all practicable means of preventing the escape of fumes, and these words have reference not only to the erection and maintenance of appliances but also to the proper supervision and use of them. Cement works have to be registered with my Ministry, but it is only since 1935 that such works were added to the schedule of the Alkali Acts, and since then new works have had to have the best appliances from the start, and existing works have had to provide such appliances. We have special inspectors in the Department concerned with all the works under the Alkali Orders, and they are in the closest touch with all the firms. In anticipation of the discussion tonight, I spent part of this morning talking about the question with them, and I hope in due course to go and see the whole thing for myself. I would have gone today, but in the time available it was not possible for me to get away.
I would like to say, in justice and fairness, that in our experience the managers of the cement undertakings in this area are willing to co-operate not only in the field where we have statutory control, the high-level emission of dust, but in the field of low-level emission of dust where we have no powers at all. I do not think that, in fact, from the time we had 771 statutory powers, their record is open to very much criticism. After the cement works were put under this order in this area, that is, from 1935 to the outbreak of war, we got 18 electrical precipitation appliances in operation. In those days plants cost something like £30,000 or £40,000, and over that period, although things were not wholly satisfactory, there was considerable progress. But for the war we should, by the exercise of our powers, have got the Thames-side cement industry into the right position in relation to prevention plants. The war knocked that on the head, and there is a quite genuine difficulty at present in getting delivery of the plant.
I do not need to talk about the competing demands for steel for all the various purposes essential to our economic survival. I would not deny that it is easy for me departmentally to make an extremely good case for steel for certain purposes, including purposes of this kind and for electrical precipitation units, but the fact remains that when the allocation of steel is made, and all the other competing claims taken into consideration, then the allocation just does not permit, within the bulk allocations, anything but a quite small output of this type of plant.
Especially in the light of what I have heard tonight, I will certainly do all I can to push forward the production of precipitation plants, but I would not want to mislead anyone on that point, because the allocation of steel is so limited that what it might be open to me to do is also limited, and until we get an improvement in the steel position I am not very hopeful of our being able to do anything very rapid. I have a list of what is being done at present. Some of the plants in this area have, in fact, got precipitation plants in process of erection, others have plants being overhauled because 772 they have got badly "out of trim" during the war, and others have got precipitation plants on order.
I can assure hon. Members that we shall, through our alkali inspectors, do what we can to get a move on here, but I would say that our major difficulties are in the supply of steel, and not difficulties at the present time on the part of any of the cement firms. Although our discussion has largely been concerned with the high-level emissions which cause widespread troubles, we have made considerable progress since the war in dealing with low-level emissions where the problem is localized in character, and where we are not held up in the same way by shortages of materials. There may be one or two points I have not dealt with, but I have taken note of all that has been said in this discussion, and shall take a further opportunity of going into the matter with my advisers.

§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
It seems to me that the Minister has disclosed rather a serious position and one in which he might be able to bring forward some stronger case for the allocation of steel for this purpose. He is admitting and condoning a position in which a continuous series of public nuisances is being caused by an industry which is no doubt doing a very useful task. But if the local authorities were doing this duty, the problem would be solved in a few months because, having obtained an injunction, these factories could be shut down. If an injunction were obtained, the court might perhaps suspend its operation while someone got busy making this plant.