HC Deb 14 May 1958 vol 588 cc542-58

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [13th May], That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Alkali, &c., Works Order, 1958 (S.I., 1958, No. 497), dated 24th March, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th March, be annulled,—[Mr. Nabarro.]

Question again proposed.

10.31 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

When we were discussing this Statutory Instrument last night, I was seeking to say why so many of the larger local authorities, at least, feel that they should have control over atmospheric pollution. I had given some examples from the local authority of Stoke-on-Trent, and had referred to the pottery industry, in which, in recent years, there has been a technical revolution in the process of firing the ware, which means that the domestic and sanitary pottery can now be fired in factories that are completely smokeless. Today, only 15 per cent. of the factories in the pottery industry use raw coal.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we had a public inquiry into this matter, which was conducted by Sir Frederick Armer. He reported, as today we know to be true, that some pottery products in the heavy clay industry—such as tiles and certain types of brick—cannot as yet be produced in smokelessly-fired kilns, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that we feel that there is ample protection in the temporary exemptions contained in Section 2 of the Act, and there are five more years to go as from today.

Speaking for my own local authority. I am empowered to say quite categorically that, of course, the local authority will give every consideration to this fact. Apart from reasonable encouragement, pressure and incentive, the last thing we would want to do would be to do anything against the industry which would throw our own people out of work. We would never dream of doing that. On the other hand, if the Minister takes from us the right to act in the courts against offenders, the local authority becomes merely a smoke watcher—and hon. Members also become watchers of smoke, as it were, at second degree—for all that will be left to the local authority will be for it to come here and complain when there is undue delay in offering a remedy.

I said last night that I had received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, who wrote to me, on behalf of his right hon. Friend, in response to the grievances put forward on this matter. I said that I thought that, perhaps—and I do not say this unkindly—some of the arguments advanced were a little off the beam. In the preamble to his letter the hon. Gentleman stated, quite rightly, how very interested the Ministry is in the new trends that are tending to give us clean air in Stoke-on-Trent.

The hon. Gentleman went on to say: Where the conversion of intermittent coal fire kilns is feasible, it may involve major reconstructions which can only be accomplished gradually. In some cases development is hampered by lack of space; continuous kilns take up much more room than intermittent kilns, and some works will need re-siting. I think that the answer we give is that for the majority of factories that would not be true. It may be true for some, and they would have to have special consideration from us, which certainly we would give them. Conversion is not a very expensive matter now. We know all the techniques, and they are available to the manufacturers, who very quickly regain any capital expenditure, for this is such a good economic proposition for them. Therefore, and inasmuch as this will not apply to the majority of cases, we feel that there is not a serious point in that argument.

At the end of his letter, he said: If these works are scheduled you may be assured that the Alkali Inspectorate will require alterations to plant as soon as practicable if the products can be manufactured by smokeless methods. Only where the products themselves necessitate a coal fired intermittent kiln will the issue of coal be permitted for any lengthy period, and in those cases the Inspectorate will do all in their power to see that the appropriate research is carried out into the development of new techniques to achieve smokeless production. We answer that in this way. First, we say there is no need for duplication on research. The Ceramic Research Association is centred in the city. Its association with the local authority and, of course, the manufacturers is very close and most friendly. There are very few problems that have ever been presented which they have either not solved or very nearly completely solved. We are very deeply indebted to them. They are working on this problem and there is no fear of duplication. We feel that this is the reasonable and proper answer to give.

I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be brief, but I want to say a few words on the general principle and leave my local authority out of it for the moment. I ask the Minister specifically to refer to Section 17 (2) of the Clean Air Act, 1956, when he replies to the debate. That would be the most important part of his answer to us. He may be able to say, "If I am to interpret this subsection properly, it means that if local authorities can satisfy me that they have inspectors suitably trained to give protection to their citizens against atmospheric pollution, why should they not do it?" He can say, "They can apply to me for exemption." Obviously, if he does, we shall be extremely pleased, because not all local authorities are in a position to be able to go to the Minister and say, "Leave it to us."

There is a further matter we discussed on Report of the Bill to the House. I think it was on 10th April, 1956. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), supported by myself, raised the question of joint committees. We said that a local authority might not be rich and not very big, but might join with an adjacent authority to form a joint committee such as local authorities form in a joint water board. We asked whether they could then apply to the Minister. The Minister at that time, the present Minister of Defence, thought that it would be perfectly feasible. If I remember aright, he used such words as, "It would be entirely satisfactory." He said that it was not in the Bill, or in the Amendment we were discussing, but he saw nothing against it for it would be desirable.

