CLEAN AIR

HC Deb 10 July 1958 vol 591 cc718-30

10.3 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 878), dated 22nd May, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be annulled. I should make clear that the intention of moving this Prayer is not to destroy the purpose of these Regulations, but to seek further information and to give publicity to a fairly important matter. Those hon. Members who are sitting in their seats with anxiety can quietly go back to their beds with every assurance, if they do not take special interest in the matter.

The Regulations arise out of the Clean Air Act, 1956, Section 20 of which relates to vessels emitting dark smoke. This is one of the last of a series of Regulations to be brought forward under that Act. I welcome the fact that the Ministry has brought them forward. I have been rather anxious, because I found in many quarters that local authorities seemed to be utterly unaware of the fact that the Regulations had been introduced. As they raise quite important matters, I thought that it might be as well if we could clarify one or two points which. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, are not necessarily very clear on the face of the Regulations.

As I understand, the position under the Regulations is that a vessel may not emit black smoke for longer than three minutes continuously in a period of half an hour, which is a very considerable period, nor can dark smoke be emitted from oil-fired vessels for longer than a continuous emission of four minutes in half an hour. In some cases, longer periods are provided for.

One question that arises is that there appears to me to be no provision here, although it may have escaped my notice, with reference to the continuous emission in the third category in the Schedule. There is provision for the maximum emission in the aggregate for a period of an hour for coal-fired boiler furnaces in vessels, but, as far as I can see from the Regulations, there is no provision relating to continuous emissions in these categories, unlike the other categories specified in the Schedule to the Regulations. If I am mistaken about that, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can put me right.

Some problems arise under the Regulations. Some local authorities have been asking precisely who it is who will take action under the Regulations, and, of course, provisions are laid down in Section 20 of the Clean Air Act regarding the definition of which local authority should take action—the authority, apparently, which is nearer to the vessel committing the nuisance. There is also the question whether an authority like a port health authority will be able to take action. Indeed, that may be a much more suitable body to do so.

Then there is the further question as to what action is to be taken to let foreign shipping know that these Regulations are now in force, and what action may be taken by a local authority, by a port health authority or by any other competent body, either to bring prosecutions or to warn vessels of this situation?

The cases where this is most likely to arise will occur in connection with some of our busier rivers and highly industrialised areas, and where there are a lot of tugs and possibly ferries in operation. That may be so in rivers like the Tyne and others. Many of these vessels are fairly large and mostly coal-fired. Under the provisions of the Regulations, it seems to be possible for such a vessel to do almost what it likes, because the limitation is a very slight one.

I appreciate the difficulties. Various bodies, including the National Union of Seamen, have issued some circulars putting forward their views and expressing their anxiety lest there should be any change made in the Regulations. I realise that there have been discussions with health inspectors, among others, about the actual wording of the Regulations, but I hope that the Ministry will watch their operation, and, if it proves necessary later, when more experience has been gained, will bring forward amending proposals.

I hope that they will encourage local authorities to take note of what occurs in those areas—I am not suggesting that this is necessarily widespread—where there may be a very real nuisance. I remember that not very long ago we had complaints from hon. Members about offensive emissions of dark smoke from tugs and other vessels coming down the Thames. I hope that hon. Members will be reasonably careful in their checking of what happens after the passing of the Regulations.

One point almost of amusement is in the actual wording of the Regulations, which says: For the purposes of the said schedule a vessel is not under way when it is at anchor or made fast to the shore or bottom, and a vessel which is aground may be deemed to be under way". No doubt that is all necessary, but it is an example of what our legal draftsmen find necessary to say in Regulations of this kind.

I invite the hon. Gentleman to give some explanation, if he can, of the one or two detailed points that I have raised and to give an assurance that the matter will be kept under review. I ask him specifically about the position of local authorities and port health authorities in enforcing the Regulations, whether he will be sure to take advice from competent bodies in the coming months and, if it is possible to strengthen these provisions, to take the earliest opportunity of so doing.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)

I beg to second the Motion.

