HL Deb 23 March 1926 vol 63 cc714-26

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, as a Bill very similar to this has already been introduced three times in this House I need only recall to your Lordships a very brief outline of its history and purpose. The activities of various smoke abatement bodies, and also Parliamentary action, led, in 1914, to the setting up of a Departmental Committee to investigate possible ways of strengthening the law against pollution of the atmosphere. This Committee had to be dispersed at the outbreak of the War, and not until 1920 was the Ministry of Health able to set up another Committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Newton, whose exhaustive Report is no doubt familiar to your Lordships. Following this Report, Bills were introduced in 1922, 1923 and 1924, but only in the case of the last was it possible to proceed to Committee stage. In view of the somewhat inauspicious careers of these Bills, one of the principal objections directed against them was that the Government of the day bad never any intention of passing them into law, which is certainly a very valid criticism, if it can be substantiated, against any Bill, but it is one which I hope will be now satisfactorily and finally dissipated.

I may, perhaps, remind your Lordships that it is now possible for the sanitary authorities too proceed under various Acts of Parliament, some local and some general—more particularly the Public Health Act, 1875—against excessive pollution of the atmosphere by smoke. It is the intention in the present case to follow the precedent of other Bills and to extend the scope of certain Acts, and, in addition, to encourage the more rigid enforcement of the existing laws. The Minister feels that a great deal more could be done in this direction, and that by rigid enforcement of moderate restrictions a more useful public purpose could be served than would be served by extending restrictions without regard to the burden thereby imposed on industry and on the convenience of the public, which, in his opinion, would only hinder the recuperation of industry or, alternatively, would lead to the non-observance of the law.

If your Lordships turn to the Bill you will observe that Clause 1 makes it possible to take proceedings in respect to a smoke nuisance irrespective of the colour of the smoke; and it provides for a wider definition of the term "smoke." On the other hand, it extends temporary exemption from liability as regards such proceedings to certain processes, chiefly—or entirely, I think—in the steel trade, and enables the Minister, subject to confirmation by Parliament, to exempt other processes. It will, however, be a defence against these proceedings to show that the best possible means have been taken for preventing a nuisance, except in the case of the emission of black smoke, where the existing law will continue to apply. The clause also allows of the imposition of larger penalties than at present, and in certain respects incorporates different suggestions from varying points of view expressed in Committee on the 1924 Bill. It does something to strengthen the existing law on the lines suggested in the Newton Report; at the same time, it exempts certain industrial premises which might be unduly handicapped thereby.

Clause 2 enables local authorities to set up standards of smoke emission, subject to confirmation by the Minister. I understand that this provision will facilitate the enforcement of the law, inasmuch as the onus of proof, after certain standards have been exceeded, will now rest on the manufacturer, instead of on the local authority. An alteration has been made in this clause to meet the criticism of the majority on the last Bill and in order to strengthen the existing law. Clause 3 is, I believe non-controversial: it merely strengthens and extends the scope of some of the provisions of the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Act.

Clause 4 enables local authorities to require that certain new buildings should be provided with arrangements for smokeless heating. This is rather an important clause. It was debated at some length in Committee in 1924. The Minister is anxious to do what is possible to reduce the volume of domestic smoke, which, as was shown in the Report, is responsible for at least 50 per cent. of the pollution of the atmosphere. While it is obviously impossible to require the alteration of heating arrangements in existing buildings, the Minister considers that it should be possible to enforce smokeless heating arrangements in new buildings, but he excepts dwelling-houses. He has very carefully considered whether this provision could be extended to dwelling-houses, but after extensive inquiries he has come to the conclusion that such an extension would not be compatible with the rapid and inexpensive provision of working-class houses, which are still so urgently needed. It must be remembered in this connection that experience has proved that people are exceedingly conservative in their domestic habits, and also that no cheap form of smokeless fuel is at present available for domestic consumption.

