HC Deb 10 April 1956 vol 551 cc82-101
Dr. Stross

I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "occurred" to the end of line 11.

When we were upstairs we had a long discussion about this matter. I think that it lasted between five and six hours and I am sure that it would be most improper of me to go over the ground again. We are, however, dealing in this part of Clause 1 with the three specific defences which came under our notice in Committee, namely, firing up from cold, failure of furnace or apparatus, and the specific one with which this Amendment is concerned, undue black smoke as a result of unsuitable fuel.

The right hon. Gentleman told us that he would take all possible advice between the Committee stage and the present time to see whether there was a way out of the dilemma. The point of view that was expressed to him on both sides of the Committee—and it was put very strongly in the Second Reading debate—was that this specific defence which is made available in Clause 1 would mean that a horse and cart could be driven through the provisions of the Bill. The Minister was very kind and wrote, I think to all of us who had expressed anxiety, and asked whether we could give him the names of experts with whom he could get in touch in order that he might ascertain their views. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has now armed himself with a great deal of information which was not available to him at the time when he gave his answer to us in Committee.

One of the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman used was that although in paragraph 27 of the Beaver Report it is clearly stated that unsuitable fuel is rarely the cause of smoke, the word "rarely" does not mean always; in other words, the fact that it is only rarely the cause does not mean that he can get rid of Clause 1 (3, c), which deals with the defence of unsuitable fuels. The Minister said that in his opinion the advice which he had had to date was that where fuel was highly volatile and caking in type there was no known method by means of which one could guarantee that black smoke would not at some time or other be emitted from a stack.

Mr. Sandys

Dark smoke.

Dr. Stross

I beg pardon—dark smoke. Dark would be shade 2 on the Ringelmann chart, or worse. When I wrote to my own local authority about this specific point—the letter has probably been forwarded to the Minister—I was not given an absolute assurance that it could be guaranteed that in all circumstances dark smoke would not be emitted.

On the other hand, I have a letter which was addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) from the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Durham King's College, which reads as follows: I understand that the Clean Air Bill is coming up for Report stage on Tuesday and there is certainly one point upon which I am still rather concerned. If the defence in Section 1 (3, c) is to be retained in the Bill, and I imagine that it will be impossible to move the Minister from this, I feel very strongly that the offender who proposes to use this defence should be required, in the Act, to give notice of his intention to use this defence within 48 hours of receiving the notice from the local authority under Section 26. I quote that letter as an example of the fact that there is obviously concern about this matter.

6.15 p.m.

This defence that unsuitable fuel has been used is going to lay us open to all sorts of difficulties, and I would mention just one of them. Suppose the Minister agrees that notice should be given in order that the sanitary inspector should be able to say, "Let me have a sample of the fuel, and if it is very highly volatile and tends to cake, that is that and we shall not bring a prosecution." But the evidence may have been burnt. There may be none left. Although I am not a suspicious person by nature, it may be rather tempting to someone who thinks he has committed an offence to say, "I have not got any evidence for you. I burnt it all. None of this fuel is available for you."

It is for such reasons that we ask the Minister to give us all the information that he has been able to garner to see whether he can satisfy us that this defence, which we found so objectionable on Second Reading and against which we struck so hard in Committee, is really necessary. If we feel that it is not necessary, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it will be our bounden duty to divide the House. We are, therefore, putting upon him an obligation to use all the charm that he has evinced so remarkably both here and in Committee to see if he can over-persuade us.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom

I beg to second the Amendment.

In Committee, we had a long discussion about this defence Clause. I want to make it quite clear that we in the City of Sheffield oppose all the defence provisions in Clause 1. We are dealing with the defence of unsuitable fuel. In the City of Sheffield there are 275 solid fuel-fired furnaces. Some of those 275 are efficient. Each one of these furnaces has been installed since 1946, and in most cases, thanks to the interest shown by the industrialists in Sheffield, most of these furnaces are free of dark smoke.