I do not want to go over the ground which has been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). I thank him for his analysis of the situation and support him in the questions he put to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not propose to paraphrase what he has said, but I should like to touch on the point about publicity being given to these Regulations. I know that many port authorities and many local authorities controlling areas where these vessels are anchored, and indeed many shipping concerns, are rather curious to know how the Regulations will be applied. It is necessary that there should be as full an explanation as possible so that they will know how to conduct themselves in future in order to keep within the Regulations.

Another question which arises, and which was touched upon by my hon. Friend, is whether these Regulations are like the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not which exist for all time. One has to remember that the Clean Air Act came into being not merely to set certain standards and to provide punishments for those who offend by excessive emissions of dark smoke. It was also intended that the Act should encourage those installing furnaces on land and in vessels which go to sea and do not so offend. The Act envisages a period of seven years in which owners of vessels can do all possible to install the kind of furnace which will minimise smoke emissions. Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to amend the Regulations to bring them more in line with Regulations covering furnaces on land? I think it is very important that we should know the Government's intention about that.

The next question I wish to ask is affected by the Regulations, although it is not mentioned in them. The Regulations under Section 20 apply to smoke emission; fumes and dirt are not covered by the Regulations, which deal only with furnaces, smoke and dark smoke. In Section 3 (3) we read: A furnace to which subsection (1) of this section applies shall not be installed in a building or in any such boiler or plant as is mentioned in the said subsection (1) unless notice of the proposal to install it"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

Order. The Regulations deal only with vessels, not with buildings.

Mr. Winterbottom

With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Section 20 says, Sections one and two of this Act shall apply in relation to vessels in waters to which this section applies as they apply in relation to buildings … Those are the circumstances which we are now discussing. Notice has to be given to the local authority as to the type of furnace installed, and unless this notice is given there is a contravention of the subsection. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary where has the notice to be given of any change in the furnace of one of these ships? Must it be given to the port authority, to the local authority nearest to the place where the new boiler is being installed or to the port of registration?

If the subsection deals with vessels at sea, as I think it does, everybody should know which is the authority to which the ship's captain or the ship's master has to report any change in the furnace. The position is much more complicated when we remember that British ships, built in Britain, with finance provided by Britain and conducting all their operations through British ports, may nevertheless have a port of registration abroad. If the provisions in respect of the installation of new furnaces are to be applied to vessels within territorial waters, there may be some complication.

I know that I have not given the Parliamentary Secretary much notice, and I shall be the first to excuse him if he has not a ready answer to my question. However, I should like him to look at the problem, and, if he cannot answer now, perhaps he will let me know as early as possible the results of his inquiries.

I do not object to these Regulations at all. I assume that there have been consultations between the health inspectors of the various districts affected, the specialist smoke abatement officers, the port authorities and the local authorities in the affected areas. It does not need any great stretch of imagination to believe that the shipping authorities have also been consulted about these maximum permitted periods of smoke emission.

I do not object to these Regulations, but the Government should give every encouragement to those responsible for the ships, tugs and small coastal vessels which enter our harbours and rivers to improve the installation of these boilers and furnaces that result in the constant emission, not only of dark smoke and of black smoke but, what is much worse—and not covered by the Act—grit and dust which fall upon our population. We know that the Government intend to pursue this Act to its logical conclusion, and the assurances for which we have asked will help to convince us of their purpose.

10.22 p.m.

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner (Barkston Ash)

I must confess that when I first read it, I was a little apprehensive of this Motion. I did not then know, as the House knows now, that it had been tabled almost wholly for the purpose of obtaining information rather than as a proposal which would merit acceptance by this House.

I want to speak only briefly, but I hope that during the course of my remarks I shall justify the special Regulations that have been introduced to deal with shipping.

