AIR POLLUTION (Hansard, 8 May 1953)

§ Mr. Norman Dodds (Dartford)
We certainly have had a very busy day and we have certainly seen some very shabby tricks. Fortunately for me, the rules of the House are such that I shall now be able to have my say, which I had hoped earlier in the day might be very much longer, on two subjects of great public importance. The first is the results of the foggy weather during December, particularly in Greater London and other big cities, and the second is a more local affair, that of the cement dust nuisance in North-West Kent.
Despite the fact that we now have very much better weather, there is still an amazing amount of alarm on the part of the public about the heavy death roll and the widespread sickness following the December fogs. This alarm has been greatly increased by the amazing, at least outward, apathy of the Government. Most people who have deep feelings about this just cannot understand why there has not been a public inquiry after thousands of people were choked to death during the December fogs. In the case of air and rail disasters, where the death roll may amount to tens and not thousands, as in this case, public inquiries are held because the public wish to be assured that every care is taken to prevent a repetition. Yet there has been no public inquiry at all into the heavy death roll in the December fogs.
842 It is necessary to recall a few figures. During the week ending 13th December,. 1952, the death roll in Greater London was 4,703. During the corresponding, week in 1951 the death roll was 1,852. There was thus the tremendous increase of 2,851. There were 6,000 more deaths in Greater London during December, 1952, than there were in December, 1951 No one denies—not even the Minister of Health did so in answering Questions —that the major cause of those deaths was air pollution during the foggy weather. In comparison, it is remarkable how we get "all het up" about road deaths. Road deaths in Great Britain during 1952 totalled 4,705. Therefore, the additional deaths in Greater London alone in December last came to 1,300 more than road deaths throughout the country during the whole of 1952.
One reason for concern has been the manner in which answers have been given to the Questions which have been put to various Ministers. The first Question was put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council. Then we had Questions to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. There were also Questions to the Minister of Health and Questions to the Minister of Civil Aviation. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) was correct in summing it up by saying: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a London fog concerns a number of Departments between whom there is a lack of co-ordination and a lack of initiative? Will he make representations to ensure that the problem is considered to be of sufficient gravity for co-ordinated action at the earliest possible moment? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January. 1953; Vol. 510, c. 992.] So the Questions and answers went on. and the information that we got was certainly not given voluntarily.
But there was a further addition to the concern of the public. There was a report in the "Evening Standard" on Saturday, 24th January, 1953. A column on page 5 was headed, "The Fog," and the report said: Mr. Iain Macleod, the Minister of Health. was another of the speakers at the Fan Makers' dinner. He said he seemed to get nothing except questions about the fog and its effect on people's health. 843 'Really, you know,' he said, 'anyone would think fog had only started in London since I became Minister'. This was an entirely different fog from most. I have given the figures for the week ending 13th December. It is true that there was a higher death roll then than at the peak of the cholera epidemic of 1866. We learn from the excellent report of the L.C.C. Health Department that, taking the average for the three weeks in December, deaths from bronchitis increased 10 times, from influenza seven times and from pneumonia nearly five times.
Naturally, death takes the headlines, but the amount of sickness was tremendous. Any one who makes these estimates finds there is some difficulty in being very precise, and it is estimated by one journal, dealing with this subject, that in Greater London alone nearly one million people were effected in some degree by a form of sickness following this type of weather. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton ascertained from the Ministry of National Insurance that there were 25,000 extra claims for sickness benefit.
All this indicates that it is a serious problem, and I am sure that many of the public are surprised that there has been inactivity—or certainly lack of evidence of great activity—in view of the seriousness of the situation. There was a heavy death roll in the flood disaster, but in Greater London alone the death roll in December was 20 times greater. It seems that too little attention is being given to this problem. Some of the public were startled to hear of the deaths of cattle at the Smithfield Cattle Show. Those deaths give some indication of the type of air which was breathed, not only by animals, but by the public. From the Smoke Abatement Society's journal I find it is estimated that the four-day fog in London cost London alone about £10 million in expenses, depreciation and loss of time. That was in just four days.
