HC Deb 19 September 1950 vol 478 cc1841-50

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn,"—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. F. Longden (Birmingham, Small Heath)

For a short while I wish to deal with another kind of smoke, quite different from that which we have been discussing this afternoon and evening. It is a question of some considerable importance in spite of that, and is an old question. Even Queen Elizabeth protested against the smell of dust and smoke, but today our concern is about one of the legacies of the factory system—a very fearful legacy.

Early last year I put a Question to the Minister of Health about this matter and, in effect, his reply was that, even assuming that my facts were correct, he contemplated introducing no legislation. To me and to many people the facts behind this matter of smoke nuisance are overwhelming and, to my mind and to those of others, unanswerable. Take my own City of Birmingham, as an illustration. There are some 6,000 factories with more than 24,000 chimney stacks, every one of which is an active or potential emitter of poisonous, noxious fumes, dirt,

filth and slag. This letter came to me this morning from the Chief Medical Officer of my city: We have two standard atmospheric pollution deposit gauges in Birmingham and, for the year 1948–1949, the central gauge, which is situated in Great Charles Street "— that is in the city, it is worth noticing— recorded a total deposit of 330.9 tons per square mile. This averages out at 27 tons 10 cwts. per square mile per month or 18 cwts. per day, whilst the corresponding figures recorded in a similar deposit gauge situated on the south-west boundary in West Heath, recorded at total deposit of 191.5 tons per square mile during the year. This figure averages out at 15.9 tons per month, or 10½ cwts. per day.

Those figures, I suggest, are alarming.

The Inspector of Factories for Birmingham tells me: The insoluble deposits consist mainly of mineral matter, grit, ash, soot and tar, whilst the soluble deposits consist mainly of sulphates, chlorides, calcium and sodium salts. You will note that these pollution figures are from all sources, that is, industrial, commercial and domestic. I can, therefore, give you no figures as to the extent of the pollution by smoke and fumes from industrial sources alone, but it is my opinion that about 60 per cent. of the pollution is from industrial sources, the remainder being from commercial and domestic sources. Without wasting words, I repeat that these are alarming figures.

In a very fine piece of work called "Smoke" by Arnold Marsh are examples of what is happening. It contains a picture of Nelson's monument, and below it, with the apex half way up the monument is a mountain of soot. This is what the caption says: It represents what a month's fall of soot in the County of London would look like if swept up into Trafalgar Square, a pyramidlike mountain of soot with the apex reaching half-way up Nelson's monument. That is the sort of thing we have a right to be alarmed about.

To continue with more figures and not merely words, I would point out that the Report of the Department of Scientific Research tells us that there is thrown into the British atmosphere per year three million tons of solid matter, three million tons of sulphuric dioxide and the equal of eight million tons of sulphuric acid. As every medical officer must know, the effects on health must be very bad indeed, particularly in the matter of lung troubles such as bronchitis, pneumonia, cancer, etc.

In addition, we all know what smoke fog does to our eyes, how it robs us of sighting and daylight. These statements imply much, but there is not time for elaboration. There is also an adverse effect on plant life in the vicinity of such emissions from factories and workshops through the impurities discharged, where we see stunted growth, little green and no green at all and contaminated herbs which cattle eat—and we eat the cattle. Further, our buildings are corroded on the outside; they are dirty, even filthy. As a result overall costs are enormous to our people and country, as Professor Bowley has rightly said. Again, Professor Julian Huxley has said: Once we strike our balance sheet in social instead of purely commercial terms, smoke abatement is seen to be profitable and necessary.

There are some things that might be done. Briefly, we might economise in fuel; we ought to make better use of fuel; we might extend the use of gas and electricity as soon as possible; and we ought to have scientific treatment of coal at the combustion point, not only for the sake of health but for the byproducts which it is possible to obtain from coal. Some localities already have local by-laws which are in advance of what is required by the State. Birmingham City Corporation Act, 1948, contains, in Section 46, provision for a "gentlemen's agreement" between factory owners and managers and the local factory and smoke inspectors. In the bylaw under that Act there is a three-minutes' black smoke rule, but we know there is much evasion of this kind of by-law.

The Manchester Corporation Act, 1946, in Section 35, says: As from the commencement of this section no smoke shall be emitted from any premises in the central area.

That refers to the central area and I would like to say something more about that. Obviously, from the figures given, there is much that might yet be done. There is need for a stricter watch and for more powers for local authorities to employ inspectors like those of Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Stoke and London. We ought to impose far stricter control and severer penalties for deliberate evasion. We can see that, if this is the effect upon people living in the centres of large cities, what happens to the working people who live in concentrated areas amid factory railings and belching chimneys. No wonder that there is a higher percentage of men and women and children gasping and coughing in cinemas and concert halls in such areas—a far higher proportion than we found in the areas which I have quoted.