I want to make it clear at once that all sections of the shipping industry support, in general, the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Of course they do. I do not think, however, that any right hon. or hon. Member would dissent from the view that the Act was inspired certainly by the advisability and, as some may think, the necessity of dealing with chimneys ashore. It was only incidentally, although correctly and unavoidably, that Regulations were introduced to deal with ships in our rivers, ports and harbours, which are often in the very heart of our great cities.

Nevertheless, it is worth while noting that, in its main Report, the Beaver Committee made no specific reference at all to smoke from ships, and I suppose that we can conclude from that that smoke from ships is not a major source of pollution of the air—

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)

I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that, important though shipping is to the activities of Garston, Liverpool and the Merseyside in general, the smoke emitted by it can be a major source of annoyance to the people there.

Colonel Sir L. Ropner

I was quoting from the Beaver Report and saying that, in general, shipping is not a major factor in the pollution of the air. I thought that I did qualify my remarks by saying that many of our ports and harbours, for instance, in Liverpool, London, Glasgow, on the Tyne and elsewhere, are in the very heart of our big cities. In any case, the fact that shipping is relatively such a small factor in air pollution is not the reason for separate Regulations for ships. The reason is that the characteristics of a ship, regarding it as a floating, mobile furnace, are utterly different from those of land-based, industrial furnaces. I think that that must be self-evident.

A great ship, or even a small ship, manœuvring in port may have a sudden demand for power, of varying or sustained intensity, which leads inevitably, for a short time at any rate, to the emission of dark smoke, sometimes smoke so dark that it may well be considered black.

I should like to read an extract from the Government pamphlet called "Clean Air Act, 1956; Memorandum on Industrial Provisions." It reads: Even where the boiler or engine equipment of a vessel is normally capable of complying with Section 1 of the Act, exceptional circumstances may of course anise in which dark or even black smoke for prolonged periods may be unavoidable, e.g., when ships are proceeding against unfavourable winds or tides, or in emergency when maximum power is required to avoid collision, grounding or risk to life. The concluding sentence is: The Regulations do not cover all such contingencies but due allowance should be made for them. These factors, together with many other considerations, necessitate special Regulations for ships.

I know that these Regulations were not drafted in haste. I think that, to some extent, this answers the question put by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom). Very considerable thought and discussion were devoted to them.

The House should know that the Seamen's Union and the officers' union and shipowners' organisations are unanimous in the view that the exemptions granted by these Regulations are the minimum possible if the Clean Air Act is to provide a sensible and workable code for shipping. I say again that I am glad that the Prayer was moved only for the purpose of obtaining information.

10.29 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins)

Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), I was very glad to have the assurance of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) that this discussion had been initiated for exploratory purposes and that he had no intention of dividing the House. If I may say so, I think that that is a very good thing because, if there were a Division and, by any chance, this Prayer were to succeed, the shipping industry would be in a very sad plight indeed.

I would like, first, to give the House some background to the Regulations and then to deal with some of the rather detailed questions which have been put by hon. Members. The House will know that Section 1 of the Clean Air Act, 1956, prohibits the emission of dark smoke from chimneys and that Section 20 of the Act applies this prohibition to vessels. Under the Act, my right hon. Friend has power to make regulations exempting certain periods of dark smoke emission from the general ban. In March this year, as hon. Members will recall, he exercised this power in the case of shore installations. For vessels, which have entirely different problems, and, generally speaking, more complicated problems, than land installations, my right hon. Friend has now made the Regulations which are tonight before the House. They permit vessels to emit dark smoke for certain periods without offending under Section 1 of the Act.

The Regulations, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said, specify the permitted periods, which differ according to the class of boiler or the engine in the ship All these periods are subject to the overriding proviso that black smoke—that is, as dark as, or darker than, shade 4 on the Ringelmann chart—should not be emitted for longer than three minutes in the aggregate in any period of half an hour.