In the next week or two we shall be discussing the Budget and various taxes which have been imposed, or taken off. The convictions of those who have studied this question is that there is a vast and widely spread, but largely unper-ceived, overhead charge in what is called the "Smoke tax," which is borne by 844 traders, industry and the general public. It is so serious that it is felt that much more must be done. If much more is being done than is known to the general public, there is so much interest in this matter that this is the time to give the details and to placate many people by letting it be known that this serious matter is being dealt with in a proper way by the Government.
Since I became a Member of Parliament in 1945 I have certainly had a great deal of correspondence, but I have never had more correspondence on any subject than I have had on this question of air pollution. One letter states: May I offer my praise for your stand for the end of this disgraceful complacency, and indifference to the shocking pollution of our air? The deaths caused by the recent fog, though awful, were nothing compared with the thousands whose lungs were damaged to a lesser extent, perhaps to prove fatal at a later dale. In the last few days I have been concerned with local elections, and I was amazed at the number of people whom I met who were suffering from chest trouble from which they did not suffer before the fogs of last winter. I have had letters of all kinds, and I have been surprised at the number of people who have asked if there is a possibility of atomic pile pollution saturating fog. After all, Harwell is only 50 miles from London. I wish that I had the time to read some of the letters on this question of the danger of atomic pile pollution. Many of those who have written to me about it are people of substance. They feel that if, in fact, there is no danger the public should be given that assurance, based on the best information available.
I do not know whether it will affect the situation, but in the "Daily Sketch" of a few days ago, under the heading "Secret Atom Plans are Revealed," two sites not far from this House were mentioned. One is at Woolwich and the other at Fort Halstead, near Sevenoaks, Kent. Technicians have recently coined the word "smog" to describe a combination of fog and smoke, and at one time it was thought that that was the greatest danger, but now there is the possibility that there is an infinite variety of chemical compounds, solid, liquid, and gaseous in form. Investigations should be made into the question whether a type 845 of pollution which singly may not have any great danger to health might have lethal qualities in combination with other types which might have made a big contribution to the heavy death roll in December.
Most people and many hon. Members have some experience of the cleaner food campaigns in the constituencies. I know that in my constituency great efforts are being made to bring home to the people the need to be more careful in their habits. Shopkeepers are being urged to look after foodstuffs so that those who buy them will not run any risk. Most people are very much concerned about what they eat and drink. I have it from a world authority that the average human being eats 2¾ lb. of food a day, drinks 4½ lb. of water and breathes 30 lb. of air. It seems that we concentrate upon those things which we eat and drink, while little or no consideration is given to the kind of air we breathe.
Many of us feel very grateful to the Smoke Abatement Society, who are doing a grand job of work, but one of their problems is lack of finance. In the course of one out of the welter of Questions asked in this House about the effects of pollution my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) asked the Minister of Health, Will the Minister give consideration to the granting of a subsidy to the Smoke Abatement Society? The answer was: I will look into that suggestion."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 382–3.] Has there been any development, and will societies like the Smoke Abatement Society be given some financial assistance from Government sources to help them in their work?
It is true that there has recently appeared in the Press an announcement that the Government have set up some inquiry into smoke abatement. It seems to have come a long time after the effects of the fog, and after a lot of Questions have been asked in this House. I think that the "Star," in its editorial article on Thursday, 16th April, raised a very important point. The article is headed, "The Smog peril," and states: A Government Committee to inquire into the more technical aspects of smoke abatement must get down to practical business and yield 846 results before the next fog season. December's killer fog, like the flood disaster, caught many experts unawares. That must not happen again. Then in heavy type it states: There should be a permanent medical-technical body to cope with the menace. I wish to ask what sort of Committee has been set up and whether the "Star" would be satisfied not only with its constitution but whether it is a permanent body.
I have been fortunate, largely as a result of the co-operation of the American Embassy, to get some reports from America. Having seen them I think that we can feel that we are not getting a very good deal from this Government. I had hoped to give some quotations but time is running short, and some of the best parts of my speech must be left to another occasion. There was, however, a fog at Donora, Pennsylvania, in 1948, and I have the report of the American Government Department which emphasises what I am trying to say. I will read what is contained inside the cover: The whole nation was shocked when 20 persons died and several thousands more became ill during the smog that enveloped the town of Donora, Pennsylvania, during the last week in October, 1948. America usually does things in a bigger way than we do, but I wonder what they are thinking about 6,000 English people dying in Greater London alone.
