HC Deb 12 February 1959 vol 599 cc1495-506

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Cray-ford)

I claim that in raising the problem of smokeless fuel and smokeless zones tonight I am raising a matter of widespread public interest that is becoming a more and more important aspect of our national life in which, I claim, the people are ready to play their part in a special effort to rid the atmosphere of smoke that is so damaging to the health and happiness of every man, woman and child. All of us appreciate the importance of seeing that the Clean Air Act works, but in view of the unsatisfactory situation that has for so long prevailed and seems to worsen rather than to improve, many people are wondering if all that could be done by the responsible authorities is being done.

I go further and say that my experience of the smokeless fuel mystery is the cause of more irritation amongst the public than almost anything else, and there seems to be a lack of confidence that those who handle these affairs are capable of dealing satisfactorily with the problem. There is a belief that in Government circles far too little has been done to ensure that the situation improves in respect of the supply of suitable types of smokeless fuel. In that respect it is felt when the matter is raised on the Floor of the House the attitude of Ministers is that they cannot care less.

Great attention has been paid in recent years to the official statements—particularly to those contained in answers to Parliamentary Questions put in this House—that there are ample supplies of smokeless fuel available. That has often resulted in members of the public not placing their orders for fresh supplies until they are almost out of fuel, only to be told that they will have to wait many weeks before they can obtain a supply—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Mr. Dodds

I was drawing attention to the fact that many people have been induced by statements made in the Press about adequate supplies of fuel, not to order a fresh supply until they have run short of fuel, only to find that they have to wait many weeks before a delivery is made. I think that many of the answers which have been made by Ministers have been misleading and, if they are not, then there is not sufficient information given to the public to enable them to take advantage of these ample supplies about which the Ministers talk so glibly.

In many cases people have been forced to buy brands of smokeless fuel that are available. They have found that to purchase them is a sheer waste of money, and this has caused a good deal of irritation and dissatisfaction.

As a result of complaints to the Ministry, an official was sent to see some of my constituents who were complaining, and the best advice that he could give them was that they should order their supplies about three weeks in advance of their requirements. This advice was given at a time which was not during the worst part of the year from the point of view of fuel consumption, and advice of that kind is not good enough. In recent weeks my constituents have received cards from their coal merchants stating that there is a delay in the delivery of smokeless fuels of approximately eight weeks, which does not present a very pleasant prospect. Therefore, the receipt of information that there are some merchants who can supply types of smokeless fuel which is in short supply with other merchants becomes all the more important. I believe that a situation is developing in which "rackets" are being encouraged, and I will give an example of what I mean.

This information was brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and a very exhaustive inquiry has been made to ensure that these facts are correct. I believe that a similar situation may be found in other areas of the country. In Uxbridge there is a firm called Messrs. Newbold and Stevens—who are not coal merchants but builders' merchants and hardware merchants—of The Broadway, Uxbridge, and also of Hillingdon. They can provide Coalite, which is in short supply, and there is evidence that they are seldom out of stock. They are selling it in 28-1b. bags at 4s. a bag. If anyone wants 1 cwt. it costs 16s., which represents the scandalous price of £16 a ton.

It might be said that the bags cost money, but each bag is charged at the rate of 3d. In this connection, anyone who wants the fuel—and there are a lot of people coming in a constant stream to buy it—has to take it away, so that there are no transport costs for the firm. That is a scandalous state of affairs when, as a consequence of the shortage, people are coming a good distance to get Coalite from this firm, while other coal merchants, who are not builders' merchants, are unable to make deliveries without a delay of eight or ten weeks.

Other merchants are charging well below 13s. a cwt. compared with the price of 16s. which is charged by this firm. I feel that this warrants an investigation into the source of supply for this firm and the conditions under which it obtains them. There is a good deal of irritation and dissatisfaction created when people tell others that they can get Coalite immediately, yet reputable coal merchants are quoting delays of eight, nine and ten weeks in their deliveries. I feel that there is a need for some action to be taken, because there is a likelihood that this will develop into a wonderful bit of business for those who can get supplies when in the case of other merchants, supplies are so short.

I am not saying that the public is always right in its complaints on this point, but the public knows very little about it. That is the fault of the authorities, because not enough attention is given to those complaints. Day after day there are letters in the newspapers from people criticising the smokeless fuel policy, yet never do I see a letter from a responsible source to put the complainants right if they are wrong. This is in sharp contrast, in the national and local newspapers, to the complaints made about the London Passenger Transport Board. One often sees letters in the newspapers dealing with these matters from the public relations officer's department in the Transport Board.

