HL Deb 26 July 1923 vol 54 cc1414-22

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, the introduction of this Bill has been somewhat delayed, but I do not think that this is a matter which need trouble those who are interested in it, because it was always understood that there should be a considerable interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage. This will be provided by the Recess, so that those who are interested in the Bill will have an opportunity of considering its provisions. Since this Bill, or rather a Bill which greatly resembled it, was introduced last year considerable criticism has been levelled against it by representatives of industry. It was urged that, although everybody was interested in preventing smoke nuisances, nothing should be done which would tend to prejudice industry in any way at a moment when unemployment is so considerable and when industry requires all the assistance it can obtain. Accordingly, we have omitted certain provisions from the Bill to meet this criticism, and I trust that this omission will prove satisfactory to those who have put forward objections to the original proposals.

In this Bill we extend the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, so that all smoke, and not only black smoke, is included in the smoke nuisance. The expression "smoke" will now include soot, gritty particles and ash as well as black smoke. We followed the advice of my noble friend's Committee in imposing larger fines for breaches of the law, but in view of the accumulated amount of these fines, in reference to which representations have been made, we have not adopted the same maximum as appeared in the Bill last year, but have reduced it to a certain extent. If your Lordships will turn to subsection I (e) of Clause 1 you will find that this is a new provision. Section 334 of the Public Health Act specifies certain processes which are to be exempted from the penalties provided in the Act for the emission of black smoke, and to these we have added the processes of reheating, annealing, hardening, forging, converting and carburising iron and other metals, thus extending Section 334. This extension, however, will operate only for a limited time, because, under the proviso, after five years a Provisional Order which, of course, will have to be affirmed by Parliament, may be issued to exclude from the section all or any of the processes therein contained. That is to say, after five years it will be possible to do away with Section 334 altogether, or with any process included therein or which may be added thereto.

I have only one more observation to make on Clause 1. In subsection (3) we have again followed the recommendations of my noble friend's Committee, although we have slightly varied them. According to my noble friend's recommendations, the onus probandi would seem to lie upon the local authority, but in this subsection we place it upon the person in charge, and give him the power of arguing in his defence "that he has used the best practical means for preventing the nuisance, having regard to the cost and to local conditions and circumstances." These references to cost and circumstances are an addition to the Bill.

Now I come to Clause 2, which is a new clause, introduced in order to meet one of the recommendations of the Committee—one upon which my noble friend laid particular stress, namely, the recommendation to empower the Ministry of Health to fix standards from time to time. I do not really think that the Ministry is the proper authority to fix standards for the measurement of black smoke, and by the clause we give power to the local authorities to fix their own standards. Then, in Clause 3, which is the same as the clause of last year, we take power to extend the list of noxious or offensive gases mentioned in the Act of 1906. The fixation of a standard for alkali noxious vapours of this kind is different from any mere fixation of a general standard for smoke. This refers to another recommendation of my noble friend's Committee, which was that the general obligation should rest upon manufacturers to use the best practical means of preventing the escape of noxious gas, but we think that the better course is to extend the number of noxious gases in Section 27, of the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906, because we think it would be rather difficult to enforce the obligation in the manner proposed by the Committee.

In Clause 4 we deal with new buildings and empower urban authorities to make by-laws requiring the provision in new buildings, other than private dwelling-houses, of such arrangements for heating as are calculated to prevent or reduce the emission of smoke. There is an omission from this clause, because it does not say that the by-laws are to be confirmed by the Ministry of Health. That will have to be put right in Committee. My noble friend objected to our not having adopted his recommendation to transfer the administration of the law wholly to the county councils and county boroughs. The county boroughs have the administration of the law, because the county borough is the sanitary authority. As regards the county councils, it would be really impossible to transfer this authority from the district councils to the county councils. The district councils are the sanitary authority and they have inspectors and machinery to do the work. If it were transferred to the county councils they would have to create a wholly new set of inspectors and machinery to administer the law, and, furthermore, I think it is very undesirable to chance the law in a piecemeal fashion by making a different law for the prevention of smoke nuisance from the law which applies to the prevention of other nuisances. It is impossible to carry out the Committee's recommendation. As a matter of fact, we do something towards this, because we give power to the county councils, with the sanction of the Ministry, if the local authority fails to carry out the provisions of the Act, to undertake the duties of that local authority, carry them out and charge to it any expense which may be incurred. I beg to move that the Bill be now read 2a.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I do not suppose that any one will dispute that legislation with regard to this matter is not only due but long overdue, and in connection with that point of view I regret that Lord Curzon is not present because he is the only man occupying a post of considerable importance who has ever dealt with this matter. When Lord Curzon went to India he realised that Calcutta, unless steps were taken to prevent it, would become almost as smoky as some of our large industrial towns, and he invited an expert from Sheffield—a very appropriate place from which to get an expert—a Mr. Nicholson, to advise him. Upon the advice of that expert he brought in legislation which has saved Calcutta from the fate which has befallen many of our principal British cities. I cannot help thinking that if Lord Curzon had occupied the position of President of the Local Government Board, or Minister of Health, we should have had legislation of this kind long ago.