This is what our own Birmingham inspector says: Whilst smoke from the combustion of coal is the main source of atmospheric pollution, a considerable amount of pollution is also caused from the emission of fumes from trade processes such as brass casting, aluminium melting, scrap metal recovery plants and enamelling ovens, etc. These fumes are created in the actual trade process of such work, and must not be confused with coal smoke. The fumes are difficult to control. They are generally of a whitish blue in colour and, being of a heavy nature, create a foglike atmosphere local to the source of emission. I know something about this, for as a young man I worked as a journeyman in an iron foundry where conditions at times were appalling and sometimes even terrifying, with fumes getting into the nose, eyes and lungs. There is much that could be done in these foundries and other workshops of our country.

To come to a conclusion quickly, life in places like Small Heath is not very pleasant at all. I see the place fairly often myself, with all the ugly, dirty hovels in which many thousands of people have to live, with great railway engines belching forth their fumes, and a mass of smoke issuing and distributing its poisonous dirt and slime over the district. If hon. Members want an idea of what it is like, they should ask any housewife, not only those who live in the city, but even those who live in the outskirts where I am fortunate enough to live.

If legislation cannot be contemplated, as the Minister of Health told me last year, could there not be a more intense investigation and administration, in order to eliminate this staggering waste of the health and wealth of our country?

10.28 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman who has brought the subject before us. The three hon. Members who sit for the city of Stoke-on-Trent are here in full force to support him, because we have a definite interest in this matter. We can fully appreciate that anyone who lives in Birmingham should be interested in smoke abatement, and anyone who has been privileged to live, as I have done for 25 years, in the city of Stoke-on-Trent, is very conversant with this problem and particularly anxious that we should find a remedy.

We recognise that there are very many other things which the Ministry of Health is concerned with at the moment, and the Parliamentary Secretary may tell us that legislation is not possible at this time. He may also tell us that if we press too hard upon those who offend, before we are able to supply any factory which pollutes the atmosphere with the machinery needed for the prevention of pollution, we shall be persecuting rather than prosecuting. It may be that we shall be told that the local authorities have the matter in their own hands, and that penalties can be imposed. But we know very well that the penalties are rather trivial, although we accept, in part at least, some of the other contentions of the Minister of Health.

We know that in areas like Stoke-on-Trent, where we fire bricks and tiles, and make most of the pottery for the Commonwealth and Empire, and where we make most of the best pottery for the world as a whole, we must inevitably for some time suffer from this trouble until gas and electrical firing replace the old fashioned method. But in the meantime, if I may speak for a moment as a medical man, I want to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there is something to be said for the contention that the higher incidence rate of carcinoma of the bronchus, of the bronchial tubes, now found in elderly people, may be found to result from the tarry deposits inhaled with the atmosphere. I must not put it higher than that. If there be any evidence whatever, or even a suspicion of this, we ought to tackle this matter with vigour.

Many years ago, when I was a student at Leeds, an investigation was made at my University into the effects of atmospheric pollution, and the lack of sunlight on plant life. I remember seeing cabbages the size of Brussels sprouts grown at Hunslet, the result of lack of sunshine and too much smoke. I had a similar experience myself when I tried to grow vegetables in the garden of the house in which I used to live, until lately, in the centre of the Potteries. When we find a classical text book on the subject, like the one from which the hon. Member for Small Heath (Mr. Longden) quoted, the most gruesome of the photographs must be from the three divisions of Old Stoke. Old Burslem and Old Hanley. It is for those reasons that I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to believe that this is not a subject which should be brushed aside. It is one of great importance. If he can give us some hope, I shall be grateful.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

I should like to add a word to the excellent case made by the hon. Member for Small Heath (Mr. Longden) supported by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). We should not be doing our duty properly if we did not say that a great deal has been done already to overtake this problem in our local districts. There was a time when one could hardly see the place for smoke, and a hundred years ago garrotting was common when the pottery kilns were fired on Saturday mornings. Electricity and gas, particular gas firing, have revolutionised the scene, and I think that the manufacturers themselves are most anxious to overtake this problem. But though great work has been done by the Gas Board and the local authorities, their efforts are limited somewhat by the capital expenditure programme.

We hope that when the Minister of Health is considering this matter he will as far as possible encourage the development of these modern means of production which can mean so much, as the hon. Member for Small Heath said, to the people living in the back streets, cheek by jowl with these factories, who are almost suffocated in their beds. Will the Parliamentary Secretary satisfy himself that the local authorities are recruiting the requisite number of people to deal with this matter; and that the training facilities exist. Also will he see that the powers given to them are adequate, having regard to all the difficulties?

