HC Deb 10 April 1956 vol 551 cc102-7
Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, after "approved," to insert: for the purposes of this section.

Dr. Stross

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Powell

This is a desirable clarification and I suggest that it might be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker

The next two Amendments, both in page 3, line 41, seem to be alternatives and should be discussed together.

Mr. Powell

I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, at the end to add: (4) This section shall not apply to furnaces designed solely or mainly for use for domestic purposes. This brings some of us back to a subject on which we had much discussion in Committee. The Clause with which we are dealing requires that new furnaces installed after the appointed day shall be so far as practicable capable of being operated continuously without emitting smoke. … It also provides that a local authority may approve the plans and specifications of such a furnace.

I think there is general agreement that the main object of the Clause is to deal with industrial furnaces. I think there is also general agreement that we would not wish these provisions to apply to small boilers or furnaces operated in a private house or even serving two or three flats in the same building. The difficulty has arisen over furnaces, which may be large ones, that serve an hotel or a large block of flats or even conceivably, under community heating, a series of blocks of flats. The difficulty of bringing those large furnaces under the scope of this Clause, while not bringing in all furnaces, is to find some criterion which will distinguish between those we want to include and those we want to exclude.

This Amendment uses design as the criterion, making it dependent upon the purpose for which the furnace is designed, whether or not it will fall within the scope of the Clause. Certainly, it is necessary that there should be some limitation and, up to the present, the criterion of design is the best which my right hon. Friend has been able to find. However it leaves out large furnaces which, it might be claimed, were designed for domestic purposes but which were heating large blocks of flats or hotels, and which ought not to escape from the provisions of the Clause.

Therefore, my right hon. Friend is considering whether some other criterion—for example, that of size—might not be rendered capable of definition in such a way as to be written into the Bill. The objects are agreed on both sides of the House and I would hope that for the time being the House would agree to what is, in effect the re-insertion of this subsection, which imports the criterion of design, on the understanding that my right hon. Friend will endeavour to find, for insertion in another place, a form of words and a criterion which will enable large furnaces serving hotels or large blocks of flats to be brought within the scope of the Clause.

Mr. J. Hynd

I beg to move, in page 3, line 41—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member cannot move that Amendment because we are discussing another Amendment at the moment. However, these two Amendments can be discussed together, as I have said. The hon. Member is entitled to refer to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and to explain its purpose but both Amendments cannot be accepted.

Mr. Hynd

I am sorry, Sir. I assume that I can discuss the second Amendment and then move it formally at the end?

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps I misheard the hon. Member. There can be only one Amendment before the House at a time. The one before the House is that moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, in page 3, line 41, to add a new subsection (4). The hon. Member may speak to that Amendment, but he cannot move his Amendment unless this one is defeated.

Mr. Hynd

Thank you, Sir. I shall speak to the Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary and, in doing so, I shall welcome the spirit in which he has moved it. However, I speak for my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friends when I say that we are not entirely satisfied with the assurance given to us.

As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this point was widely discussed in Committee. The fact that the Government have gone so far as to say that they will seek further definition which might deal with the real objection which they now realise can be directed towards the words that they are trying to insert in the Bill is, of course, proof of the fact that the Government recognise that their own wording is not entirely satisfactory.

That, of course, was the burden of our criticism in Committee, and the criticism that I am making now against the idea that we can cover the point with which, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, we are all concerned, namely, the great possibility there is of avoiding the purpose of the Clause under this type of work.

In dealing with the Government Amendment I presume, Sir, that I can explain why we prefer another type of wording, particularly that mentioned in the later Amendment. The reason is that the definition "domestic purposes" is, as the hon. Gentleman admitted, not sufficiently explicit. My hon. Friends and I still feel that the words a separate house or part of a house occupied as a separate building are much more clear and distinct and allow no loophole that we can see.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the question of design brings in not the use of the furnace, but what it might have been designed for originally. The hon. Gentleman said that the Minister might find a criterion which would deal with its size. It may or it may not be possible to find such a formula, but I would like from the Government an answer to the question, why is it necessary to look for anything further than the words in the latter Amendment: a separate house or part of a house occupied as a separate building"?

Dr. Stross

If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, I know of some houses that are bigger than many large hotels.

Mr. Hynd

That is the kind of difficulty we are up against.

What we are really concerned about, however, is that the furnace should be generally used for what are popularly known as domestic purposes, but which ought not to be covered by the phrase "domestic purposes" inserted into an Act of Parliament. The phrase a separate house or part of a house occupied as a separate building seems to be specific, and in an Act of Parliament could not possibly be misunderstood.

We are faced with the difficulty not so much of the size of the house, although that creates another slight difficulty, but with the large blocks of flats or other masses of buildings of this kind which could require immense boilers to serve them. The boilers could then be claimed to have been designed for domestic purposes because they were designed for the purpose of serving domestic premises, however great the area over which they were spread. That, in itself, would give rise to the nuisance we are trying to abate and from which we are trying to exempt purely dwelling houses.

It is also possible to conceive of a boiler designed for that purpose being used either within the same premises which might be transformed into industrial premises in the long run, or being taken out of these premises and being installed in a factory and used in exactly the same way as another furnace in another factory, but being exempt because originally it was designed for domestic purposes. Obviously, such an anomaly should not be permitted to stand in an Act of Parliament, and it is for that reason we have put down our Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary has given us an assurance, which we are glad to have, that the Government are concerned about putting into the final Measure the purposes which we are all seeking to meet in this Clause. However, before we could accept that as the final assurance for passing the Clause in its present form we are entitled to a clear statement as to why the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister consider that our alternative wording does not meet the difficulty which the Parliamentary Secretary says his right hon. Friend will try to overcome in some other way.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree not to tie himself down too narrowly in looking at the point again. We are glad to hear that he and his right hon. Friend are prepared to examine it. I would remind the hon. Member that in Committee his hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) mentioned that in its Bill Manchester Corporation has wording similar to that proposed in our Amendment, and seems to find it a satisfactory provision. Consequently, I find it a little difficult to understand why the Parliamentary Secretary should boggle at accepting a similar form of words here.

Mr. Nabarro

I should like to put a further question to my hon. Friend. There is a good deal of doubt in certain quarters about the use of the expression "domestic purposes." This relates itself to the use of "dwelling" in Clause 10.

Is a boarding house or hotel a building which may be classified as being in use for domestic purposes, or is a boarding house or hotel a dwelling? This is an important point. Certain large buildings may be used in part for residential purposes by the owner or occupier, but the remainder of the building may be let. Where the dividing line is as between a boarding house or hotel, on the one hand, and a private dwelling, on the other, and whether a boarding house or hotel is properly classified as a building used for domestic purposes appears to be somewhat vague. This is a matter of some importance on this Amendment and on an Amendment in my name to Clause 10.

Mr. Powell

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I do not think that the expression "domestic purposes" is interpretable in the light of the meaning of "dwelling". Its purpose in this subsection is to represent the opposite to "industrial purposes" and it has to be read in conjunction with the word "design". It follows that if the criterion of design is to be reconsidered, the expression "domestic purposes" must also be reconsidered in that connection.

One of the difficulties about accepting the alternative form of words proposed by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), namely, that many separate houses may well be as large as or larger than blocks of flats or hotels which we all feel it would be desirable, if possible to bring within the scope of the Clause. It seems that it is something to do with size that we are all endeavouring to define. It is the small domestic appliance that we want to exempt, and we want some means of turning that into statutory language. It is that means which my right hon. Friend has undertaken to seek.

Amendment agreed to.