HC Deb 29 April 1963 vol 676 cc847-60

10.1 p.m.

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

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Alkali, etc., Works Order, 1963, (S.I. 1963, No. 493), dated 14th March, 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st March, be annulled. Exactly 100 years have passed since we had the first Alkali Act. It was, I think, called "Lord Derby's Act". It is interesting to note that, even at that time, the famous phrase which has been so often debated in this House, namely, that a manufacturer must use "the best practicable means" to reduce the discharge of noxious or offensive gases to a minimum, was included in that Act.

From the beginning, the principle which has motivated the inspectorate in its dealings with industry has been that it must co-operate, guide, lead and suggest and not coerce unless compelled to do so. The alternative to co-operation would have been to forbid manufacture. When we study this Statutory Instrument, we see in its symbols an image of the changes which have occurred over many years in our economy and the remarkable in- dustrial changes which have made our country modern, both in manufacture and supply.

The principal Act is not the Act of 1863, but the Act of 1906. Even that was a consolidation Measure. Since then we have had many regulations. We have also had the Clean Air Act. My first question to the Parliamentary Secretary is this: does not he think that it is time that we had a new consolidation Act which will bring all the regulations in previous Acts together? Secondly, would it not be desirable to print the list of all the noxious gases and processes involving their use on one sheet of paper so that they can be read together?

This Order does two or three things. First, it extends and varies the list of works scheduled in the parent Act of 1906. Secondly, it extends the list of noxious and offensive gases. It does certain other things to which I will refer later. I believe that 43 classes of works are scheduled, together with 28 gases, some of which are classified singly and some of which fall into groups, which are offensive or noxious, or both.

The Order proposes additions to the existing works—I believe about 13—and the list of noxious and offensive gases is to be increased by about 12. It is a comprehensive Order, probably the most comprehensive we have had in the 100 years since the first Act was introduced. This is partly because of the rapidly changing nature of the chemical industry and our awareness of the essential need to safeguard the health of people who live anywhere near works of this type. Moreover, in 1956, a real impetus was certainly given to this subject by the passage of the Clean Air Act.

Now I come to the second question. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that the last revision, which was of an ordered and systematic nature, was as long ago as 1935. I ask him what methods have been used in these twenty-eight years, inasmuch as we have not had statutory supervision, to safeguard the comfort and health of our citizens. What methods have the inspectors used when they have not got statutory control?

My third question relates to the inspectorate. In 1863, I think that there was a chief inspector and four other inspectors assisting him. In 1956, during the Committee stage of the Clean Air Act, I remember that we spoke of a chief inspector and seven others assisting him. Today, I believe that we have a chief inspector, two deputies, 10 district inspectors and 12 junior inspectors—a total of 27. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us—and this is important—that, because of the increasing complexity of the chemical industry and the new processes that are invented from time to time and are being invented very rapidly now, there will be no hesitation in further increasing the inspectorate if necessary?

When we examine the list of duties and the quality of knowledge and research required of the inspectorate, we can see beyond all doubt that men of this calibre cannot easily be found and cannot easily and quickly be recruited. Therefore, we have to plan ahead as it were and not leave it too long.

The inspectors are expert in chemical engineering and technology. They have to solve most difficult problems and the population as a whole must look to them for protection against the inhalation of gases which are offensive, dangerous and sometimes both. For example, when I was a young medical student, reading, physiology, I was taught that lower amino acids were found abundantly in fish and were nutritionally useful. Of course, I also knew that when fish becomes putrid it stinks. Now, under this Order, amines are being added to the list of gases, together with amines works, because these lower amino acids, like methylamine and ethylamine, which give out a fish smell, can be very offensive. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give a reason why they are now scheduled.

We have often talked about offensive odours, especially those of us who have constituents subjected to them. We have objected again and again. For example, there is the cat smell which has affected places from time to time. Tees-side was affected, and we are afflicted in Stoke-on-Trent. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) raised the matter in the House. In Stoke, some-where on the northern border, there was a factory which, I understand, was distilling tar, and an acid sludge was a by-product.