May I also point out to the Minister that in Section 17 (2, b) of the Act a very important defence is provided by the phrase: … the best practicable means had been employed … to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke. It seems we are doing everything in our power to see that nothing untoward shall happen to our industries, but we ask that local authorities, which have had these powers in the past and are fit to exercise them today with reference to smoke, grit and dust, should be allowed to use them.

Nothing that anyone has said in any part of the House should be taken as in any way a reflection on the quality and technical excellence of the Alkali Inspectorate. That is the last thing we would dream of suggesting. We cannot do without them; we must have them, but we want not to burden them with small matters, as may happen if the Minister does not meet us on this Prayer. We want them to handle those things they are best able to handle, things we cannot do ourselves, because they are essentially specialists.

I am sure that if the Minister can meet us in this way nothing will be regretted and local authorities will be able to feel that they can get on with the job of giving us clean air; and that this will not be to the detriment of anyone.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe (Hove)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend cannot be surprised if some of us on this side of the House take exception to this Order. I will explain why. It is because we regard it as a thoroughly Socialist measure. If one wants to judge whether a measure is Socialist or not, there are two tests to apply. One is: is it bureaucratic? The other is: does it favour the nationalised industries?

Socialism always endeavours to support bureaucracy and nationalised industry. Clearly, judged by those standards, this Order finds itself convicted of being good Socialism. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has explained on more than one occasion that the philosophy of Socialism is that the man in Whitehall knows best. The Order would take away from local authorities power which they have now to manage their own affairs and vest power in an inspectorate which is controlled from Whitehall. Personally, I disapprove of that. I believe that the powers which have existed with the local authorities ought to be left with them.

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

Does the hon. and learned Member realise that we are now dealing with the results of the Clean Air Act, and that during the passage of that Act through Committee we on this side of the House were arguing against control by the Alkali Inspectorate and for complete municipal control? Only because a compromise was arrived at, are we now faced with this situation and these regulations.

Mr. Marlowe

The hon. Member only confirms what I have often suspected, that Socialists say one thing one day and another thing the next. What I am saying is quite consistent. I do not believe in control from Whitehall and I do believe that local authorities can do this job.

Judged by the other standard I mentioned, quite clearly this Order favours the nationalised industries. The power, gas and electricity industries are being excepted from the ordinary law and there is a form of favouritism which I regard as unacceptable. We have had this problem very largely in the district I represent. Brighton and Hove get showered with grit, dust and smoke from the power stations, electricity and gas works in the Shoreham area. Every representation we have made to get this controlled by the nationalised authorities has been unsuccessful. We cannot get them to do anything about it. If the local authorities themselves were able to deal with the matter, we believe that because they understand local problems they would be able to prevent the continued emission of the dirt and grit which form the only blemish which can be said to exist at this desirable resort.

There is a fundamental principle here. This is a Socialist measure. I know that even under Conservative Governments Socialist measures slip through, merely because a civil servant has a Bill in a pigeon-hole and decides to pull it out, and whatever Government is in power the Bill is passed through the House of Commons.

I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about this Order and to make sure that he does not place us in our present difficult position. During last week for England and this week for Scotland we have spent a lot of time saying that local authorities ought to have more power. With this Order the Government are doing exactly the reverse—taking power away from the local authorities and vesting it in an inspectorate in Whitehall. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to explain where is the consistency in that. I ask him to think again about these provisions and to place his confidence in the local people to govern themselves and to look after their own local affairs.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

I had some doubt whether I was on the right track, particularly when I found that the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) was after the same thing. He gave us his conception of Socialism. I do not accept him as an authority on many things, and certainly not on Socialism.

When we discussed this matter, both in Committee and on Report on the Bill, we were given what we regarded as a reasonable undertaking by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that care would be exercised and that an examination would be made of the situation with a view to leaving as much of this power as possible with local authorities. The difficulties were recognised, but it was also recognised that some very large cities and towns, by virtue of their size, had sufficient financial resources to employ their own staff.

It was recognised, too, that in other parts of the country, such as the Teesside, where there is a heavy concentration of industry, it was doubtful whether local authorities, taken individually, would be big enough to undertake this job. Taken collectively, however, they are big enough, and the local authorities on Tees-side have been giving considerable attention to this matter for a very long time. They have a very enthusiastic and energetic Tees-side smoke abatement organisation, composed of all the local authorities on both banks of the river. Because of the concentration of industry on both banks they have been giving attention to the question of smoke abatement.