In Clause 5 local authorities are to be able to combine for the prevention of smoke nuisances. Clause 6 is for the purpose of strengthening the hands of the Ministry in cases where the local sanitary authorities are in default in respect of their anti-smoke duties. The Minister is enabled in such cases to transfer their powers to county councils and also to hold an inquiry into the manner in which they are carrying out their duties in this respect. Clause 7 enables the Minister to procure information -as to the general progress of anti-smoke measures. Parts of Clause 6 and all Clause 7 are new and are inserted with the object of strengthening the hand of the Minister, in order to lead to a, better general enforcement of the law. It has not been found possible to adopt all the suggestions of the Newton Committee, such as that which provided that county councils should ordinarily be responsible for taking proceedings in respect of nuisances. I do not think I need enter into the reasons for that decision at this stage of the Bill, but I might observe that the clause does in some respects approximate to the recommendations of that Committee; at least, more so than has been the case in previous Bills.

Under Clause 6 ships are exempted from the operation of the Bill. This clause has been inserted in response to strong representations made in Committee on the 1924 Bill. The Minister has been convinced of the desirability of exempting ships, because of the technical difficulties of enforcing legislation in regard to ships, and also on account of the complications that might arise if an attempt was made to do so in respect of foreign vessels. Clause 9 enables pressure to be exerted on Govern- ment establishments Which may transgress the law. An attempt has here been made to meet the very general desire that Government establishments should be prevented from setting a bad example in respect of smoke nuisances. It is, of course, understood that Government Departments cannot be made subject to legal proceedings in the ordinary way because ultimately Parliament itself is responsible, but in this clause a method is adopted which attempts to attain the desired object while avoiding the practical and constitutional difficulty which would otherwise be involved.

I think have said sufficient at this stage about the clauses of the Bill. Your Lordships will see that this is not a very stringent measure, and it will not bring about the complete disappearance of fogs and smoke, which have obviously such unpleasant and harmful effects, both here and in the industrial areas, and on which such very full evidence is given in the 1921 Report. But I submit that the Minister has gone as far as he could without adding to the cost of living and without adding to the expenses of production in manufacture by requiring the installation of new plant in factories. On the whole, I think it is stronger than previous Bills and I hope it will commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I noticed the other day that the noble Lord observed that each successive Bill was worse than the one before. I also noticed that in 1923 he said that he cheerfully admitted that the Bill of that year was a considerable improvement upon its predecessors. Although he may not usually be given to undue optimism, I hope the noble Lord may continue to be cheerful in respect to this Bill, which I think follows more closely the lines of the noble Lord's Report. I have only one thing to add in relation to a criticism which was previously made against the form of the Bill, that it contains an enormous number of references to Acts of Parliament. There is no defence. It must be admitted that it is a bad example of that sort of thing, but I understand that it is intended to carry out a consolidation of all the Public Health Acts as soon as the time of the appropriate officials permits. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, this Bill is really a very important measure, although nobody would guess that this was the case judging by the appearance of the House at the present moment. It is a somewhat singular fact that a measure of this kind, which as I say is one of very considerable importance, is not, apparently, considered worthy of patronage by one of his Majesty's Ministers. As the noble Viscount said, this Bill is the fourth of a series. It is the fourth Bill which has been introduced since 1921, when the Committee over which I presided issued its Report. Here I would like to correct the lapsus lingua of which I admit I was guilty the other day. I did say that one Bill was worse than the other. In a sense that was true; but what. I ought to have said was that the Bill had started very badly Fait had gradually improved, and I am now ready openly to admit that there has been a progressive improvement for this reason; that every year one more of our recommendations has been adopted. But the real trouble with previous Bills was that, to use a racing term, they were "never meant." It was never intended that any of them should pass. They were all introduced at a period of the Session when it was perfectly obvious that nothing of the kind would be in the least likely to go through the two Houses of Parliament. I hope this time that His Majesty's Government are animated by a different feeling, that they really have honourable intentions in this case and that they mean to get this Bill through, somehow or other.