There is something very sadly lacking in this business of trying to transfer to clean air zones and to persuade the public to use smokeless fuel, as we all wish it to do. It is possible that the public needs education, and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that that is so. The public needs education in the right sort of fuel appliances which will give the best results. There are many other aspects of this problem. Why is not more being done in this respect? I speak as an ex-publicity manager. The public relations aspect of this matter is appalling, and the sooner someone takes action the better it will be.

It is not much good asking the Paymaster-General about these problems. I asked him a series of questions on 2nd February, and the way in which he answered seemed to indicate that he could not care less and that in fact it was a bit of a bother that he had to answer at all. I raised many of these points. This is the sort of answer I got: There are ample supplies of gasworks and coke-oven coke, which, used in the right appliances, will burn well. Why is there not a much more energetic campaign to give that information to the public? I believe it is true, The answer went on: Where there is resistance to the use of coke this arises largely because consumers use unsuitable qualities or burn it in unsuitable appliances without always realising that it needs to be used differently from coal. Why does not somebody in authority tell the people something about it? I know that if people look far enough somebody will tell them, but responsible people should indicate that that is not the way to do business. Much more is needed than that. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say: Householders who are not used to coke can get advice on how to use it from their local gas boards or coke distributors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1959; Vol. 559, c. 24.] I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has gone to ask for information or he would have found how sketchy a business it is. There are men and women who do not know how to set about this. Why should they? Why is there not a dynamic policy to bring this information forward and make an impact on the public? This could be done. I read the other day that a local council would give information if people went to the town hall, but it is not every council that will do it. Something much better should be done, because it presents a miserable picture now. It does not seem to have improved during the last few years.

I should like to indicate the sort of letter we see in the newspapers and that are not answered. A fortnight ago there were two letters in a national daily newspaper. The first said: All the propaganda to prevent smog by persuading people to burn smokeless fuel is a farce. for the simple reason that people can't get it. I know from experience what smog can do to people's lungs. I suffer from bronchial asthma, and in the past three winters I have spent an average of six weeks in hospital in foggy weather. I would buy smokeless fuel if I could, but I have been told I must wait six months for a supply. Another letter stated: Excessive stocks of crude coal are stacked at pitheads, but there are not enough plants to turn it into smokeless fuel because of the failure of the Government to plan its campaign against smog. It is more difficult to get smokeless fuel now than when my household started to use it thirty years ago. If that is not true, why did someone not put it right? Why cannot the public relations department do something about it?

Here is another item in a newspaper: Smokeless fuel has gone with the wind. Smokeless fuel is scare. Many merchants are taking eight to ten weeks to deliver orders. The reason: Britain is becoming smoke conscious. In London eight boroughs have smoke-free zones. Throughout Britain there are nearly 180 zones either operating or under consideration and the supply of smokeless fuel cannot keep up with the demand. Some fuel merchants say councils have pushed ahead too quickly with smokeless areas. One London merchant said: 'They should have remembered the limited number of plants producing these fuels. I am not taking any more orders except for coke'. Letters come to Members of Parliament complaining about this. I have one which says: In view of the plans for clean air areas this would appear to be a matter in which the Government should show some interest". That is one of my complaints. They just do not seem to be doing that. We have an example which helps to make the matter more chaotic. The National Coal Board a few weeks ago brought out a smokeless fuel which, I am assured by the top experts in the distributive trade, is as good as Coalite. That was a remarkable find. It was called "Derbylite" and the name hit the highlights. Now we find that the Board of Trade has some objection to that name on registration grounds and the fuel is likely to be called "Warmco". Why on earth was that not found out before? Any businessman would know that this sort of thing is not good enough and someone would have been sacked in private trade. Why did this blunder take place? It does not help but adds to the chaos among the public.

I have discussed this with leaders in the distributive trade and with other knowledgeable people. There is a great need for the Government to call a conference where the people who manufacture smokeless fuels and those who manufacture appliances, grates and stoves, should get down to the job of cooperation and co-ordination in order to bring out some information which could be got over to the public in a dynamic way so that the public would be educated and when they used smokeless fuel it would be used with grates which give the best results.