It was stated that at that inquiry the most exhaustive ever made on a problem in air pollution, is a step towards positive assurance that such a thing will not happen again, because it might, and it might even be worse next time. We may even once again in the London streets hear the cry, "Bring out your dead." Six thousand deaths is a high figure, and, what is probably equally important, many more have suffered very badly.
My recommendations are: first to complete the study to show which are the plants, materials, and processes causing the trouble; second, to make changes in chemical and chemical engineering processes to prevent the emission of flourine containing fumes in zinc works, open hearths and electric furnaces; third, to make improvements in combustion so that smoke is no longer emitted.
847 My fourth recommendation is similar to that which we are putting into effect regarding flood alerts. An alert should be issued when there is every likelihood that weather conditions, similar to those experienced in December, appear imminent, so that measures can be taken to protect the people. My fifth recommendation is that certain industries in and around large towns shall curtail production during the adverse weather conditions to reduce harmful atmospheric pollutants; and that a permanent committee of suitable persons shall be set up to make recommendations and to see that they are carried out.
I wish also to refer to something which is affecting thousands of people in Kent —the cement dust nuisance. When I brought up the question on 14th April, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that everything was being done to put the machinery in order and that when it was in order this matter would be satisfactorily settled. But some of the cement producing plants in Kent, such as the Bevins works, do not have electrical precipitation at all, and much of the dust comes from those works.
The Minister mentioned that the trouble in March was that five electrical precipitators had broken down. Why five all at once? He said that one of them would not be ready until November. Why is it that in these enlightened days it is possible for these plants to continue working when the electrical precipitators are out of action? I have had the experience of going through the clouds of dust. It is shocking that that sort of thing should be possible in this enlightened age, and it is time that the people of North-West Kent were given some protection by the Government of the day. If the Minister believes that this matter is not very important he should come to North-West Kent. I can tell him that if the assurance which he gave is not carried out to the letter, very much more will be heard because people have been more startled by this problem than ever before and plans are going ahead so that if it occurs again Parliament will hear very much about it.
A few days ago I received an envelope from the cement people, and on it is printed—and they have every reason to be proud of it—"British cement is the 848 cheapest in the world." That is a good thing, but we believe that the cement companies are not living up to their obligations in this matter of protecting the people in North-West Kent. Their profits are high and their cement is the cheapest in the world. What we ask is that at long last they should give the people for miles around their works some protection. Even though we support the production of cement in North-West Kent, we feel that much more ought to be done in the way of protection than is being done.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)
In a debate of 30 minutes the hon. Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Dodds) has taken 22 minutes in asking questions and has allowed me eight minutes in which to reply. I do not think he has been unduly generous. I will answer his last question first. He asked why the cement companies had not put their precipitators in order. He said that they were making large profits and their precipitators should be in order.
May I tell him why they are not? In 1946, they asked for steel so that their electrical precipitators should be put in a good state of repair and they were unable to get it from the Government of the day, which was a Socialist Government. It is only since 1952 that they have been able to get the steel required to put the precipitators in order. If the hon. Member had been a little more assiduous in his researches and a little more detailed he might perhaps have been a little more effective in finding out the reasons why these precipitators are not working.
He should remember that in that area of the Thames there is the largest concentration of cement works in the world, with the exception of one place in America, and that the nuisance to Gravesend and his own constituency is pronounced only when the wind is not the prevailing wind—that is to say, when it comes from the east and blows the cement dust back over Gravesend. Incidentally, the phrase "cement dust" is a misnomer. It is the dust from the chalk and the clay before it is burned; it is not cement dust. The east wind blows it back over Gravesend and the 849 various constituencies nearby. With the prevailing wind, it is not blown over those areas. The efficiency of the cement people on the Thames-side in mitigating the effects of the dust which comes from the chimneys, and which is not cement dust, is greater than that in any other country in the world.
