Clause 9.—(SMOKE CONTROL AREAS.) (Hansard, 10 April 1956)

§ Mr. Powell
I beg to move in page 7, line 20, to leave out "undue smoke" and to insert: any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke". 111 This Amendment is put down in implementation of an undertaking given in Committee to seek an improvement upon the word "undue". The purpose is one which we all share. We recognise that we want to encourage the use in smoke control areas of fireplaces which will burn fuels other than inherently smokeless fuels, without emitting very much smoke. The difficulty is to define in statutory terms that minimal amount of smoke. There was, rightly, objection to the word "undue" as being a very subjective expression and we have therefore, endeavoured to substitute for it something more objective which can be more easily grasped.
I hope that the House will feel that the requirement that these appliances shall either cause no smoke or no substantial amount of smoke will be thought to be an improvement on the existing wording.

§ Dr. Stross
I am sorry that I pressed for the omission of the words "undue smoke", for I strongly feel that the words any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke are worse than those to which I objected.
Of course, I appreciate the difficulty in trying to find words that will stand investigation and which can possibly replace the adjective "undue". I must at once admit that I am in cordial agreement with the phrase "any smoke", but the next phrase is as difficult to define as the word "undue". It could be argued that a substantial quantity of smoke does not mean -anything very different from the word "undue".
Will the Minister consider the word "appreciable" instead of "undue"? I think that that would meet the wishes of the House. I know that I am springing this suddenly, but we have all been in difficulty over this matter. In Committee, I suggested the word "minimal". The word "appreciable" in this context is something that most of us would understand. The advice from the Technical Committee of the National Smoke Abatement Society was: Technically, it is considered that a domestic smoke-reducing coal burning appliance designed to be appropriate for a 112 smoke control area should not be approved unless the smoke reduction is of the order of 90 per cent. compared with that from the stool-bottom grate. The Parliamentary Secretary has seen that document. If he agrees with me, will he not let us have our way and withdraw his suggestion and agree at a later stage to use the word "appreciable"?

§ Mr. Sandys
I am most anxious on this point to meet hon. Members in all parts of the House. That is why we put forward the Amendment. I feel that the words which have been proposed, after a good deal of thought any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke really meet the point raised in Committee. I should not be happy about the use of the word "appreciable," because almost any amount of smoke is "appreciable," if one can detect it, and I do not know what interpretation the courts would put upon that. Obviously, the 10 per cent. would not be substantial. That was the amount referred to by the hon. Member. I hope that the House will accept this revised version which certainly was intended to meet the point, and I think does so "substantially" or "appreciably."

§ Dr. Summerskill
I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, at the end to insert: Provided that before making an order under this subsection the Minister shall consult with the local authority unless he is satisfied that, on account of urgency, such consultation is impracticable. This Amendment, together with the following Amendment in line 31, was put down following the sympathetic reception by the Minister of our approach to this subject. Both Amendments are self-explanatory.