If all the industrial undertakings are to be taken away from the control of local authorities, if their public health inspectors are to become merely smoke watchers, if the local authorities are to be deprived of the right to take action without the Minister's consent, and if the Alkali Inspectorate—even though it is being increased to 28 people—is to be used as the principal agent for determining these matters, then it seems to me that the spirit of the local authorities in attempting to apply the Clean Air Act will be broken from the start.

If these things are to be done effectively, the local authorities should be encouraged. It must not be thought that the inspectors employed by the local authorities are not men of good qualifications. In the Report of the Working Party on the Recruitment and Training of Sanitary Inspectors, 1953, it was revealed that, even at that time, five years ago, there were 423 inspectors who held smoke inspection certificates, of whom 308 were employed by boroughs. Twenty-five inspectors specialised in smoke control to the extent of making it a main part of their job, while 1,595 inspectors gave some part of their time to smoke inspection. To qualify for the smoke inspection certificate, public health inspectors have to pass an examination for which there is a comprehensive syllabus which deals with the basic causes of smoke formation.

The Minister should give us an undertaking that the promises of his predecessor are to be carried out. His predecessor said, in 1956, that 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. Then he went on to say: 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 42–3.] That seemed to be a fairly reasonable undertaking on the part of the Minister's predecessor. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is to carry out that undertaking, he ought to tell us tonight that he is prepared, in areas like Tees-side, to permit authorities to form joint committees and to employ their own officers to do the work.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. John Grimston (St. Albans)

Although the Minister's Order seems to have few friends, I come out firmly in favour of it. As I am myself responsible for some of the highly technical processes which appear in the Schedule, I must declare my personal interest.

In our arguments over the powers of local authorities to inspect, we have obscured the main purpose of the Order. Under the Clean Air Act, it becomes, for the first time, an offence of itself to make black smoke. Of course, that is industrial nonsense, unless escape clauses are provided. It seems to be a much more sensible and proper way to do it to admit that there are certain processes which, in our present state of knowledge, it is not possible to operate without making black smoke. That seems to be plain common sense.

I know, from the care taken in drawing up the Second Schedule, how strong a case one has to put up to show that a wish to continue to make black smoke comes not from the works being too idle to install modern apparatus or processes, but from the fact that there is no process yet known to man which can, at reasonable cost, anyhow, be installed to prevent the emission of smoke. There is a process called the deoxygenating of molten copper by immersion therein of wood—which is one of the processes I know something about—and industry would pay enormously if anyone could find a more efficient way of doing it, or, indeed, another way of doing it at all. It is because I feel so strongly that this list has not been lightly put in the Second Schedule that I so strongly support the Minister in his Order.

Those people who are concerned about the powers of local authorities do not, perhaps, pay sufficient attention to the powers that they have under the Alkali Act, 1906. Under Section 14 of that Act, they can, if they wish, apply for additional inspectors and under Section 22, on the application of a local authority or of ten members of the public, a suspected nuisance can be investigated by the Alkali Inspectorate. That provides an ample measure of local control, and local authorities should not feel that they are being deprived of powers, powers which are absolutely new to them. I consider that the Alkali Inspectorate is entirely analogous with the Factory Inspectorate and nobody would suggest that that should come under local authorities.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle (Oldbury and Halesowen)

Last night's pause in the debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who gave us a display of pyrotechnics which I have seldom seen equalled in the House, and which generated more heat than light upon the subject, provided an opportunity for hon. Members to appreciate that this Order is simply an obligation which was imposed on the Minister by the Clean Air Act, which was carried without dissent on Second Reading and Third Reading. The Minister is simply meeting that obligation. The only question is whether the Order is in accord with the terms of Section 17 of the Act.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

I did not say that it was not.

Mr. Moyle

I listened with very great interest to what the hon. Member said, but by the time he finished. I had thought that I should be very surprised if there were any material difference between him and the Minister on the issue of the inspectorate. The hon. Member ruled out Kidderminster and Billericay and similar small towns from his suggestion and said that he was concerned only with the large towns like Sheffield, Birmingham and Manchester.

My impression is that the Minister has power to consider representations from such towns. It is for the towns to take the initiative, not the Minister, so the hon. Member for Kidderminster was somewhat premature in charging the Minister with a crime which he has not yet committed.