Good industrialists in the City of Sheffield are setting an example not only to Sheffield, but to the rest of the country. But what about those who have not taken the trouble to install that type of machinery which does not emit dark smoke? They can use precisely this excuse which we are now debating. In other words, the good employer will be penalised by the inclusion of this paragraph, by giving to the bad industrialist a liberty which can become a licence.

By the inclusion of this paragraph we are legislating for the person who is not doing his duty to the community, by having a furnace which emits dark smoke. This is the type of provision that he would use in a court of law relentlessly. Who can prove whether the fuel is suitable or not? It has probably been burned and gone up the chimney. Even the remarkable skill of a Sherlock Holmes could not discover whether that fuel was suitable or not. All that he has to do is to go into a court of law in the event of a prosecution under Clause 1 and say that the fuel was unsuitable.

The Bill should not only deal with the problems that we have in respect of dark smoke at present, but should anticipate the problems that we shall meet in the immediate future. If we are to anticipate problems and encourage good industrialists to install the type of furnace which does not emit dark smoke, the Clause ought to be withdrawn, for it is behind the Clause that many of the bad industrialists will hide.

Mr. Nabarro

Hear, hear.

Mr. Winterbottom

I am glad to note the support of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I would go a little further and say that in respect of furnaces and boilers of this type it is unnecessary that dark smoke should be emitted. I hope the hon. Member for Kidderminster will agree with that.

Mr. Nabarro

I have said so.

Mr. Winterbottom

I will quote the words of Professor Sarjant, of the fuel technology section of Sheffield University, who has been highly regarded by most organisations dealing with the problem of fuel conservation or the problem of the elimination of smoke. He says: The smoke problem is due to two main causes: (i) the use of old-fashioned appliances and outmoded techniques, for which there may be no valid scientific reason, and (ii) the lack of application of existing knowledge, either from lack of interest or ignorance. The provision in paragraph (c) is the one behind which will shelter those who are not prepared to buy the latest scientific devices or are ignorant of them.

Sheffield has already had difficulty in sustaining prosecutions, especially in regard to furnaces outside the exempted metallurgical processes. There has always been difficulty under the "best practicable means" defence. If the defence in paragraph (c) goes through, it is envisaged that Sheffield's problems will be intensified, for this is a heaven-sent defence to those whom we have been trying to bring to book for a long while.

If there are certain extenuating circumstances under the existing law of which a defendant can make use, that law, not being altered by the Bill, could also be used. We are not only allowing the defendant the ordinary defence in terms of extenuating circumstances, but are providing him with another clear-cut defence which cannot be contradicted by any prosecutor. The Clause will undermine the effect of the Bill in respect of hand-fired furnaces. It will provide a defence for the industrialist with no social conscience about air pollution. We know that it is not often that an industrialist will voluntarily install plant purely because he has a social conscience; more often it has to be plant which brings more profit to his concern. The Clause will help such people.

I urge the Minister to withdraw this defence before the Bill goes to another place. I and Sheffield object to the three defence provisions but that in paragraph (c) is the most pernicious, for it will make local authorities impotent against transgressors.

Mr. Nabarro

On Second Reading, I said: I shall seek the total elimination of Clause I (3, c). That is the subsection which allows a defence on grounds of unsuitable fuel. There is no unsuitable industrial fuel, provided the boiler house is properly equipped and the boiler man fully trained, and it is for that reason that I say that the subsection should be eliminated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 1250.] Nothing has occurred during the last few months to change my views. In Committee, I moved an Amendment to give precisely the same effect as the Amendment now before the House. I would tell my right hon. Friend that had I not been struck down by influenza the day before the vote was taken I should have voted against the Government on this issue, for this is the worst feature of the whole Bill. Once the unsuitable fuel defence in paragraph (c) is written into the Measure it will be nearly impossible successfully to prosecute the recalcitrant industrialist who is still largely responsible for black and dark smoke.

When I returned to the Committee after my influenza I found that the Government had carried the day and included paragraph (c) in the Bill. However, the Minister was in one respect forthcoming and a little more generous than I had hitherto supposed he might be. He said he would take professional advice on the issue of whether there was no unsuitable industrial coal and that he would approach various bodies to sound opinion as to whether the views that I had expressed were correct or otherwise.