In studying the measure one cannot help being struck with the influence which important and powerful organisations are able to exert upon all Governments. The noble Viscount indicated certain changes which appear in the Bill. Let me first of all call your Lord ships' attention to Clause 1, subsection (1), paragraph (e). This is the clause which deals with exemption and it must be perfectly clear to everybody that this clause has been put in at the instigation of, and owing to pressure by, the Sheffield people. There was already a large number of exemptions under the old Act of 1875. The Sheffield people came forward and said that they would be ruined unless their particular industries were included amongst the exempted industries. They have got their way. So much for the Sheffield provision. I pass to subsection (4) of Clause 1, which refers to the giving of notice of nuisance. That was obviously put in by the Federation of British Industries. I remember they objected to the wording of a similar subsection in last year's Bill.

Then I pass to what is much more important—namely, Clause 8, which exempts steamships. It must be perfectly obvious to everybody that what has happened is that Lord Inchcape, accompanied by other shipping magnates, went to the Government and made out that unless steamships were exempted the whole of the shipping trade of the country would be ruined. The astonishing thing is that he has succeeded in persuading the Minister to adopt his views; with the result, which is almost unbelievable, that the shipping industry is placed in a better position than it was in before. Up to now a steamship in harbour was treated like a house and came under the same regulations. Now, as I understand it, there is not to be any liability whatsoever, in spite of the fact that there is no real argument against steamships being treated in the same way as other industries. If I am not mistaken, every single port authority is against the shipping people in this matter.

But the most surprising of all is Clause 9, with regard to Government establishments. My noble friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill endeavoured, of course, to make out that the Government were acting in an altruistic and patriotic manner and were going to allow their own establishments to be dealt with in the same way as private undertakings. It is nothing of the kind. The position is that the Minister who happens to be at the head of the particular Department which is causing the offence is the judge of whether he is causing a nuisance or not. That is to say, supposing a Government establishment, an arsenal or something of the kind, was creating a nuisance, it would be impossible to proceed against them unless the Secretary of State for War, or the First Lord of the Admiralty, admitted that it was a nuisance. On the other hand, a private establishment of the same kind which was emitting smoke would be liable to heavy penalties under the Bill. Really it does seem to be grotesquely impudent, if I may use the term, that the Government should propose punitive legislation for private manufacturers who are carrying on exactly the same kind of work and should deliberately exempt themselves. I think this clause must be radically altered before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House; otherwise, we shall put ourselves in an absurd position.

Apart from these criticisms, I gladly welcome this Bill as an improvement upon its predecessors. I welcome it all the more because this Bill embodies recommendations which we have hitherto urged without any success whatsoever. For instance, it increases the penalties, which in itself is a good thing. It enables standards to be fixed by local authorities—a point we were very desirous of establishing. It gives county councils power to carry out duties which have been neglected by the smaller authorities. At the same time, I am afraid I do not see any power given to the Minister to compel the county councils to carry out their duties. I submit also that the Bill deals in a somewhat half-hearted way with the question of local authorities insisting upon smoke-abating appliances being introduced into buildings which are being put up. Altogether, to put it shortly, it is a Bill which may do a great deal of good, in the first place, if it is amended in Committee, and in the second place, if it is administered in the proper spirit.

Everybody, I think, by this time admits that a measure of this kind is badly required. I notice that the Coal Commission the other day pointed out, what was of course familiar to anybody who has studied this question—that the waste from burning raw coal at the present moment equals the output from all the mines in this country working for three days with considerably more than one million miners employed. That gives one some small idea of the reckless waste that is going on at present. I do not want to enlarge upon this matter. Every one knows perfectly well the damage which is done all round by smoke. But this is not simply a question of economy. It is a much larger question than that. It is a question that concerns not only the economy of the nation, but the general amenity of life of the vast majority of the inhabitants of this Island. If this measure passes with the necessary Amendments, if it is administered in a proper spirit, and if the Ministry of Health will show a real interest in this question, which they have never hitherto dune, then I think a good deal can be done to reduce a state of things winch really is almost a disgrace to a civilised community.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I feel that I ought to be in a position to congratulate the noble Lord on introducing a Bill so very similar to that which I myself introduced two years ago, but I am afraid that congratulation cannot be wholehearted because the position to-day is quite different. The Smoke Abatement Bill of 1924 was introduced by a Minority Government, which had to introduce an agreed Bill. The situation to-day is not at all like that. We have now a Government with an enormous majority in both Houses, and I think we are, entitled to say that if they had really meant business they would have brought in a very much more stringent Bill than this is.

