HC Deb 10 April 1956 vol 551 cc107-10
Mr. Powell

I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out "ten tons" and to insert "one ton".

Mr. Speaker

It seems to me that the Amendments in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), in page 4, line 18, and page 5, line 6, and the Amendment in the name of the Minister, in page 5, line 6, cover a similar point. I am entirely in the hands of hon. Members, but if it is agreeable, I think there might be a useful discussion upon the four Amendments and they might be put separately, if necessary, afterwards.

Mr. Powell

I should like to put these Amendments into their context in the Bill. In Clause 4 it is made an offence not to take any practical means that there may be for minimising the emission of grit and dust from a chimney serving a furnace or oven. That is the general provision; it is a universal requirement that any practicable means that there may be shall be taken for minimising the emission of grit and dust.

Then we come to Clauses 5 and 6. We insert in the Bill special provisions in regard to furnaces to be installed in future. The object of those special provisions which in the case of Clause 5 require prior approval to the grit arrestment plant by local authorities, and in the case of Clause 6 make it possible to impose requirements for measuring and recording the emission of grit and dust, is to avoid a situation in future whereby the user of a large furnace might say, "It is not practicable for me, owing to the layout and design of my furnace, to take effective means for minimising the emission of grit and dust." That is the background to and purpose of Clauses 5 and 6 in laying down the requirements in regard to certain types of furnaces to be installed in future.

The furnaces to which Clauses 5 and 6 are to be applied are those which burn either pulverised fuel at whatever rate and whatever amount or solid fuel at a certain minimum rate. The question that we are discussing is what is the right minimum rate of fuel consumption which should make it necessary that the design of the grit arrestment plant should be approved by the local authority before installation takes place in future.

I suggest that the right approach is to ascertain at what rate of consumption of solid fuel special measures require to be taken for the arrestment of grit and dust. We are trying to determine the critical rate of fuel consumption at which the arrestment plant becomes really complex and perhaps part of the layout of the furnace as a whole so that if the furnace were erected without such arrestment plant it would be a possibility for the defence to prove that it was not practicable to add it or insert it in the existing furnace.

I am advised that where fuel is burnt at a rate of up to one ton an hour the grit arrestment plant can be of a very simple and yet effective character—for example, the provision of an expansion chamber to the flue may be a satisfactory means of arresting grit and dust where the rate of fuel consumption does not exceed one ton an hour—but that above that rate it is necessary to have elaborate equipment which would be specially designed for the furnace and the process. If that advice—it is the best technical advice I have been able to obtain on the point—is correct, then one ton an hour is about the right critical point at which to bring into force the provisions of Clauses 5 and 6, because that is the point at which grit arrestment has to be thought of as part of the design of a furnace and plant.

In Committee, I indicated that the critical point of ten tons an hour was quite certainly much too high. It would affect very few furnaces indeed which are being installed. On the other hand, there is no point in going too low. For example, furnaces burning fuel at the rate of only one hundredweight an hour will be caught already under Clause 4, because the prosecution will be able to show that by a comparatively simple adaptation of the equipment it will be possible to minimise the emission of grit and dust. I therefore suggest to the House that one ton is about the right critical rate of burning to insert in Clauses 5 and 6, although one cannot perhaps have an exact figure in these matters.

Dr. Summerskill

The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this is an outstanding example of where the technicians went wrong. It is a most curious thing that the Beaver Committee should have advised ten tons. That reminds me of the last speech of the right hon. Gentleman, when he was quoting experts. In the course of discussing the Bill we have become a little sceptical when experts have made pronouncements. I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary was not too dogmatic, because he may later be compelled to reduce the figure of one ton.

I appreciate his point about the figure of one hundredweight. Perhaps he will recall the figures given by the Association of Municipal Corporations about the combustion per hour in factories in Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield. I gave those figures in detail in Committee, and I do not want to repeat them. However, I remind him of what was said about Stoke-on-Trent: No detailed figures are available from Stoke-on-Trent, but of the three water tube boilers, five Lancashire boilers, nine economic boilers and three Belgian continuous brick kilns none consumes solid fuel at a rate of ten tons an hour or more and only the water tube boilers consume fuel at more than one ton an hour. For this reason the Association of Municipal Corporations advises that ten tons, which it says rightly is a useless figure, should be replaced by one hundredweight. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that for all practical purposes one ton will cover these, and in those circumstances I do not want to press the two Amendments in my name.

Amendment agreed to.