Subsequently, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has said, the Minister wrote to hon. Members interested in the problem and suggested that we might tell him what professional bodies we had in mind. I want to tell the House what I replied to the Minister, and I think I shall carry the majority of hon. Members, irrespective of party politics, with me on this. I said, "Do not go to the local authorities or the local authority organisations because they are violently biased in favour of the exclusion of paragraph (c)." I also said, "Do not go to British industry, the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers or any other similar body, because they are violently biased in favour of the inclusion of paragraph (c), for it provides such a perfect defence in the event of prosecution."

I said, further, to my right hon. Friend, "There is only one body in the country really qualified to advise you in a highly technical matter of this kind. That is the Institute of Fuel. It contains in its membership the foremost fuel technologists in the country. All are professionally qualified; none has a partisan interest in a matter of this kind." Subsequently, my right hon. Friend went to the Institute of Fuel which, under the President of the Institute, very rapidly—for only a short time was available—set up an ad hoc committee to advise the Minister.

6.30 p.m.

I think the House will profit by the opinions expressed by the Institute of Fuel for they are not confidential and I have the honour to be the only Member of Parliament who is a member of the Institute and, therefore, have access to what the Institute told the Minister on this matter. The Institute told him, first: When there is a marked change in the character of the fuel supplied for use it may not be possible to avoid the temporary emission of dark smoke and a suitable period will be needed for adjustment of combustion conditions. I aver, in connection with that statement, that it is not very usual for there to be a marked change in the character of the fuel supply; it is an exceptional circumstance.

The second statement made by the Institute was: When a new plant is being commissioned there are teething troubles which may again make dark smoke inevitable, and for this provision should be made in the Bill for time to make the necessary adjustments, which may be major, and in the case of large boilers may occupy up to six months or more. That, again, is a somewhat exceptional circumstance.

The third statement was: Since industry is continually endeavouring to improve plant and equipment, it should be recognised that smoke may be inevitable during any period of development of new designs, and this, again, should be taken into account in the Bill. Then the Institute went on to say: The committee recognise that there are numbers of existing boilers and furnaces in which certain fuels cannot be burned smokelessly and they consider accordingly that Clause 1 (3, c) must be retained in the present Bill. It is their view that a smoke darker than Ringlemann 2 should not arise from modern plant and that there should, therefore, be a fixed and limited period only during which Clause 1 (3, c) should remain in force. Here we have a pretty kettle of fish. This professional and technical body is telling the Minister that he should continue with his "unsuitable fuel" defence in the Bill, but that he should put a time limit on the inclusion of that defence.

I express an opinion on this important matter neither one way or the other until I have heard what the Minister says in reply. My personal inclination, as things stand at the moment, is to continue to press for the total exclusion of Clause 1 (3, c) from the Bill, but I should expect the Minister, were it carried, in another place to make suitable provision for these caveats entered by the Institute of Fuel which, in my view, are irrefutable as defences, as further defences, or exceptions—if it may be expressed in that way—to the operation of Clause 1 (3, c) for only a limited period.

I hope that this will not be regarded as a party political issue. I think the Minister has done his best in the matter. It is a highly technical and difficult question. Many hon. Members on this side of the House have said that there are 40,000 hand-fired boilers in the country and that we cannot avoid dark smoke being emitted from them. My reply to that is that surely one of the principal objectives of the Bill is to force people to put mechanical equipment on those ancient boilers and thereby burn coal efficiently and prevent the emission of dark and black smoke.

If my right hon. Friend is to take the line, during the remaining stages of the Bill, that those people who own ancient equipment are irreproachable and must not be coerced or compelled into replacing that equipment, there is little salvation for this policy, because I think that what was said by the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) is absolutely correct. If Clause 1 (3, c) remains in the Bill in its present form it will undermine the whole edifice we have sought to erect, legislatively, by 18 months of painstaking effort in this House, from start to finish, following the publication of the Beaver Committee's Report, I should like my right hon. Friend to reply comprehensively with special reference to the admirable advice tendered to him by the Institute of Fuel.

