§ 3.30 p.m.
§ Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)I beg to move, in page 12, line 38, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.It would also be convenient if we were to discuss, at the same time, the next Amendment, in page 13, line 5.These Amendments arise out of fairly lengthy discussions in Committee on the whole question of the position of local authorities in relation to smoke and the duties which those authorities should have. In Committee upstairs an Amendment was agreed to which, under certain provisions, transferred certain powers from the alkali inspectors to the local authorities, provided that the Minister 35 gave his sanction. Subsequently, we have given a good deal of consideration to the matter, and we agree that many local authorities are not in a position to carry out the whole inspection responsibilities which would attach to them if they had to do the work of the alkali inspectors. It may well be that there are not more than one or two cities where this could be done.
On the other hand, it is true that the main desire of the local authorities is to ensure that the smoke powers which they have always had are retained in their hands. There was very considerable anxiety on the part of local authority associations throughout the country about what their position would be and there was some doubt about the position even if the Amendment which was passed in Standing Committee had stood.
I think there can be no doubt that the main desire of the local authorities was to ensure that their officials retained the same smoke powers as those which they had held in the past and that these powers were not weakened in any way. To ensure this, the Amendments have been placed on the Notice Paper.
It will be noticed that we are taking out the provisions which were passed in Standing Committee. We are doing this to secure, we hope, the approval of the whole Committee for this Amendment. The effect will be that a local authority can make application and, subject to the Minister's approval—which, we understand, will not be withheld except for a good reason—the local authority officials will be able to carry on being responsible for dealing with smoke emissions, even from the scheduled processes and even from processes which the Minister may schedule in the future.
We want to take this opportunity to confirm our understanding that the Minister desires to review the processes which are at present scheduled. We understand that he intends to schedule certain extra metallurgical processes but that he is also anxious to reduce the number of processes which are scheduled, where there appears to be no particular necessity for scheduling them today. This scheduling procedure took place a long time ago and it is probably highly desirable that we should think not only in terms of adding certain processes to 36 the schedule, but also of removing some from the schedule. The Minister takes specific powers in the Clause to do so, and we want his assurance that he is as anxious to make use of that power as he is to add to the list of scheduled processes.
It has been suggested to us that, if that is his attitude towards the scheduled processes, then the defence provisions as they stood under Clause 1 would need some reconsideration in regard to the wider powers for the local authorities' inspectors, and we have, though with some doubt, agreed to insert in the Amendment the rather wider term—the old term—"the best practicable means" defence, but only for this Clause. I hope that by accepting this position and putting down the Amendment we shall obtain the agreement of the whole Committee.
We are all anxious, I am sure, that local authorities should retain the widest possible powers in this matter. The success or failure of the Measure depends very much on their activity. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment commands the support of everyone in the Committee.
§ The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys)I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, (Mr. Blenkinsop) that the Amendment made in Standing Committee was unsatisfactory, the main reason being that it empowered the Minister to transfer to local authorities the duty of operating the Alkali Act, which includes far wider matters than those of smoke, grit and dust, with which we are primarily concerned in the Bill. Although, owing to the absence of one or two of my hon. Friends, and the presence of one of my hon. Friends, the Amendment was carried in Standing Committee, I pointed out on that occasion that it would not be a suitable function for local authority inspectors to carry out. These are technical processes of a very specialised character.
The Standing Committee was concerned mainly to see that where a local authority had competent staff and facilities, and where in all other circumstances it was desirable, the authority should be empowered to carry out these functions by itself. The Committee was concerned that in those cases the Minister should 37 be able to transfer these responsibilities to the local authority in question.
As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, indicated, there have been consultations between the Government and the Opposition in this matter. I feel that the Amendment which he has moved is satisfactory and that it goes as far as is reasonable to meet the point of view which has been expressed both by the local authorities and by hon. Members in Standing Committees. I recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)I gathered from what Mr. Speaker said a few moments ago that if the Minister uttered the words he has just spoken I should not be likely to have an opportunity to move the Amendments to Clause 15 which are in my name.
If a local authority is big enough to have all these powers, surely, in heavy industrial areas such as Tees-side, where the authorities are virtually side by side, they should have the same responsibility. At present, they are separate authorities and, therefore, would not of themselves be competent to undertake these powers. If they were to combine to deal with this matter, as has been done on Tees-side, they might be able to acquire the powers of bigger authorities through a joint committee.
I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, later, he would insert into the Bill the words "joint committee," as, by doing so, he would improve the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Not only would big authorities be able to undertake this responsibility but groups of authorities closely associated, as, in certain parts of the country, they are, particularly on Tees-side, could perform the same functions and be given the same responsibilities.
§ Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)I am always a little embarrassed in intervening in a discussion of a subject which has been exhaustively examined in Committee upstairs when the Bill comes to Committee of the whole House. My excuse for doing so on this occasion is that I imagine no one has a stronger constituency interest in this matter than I have. I do not think that in the normal calculus of size my authority can be called a large town, but it certainly is a place which 38 has a large smell. The whole industrial prosperity and existence of the borough I represent rests on the fact that not so very long ago—about 100 years—the chemical industry was moved consecutively out of Liverpool and St. Helens to my borough.
This problem of pollution—alkali pollution as well as ordinary smoke pollution—is a very difficult and acute one. It is difficult and acute from both points of view. On the one hand, damage done and suffering caused by pollution is very great indeed, but it is equally true that the whole industrial prosperity—and it is a very great prosperity in the area—depends on the fact that the chemical industry is able to operate there.
It is a problem of balancing good against evil. It is a problem of balancing trouble caused by smoke and other forms of pollution that come out of chimneys against the vital industry which is of tremendous national importance and on which the whole country depends and which, I suppose, has led to my borough becoming the premier chemical town of the country.
3.45 p.m.
These things have to be examined and ought to be balanced locally. This matter is one of tremendous local importance. That seems a very strong reason why the local interest and responsibility of the local authority ought to be very much emphasised. I saw with some pleasure the original subsection in the Clause. I gather it was inserted in Committee upstairs. It made clear that in an area like mine, where no amount of money expended in dealing with this problem could be regarded as extravagant and where local authorities must regard this as a major responsibility, it would be possible for the authority to have responsibility for this work.
I would not have intervened after hon. Members have been discussing this question for many hours, but I wished to underline a point which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate when he considers how much power can be devolved to local authorities. I hope he will bear in mind that it is not just a question of the great county borough with tremendous resources, but of an area like mine, a small non-county borough to which, nevertheless, this is a problem of disproportionate size. Its whole life and 39 prosperity and economic well-being is bound up in the chemical industry.
Therefore, for good or evil, we have to tackle these problems. We must have a knowledge of them as we have to live with them. I hope the Minister will see that everything is done to bring the local authority into the picture when he examines how much he can devolve responsibility under the terms of the Bill. I accept the agreed compromise for what it brings. Although I have been rather an extremist about it, I am glad to accept this compromise.
§ Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)I do not want unduly to take up the time of the Committee, because the Minister has been good enough to accept this Amendment. Over a long time progressive local authorities which have had to deal with the problem of smoke, grit and dust in their localities have found themselves frustrated by reason of the scheduled industries concerned with the Alkali Act and regulations and the exempted processes under the Public Health Act.
I welcome this Amendment because it gives those progressive local authorities an opportunity now of dealing in part with the problem with which for a long time they have wanted to deal. It is true that the Amendment does not go quite so far as we should have liked, for instance, in Sheffield, but it goes far enough to give help and encouragement to local authorities to deal with the problem in its wider aspects as they have been trying to deal with it for a long time. I welcome the Amendment, not because it will do all that we require, but because it goes as far as the Minister can go having regard to the Alkali Act and because I believe he has conceded as much as possible. I thank the Minister on behalf of the City of Sheffield, which has been in the forefront of this fight for a long time. We appreciate the action which he has taken.
§ Commander R. Scott-Miller (King's Lynn)I welcome this arrangement because my constituency has been affected by a similar situation to that described by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). There is a large chemical works in King's Lynn which supplies just as much service to the agricultural industry as the great chemical industries supply to industrial firms in the Midlands. 40 During the processing at this chemical and manure works, there has, most unfortunately, been the emission of fumes which have been a source of great inconvenience to the nearby residents in the town. Indeed, I have corresponded with my right hon. Friend on this very point. Since it could not, however, be established that there was any danger to the health of the residents, the local authority was quite limited in its power to do anything about it.
It remained to my right hon. Friend to bring his alkali inspectors on the scene and between them, and with the good and active co-operation of the works concerned, steps have been taken to improve matters. I certainly welcome the opportunity afforded by the Bill to give local authorities a closer interest in these matters so that they can help to improve the amenities of their towns.
§ Mr. Arthur Moyle (Oldbury and Halesowen)The Minister has been exceedingly diplomatic in marrying both sides of the Committee and securing an almost unanimous decision on the Amendment in utilising the co-operation of local authorities who have the technically qualified people to contribute towards strengthening the central inspectorate. There is no doubt that there was strong feeling among local authorities on this issue, although, as the Minister knows, I come down strongly on the side of the central inspectorate.