I am solidly in favour of a central inspectorate. I have suffered from the effects of smoke pollution. For thirty years I have lived on Thames-side, a victim of the cement industry of Gravesend, from which grit and dust pollute the area.

Mr. Nabarro

On a point of order. There is no mention of the cement industry in the First or Second Schedule to the Order. Is it in order to mention it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member was using it as an illustration.

Mr. Moyle

Subject to the advice of the Minister, Mr. Speaker, I think that "lime works" cover cement. I think I am right in believing that the cement industry is brought within the Alkali Inspectorate and is covered by paragraph 37 of the Second Schedule to the Order, which refers to lime works.

The Order is the most practical interpretation of Section 17 of the Act, because of the kind of inspectorate that Gravesend, Swanscombe, Dartford, Bexley, and Deptford provide to deal with the problem of air pollution from Gravesend. This work can be done properly only by a central inspectorate, and the charge for such an inspectorate should fall upon the taxpayer and not the ratepayer, because the cement industry at Gravesend benefits the nation as a whole and not merely the local people.

The hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) has said that this was a Socialist measure. All I can say is that, if it is, the whole of the Beaver Committee, including Sir Hugh Beaver himself, are Socialists, because they strongly recommended a central inspectorate and the extension of the area provided for in the Order. If the hon. and learned Member has any complaint it is against the Beaver Committee, and not against the Order.

There is one constituency point that I want to mention. There is a case for marrying the local public inspectorate and its staff with the centre. A foundry comes within the purview of the central inspectorate. In accordance with this Order, that inspectorate will have to deal with dark smoke which emits grit and dust, while the actual place of work which emits the grit and dust will be dealt with by the Factory Inspectorate, and dark smoke which does not contain grit or dust within the definition of the Act will be dealt with by the local public health inspectorate. How does the Minister propose to utilise the local public health inspectorate, and what will be the exact division of duties between the inspectorates when the Order becomes operative after 1st June?

11.3 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor - Goldsmid (Walsall, South)

I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), because the point that he raised is very much in my mind. One would have thought that this problem of clean air was indivisible. The idea that one inspectorate should deal with one type of smoke and another inspectorate with another seems to bear very little relation to the facts of the case.

I know that the House is anxious to hear the Minister, but I should like to point out that I represent an authority which has taken a leading part in instituting a smokeless zone, and that to do this it has had to conquer a good deal of what I would describe as local obscurantism on the point. The authority has done it, and the town is all the better for the smokeless zone.

It will strike at the root of confidence in local government if the powers which it at present exercises are taken away. I have not heard it mentioned anywhere at any time that these powers have been improperly exercised. Therefore, it is a matter of concern to me that in passing this Order we should not also pass a slight on local authorities who have done their best to implement this extraordinarily important Act.

I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the matter and time and again throughout the proceedings we heard that this was very much a matter which transcended party; that it was an agreed Bill. I hope that something which started with such enormous good will will not lose its character by a slight having been cast on the capabilities of the local authorities to do a job which, certainly in the Midlands, they are doing very well.

11.6 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Henry Brooke)

In this debate, tonight and last night, I have been called a Socialist and "extremely ham-fisted"—worse words than were addressed to me during the 120 hours of debate on the Local Government Bill. If I rise to speak now, it is not because I wish to cut out any other hon. Members who desire to speak, but because I know that our time is limited and I should like to speak in a way that I trust will allay the fears of hon. Members. I hope that it will be felt that, on behalf of the Government I can give the assurances that hon. Members desire. I will not, therefore, go into the technicalities which have been raised, and there may be some statements which I may seem to ignore, but I want to go straight to the heart of the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), and other hon. Members who spoke paid particular attention to Section 17 (2) of the Clean Air Act. I consider that Parliament put that subsection in the Act meaning it to be used. Certainly, so long as I am Minister, it will not be treated as a dead letter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster suggested that I should have made an Order, or several Orders, under Section 17 (2) simultaneously with this Order. I have to point out that I have not the power to do that. The Act does not allow me to do so. If hon. Members will read the terms of the Act, they will see that the Minister can move under Section 17 (2) only if, on the application of a local authority, he is satisfied. … It is true that this Order was made some weeks ago, but up to the present I have not received any such application from local authorities.