Mr. Sandys

I was under the impression that I was being criticised for the introduction of this particular defence in Clause 1 to which the debate refers, until the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) described it as "a heaven-sent defence." That seemed to make it all very respectable.

The issue is an important, but very precise one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) quoted himself a little earlier, I might be allowed also to quote myself, when I gave a certain undertaking to the Standing Committee, I said: Almost any type of hand-fired furnace would be likely to produce some dark smoke when burning slack containing a lot of fine coal, but the difficulty is not confined to hand-fired furnaces. If it were confined to hand-fired furnaces, a possible remedy would be to introduce a mechanical stoker, in which case the owner of the furnace would be able to rely on Clause 2, which allows a period of grace for alterations or improvements to plant where they are necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 14th February, 1956; c. 73.] I should like to remind the House that the question of hand-fired furnaces is really not an issue on this Amendment. The hand-fired furnace, if it is inefficient and produces dark smoke, would have to be eliminated under the Bill, but a period of grace is given, not exceeding seven years, under Clause 2. That is not an issue which arises in regard to this Amendment. Here we are concerned only with the question of the use of unsuitable fuel.

Mr. Moyle

During the period of grace allowed under Clause 2 in regard to inefficient hand-fired furnaces, who is to say whether the air pollution is due to the use of unsuitable fuel or to an inefficient hand-fired furnace?

Mr. Sandys

I think it is very simple. The defence must be that it is solely due to the use of unsuitable fuel. Therefore, it would be quite clear that if the owner of that furnace wished to put forward a defence he would have to do so under Clause 2, which provides in certain circumstances a period of grace to allow a little time during which old-fashioned equipment can be scrapped and replaced by modern and efficient plant.

Mr. Winterbottom

Even if, under Clause 2, new equipment is installed by an industrialist the "unsuitable fuel" defence would still remain part of the Bill. If by chance dark smoke were emitted, the industrialist could use the defence of unsuitable fuel, even though the fuel used was admirably suitable.

Mr. Sandys

Of course, that defence remains in the Bill; that is what we are discussing. I went on to say: I am, however, advised that certain types of mechanical stokers are liable to emit dark smoke, even if they are mechanical stokers, if highly caking volatile coals have to be used. I base my argument in support of paragraph (c) on that advice. If it is incorrect, I undertake to look at the paragraph again. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 14th February, 1956; c. 73.] I added that I was not prepared to try to discuss the technical aspects in Committee.

Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has pointed out, I asked hon. Members to let me know of any technical authorities which they thought it would be useful for me to consult between Committee and Report stages. I was given the names of twelve different authorities by various hon. Members. In all cases I wrote to them and asked their advice on this point. I have received replies from most of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, who, as we all know, has taken a specially keen interest in the whole subject, recommended, above all, that I should consult the Institute of Fuel. As he has frankly explained, the Institute of Fuel, having discussed the matter at some length, recommended quite clearly that the provisions of Clause 1 (3, c) must be retained in the Bill. The Institute added the qualification that after a period, which it suggested should be seven years, the defence of unsuitable fuel should be eliminated. Seven years, however, is quite a long time, and I doubt very much whether that would meet some views which have been expressed by hon. Members opposite. The views of the Institute of Fuel are representative of the other letters I have received, except that it is the only one which suggests a period of seven years. As far as I know, although there may possibly be others, no other body suggests that the defence should be a temporary one and limited to a certain period of years.

I have not had a single letter in which the writer was able to give a simple, clear, unequivocal answer to the effect that it was possible to avoid making dark smoke if the furnace was of a modern type and properly operated even though it might be burning unsuitable fuel.

Mr. Winterbottom

The Minister has had an invitation from Sheffield to see the operation of these things. Observation is probably a great deal better than correspondence.