I have answered that question first. If the hon. Member cares to go into it he will find that the complete replacement of the inside of the precipitators was necessary in 1946, that new flues were ordered and that the then Government of the day were unable to satisfy the needs of the cement companies.
I have before me a report of a meeting which took place in the hon. Member's constituency, or nearby, in which appear the words: Mr. N. Dodds, who said he was apparently the only Member of Parliament who had taken Parliamentary action. … That shows the hon. Gentleman's characteristic modesty. The report quotes his Questions in the House of 14th April and 15th April to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I thought the hon. Gentleman did rather less than justice to his hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), because, in 1948, the hon. Member for Gravesend asked the Minister of Works whether, as a result of his visit to the cement works on Thames-side, any steps would be taken by the Government to supply the firm with the materials it required.

§ Mr. Dodds
Does the hon. Gentleman not know that the meeting took place to deal with the menace of March of this year—I mean 1953. not 1948.

§ Mr. Marples
This was five years ago, and the Government answered, "No. Sir." They were not able to give priority to steel supplies in order that the precipitators of the firm could be put in good repair. That question was raised in 1948, and the hon. Gentleman asked us today what the Government are going to do about it. What did the Government of that day do about it? If he looks at the Swanscombe Urban District Council Bulletin, he will find a question from a local member asking if steel could be made available to the cement firms' extractor plant, and the answer was "No, Sir." That was not under the last Government, but under the Government before that. 850 That is the second question which the hon. Gentleman raised on the question of dust which came from the cement works in Kent, and which is erroneously called cement dust. The answer there is that the cement companies are now as advanced technically as are other industries in the world in the problem of eliminating dust from their factories.
May I now come to the general problem, which is one concerning fog and smoke in London? The hon. Gentleman complained of apathy so far as this Government is concerned, but, when he was speaking, there were twice as many Conservative hon. Members as there were Labour hon. Members in the House, so that, at any rate, there is no apathy on the part of this party. The hon. Gentleman also said that thousands of people were choked to death. His figures were right, but whether his diagnosis as to why they died is correct is another matter. I do not know, but I should have thought not.

§ Mr. Dodds
I have the Minister of Health's testimony, in reply to a Question.

§ Mr. Marples
I have only three minutes left. The hon. Gentleman has hardly left me any time, and there are one or two things that I should like to say.
Air pollution is a great evil, and no one would dispute the harmful results of air pollution. Its effect on health, both directly and by the diminution of sunlight, has been of great concern for many years, as well as the factors of the corrosion and dirtying of buildings and materials and the dislocation of transport as well.
It is difficult to estimate the cost of all this; estimates range from £50 million to £150 million per annum. Progress is no simple matter, and it is futile to think that air pollution can be abolished overnight, but the hon. Gentleman has not given me time in which to reply as fully as I would like. He asked me what are we going to do about it, and I would reply that the Government have decided to appoint a committee under an independent chairman, to undertake a comprehensive review of the causes and effects of air pollution, and to consider what further preventive measures are practicable. My right hon. Friend hopes 851 to make a further announcement shortly on the membership and terms of reference of this committee.
I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that Her Majesty's Government are taking seriously their obligations in respect of air pollution, and I would also assure him that air pollution in London is not a matter of recent vintage, but one which we have had for many years. We certainly had it in 1945, in 1946 and right up to 1950, and this Government have decided to make this inquiry with a view to seeing what remedial technical action can be taken to prevent the people of this country from suffering.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House, especially the three Socialist hon. Members present, will be satisfied with that announcement. Whether the "Star" will be satisfied is another matter. What satisfies the "Star" is beyond my knowledge, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman may know more about this matter than I do myself; but I think that the public will be delighted to know that that is happening. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that many hon. Members 852 of the House are concerned with fog and particularly with the effect of what he erroneously calls cement dust on the Thames-side. Among them is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who is present, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath), who never ceases to write letters to me on this subject.
It may be that the hon. Gentleman who raised this Adjournment debate is fortunate, from a Parliamentary point of view, in being the only person who is voluble and who is heard and reported. Both my hon. Friends to whom I have referred are unable, owing to their position, to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all Kent Members of Parliament are very deeply interested in this subject.