10.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Small Heath (Mr. F. Longden) for raising this subject tonight, even though it follows our more exciting Debate earlier in the day. It is, all the same, a very important subject, not only for those who, unhappily, like many of us, have to live in the midst of crowded cities which are affected, but also from the point of view, for example, of the Ministry of Fuel and Power who are, of course, most anxious today to secure economy in the use of fuel. This is a very important matter indeed for them, as well as from the point of view which my hon. Friends quite rightly have mentioned of the health of the citizen and the general convenience of the public.

I want fairly briefly to say something about the position as it is today. As I think my hon. Friends will realise, the difficulties of tackling this problem of smoke abatement have increased by virtue of the industrial activity of our war-time and post-war industries. It is true that very much old plant, for example, is being pressed to its uttermost by our need for production and it is also probably true that there are many cases of unsatisfactory stoking of the equipment that exists, all of which adds enormously to the problems we have to face.

We are very far from having all the equipment and machinery that we would like—equipment which would at any rate go a long way towards solving the problems which have been mentioned. There are, at least, two quite distinct problems here, if not more. There is, first, the problem of industrial smoke and pollution and secondly that of domestic smoke.

As far as industrial pollution is concerned, as I think my hon. Friends know, local authorities have fairly wide powers which vary rather considerably from one town to another according to what bylaw powers they may possess; but in most cases they do control the emissions of black smoke, as one of my hon. Friends mentioned—if it occurs for more than a certain period of time in each half-hour, or something of that sort—and penalties can, of course, be applied. There is also the rather special industrial problem of pollution from chemical works of one kind and another, where we, as a Ministry, have a special direct responsibility; under the Alkali Acts are registered various classes of works whose fumes and emissions may be of particular danger and hurt to the population round about, and in these cases we can take some direct action.

Most local authorities are, in fact, quite active in using their powers, but, as I say, they are themselves defeated very often by the general anxiety to secure full production from the works which exist and the difficulty of getting new plant. But we are doing all we can, with the help of the Ministry of Fuel and Power and their officers, both, for example, in training in better stoking, and in trying to secure more efficient plant as quickly as possible.

Some local authorities have quite recently included in their Private Bills special powers. For example, powers are taken in some towns to provide for smokeless zones under which, by degrees and after proper notice has been given, it will be a punishable offence to create smoke. But it will be realised that, for the reason I have already mentioned, it is only after some time has elapsed that these smokeless zones can become really operative, even if they are confined within fairly narrow limits. Many people, however, think that this is a useful way forward. As we can get areas classified as "smokeless," and gradually extend them" so we can see some steady improvement taking place.

We are watching with interest the development in those areas where "smokeless" zones have been approved in Private Bills to see whether this is something which we could consider at the Ministry for general application; but, of course, we must have a little more experience to see how these zones are working. I can tell the House that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is studying this and trying to improve the records available. This is an important aspect, because records have been haphazard and rather scattered in the past, and if they can be better collated we shall have better statistical information on which to work. Some local authorities—I believe that Birmingham is one of them—give prior approval to plans for installation of furnaces. I am, however, a little doubtful about what Birmingham, and other cities which follow this practice, are gaining from it. It is a purely permissive measure, and this power was taken only in 1948, so that it is a little early to tell how valuable it has been.

So far as domestic pollution is concerned, I understand that this causes a greater proportion of our problem than anything else. I sometimes find this a little difficult to believe, and I might add that my wife, who is a staunch believer in at least one coal fire, would certainly disagree, as doubtless would many other people. But we are making some progress in the matter of the domestic smoke problem. In houses built since November, 1948—that is, houses built by local authorities—it has become obligatory to instal the heating appliances approved by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and gradually local authorities are tackling the conversion of old grates in their local authority houses. But I confess that this is a slow business, and local authorities have, of course, to face the actual cost of carrying out this work and to some extent the difficulty of obtaining the grates and appliances themselves. But the Ministry of Fuel and Power are very anxious about this also, because they realise what an enormous contribution the proper sort of grate can make towards the reduction of the total fuel consumed. Both they and we are anxious to provide householders, as well as local authorities, with all the help we can in this direction.

Birmingham is in a similar position to many other cities, but I am glad to say that in Birmingham we have secured some improvement over the pre-war years—which, considering the volume of industrial output taking place there, is something of which the city can be proud. I think that other cities similarly troubled with this problem—as indeed all our main industrial cities are—will watch with interest, if not anxiety, both the development of the "smokeless" zone provision and the work of some effective check on appliances before they are made available. All the help we can give to carry out this good work will, I assure the House, be given with the greatest possible expedition.

Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock till Tuesday, 17th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.