Mr. Sandys

What I undertook to do was to consult these various authorities, and I have done so with all fairness. While most of those I have consulted take the view that with proper care, good modern plant and good stoking, the emission of dark smoke should be only very occasional, nobody is prepared to say that if the fuel is unsuitable, dark smoke can in all circumstances be avoided. Some, however, say that the period during which it would be emitted—that is, while the plant is being adjusted to the unsuitable fuel—might not necessarily be a long period. That is the result of my inquiries.

6.45 p.m.

I should like to quote an extract from a letter which I received from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), because it refers to the same city as that which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment represents. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South sent me a letter which he had received from his town clerk, whom he had consulted. The town clerk sent not his own opinion, but the opinion of the Chief Sanitary Inspector of the City of Stoke-on-Trent. This is the opening paragraph of the opinion given by the inspector: It is obvious that it is impossible to avoid the emission of dark smoke when using unsuitable fuel even with a modern furnace properly maintained and operated in all circumstances. He then explains the circumstances in which it might be difficult to avoid the emission of dark smoke. I have a number of other letters but I do not want to weary the House by reading a lot of extracts. If, however, there are any authorities whose opinions hon. Members would like to know, I have the letters with me and can give them if desired.

That is the position. In other words, no expert authority is prepared to say that in all circumstances it is possible to avoid the emission of dark smoke if unsuitable fuel is used, even though the plant is modern and is properly operated.

One hon. Member said that the effect of this defence was to drive a horse and cart through the Bill and to make it impossible to secure convictions when prosecutions are made for this type of offence, but I ask the House to bear in mind exactly what this defence is. It is the tightest thing that could possibly have been drafted, and it was intended to be so.

The defence is governed by the words at the beginning of subsection (3), which states: In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove … (c) that the contravention complained of was solely due"— I have already drawn attention to the word "solely"— to the use of unsuitable fuel, that suitable fuel was unobtainable. … In the first place, therefore, the owner of a furnace cannot advance as a defence the use of unsuitable fuel if he could have obtained suitable fuel.

Paragraph (c) continues: that the least unsuitable fuel which was available was used. … In other words, if the owner of a furnace is unable to obtain the right fuel, he is then obliged to take the trouble to buy the next best fuel that is available—"the least unsuitable fuel."

Mr. Winterbottom

How can one distinguish between good and bad fuel?

Mr. Sandys

The hon. Member is making a point in favour of the tightness of the Clause. This is what the defendant must prove. He must prove to the satisfaction of the court, first, "that suitable fuel was unobtainable"; secondly, that of all the unsuitable fuels that were available, he chose "the least unsuitable"; and, finally, he must prove that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke as the result of the use thereof. In other words, after having proved that suitable fuel was not obtainable and that he used the least unsuitable fuel that he could get, he then has to prove that he used that unsuitable fuel in such a way as to cause the least amount of dark smoke. Personally, I would regard that as a very tough proposition, a very difficult thing to have to prove before the court. For anybody to suggest that this is driving a horse and cart through the Bill really implies that he has not studied the implications of this paragraph,

Mr. Nabarro

A lot of the misunderstanding may well arise from what is perhaps a technicality. If the Clause were to read as my right hon. Friend is now saying it means that the contravention complained of was solely due to the use of unsuitable fuel and that suitable fuel was unobtainable and that the least unsuitable fuel which was available was used and that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke as the result of the use thereof, there might then have been a different interpretation placed upon it.

Mr. Sandys

Let us be quite clear about this; that is certainly the intention. In the English language, one does not always put "and" between every phrase. I can see no difficulty in doing so, and if I were thus able to satisfy my hon. Friend I would gladly insert in line 8, after the word "unobtainable," the word "and," and also in line 7 after the word "fuel," again the word "and," so as to make it perfectly clear that the courts have to be satisfied that every one of these requirements has been fulfilled. I thought that that was reasonably clear to the House.

If it is clear to the House that those provisions have to be satisfied, I would have thought it was equally clear that this is a very tight provision, about which it would be exceedingly difficult for furnace owners that satisfy the courts.