I believe gas coke must be carefully selected to give satisfactory results. Much more needs to be done in research. If anything is done, could we have some information about it? Far too little is known by the long-suffering public. There is a feeling that the Gas Council is too cumbersome and works much too slowly. When ideas are put up to it there seems to be no reply to the people putting forward the ideas. There is a feeling that the Gas Council needs to be shaken up quite a lot. I understand that the) Coal Board has stocks of smokeless fuel underground—what is called "Phurnacite"— totalling 120,000 tons. Many towns want it, but there seems to be some problem about distribution. Is it possible that more could be done so that this fuel which is suitable for closed stoves and gives satisfaction can be made more available to the public?

I understand that 3.8 million tons of hard coke is in stock and the main producer of coke for domestic fires, the Gas Council, I understand has stocks of 2.5 million Ions. This is an appalling situation and shows that a lot has to be done in this matter.

I believe that in a few years' time gas coke will hit the highlights and will fill the bill, but people would like to know what is being done in the meantime to see that they get the right sort of gas coke and the right kind of appliances. More should be done by the Gas Council.

Mr. J. Latham, Deputy Chairman of the National Coal Board, said to the Women's Advisory Council on Solid Fuel: At present prices, coke is an economical fuel in many appliances and ought to take a substantial share of the market in smoke control areas. I also believe that, but I believe that more should be done in that respect.

Many people complain that coke piled in the open becomes soaked in water and that, with the high price, many people are paying a pretty high price for the water in the coke. If that is not so, let us be told something about it, because it is one of the things which make people hostile towards buying coke. It is dear enough already, and if it has absorbed a lot of water in the wet weather of the past few months—except, perhaps, far the last few weeks—people have been paying quite a high price for water.

According to the Kentish Independent, Councillor Mrs. J. Carroll, Chairman of the Health Committee of Woolwich Borough Council, stated that when coke went "dead" it was usually because the chimney throat was too big, and that was why the council have been pressing the Minister to allow the cost of throat restrictors to be included in the smoke control grant, but he had steadfastly refused this request. Is that justifiable?

Is it not a fact that chimney stacks or chimneys themselves can have a very big influence on whether people can satisfactorily burn coke? I asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government about smokeless zones. He has to give his consent before approval is given to their creation. I asked him how many cases he had withheld approval because of insufficient stocks. He said that there was none. If that is purely on the ground that there is plenty of gas coke, I would point out that it is found unsuitable in many areas. The Clean Air Act visualises that we shall have made a tremendous improvement in ten to fifteen years, but it is felt by knowledgeable people that it will take more like fifty years to get anywhere. If there were a great increase in the number of smokeless zones being established, the problem would become worse.

The Northfleet Council, in the area of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk), has a problem. It wants a smokeless zone but it asks, "How can smokeless zones be operated when you cannot get the special fuel?" That is the problem before the Northfleet Council. This Council is puzzled. Councillor H. Eames said he lived in the proposed smokeless zone areas and had been told that there was a six weeks' waiting list for special fuel. "I dread to think what will happen when the order comes into being," he said.

Mr. Sydney Irving (Dartford)

Is my hon. Friend aware that I had a letter from Dartford Rural District Council this morning stating that the waiting period in its area is three to four months?

Mr. Dodds

I believe that all the evidence shows the great need for the manufacturers of domestic fuel and space-heating appliances to get together with the producers of smokeless fuels to secure co-ordination and co-operation in order to clear up these chaotic conditions of long standing and to give to the public and local authorities a much better deal in this so-called march of progress. When these interests have hammered out a policy which makes sense, there will then be a need for a great improvement in public relations to educate and advise the public, not in a hole-in-the-corner and sketchy manner, as is now the case, but in a way which matches the vitally important part all this plays in the life of the nation.

10.19 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling)

I in no way disagree with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) that this is an important matter needing close attention, and I can assure him that as a result of Parliamentary Questions and other activities with which the hon. Member is familiar, my noble Friend the Minister of Power is studying it very closely at present.

I ask the hon. Member, however, not to underestimate the amount which has already been done. I should like to say a little on behalf of the Minister about the problem with which he is primarily concerned—the supply of smokeless fuels. As the hon. Member knows very well, the basis of the Clean Air Act was the Beaver Report, which estimated that the additional supplies of solid smokeless fuel which would be needed over the period of application of the Clean Air Act would be about 8 million tons suitable for use on open grates. They made it quite clear, after considering all the premium fuels and the other sources, that a large proportion of the 8 million tons would need to be gas coke. We must start with that assumption.