That at once raises the question why the Minister has made these Regulations less stringent for ships than the earlier Regulations which applied to installations on land. We should much have preferred, had it been practicable, to introduce stronger Regulations than we have done. Indeed, for the sake of clean air, which we all want, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr Tilney) that we should like to see smoke from ships stopped altogether, but that is easier said than done.

The making of the Regulations presented a good deal of difficulty, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barks-ton Ash well knows. We have had to cover a wide range of vessels from the aristocratic liners to the more plebian trawlers, tugs and all the other small craft that inhabit our rivers. We have had to take into account the different types of boiler plant in use and the extent to which alterations or re-equipment to improve performance is feasible.

There are all sorts of other factors: for example, the state of the shipping industry itself, what we can reasonably expect of tired crews, and particularly tired stokers, coming into harbour perhaps at the end of a very tiring journey and the fact that we have to provide for ships lying alongside and for ships which are under way in all sorts of weather, wind and tides. In saying this, I am in no sense apologising for the Regulations, but I want to give the House some idea of the complexities surrounding the subject.

We have, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash said, hammered out these standards after discussions with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, the shipping industry, the seamen's unions and with the dock and harbour authorities, and certain of the port health inspectors. I do not want, at this hour, to plunge into a sea of technical details, as one easily could on a subject of this sort, but I must say that the majority of ships now in commission have oil-fired boiler furnaces. For these, the Regulations lay down a general limit of 10 minutes of dark smoke in two hours or in one hour where there are natural draught boilers. There is also a limit of four minutes for continuous bursts of dark smoke. Longer periods are allowed for coal-fired ships when under way, but there is an over-riding limit of three minutes to black smoke in any period of 30 minutes

These are clear and, I think, effective limits, and, taken as a whole, the Regulations certainly represent a much stricter control over smoke from ships than has been possible hitherto under the Public Health Acts. Until now it has been necessary to prove nuisance in the case of smoke from harbour craft, and nuisance by black smoke in the case of sea-going ships. Very rarely in practice did the black smoke byelaw cover shipping. In any case, sea-going ships were exempt from its application.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East very rightly asked an important question about enforcement. Who, in the first place, will enforce these slightly complicated Regulations? The enforcement authorities are the usual local authorities, other than county councils, except in those areas where there is a port health authority. In those areas, such as the Thames, Merseyside, and Tyneside, the port health authority will be the responsible body.

We have brought these Regulations to the notice of all these authorities in an explanatory memorandum which was issued by my right hon. Friend by circular of 29th May. Naturally, I have read it and it certainly expresses quite simply the import of the Regulations. I will see that hon. Members who have evinced an interest in the subject tonight receive a copy of it.

How will these authorities discharge their obligations for enforcement? It would be quite idle for me to pretend that this will be an easy or simple task. After all, the factory which belches smoke is on the ground and is immobile. A vessel is usually mobile and is on water. I know that that is a statement of the obvious, but we ought to bear that in mind when we consider these Regulations. Ships under way are like moving targets.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Some of these ships might be aground.

Mr. Bevins

I am coming to the hon. Member's subtleties in a moment.

As I have just said, ships under way are like moving targets and it might not be easy, in certain circumstances, to keep a ship under proper observation. When there is no public health authority, the question is: which authority will be responsible for enforcement?

Section 20 of the Clean Air Act says: … a vessel in any waters … which are not within the district of any local authority shall be deemed to be within the district of the local authority whose district includes that point on land which is nearest to the spot where the vessel is. Complaints have been made about the draftsmen, but these words are a tribute to them. They are a far better definition of what we had in mind than any words that my right hon. Friend and I could devise.

If a ship is leaving port, the authority will have to observe the offence and transmit notice of the offence through the ship's agent. In the case of foreign-owned ships we have told the local authorities and port and harbour authorities to explain the position on first contravention and, if the authority later decides to take proceedings, we have asked it to notify the consular office of the country to which the vessel belongs. I think that perhaps for the moment that is as far as we can go, but my right hon. Friend is certainly open to any suggestions of an administrative kind which we could implement to make that a little more effective than it is.