At the suggestion of hon. Members, I consulted technical experts. This was not the first consultation I had. Naturally, before introducing the Bill, I had most extensive consultations with expert authorities. The main issue before the House is this. If these expert authorities whom I have consulted are right in thinking that there are circumstances in which it will not be the fault of the furnace owner if he emits dark smoke, at any rate for a short period, then I ask the House what is its intention? What do those hon. Members have in mind who suggest that this defence should be withdrawn?

There seem to be only two alternatives. The first implies that the factory owner must close down his furnaces until he has adjusted them or until he has been able to obtain more suitable fuel.

Mr. Winterbottom

There is the seven years' provision.

Mr. Sandys

The seven years' period does not apply to this Clause at all as it now stands. I do not believe that anybody has seriously suggested that to avoid the emission of dark smoke, possibly only for half an hour or an hour as may well be the case while furnaces are being adjusted to new fuel, those furnaces must be shut down altogether. It must be remembered that fuels vary; it may be possible to receive a consignment of fuel which is not entirely consistent.

Mr. Winterbottom

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in Clause 2, in the first line, it uses the words In any proceedings for an offence under Section 1 of this Act … if the seven years' period does not apply?

Mr. Sandys

That provision applies to plant and not to the use of fuel. I thought I had made that clear. If the hon. Member would study Clause 2 very carefully he would see that it has nothing whatsoever to do with unsuitable fuel.

I believe I carry the House with me when I say it would not be reasonable to ask a factory to shut down its furnaces because it was unable by any other means to avoid the emission of dark smoke for a short period, or possibly for a long period if suitable fuel were quite unobtainable and only the very worst types were obtainable. I do not believe that anybody has suggested that, at any rate during the Committee stage.

If we reject that solution, and if we remove this paragraph, what we are in effect saying is that Parliament will make it an offence to do something which is unavoidable. During the Committee stage several hon. Members said that we should leave it to the good sense of the courts; the courts will not convict somebody for doing something which is entirely reasonable and quite unavoidable; the courts will look after that. That, of course, is one way of getting round the difficulty.

Sometimes the courts do have to look after oversights by Parliament; it is fortunate for us that they do. It is, however, a very slovenly approach to design our legislation on a basis we know is wrong, relying upon the courts to gloss over the mistakes we have made. If we do not have a defence of this kind, and if the courts do not ignore the provisions of our legislation, then there is no doubt about what will happen: people will be prosecuted, will be convicted, and will be fined for doing something which almost every hon. Member will agree is a reasonable and necessary thing to do. Proceedings will be taken against people for an offence which would be quite unavoidable. Such a state of affairs would serve only to bring Parliament and legislation into disrepute. It is quite unfair to place upon our courts the obligation to put right nonsense committed by Parliament. That is, in effect, what we should be asking the courts to do.

Mr. Nabarro

Will my right hon. Friend put into the Bill, in another place, the two words "and" at the points I have indicated? Secondly, will he put a time limit on the operation of this Clause, as recommended by the Institute of Fuel?

Mr. Sandys

I will certainly consider it. I know that the Parliamentary draftsmen will have a fit if they are asked to put in two words "and" which are not necessary; but if it would give my hon. Friend a more peaceful night, I will certainly consider whether that can be done. However, I do not want to do something which is really quite unnecessary; it is really quite clear to everybody what this Clause means.

The proposal for a seven years' time limit is a specific one. If I thought that this was to be the last time that Parliament would ever have to consider passing legislation on the subject of clean air, there might be quite a strong case for putting a time limit of some kind on the application of this subsection. I do not know whether it would be exactly seven years or whether the period might be made a little shorter or a little longer; but I share the views of the Institute of Fuel on this and I have little doubt that after a period of years this defence of unsuitable fuel should be eliminated.

I do not think that for all time it should be considered to be unavoidable to emit dark smoke with unsuitable fuel. I am quite sure that inside of ten years Parliament will have to consider whether, in the light of experience, the necessity for this defence has past.

7.0 p.m.