So offensive was this particular smell that a bus which was contaminated by it, and starting at the northern end of the city, would still be most offensive when people got into it 13 miles away. I men- tion this because we are very grateful that that problem was solved for us. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary is a good enough chemist to give me a short but detailed explanation of how it was solved. I have a vague idea. My constituents and my colleagues who represent Stoke-on-Trent with me are most grateful that a solution was arrived at.

There are a few brief questions which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. I notice that under item 45 ammonia works are now to be scheduled. Will he tell me what this change indicates? Has there been a change in the manufacture of ammonia? Is it because this is now a great synthetics industry? Under item 46, hydrogen cyanide works are now to be scheduled and taken over by the inspectorate. Can he tell me whether that is a special reference to the plastics industry?

Under item 54, I am particularly glad that cadmium works are to be scheduled. Cadmium fumes are very toxic. There have been many deaths owing to lack of appreciation of the danger. It is not commonly known that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was responsible for the scheduling of cadmium poisoning as an industrial disease.

This is an interesting example of what a Member of Parliament does and can do for his constituents. My right hon. Friend brought me a clinical description of one of his constituents who was ill, and he asked my advice. I studied the report and said that I thought that it was a case of cadmium poisoning. I said to my right hon. Friend that other workers must have been involved and some might have died and I asked if he could get me some death certificates.

A week or two later, he brought me some certificates of five or six workers who had died from cadmium poisoning. As a result, we went to see the Minister of Health, who was then Mr. Osbert Peake, and we complained to him that this was a serious grievance and that representations had been made again and again in the area involved, but without success. The Minister brought in the Medical Research Council, which made an investigation which lasted for months and which then concluded that it was "a true Bill" and that there had been deaths from cadmium poisoning and that there was a risk and that there must be a danger. The result was that it was then scheduled as an industrial disease. I am now delighted to see that the inspectorate has taken over works wherever cadmium is involved.

The fourth and last of my questions relates to item 56, metal recovery works. This refers to the burning of scrap insulated cable. By burning off the insulation, the metal is recovered. Formerly, it was always insulated with rubber, outside which there might have been some wool or cotton, but more and more today there is a plastic covering on cable and I think that that is why it is to be scheduled. Phosgene, used by the Germans as a poison gas in the First World War, and very irritating, or hydrochloric acid mist or vapour or both, is emitted, depending on whether there is a reducing or oxidising atmosphere.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what would be entailed. First, how many additional registrations are likely? Secondly, what will be done about local authorities, because they recover scrap cable of this type and they may well burn it to recover the metal? Are they to be allowed to do this under their own inspectors appointed under the Clean Air Act, or will the Alkali Inspectorate wish to supervise all installations.

This Order, which is complex and does a great deal by way of new scheduling, also does some descheduling. This is particularly gratifying. When we discussed the Clean Air Bill strong feeling was shown by some of the larger local authorities, such as mine and that in Sheffield, because a number of new industries were taken over by the Alkali Inspectorate not only because they produced fumes, but because they produced smoke, grit, and dust. The smoke inspectors of the larger authorities thought that they were well able to handle ceramic works, but we lost them to the inspectorate, or, at any rate, the inspectorate took them over.

Item 7(d) of the Order says that processes in the pottery industry where flint is being calcined are to be remitted back to the local authority, which is to be responsible for supervising the firing of the ware in tunnel kilns. This will please us and the manufacturers. We can handle this, as can Sheffield. Certain processes may well be going to Sheffield, and the people there will be pleased about it.

I note that salt glazing is to be scheduled. I was not aware that we did any salt glazing. We used to do a great deal for domestic pottery, and I presume that this type of salt glazing will be for industrial material. Stoke-on-Trent has the greatest collection in the world of salt-glazed domestic pottery. It is a pity that we are able to show only about 10 per cent. of our collection, but there is no space in which to display the remainder. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that the inspectorate wishes to take over this salt glazing because of the possibility of its extensive use in the future.