It has always been a source of perpetual amazement to me that, considering the many millions which we spend upon what is called social reform, upon housing, upon the purification of water and food, and so on, no steps have been taken by any Government to deal with the purification of the atmosphere since 1875. The result is that, although we rightly pride ourselves upon personal cleanliness, we are, upon the whole, the dirtiest country in Europe. I do not wish to dilate upon this because I have spoken upon the matter before, but it is really impossible to exaggerate the discomfort, damage to health and property, and unnecessary expense to which many millions of our people are continually exposed day by day, and from which the great majority of our population suffer, as the result of this state of affairs. It all arises from the fact that the central authority here has never taken any interest in the matter until recently.

I think it must have struck by this time even the most unimaginative person that it cannot be by mere accident that the only revolutionary element in British polities is provided by the industrial districts which are most remarkable for their sordid and dirty surroundings. If we had been brought up in circumstances of this kind, if we had been born in the slums where you never see proper sunlight and, in many instances, literally cannot open your widow on account of the pollution of the atmosphere, except when work is not going on, I suspect our outlook upon life would be rather different from what it is at present. The real reason why nothing has been done with regard to this matter is because you cannot, as a rule, get any Government to initiate legislation, unless they think there are some votes to be secured by it, and the impression has prevailed that there are no votes to be got out of the removal of this smoke pollution. I believe that is an entire delusion. In the course of my duties as Chairman of the Committee, I visited most of the big towns and industrial districts, and I know there is a strong and influential body of intelligent opinion which is only too anxious that legislation of this kind should be passed. I believe that legislation on the lines, or rather improved legislation on the lines, suggested by my noble friend would be greeted with the greatest gratitude and approval by a large section of our countrymen.

As for this Bill, I will admit at once, cheerfully, that it is a considerable improvement upon its predecessor. At the same time, it does not carry out the recommendations of the Committee of which I was Chairman, and I am unable to understand why it has not been possible to adopt those recommendations. Nobody ever found any serious faults with them. Such criticism as has been levelled against them has been almost of a frivolous character. The main recommendations were as the noble Earl pointed out. The first, and most important of all, was that the central body, the Ministry of Health, should play a more active part in this question and compel recalcitrant or reluctant authorities to put the law into operation. The second important recommendation was that the administration of the law should be transferred to larger bodies; and the third, and very important recommendation, although my noble friend says his Department are unable to see their way to adopt, it, was that the Ministry of Health should set up a standard for smoke just as they set up standards in connection with noxious gases.

By the way, there is one curious omission from this Bill. I observe that Government establishments are exempt from any restrictions at all. To my mind, that is a ludicrous anomaly. The Government, in distinction from ail other employers, ought to set an example of efficiency and cleanliness. Under this Bill you will be able to prosecute and to fine establishments which do not comply with the regulations; but Government establishments are to be allowed to emit as much smoke as they please. I submit that this is entirely contrary to common sense. In Germany, where this question is dealt with m a much more efficient way than here, Government establishments set an example to all other establishments throughout the country.

The points which I have enumerated can perfectly well be dealt with in Committee, and, if they are dealt with satisfactorily, then this Bill will probably turn out to be quite an efficacious measure. But there is one point upon which I am a good deal concerned. What are the prospects of this Bill? In racing parlance, is it meant, or is it only out for an airing? I am rather afraid that it is out for the latter purpose, because the persons who are interested in this matter were given an assurance so long ago as last December that a Bill was going to be brought in, and here we are at the end of July. It is very easy for a Minister to promise that a Bill will be introduced, but when a Minister gives that promise you naturally assume that he will take some pains in order to pass it. But I rather gather from what fell from Lord Salisbury the other day, and, more especially, from what was said by Mr. Baldwin in the House of Commons, that the House of Commons does not propose to take up any Bills unless they have passed through all their stages in this House before the adjournment.