I would ask hon. Members to be fair to me. I have fully consulted all the people I was asked to consult. I have their opinions. I have read out two of them, and I have offered to read out any others about which any hon. Member likes to ask me. I assure hon. Members that there is not an authority I have been asked to consult which is prepared to say without qualification that the emission of dark smoke can necessarily in all circumstances be avoided even if the plant is modern and even if it is operated efficiently and with care. In these circumstances, I think it would be wrong and irresponsible for Parliament to make an offence of something which the experts tell us may in certain circumstances be unavoidable.

Dr. Summerskill

I should not have added to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said in moving the Amendment if the Minister had not spoken as though we were amateurs in the subject and he had all the expert advice. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had consulted all the experts.

Mr. Sandys

I said that I had consulted all the experts whom I had been asked by hon. Members to consult.

Dr. Summerskill

That is rather a quibble. The House, listening to the Minister, would have thought that he had consulted the experts. That is why I must add a word before we go into the Division Lobby.

The Minister's remark was deceptive, in my opinion, because we have exhaustively debated the subject both on Second Reading and in Committee and the Minister has heard the views of experts quoted from this side, also. I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment because there is expert advice to which he should have listened,

the advice of the sanitary inspectors to the Minister, and I would quote it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House probably know personally the sanitary inspectors in their own constituencies. They are men of the highest integrity, who have a responsible job, and, generally they are very well informed.

Without any interjections of my own I quote to the Minister what the Sanitary Inspectors' Association's advice to him on this matter is: Clause 1 (3, c). The General Council believe that the 'unsuitable fuel defence' will prove a serious loophole when dealing with emissions of dark smoke. Offenders will probably put forward this defence frequently and local authorities may find it difficult to satisfy the courts that the plea is not justified. No power is given to officers of local authorities to take samples of the fuel being used at the time the dark smoke is emitted. By the time proceedings are commenced in court all the fuel concerned may have been burned. The paragraph should be deleted. How the Minister can now tell us he has consulted the experts, even those he was asked to consult, when there is this expert advice given to him by this very responsible body, I find it difficult to understand, and for this reason I must ask my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 151.