Finally, I wish to say a word about the chief inspector, who took up this appointment in 1955. I remember seeing him in the Committee room when the Clean Air Bill was being discussed, and I also remember him because he worked near me at university when I was trying to learn something about organic chemistry. I believe that he retires next year. This complex Order crowns his career and is his swan song.

In paying tribute to him for what he has been able to do in the area which I represent, we should bear in mind how valuable the inspectorate has been to the countries of the Commonwealth who come to the inspectorate for advice when they are beginning their own new industries. We often criticise our civil servants, hut rarely praise them. It is as well to remind ourselves from time to time of the unending and untiring work that these men do on our behalf.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has given some excellent reasons why we should discuss the Order. As usual in these matters, he spoke with such great authority that it would be impertinent for a layman like myself to repeat some of the things that he said. In fact, much of what he said I could not repeat. Certainly I could not cover the wide range that he covered in discussing this very complex Order.

One reason why we should question the Order is to be certain that the provisions of the original Act are already being so satisfactorily implemented that we can now afford to extend it—or, to put it in another way, to give extra responsibilities to the Ministry's alkali inspectors when there is a suspicion in certain quarters that their responsibilities are already too onerous. I do not wish to criticise the alkali inspectors; I do not know as much about them as does my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who himself raised the question of further recruitment. I have had not nearly so many dealings with them as he has had. Nevertheless, I met two of them less than a week ago, when they came to discuss with my public health committee the question of cement dust in West Thurrock. We were grateful for the assistance and advice that we had from them.

One of the chief responsibilities of these chief inspectors is the control of factories which manufacture cement. People who dwell near a cement factory suffer from a plague—a plague of heavy, grey cement dust. The people who live in West Thurrock suffer more than anyone else. In addition to the deposits from the large factories in their district, other deposits are carried on the prevailing winds from the factories in Kent, on the other bank of the River Thames.

It is said that this dust is not harmful to health. I find this difficult to believe. Certainly it cannot be very beneficial. Even those medical authorities who claim that it is not harmful to the lungs or chest must agree that besides being unsightly and filthy it causes constant wear and tear on the nervous system. Harassed housewives have to dust their premises and furniture a dozen times a day or more. That cannot be very good for them.

Assurances have been given over and over again, for many years, by cement companies and by the Government's alkali inspectors that everything possible is being done to mitigate this nuisance, but there seems to be little improvement. We believe that a lot more could be done. For example, some of the precipitators are very ancient, having been in use since before the war. We say that they should be scrapped and replaced. The only reason that I can think of for their not being replaced is that new ones cost a lot of money.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

Order. I am not certain whether cement works are covered by the Order. Can the Minister help me?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield)

They are not covered by the Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Then I am afraid that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) cannot raise the subject of cement works.

Dr. Stross

On a point of order. They came into the Alkali Order in 1935. Is that enough?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

We cannot discuss the Order of 1935; we can discuss only the Order which is before us tonight.

Mr. Delargy

The control of cement dust is covered in the Acts of 1906, 1926 and 1956. This Order merely purports to extend those Acts.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is covered in the original Act, but we are dealing with the extension by Regulations of what can be done under the Act. We can discuss only the works and gases which are dealt with in the Order.

Mr. Delargy

With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I call your attention to the Explanatory Note at the end of the Order, which reads: The discharge of certain noxious or offensive gases, smoke grit and dust from certain types of works is subject to control under the Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Act, 1906 … I claim that cement dust is covered by the Explanatory Note.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am afraid that the hon. Member has not appreciated the point. This Order is introduced under the 1906 Act, but all that the Order does is to extend by Regulations the control of certain works and gases which can be carried out under the 1906 Act. The reference to the Act in the Explanatory Note is purely explanatory of the root of the Order.