In view of the Amendment, which the Minister has accepted in the light of what happened elsewhere, may I take it that when the right hon. Gentleman uses the technical staff of local authorities, he will contribute towards the cost? He will know that the Alkali Act, 1906, provided for a contribution of 50 per cent. in the case of approved appointments.
§ Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)I rise only to urge further the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), who asked that consideration be given by the Minister to the question of joint committees. Obviously, the type of technician who must be employed by a local authority—or, if the Minister accepts my hon. Friend's plea about joint committees, by a group of local authorities—is not easily found, nor would his salary be small.
41 Moreover, the Minister will agree that in our discussions upstairs, we accepted that this type of civil servant, technician or scientist was one who could supervise a fairly large area and that, therefore, it would be rather invidious for, say, Manchester to ask for these powers, which are permissively mentioned in the Amendment, and for Salford next door to do so at the same time or that the Tyneside should not collaborate together to have one technician or to have the service concentrated together, in the same way as a joint board concentrates upon the purpose of providing water for a large area including a number of local authorities.
In Stoke-on-Trent, we have on our doorstep the loyal and ancient Borough of Newcastle. If we were ever to qualify in this way, we would want to bring our neighbours in with us, or vice versa.
§ Mr. BlenkinsopNewcastle-under-Lyme?
§ Dr. StrossYes. Did I say "on-Tyne"?
§ Dr. StrossI said "the loyal and ancient borough," which puts it in its proper setting, for Newcastle-upon-Tyne has no such claim. Indeed, the borough is the second oldest in the country, which again puts it in its proper setting.
If one local authority may say to the Minister, "We are now ready to do this work. Will you accept that we may do it?" it would seem to be right for a group of contiguous local authorities to act in the same way.
§ Mr. SandysI am glad to know, from the speeches on both sides of the Committee, that this solution to the problem is generally acceptable. Two or three points have been raised during this short debate. One was by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), who asked whether the salaries and expenses of the inspectors who might be appointed by the local authorities would be paid by the Exchequer. The answer, I am afraid, is "No".
Local authorities cannot have it both ways. If a local authority wishes to take over responsibility for this function, the salaries and expenses of the inspectors concerned will have to be treated like the salaries and expenses of the sanitary 42 inspector or any other local authority official.
§ Mr. MoyleEven in relation to specific instances of excepted industries like the chemical industry?
§ Mr. SandysIf the hon. Member is referring to the alkali inspectors, that is another matter. There are special provisions for the appointment of additional inspectors. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to inspectors who would apply the provisions of the subsection with which we are now dealing—
§ Mr. Sandys—and who would be concerned exclusively with the prevention of smoke, grit and dust. In that case, it would be proper for a local authority which applies to have these functions transferred to it to meet the expenditure in the ordinary way. I do not see that we could make a case for treating these inspectors differently from other inspectors employed by the local authority.
A number of hon. Members—the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller)—all expressed the hope that local authorities would be as closely associated as possible with the operation of this part of the Bill, and, in fact, with the operation of the Bill as a whole. I have on a number of occasions made it quite clear that in my view the whole success of this policy depends upon the close co-operation and active participation of local authorities in its administration and in the general pursuit of this policy.
An important point was raised by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), who was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). They raised the point which is set out in the Amendments of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, which, no doubt, will not be moved if the present Amendment is adopted. It is the question whether, in the case of local authorities who by themselves are not financially or technically sufficiently strongly equipped to carry out these functions individually, it would be possible for these duties and responsibilities to be transferred collectively to a group of local authorities in an area.
43 The Bill does not specifically provide for that, nor does the Amendment, but I have gone into the point and am reasonably satisfied that there would be no difficulty in transferring these powers to a number of local authorities and making it a condition of such transfer that they should set up a joint committee for the purpose of operating these powers. Since there is power in the Amendment to terminate the delegation of powers, obviously that should be a sufficient guarantee that the joint committee would continue to be operated. It should be entirely satisfactory.
4.0 p.m.
Nonetheless, I will look into it further. Should it be necessary, I will see that the point is not lost sight of in another place. I believe that the Amendment as it stands would satisfactorily meet the point raised by the two hon. Members.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 5, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
(2) The Minister may, if, on the application of the local authority, he is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is expedient so to do, by order apply the provisions of this subsection to the whole or any specified part of any premises controlled under the Alkali Act, and, in that event, in relation to any period for which the order is in force—
§ Any order under this subsection may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order of the Minister.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.