I do not consider this by any means a fair fulfilment of the pledge which was made to me and to other people, and I hope that my noble friend will give me an assurance that a genuine effort will be made to pass this Bill into law this year. Whether that be so or not, I do congratulate myself and the persons who are interested in this question upon the fact that, at all events, a Government is at last committed to dealing with it, and, even if we do not get the Bill through this year, the Government will be held to their project, and I am convinced that the more this question is discussed, especially in Parliament, the greater chance there will be of what is little less than a national reproach being eventually removed.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOBE

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is very desirable to see legislation passed upon this subject. He mentioned that it was a great many years since effect was given to legislation on this matter. He referred to public legislation: he is aware, of course, that there, have been experiments in certain municipalities under Private Bills, the result of which, I have no doubt, was before him when he sat upon the Committee of Inquiry, of which he was Chairman. But, in general, I desire to support him, and to say that an Act like this should be passed.

I want, however, to draw the attention of your Lordships not so much to what is in the Bill—which I find great difficulty in understanding—but to the form of it. Your Lordships have had many debates on the subject of legislation by reference, and never has the crime of legislation by reference been committed as it is committed in this Bill. I have a copy here in which the references to other Acts of Parliament are marked in red ink, and they cover the greater part of the Bill. In page 1, which contains twenty-five lines, there are six references to other Acts of Parliament; in page 2 there are ten such references; in page 3 there are eight references to other Acts of Parliament or portions of Acts; and in the last page the Parliamentary draftsman has had a miserable failure, for he has only been able to put in five references, making a total of twenty-nine; but he makes up for his failure on the last page by referring in Clause 2 to all by-laws that have ever been passed by local authorities.

It is nonsense to expect the public to understand a measure that is in this form. So far as I can make out, one-quarter of this Bill, in volume, is direct legislation, and the rest is reference to other Acts of Parliament, in which one word is altered into another, and so on. I am second to none in my anxiety to see smoke abatement successful, but you really cannot expect the public to co-operate with you if you put legislation of this kind before them, and I do make, an appeal to my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill, in the hope that the Bill, when it is passed, as I hope it will be, will be found in a form which somebody run understand without giving a week's work to its elucidation.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

My Lords, although I am in favour of the objects of this Bill, I agree with my noble friend who has just spoken. Unless such a Bill is very simple it will not be much use. And no one will do anything to stop these practices if there is any initial cost. I have risen, however, to ask my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the matter of extending this Bill, or some Bill in a more perfect form, to Scotland. It seems to me that it is absurd for a Bill of this kind to be limited to England: if it is suitable for England it is equally suitable for Scotland.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (VISCOUNT NOVAR)

My Lords, I entirely concur in the view that the noble Duke has expressed. It would be quite inexpedient, in regard to a measure affecting industry as well as public health and cleanliness, that there should be one law on one side of the border, and another on the other. For some time I have been in communication with the local authorities in Scotland on the matter, and I hope to introduce a separate Bill for Scotland this autumn.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Newton was able to say that he thinks this Bill is a considerable improvement on its predecessor. He enumerated certain defects, but said that he would endeavour to cure them by Amendments in Committee. So I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any observations upon them. As regards the question of the business during the autumn sittings, I was not aware of that which he referred to as having been said in another place. All I can say is that, so far as I am concerned, I will do my best to push the Bill forward as soon as we reassemble. What will happen eventually in another place, of course, none of us can prophesy.

My noble friend on the Woolsack has spoken of legislation by reference. I must say I have not counted, with the meticulous accuracy that he has, the number of references to other Acts of Parliament contained in this measure, but I admit that he produced a very formidable total. I do not know how many there were in last year's Bill, but I should think that there were possibly as many, or very nearly as many, and. I do not think that attention was called to this defect at that time. Had it been, possibly we might have been able to produce a Bill which would have been more in accord with my noble friend's views. I am not a draftsman, and I am afraid I cannot express an opinion, but we shall, of course, be very glad if the House will improve the Bill. In the Rent Restrictions Bill the other day we wore able to meet the views of noble Lords who had expressed their disapproval of the practice of legislation by reference. Possibly we may be able to do something of the same kind in reference to this Bill; at any rate, we will look into it and see what can be done.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.