Mr. Delargy

I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will therefore finish by referring to other dust and grit which are mentioned in the Order—for example, limestone, aluminium and aluminium alloys. Limestone is only chalk, silica and clay, and chalk and clay make cement between them.

At all events, we are all agreed that although the alkali inspectors are doing an excellent job, it is far too big and complex for the inspectors as they are at the moment. We hope that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will answer one of the earlier questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about the recruitment of alkali inspectors.

10.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield)

I think that a stranger to our debates would be somewhat surprised to compare the very welcoming speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) with the words with which of necessity he had to introduce the debate. I join him in his tribute to the inspectorate and particularly to the Chief Inspector, who assures me that he is determined at any rate to see the centenary year through.

I cannot begin to match the hon. Member's knowledge of chemistry, and what I once knew I found to be far from fresh in my mind when the Chief Inspector tried to explain to me some of the intricacies of the Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving me some idea of the more obscure matters which he wished to raise.

May I say one or two general words before trying to reply to the particular questions. Our general policy is to bring within the Act only those emissions which are seriously toxic or offensive and which therefore require the specialised skill of the inspectorate and are outside the sphere of the skills available to most local authorities.

In connection with one question which the hon. Member asked, I assure him that even though some of these processes which are included for the first time by the Order have been going on in a small way for a number of years, the inspectors watch them in consultation with local authorities. There is always a section of the Report of the Alkali Inspectorate devoted to unregistered works and giving some indication of the work which is done under that head. It is this close contact on the processes which have developed, some of them in a very short period almost from laboratory scale producing lbs. to highly developed processes producing tons, which enables the inspectorate to bring them in as and when conditions require. This is the main reason why it is necessary to add very substantially to the list of existing emissions.

As hon. Members know, the extra processes that are brought in are now in Part 2 of the Second Schedule and the extensions and variations of the processes are in Part 1 and, in part, in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the main body of the Order. The list, in terms of actual work to be carried out by the Inspectorate, is actually less formidable than it looks because most of the works concerned are already scheduled in respect of some other process.

As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned, there is a certain element of de-scheduling which has gone on in respect of ceramic works, in which the hon. Member is particularly interested. These Orders are subject to public inquiry before they are made. There were no objections, except in regard to a small section of the scrap metal trade in connection with the burning of cable to recover the metal cores. As the hon. Member rightly said, the reason why this has been brought in, despite that objection, is because the modern insulating material gives off highly dangerous gases.

It is difficult to assess how many new works will be involved because the chances are that many of these small burners of this stuff will probably cease to do it. It would not be worth their while to take the necessary precautions. Without being schoolmasterish, I am told that the "best practical means" appears in the second Act and not in the first, so the phrase has not quite reached its centenary.

As to the general unintelligibility of these series of Orders, I can assure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that we are doing exactly what he wants; preparing the list. I will not swear that it will be on one sheet of paper. The list of noxious gases and processes is lengthy, but I can tell him that the printers' proofs were corrected this morning and this, I hope, will simplify matters for those who have to carry out these things.

We also appreciate that time is getting ripe for a consolidation Order replacing the existing ones. That will take a year or two at the most, by which time some minor Amendment to the existing Orders will probably be required again.

As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Treat, Central said, there is a total of 22 inspectors out in the country, so to speak, plus the Chief Inspector, who has two deputies, at Headquarters. I can assure the hon. Member that we will recruit the necessary extra staff as and when it proves to be necessary. We feel at the moment that an extension from the 22 to, say, 24 or 25 should be sufficient for now, and I am glad to inform the House that the recent testing of the market which we carried out in replacing an inspector showed that the calibre of people for this important job is, fortunately, available.