Division No. 135.] AYES [7.5 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Chichester-Clark, R. Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)
Aitken, W. T. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Freeth, D. K.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Cole, Norman Garner-Evans, E. H.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Gibson-Watt, D.
Arbuthnot, John Corfield, Capt. F. V. Glover, D.
Armstrong, C. W. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Godber, J. B.
Atkins, H. E. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Gower, H. R.
Baldwin, A. E. Crouch, R. F. Graham, Sir Fergus
Balniel, Lord Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood) Green, A.
Barlow, Sir John Cunningham, Knox Gresham Cooke, R.
Barter, John Currie, G. B. H. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Baxter, Sir Beverley Danoe, J. C. G. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Davidson, Viscountess Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Gurden, Harold
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Deedes, W. F. Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bevins, J. R. (Tosteth) Digby, Simon Wingfield Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Bidgood, J. C. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Doughty, C. J. A. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Bishop, F. P. Drayson, G. B. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Body, R. F. du Cann, E. D. L. Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Bossom, Sir A. C. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Hay, John
Brainy, B. R. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Duthie, W. S. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir. A. (Warwick&L'm'tn) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Bryan, P. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Errington, Sir Eric Hinohingbrooke, Viscount
Butcher, Sir Herbert Farey-Jones, F. W. Hirst, Goeffrey
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Finlay, Graeme Holland-Martin, C. J.
Campbell, Sir David Fisher, Nigel Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Cary, Sir Robert Fletcher-Cooke, C. Horobin, Sir Ian
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Roper, Sir Harold
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Russell, R. S.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Maddan, Martin Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Marlowe, A. A. H. Shepherd, William
Hulbert, Sir Norman Marples, A. E. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hurd, A. R. Marshall, Douglas Spearman, A. C. M.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Mathew, R. Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Hyde, Montgomery Maude, Angus Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Iremonger, T. L. Mawby, R. L. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. Studholme, H. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Moore, Sir Thomas Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Morrison, John (Salisbury) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Nairn, D. L. S. Thompson, Lt,-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Joseph, Sir Keith Neave, Airey Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Keegan, D. Nugent, G. R. H. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Kerby, Capt. H. B. Oakshott, H. D. Touche, Sir Gordon
Kerr, H. W. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Turner, H. F. L.
Kimball, M. Osborne, C. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Lagden, G. W. Page, R. G. Vane, W. M. F.
Lambton, Viscount Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Partridge, E. Vickers, Miss J. H.
Leavey, J. A. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Vosper, D. F.
Leburn, W. G. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Pitman, I. J. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Pitt, Miss E. M. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Pott, H. P. Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Lloyd, Mal. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Powell, J. Enoch Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Longden, Gilbert Profumo, J. D. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Raikes, Sir Victor Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Rawlinson, Peter Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Redmayne, M. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Macdonald, Sir Peter Remnant, Hon. P. Woollam, John Victor
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Renton, D. L. M. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
McKibbin, A. J. Rippon, A. G. F.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Roberston, Sir David TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Mr. Barber.
NOES
Ainsley, J. W. Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McKay, John (Wallsend)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) McLeavy, Frank
Anderson, Frank Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Awbery, S. S. Fienburgh, W. Mann, Mrs. Jean
Bacon, Miss Alice Finch, H. J. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Benson, G. Fletcher, Eric Mason, Roy
Beswick, F. Forman, J. C. Mayhew, C. P.
Blackburn, F. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mitchison, G. R.
Blenkinsop, A. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Monslow, W.
Blyton, W. R. Gibson, C. W. Moody, A. S.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Gooch, E. G. Mort, D. L.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Moss, R.
Bowles, F. G. Greenwood, Anthony Moyle, A.
Boyd, T. C. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mulley, F. W.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Grey, C. F. Nabarro, G. D. N.
Brockway, A. F. Hamilton, W. W. Oram, A. E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hastings, S. Oswald, T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hayman, F. H. Paget, R. T.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Herbison, Miss M. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Burke, W. A. Holman, P. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Holt, A. F. Palmer, A. M. F.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Houghton, Douglas Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Howell, Denis (All Saints) Pargiter, G. A.
Champion, A. J. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Parkin, B. T.
Chapman, W. D. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Paton, J.
Clunie, J. Hunter, A. E. Pearson, A.
Coldrick, W. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) Poppiewell, E.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Johnson, James (Rugby) Pryde, D. J.
Cove, W. G. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Randall, H. E.
Caddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Redhead, E. C.
Crossman, R. H. S. Kenyon, C. Reeves, J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) King, Dr. H. M. Ross, William
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lawson, G. M. Royle, C.
Deer, G. Ledger, R. J. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Donnelly, D. L. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Short, E. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dye, S. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. MacColl, J. E. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) McGhee, H. G. Skeffington, A. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Viant, S. P. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Sparks, J. A. Warbey, W. N. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Watkins, T. E. Winterbottom, Richard
Stones, W. (Consett) Weitzman, D. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) Wells, Percy (Faversham) Woof, R. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. Wheeldon, W. E. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Sylvester, G. O. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.) Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) Wilkins, W. A. Zilliacus, K.
Thornton, E. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.

Question put and agreed to.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Powell

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end to insert: or (d) that the contravention complained of was due to the combination of two or more of the causes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection and that the other conditions specified in those paragraphs are satisfied in relation to those causes respectively. The effect of the Amendment is little more than drafting. As the Clause stands, there are three alternative defences, each of which, to succeed, must be shown to be the sole cause of the contravention. An absurdity arises, however, because if two of these clauses should happen to coincide neither of them would be the sole cause of the contravention, therefore both defences would fail.

Whatever hon. Members may think about the validity of any or all of these defences, it is clearly absurd that if they are valid separately they should not be valid cumulatively. It is absurd that it is a defence to prove lighting up of a furnace and a defence to prove, with the necessary qualifications, unsuitable fuel, but no defence if unsuitable fuel were used while the furnace was being lit up. It is merely to eliminate that absurdity from the drafting that I advise that it is necessary to add these words.

Dr. Summerskill

In the circumstances, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.