The suppliers of the premium fuels with branded names have been making considerable efforts to expand their production, and they have been making a good deal of progress. The limitation in the case of the manufacture of premium fuels is two-fold. Firstly, there is the limitation of the capacity of the plant. Secondly, there is the difficulty of getting adequate supplies of coal of the rather special qualities which I understand are necessary for making these premium fuels. Within the limits that are imposed by these two factors, I am sure that production will continue to rise in order to meet the brisk demand.

The National Coal Board and the Gas Council have been doing a great deal in this field. The hon. Member referred to the new product of the National Coal Board, now to be known as "Warmco." I am glad to hear that he has been told that this is to be a very good product. We believe that it will be. The output is now starting at an annual rate of over 160,000 tons. That will make a very large contribution to the problem. If demand warranted the effort, the Board thinks that it could turn over some of its other coke oven capacity at reasonably short notice to increase this output.

The Coal Board has been doing much research and development work on other processes, which show promise of yielding new types of fuel. There have been problems. Progress has not been so fast as we wished, because it is a very difficult technical problem to get a proper binder to convert small coals into smokeless fuels suitable for burning in a domestic grate. It would be wrong to under-estimate what has been done. The Coal Board will press on even more vigorously with its research and development in this field, and it will have the full support of my noble Friend the Minister of Power.

I come to the main problem, which I think is the problem of open grate gas coke. Much of the coke now sold is a good quality open grate fuel which has been used for many years by many consumers up and down the country, but this quality of coke is not always available as such. When the Beaver Committee talked about coke, it said clearly that it meant a high quality free-burning fuel. It recommended that the British Standards Institution should prepare specifications and the gas boards and other producers of coke should supply coke to those standards. The preparation of a British Standards specification for domestic coke is well advanced, and the area gas boards have introduced a draft specification at more than 40 gas works. The purpose of this is to avoid the marketing of unsuitable coke as open fire fuel, to improve the consistency of the deliveries to consumers and to make available what has always been proved to be a suitable gas coke for this purpose.

I think that is one of the main contributions that the gas boards can make to the supply of gas coke suitable for use on open grates. The gas boards are also discussing with the coke distributors improvements in the existing marketing arrangements, which will be designed to ensure that consumers who order open fire coke can receive coke of a consistent quality. I think that that will show the hon. Gentleman that, although we cannot satisfy him, we are not entirely motionless and that progress will be made. It is well recognised that providing gas coke of the proper quality and ensuring that consumers can buy that quality for the purpose for which it is intended is probably the most important contribution to the problem. Coke of this quality can be obtained in fairly large quantities. If public demand warrants it, I understand that it should very soon be possible to make available some 3 million tons a year of these qualities. I understand, also, that this quantity could be increased, if required, to 5 million tons or more. That will be a very substantial contribution.

The hon. Gentleman's other point referred to publicity and to advising the public. I did not realise that he was an ex-public relations officer, although I might have guessed, and I was very interested in what he had to say on this professionally, as well as from a constituency point of view. We accept that more should, and will be done to inform the public. I understand that leaflets are now being issued to the distributors by quite a n umber of bodies—the gas boards and the Solid Smokeless Fuels Federation. The gas industry is carrying out increasing publicity work on the merits of coke, and engaging in what are called educational activities amongst consumers. This work is mainly directed to the consumers and coke merchants, but the aim, also, is to give service to local authorities and others interested.

I am informed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that in the near future it is intended to issue a leaflet to all householders in smoke-control areas which will explain to them what is involved, and will give them advice on what they should do. I think that that will fill a need that is recognised, and to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention on more than one occasion.

In answering this brief Adjournment debate, I have tried to show that in carrying out the clean air policy—which we all want to carry out—the Government recognise that there are two serious problems; the availability of solid smokeless fuels, and information to the public as to how to obtain them and how to use them. The fuels necessary are available in total quantity, if we include gas coke —because there is plenty of it—and that may be included as long as we can justify ourselves in saying that the gas coke available is of suitable quality, and may be obtained by the public on that basis.

Those are the lines on which we are endeavouring to pursue this matter. We shall continue our efforts with vigour, pursued, in our turn, I have no doubt, by the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.