At the same time, when the noble Lord, Lord Newton, blesses a Smoke Abatement Bill, it would seem to be almost presumption for any one else to find fault with it. It certainly has, as he pointed out, a certain number of weaknesses. He hit on the right point at the end of his speech when he said that, providing the Minister of Health really set out to administer this Bill in a spirit that he, Lord Newton, would desire, the Bill would be an immense improvement on what has gone before. But is the Minister of Health prepared to give us an undertaking that he really is going to have an inquiry with a view to terminating what we may call the metallurgical exemptions" Is he prepared to give us an undertaking that he is going to enforce in the near future ample by laws on the local authorities?

There are a number of Amendments that I shall hope to move, or that I hope may be moved by some one, before the Bill goes finally to the other House. In Clause 4, which was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, there is a notable exemption which I hope will be omitted. I see in the Report of the Committee stage proceedings of the 1924 Bill that it was omitted. The words are "other than private dwelling houses." The noble Lord, Lord Newton, on that occasion moved an Amendment and the Government accepted it. That has now been vetoed. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, also mentioned the question of Government Departments. I hope that on that point a very strong Amendment will be moved. Of one thing I am sure and that is that, however strong the Amendment is, it ought to receive very great support from the Government Benches, judging from the bombardment and buffeting to which I was subjected by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.

I can assure the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that whatever is moved from this side of the House will be moved solely with an earnest desire to help in every way to improve the Bill and will not be designed in any way to impede its passage. We on this side of the House, as well as the Opposition in another place, believe that the problem of doing away with the smoke in our atmosphere is one of the most important problems presented to those who are interested in public health. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, pointed out, it is not merely a matter of economy, not solely a matter of saving the hundreds of thousands of pounds that we lose every year by the destruction of buildings in our towns, or the wastage of time occasioned through unnecessary fogs, but it is a question of our whole general outlook on life. I wonder how many of your Lordships consider the enormous number of people in this country who hardly know what a really pure ray of sunlight is, and what that must mean to their moral and æsthetic outlook on life. Surely that is just as important as any other consideration. I hope, however, that this Bill will receive a Second Reading.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, the noble Earl opposite apparently got up to curse the Bill, but finished by blessing it, as, I am sure he would, because he has agreed, like so many other noble Lords in this House, that smoke, especially in large towns, is most injurious to the public health. I am well aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said, that this is the fourth of a series of Bills. I hope it is going to prove to be the lucky number, and that it will pass into law. This question of smoke abatement has been con- sidered very carefully for some years by the London local authorities, especially by the London County Council, and they have repeatedly pressed that the Ministry of Health should bring in a comprehensive measure.

There is one point, however, to which I should like to draw the attention of the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading. My point arises on subsection (3) of Clause 2, and it is this. Ever since the creation of the London Borough Councils they have been the authority to administer the present Act, and the public control committee of the London County Council stated in their Report that during the last twenty years smoke conditions all over London have greatly improved. They are by no means perfect, as we all know, and we hope this Bill will do something to remedy the defects that exist. At the same time, it is curious to note that that period of twenty years is practically coincident with the creation of the London Borough Councils.