I think that is quite natural, because the first step to take after this Order was made, and as it comes into operation, is to draw up a register of the works in each local authority area which will be affected by it. Only when it is firmly settled which works, as the result of this Order, will come under the Alkali Act can any question arise as to a local authority applying for action by the Minister under Section 17 (2).

I envisage that when the Order comes into operation, and these registers of works come to be compiled, large authorities which feel that they are sufficiently well equipped with a full-time trained smoke inspectorate will apply to me to see whether they can satisfy me under the terms of Section 17 (2) that I should use my powers. From all my knowledge of the subject, I shall be surprised if the Stoke-on-Trent, Sheffield, and one or two other authorities, do not make such applications.

May I say, in passing—because there were some allegations that control by the Alkali Inspectorate was always remote control—that in our strengthening of the Inspectorate we are proposing to have a district inspector and an assistant inspector based on Stoke-on-Trent, and likewise an inspector and assistant inspector based on Sheffield. I could give the House the other geographical areas which will be thus covered.

Quite clearly, it would be wrong and improper for me to say what conclusions I would reach on any such applications until an application had been made and I could see the grounds on which it was supported. Any Minister charged with duties under an Act should come to conclusions on the merits of the case put before him, having considered it from all angles, and not on any prejudice he has formed for or against a particular local authority.

That is the procedure I shall follow. It is important for the House to realise that the Act gives the inspectorate the power of descheduling categories of works entirely, as it becomes established that research has shown how the problems of smoke emission can be overcome, and there is no longer any necessity for the particular interest of the Alkali Inspectorate.

I should not be afraid, and I feel sure that every other Minister would feel the same, of using those powers to deschedule categories of works entirely when the time came. But the time has not come yet.

I hope that the House will permit me, even if by those few words I have satisfied most of the doubts, to speak at slightly greater length. One hon. Member suggested that these responsibilities should be taken away from me and handed to some other Minister. I should deeply regret that. I find my duties under the Alkali Acts some of the most fascinating in my Department. I had an extremely interesting time the other day when, with the Chief Alkali Inspector, I visited works under the control of the inspectorate and saw some of the processes with which the inspectorate has to deal.

Mr. Nabarro

I made that suggestion. Would not the Minister recognise the fact that under this Order, for the first time, he is transferring to his Department control over emissions, notably of smoke, from 130 million tons of solid fuel burned annually, which is 60 per cent. of the solid fuel burned in this country? Surely it is reasonable that such a duty should fall on the Ministry of Power, which is established to deal with questions of that kind.

Mr. Brooke

I recognise the validity of my hon. Friend's figures, but if he will study page 7 of the Beaver Report he will find it established that no close corollary can be drawn between the amount of fuel consumed and the amount of pollution created. This is one of the fundamental facts of the problem.

It is not on personal predilections that I wish to retain these responsibilities, but rather because I believe that close co-operation between the Alkali Inspectorate and the local authorities is one of the primary needs of getting this job done well. I can assure the House that it will be my concern, and the desire of the inspectors themselves, to continue the close co-operation which they have established in many places already where they have been operating, and to extend that to all those local authorities with which in future they will have to deal.

All this arises from the specific recommendation of the Beaver Committee that in the case of certain industrial processes in which the prevention of dark smoke, grit or harmful gases presents special technical difficulties, responsibility for ensuring that the best practicable means of prevention are used at all times should be vested in the Alkali Inspectorate and the provisions of the Alkali Act should be extended accordingly. It is in line with that recommendation that provisions were put into the Clean Air Act.

The Order before the House is, in fact, not made under that Act. It is made under the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1926. There have been four previous Orders of this kind. This one is distinctive because this is the first Order made since the extension to smoke, grit and dust was approved in the Clean Air Act, 1956. The reason for putting certain processes under the Alkali Acts is not to give these industries protection from any action taken by authorities, but because they have certain special technical difficulties, and it is considered essential that those special difficulties should be tackled by a single inspectorate with special technical qualifications reviewing each industry as a whole.

In these cases they really are national problems as well as local problems, because the trouble is caused not by somebody in the boiler house neglecting his duties and allowing dark smoke to escape but by reason of the fact that scientific research has not yet solved the problem of operating a plant of the particular kind in question without risk of producing dark smoke.

My predecessor ordered a public inquiry in 1956 to determine to what classes of works and of industry this action should be applied. About 4,500 different works would have been scheduled under this Order if all the applications made before that public inquiry had been granted. In fact, the inquiry, which was conducted by Sir Frederick Armer, resulted in a Report which recommended that slightly less than half of all the works which industry had sought to get scheduled should be scheduled. I accepted the Armer Report virtually in toto.