Mr. Winterbottom

Those of us who have tried in our minds to apply the problem of clean air to ships also realise some of the difficulties, particularly with foreign ships, and we appreciate the difficulties which the Minister will have in consultation with the Customs officials. I think that it will be a long process of education.

Mr. Bevins

I agree with the hon. Member and appreciate what he says. Naturally, it will take time for the owners and masters of vessels, especially foreigners, to become aware of the requirements. I think I am right in saying that the first responsibility of the enforcing authorities will be to explain the requirements to those concerned and try to get their co-operation.

The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) asked whether the Regulations in their present form were permanent. They are only a first step; they are certainly not the last word. I give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that we shall keep the Regulations under review, and as progress is made in the development of devices for doing away with smoke or reducing smoke from ships' boilers and it becomes practicable to enforce higher standards, we shall certainly take the earliest opportunity to do so.

Mr. Blenkinsop

In considering the matter in the future, will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the provisions of Section 2 of the Clean Air Act which give for factories on land, and presumably installations at sea, the seven-year special—I will rot say "exemption"—treatment in connection with existing old types of furnaces and boilers? Presumably that applies also to ships. It is to be presumed that that is of very considerable assistance, and we ought to think in terms of encouraging the provision of new methods of firing where there is considerable nuisance.

Mr. Bevins

I agree that we ought to do all we can to encourage the installation of modern types of firing. There is the practical difficulty with many of the smaller craft especially that it is not possible to convert them from one system to another simply because of space limitations within the vessels themselves, but we shall certainly bear that consideration in mind.

The hon. Gentleman asked about continuous emissions. He rightly said that paragraph 3 (a) of the Regulations provided for limitations on continuous emissions in the case of classes 1 and 2 set out in the Schedule but not for class 3. It would have been possible to have some limitations on continuous emissions from some coal-fired ships. It would have been a longer period than five minutes; it might have been ten or fifteen minutes. We felt that so many exceptions would have been required to such a rule that for the sake of simplicity, and for the time being, it would be as well not to impose any limit at all on that type of craft.

The hon. Member had a little bit of fun about article 3 (2), which says: For the purposes of the said schedule a vessel is not under way when it is at anchor or made fast to the shore or bottom, and a vessel which is aground shall be deemed to be under way. For coal-fired ships there is a longer period for ships under way. This longer period is necessary for a ship which is aground for it may be working its engines and boilers at maximum capacity to get off the bottom. So the drafting, though paradoxical, provides a simple and effective way of achieving this purpose. It is a little complicated and I hope that the hon. Member understands it. I confess that I do not.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash, with his great knowledge of shipping, said that the Beaver Committee had been rather reticent in its observations on the control of smoke emitted from ships. That is true, but I am not sure that he was right to go as far as to suggest that the Committee said little about this problem because it was not a great nuisance. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree that in many ports it may be a major nuisance, and I believe that the Beaver Committee did not have much to say on the problem not only because it thought that it was a smaller problem than of industrial smoke, but, more important, because it realised the practical difficulties associated with the problem were greater than in the case of land installations.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside asked whether the provisions of Section 3 of the 1956 Act applied in the case of vessels. On reconsideration, he will see that Section 20 of the Act, which is the relevant Section applicable to ships, refers back only to Sections 1 and 2 and not to Section 3. I am advised that, for reasons which I do not want to mention now, but which I should be very glad to discuss with him later, the provisions of Section 3 do not apply to vessels.

I have touched upon most of the detailed questions which have been asked. If I have omitted any, I shall certainly get in touch with the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. In conclusion, I reiterate that these Regulations are simply the start. We are bound to have difficulties, but it is our intention to keep them under review and to make such adjustments as circumstances may indicate from time to time.

Mr. Blenkinsop

In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

c730
1. ADJOURNMENT 16 words