I may be mistaken, but so far as I can understand Clause 2 it gives power to prescribe standards or by-laws to a local authority on the recommendation of the Minister of Health. Subsection (3) contains the application of this clause to London:— In the application of this section to London, the port sanitary authority of the Port of London shall be the local authority within the district of that authority,"— it is, that is to say, the authority to carry out the work— but save as respects that district the London County Council shall be the local authority within the area of the county of London and the Common Council shall be the local authority within the City of London. The London County Council is quit e satisfied with the way in which the borough councils are carrying out their work and it is part of the policy of the London County Council to devolve as much of their powers of this kind, in view of the congestion of the work they have to do, upon local authorities. I cannot see any reason why work which has been admittedly well done so far as lies in their power under the existing Acts, should be taken away from them. I may be mistaken in my reading of the clause and it may mean simply that the London County Council shall be the authority for making by-laws. To that, of course, nobody can have any possible objection. My point, however, is that it is the authority now. We must have one authority in London and I see no reason why this power should be taken from the existing authority. I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill, Viscount Gage, will explain the matter, because I can assure him there will be a great deal of opposition from the London local authorities and the County Council itself if the present system is altered by this Bill.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I have very little to add to what I said originally because the points that have been raised are nearly all Committee points, which will naturally receive consideration from the Minister before the next stage of the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said he was surprised that the Government with its majority should introduce such a weak Bill. This is not a Party question. It is a question of doing as much as we can without harming industry. I do not think the question of majorities comes in at all. As regards what he asked in connection with the assurance that the Minister of Health would undertake all he has promised, I can only refer him to the testimony which Lord Newton, a few days ago, bore to the good intentions of the Minister of Health. I think he expressed some doubt as to the good intentions of his colleagues, but as to the Minister himself he expressed no doubt that everything that he intended would be carried out to the best of his ability. The only other point which has arisen is the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. So far as I am able to understand the subsection, I think he is under a slight misapprehension. What is referred to here—I think it is fairly clear—is the power of making by-laws. You will note that the clause is described as dealing with power to prescribe standards. That is the power which is conferred on the County Council. The enforcement of the by-laws will remain as at present with the boroughs.

LORD JESSEL

The sanitary authority.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I beg your pardon, the sanitary authority.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

My Lords, I would be glad if the Government would state whether it is their intention to include Scotland in a measure of this kind, because it is just as much needed there as in England. In fact, it is needed even more as we burn more soft coal in Scotland. I am disappointed that the measure does not extend to the northern part of this Island. On the point under discussion, in my experience I have found it desirable to have powers conferred on the larger rather than on the smaller authorities. On the general principle I think that all the borough councils in London are very much dovetailed into one another, and I should have thought the central authority would be most effective. There is so much pressure brought to bear upon a borough council, whether by the municipality itself, whose electrical or gas or other concerns may be one of the leading causes of the pollution of the atmosphere, or by the strong representations of persons interested, who also contribute to the pollution of the atmosphere and who can make their influence more powerfully felt upon a smaller rather than a larger authority. But the reason I rose was to ask whether it is intended by the Government to extend this legislation to Scotland.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to point out the inconvenience of procedure by which speeches are made by noble Lords after the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has spoken in answer to questions raised. We had some little discussion some time ago on points of order of this kind. It is quite obvious that a noble Lord in charge of a Bill is placed in a difficulty if speeches are made after he himself has answered to the best of his ability the points already raised. The noble Viscount in charge of this Bill is not to blame, if I may say so, because nobody rose to continue the discussion. But if you are going to have questions of this kind raised after the noble Lord in charge of a Bill has replied on behalf of His Majesty's Government we shall inevitably be left in difficulty.

VISCOUNT NOVAR

My Lords, may I be allowed to point out that it is the noble Duke, sitting below me, who usually answers for Scotland and he has not spoken yet.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, I quite agree that it is inconvenient after the Minister in charge of a Bill has replied for the discussion to continue, but I am sure your Lordships will allow me to answer the noble Viscount. I agree with him, if I may be allowed to say so, that Scotland is at least as much in need of a Bill of this kind as England. He is quite correct in that respect. But he knows much better than I know that the law of Scotland is not the same as the law of England and it is not easy to deal with the law of England and the law of Scotland in one Bill. It is the intention of the Government to introduce another Bill to deal with Scotland. I do not know whether it can be done in the present Session; but that is the intention. We carefully considered this point and we came to the conclusion that it would be impracticable to add Scottish provisions to this Bill. It would have led to a great deal of confusion and we were obliged to abandon the attempt, but the matter has not escaped us.

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