This Order will, therefore, apply to about 2,000 works out of a total of between 25,000 and 30,000 works throughout the country which produce smoke—so I can assure my hon. Friends that there is no question of local authorities being left with nothing to do. Indeed, it is not really true to say that this Order deprives local authorities of powers which they have hitherto had. In fact, though local authorities have had certain powers, they have constantly complained in the past that those powers are ineffective both against metallurgical works and other works.

Mr. Marlowe

The Order prohibits local authorities from exercising control over any of the nationalised industries, does it not?

Mr. Brooke

I do not think that this is a question as between nationalised industries and other industries.

As for power stations, the difficulty is that the plant in the older power stations will produce dark smoke, and we know no means of stopping that completely except by closing down the power stations. If the peak load has to be met, we obviously cannot afford to do without the old power stations. Difficult questions of the electricity supply industry, finance and economics are involved. There is no complete solution except by replacing older power stations with new ones which do not produce smoke.

Mr. Nabarro

My right hon. Friend will forgive me, but surely he is missing the point. The power station is the most massive consideration under the Order, and the emission from power station chimneys is not a matter of dark smoke but of pouring hundreds of tons of grit and muck every year on the heads of defenceless residents in the immediate area of the power stations. It is not a question of smoke at all. It is grit.

Mr. Brooke

The fact remains that no means are yet known of preventing that, and the reason why these power stations are being put under the Alkali Inspectorate is that we think that the most hopeful way of achieving results is by making absolutely sure that research of the right character, under wise control, is being carried out all the time. I would say with all sincerity to my hon. Friend that this is a national, and not just a local, problem. It is not that one power station misbehaves itself, but that all power stations of this character misbehave themselves, and we are more likely to find a solution if we continue our study nationally, rather than locally——

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

Does the same consideration apply to the emanations from oil refineries? I notice that there is absolutely no reference to them, and my right hon. Friend has made no reference to them, yet the oil refineries on Thames-side emit the most noxious fumes, which poison a large number of my constituents. Are we to understand that the strengthening of the Alkali Inspectorate will strengthen my right hon. Friend's hand in dealing with this nuisance?

Mr. Brooke

My hands are already strong enough, but nobody throughout the world has yet discovered a means of operating an oil refinery without causing any fumes at all. It is one of the special concerns of the staff to find out how that can be done, and I hope that my hon. Friend will acept that although we have not yet solved all the problems—and, certainly, fumes are caused when anything goes wrong—nevertheless, there is a steady improvement, and we trust that that will continue——

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

In a sentence, Lord Acton did point out that all power stations corrupt.

Mr. Brooke

I had better not get on to Lord Acton at twenty-three minutes past eleven.

At any rate, if it is admitted that it would be quite impossible to give local authorities the responsibility for con- trolling the emission of dark smoke and grit from all this variety of works classified in the Order, there is then no other way to proceed except by making an Order of this kind, an Order which shall be a general, national Order, and then proceeding to consider, one by one, applications from the individual local authorities, finding out whether each has a properly-trained smoke inspectorate, and then coming to a proper decision on whether or not the power under Section 17 (2) can be exercised. That is precisely what I intend to do. I intend to operate this——

Mr. D. Jones

Will the Minister say something about the groups of local authorities, such as I mentioned, on Tees-side?

Mr. Brooke

I can see no reason at all why a group like that should not be formed. I think that each local authority would have to apply separately, but permission could be granted to each on the understanding that they all collaborated with one another. That is my understanding of the matter.

I trust that the House will not accept any of the suggestions or insinuations that have been made—I am sure in the heat of the moment—that the Alkali Inspectorate is either an empire-building or a remote or ineffective body. I know it intimately myself. My own belief and conviction is that it is one of the most powerful instruments we could have in helping Parliament to bring about what we all want—clean air for Britain.

So far as I am concerned, my desire will be to use my powers in such a way that the Alkali Inspectorate has every opportunity to get on with the stimulation of scientific research where there are technical problems unsolved, that it should co-operate as closely as possible with the local authorities, and that wherever a local authority is well qualified to take over the work an order under Section 17 (2) shall be made to enable it to do so.

Mr. Nabarro

In view of the ample and, I think, very generous explanations given by my right hon. Friend, and notably the assurance which he has given the House in connection with Section 17 (2) of the Act, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.