The hon. Member referred to the "cat smell" and I cannot do more than quote from a report published in 1960. It is in technical language so I hope that the hon. Member will not question me too closely about its full meaning because I am sure it is clearer to him than it is to me. The report stated: The 'cat smell' had its origin in a practically odourless, aqueous effluent, containing amongst other substances, an unsaturated aliphatic compound, from an organic synthesis entering the somewhat polluted River Tees. Under certain conditions dissolved sulphates in the River are converted by anaerobic bacteria to hydrogen sulphide. This reacted with the compound mentioned above to produce the malodorous substance responsible for the much publicised smell. I am told that this is a pure perfume, chemically, and I believe that at one time in our history it was a not unpopular one.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in thinking that the inclusion of the ammonia works is due to the very rapid increase in the large-scale production of synthetic ammonia. The hydrocyanic acid works are included because of the great expansion of the plastic industry.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will feel that in regard to the cadmium works this is not one of his least rewarding Parliamentary experiences to see that the deaths and illnesses to which he refers have been identified, and that we have gone one stage further forward today in including these cadmium works in the Order. I understand that the trouble arises when cadmium in relatively small quantities is mixed with copper. The production of cadmium itself, which takes place on the borders of my constituency in quite a large way, is not in any way dangerous. It is only when it is connected with the various alloys of copper that the danger arises.

Returning to the scrap metal burners of p.v.c. and other insulating materials, where this work is done by local authorities, the position is that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a provision Section 17 (2) of the Main Act by which local authorities can apply to be responsible for certain individual processes and works although they are covered by the Order. If they are to burn this insulating material purely as part of their refuse disposal duties they would not come under direct control of the inspectorate. If, on the other hand, they did it as a definite metal-recovery operation, they would come under that control, but would be able to apply for a Section 17 order to permit them to be responsible through their own clean air and smoke inspectorate. That applies over a wide field, and some of the larger authorities will probably apply for an order and, in some cases, there will no doubt be a degree of delegation.

I hope that I have covered all the hon. Gentleman's points; if I have not, I will be delighted to write to him. As I have said, I am grateful to him for the indication he gave of what he wished to raise. As I am sure other hon. Members will appreciate, this is not a matter that one carries readily in one's head.

I can tell the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) that the very fact that some of these works are ancient is one of the reasons why the precipitators have to be tailor-made, which is a longer process than when one is designing a new works and a standard type of precipitator can often be used. I can assure him that we take the matter very seriously, and there is no ground for believing that this is either beyond the capacity of the inspectorate or that they are unable to carry our their wider responsibilities under the new Order.

10.40. p.m.

Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

if the pioneers of the chemical industry, who were thrown out of St. Helens because of the unconscionable smells they were making, had been prevented by the Alkali Inspectorate from settling in the marches of the Mersey, there would have been no Widnes. If there had been no Widnes, I would not be here as a Member to speak of alkali inspection.

I have very good and strong reasons, therefore, for appreciating the importance of the work that is done by the inspectorate. The conflict arises in the need to tighten up and extend, as the Order does, the chemical processes that are brought under control and, at the same time, to recognise that the industry is playing a very vital part.

In such a place as my constituency, the whole industrial life of which has been intimately bound up for a century with this industry, there is an ambivalent feeling. On the one hand, we do not want to make things impossible for the industry and, on the other, we want life to be livable for the people there. As the standard of living rises, the more reluctant people are to accept trouble from deposits and smells as part of life.

This is more so now with the Clean Air Act, because the ordinary public who are prevented by the Act from burning their humble fuels get very irritated when they see a factory the other side of the road, which is conveniently outside the clean air zone, belching out deposits and smoke. It is, therefore, important to enforce these regulations and to extend and adapt them to the developing industrial problems.

It so happens that in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) there are workers from the same factory who have suffered from cadmium poisoning. In his modesty, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) did not mention the part which he has played. If we had not had such an outstanding man in the House, with such expert knowledge of industrial medicine, to take up a matter of this sort and push it through with his usual charm, energy and devotion, many people would have died who have been saved. Both my right hon. Friend and I who are concerned with this problem in Huyton and Widnes appreciate the work which my hon. Friend has done, and I am glad to have this opportunity of saying so.

Dr. Stross

In view of the answers which we have been given, which have certainly pleased me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.