§ VISCOUNT MERSEY asked His Majesty's Government what measures are now being taken to deal with smoke abatement. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should be very grateful if, with your Lordships' permission, I might reserve any few remarks I may have to make until after the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has made a statement. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I have no doubt that your Lordships will allow that to be done. I think it may be convenient. This is a matter which I shall hope to deal with at no very great length. I do not intend at this stage to delay the House, but I want to state how the matter appears to us—that is to the Government—to stand at the present time. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his place because he was Chairman of the Inquiry which eventuated in the Act of 1926—the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1926, which is the Act under which the matter is dealt with at the present time. I propose to divide what I have to say into two parts for the sake of convenience, and to deal with the administrative part of the question—that is the action of the Ministry of Health—and more particularly with the scientific aspect of the question, because my Department is at the head of all scientific inquiry into matters of this kind.
I desire to make it clear that an immense amount of work has been done and is being done with a view to a solution of this difficult question. I do not want to take you at great length into history, but I dare say the noble Viscount 910 is aware that even in the fourteenth century there was a proclamation prohibiting the use of coal in London. A Commission was appointed to inquire of those "who burn sea coal in the City or parts adjoining" and to punish "with great fines" and in the case of a second offence" to demolish their furnaces." That is more drastic than any step which we take at the present time, and it shows that the question has been a long time under consideration. It is interesting also to know that in Queen Elizabeth's time there was a prohibition of the use of sea coal in London whenever Parliament was sitting. I am afraid we have not that advantage now, but we have to see what can be done to produce better atmospheric conditions.
At the outset, I would like to emphasise one point which I know has been in the mind of Lord Newton. The difficulty which arises as regards the pollution of the atmosphere, in reference to which I shall have to give some tests and statistics, largely arises from the domestic coal fires. I think it was part of the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Newton that it would be necessary to deal with the domestic coal fires if you wore to have a real reform and modification of the atmospheric pollution which affects London and so many towns at the present time. But this, I am afraid, until public opinion is further educated in the right direction, is an obstacle against true reform on this question of atmospheric smoke pollution. An estimate made in the year 1921 showed that in London the smoke pollution consisted roughly of two and a half parts by domestic smoke, as against one part due to industrial smoke. I think since that time there has been a good deal more of the industrial element in our London life and in the surrounding districts, and I feel myself that unless steps are taken in time—and it is quite time they were taken—we shall suffer very much more in the future than in the past from atmospheric conditions. I will give similar statistics with regard to Glasgow, and perhaps it is more striking, in some respects, that we find that in Glasgow, a great industrial centre, in 1929, only two years ago, an estimate as regards pollution from the domestic use of coal and the industrial use of coal 911 showed three and a half parts due to domestic use of coal against one part due to industrial use of coal. It is not necessary, I think, to give further statistics or further illustrations to show that real improvement can hardly be expected so long as there is no protection against the atmospheric pollution which comes from the domestic hearth at the present time.
The domestic smoke is impregnated with a large amount of tarry matter, and this tarry matter is a very important element in the amount of resulting pollution. This is because the tarry matter operates not only directly in cutting off light but also indirectly through its sticky qualities in retaining in contact with masonry and vegetation the sulphur impurities carried with it, and, as we all know, sulphur acids are the most actively destructive element of the pollution. So far as furnaces are concerned, great attention is paid to combustion. It is made as complete as possible, and the more complete the combustion the less you get of atmospheric pollution in the form of tar and soot. I think, as I shall point out presently, a great deal has to be done in the industrial as well as the domestic area in order to get better conditions in the future; but it is right to point out that whereas great advance has been made in better combustion in industrial furnaces, little or nothing has been done as regards the ordinary open hearth.
The Newton Committee estimated that the waste of coal owing to present conditions was sufficient to account for 2,500,000 tons per annum out of a total domestic consumption of 40,000,000 tons. Just compare that with the industrial calculation, because it will show the great difference in the two. In industry the loss was calculated at only 500,000 tons out of a consumption of over 100,000,000 tons, showing, as a matter which cannot be controverted, that far larger pollution comes from the domestic hearth than from the industrial furnace. I will give one other calculation which has been made because I think the gravity of the case should be sufficiently stated. It is estimated that apart from the waste of fuel already mentioned, smoke from domestic chimneys causes damage to the extent of at least 10s. per ton of coal burnt. In fact, the crux of the situation 912 largely lies in the domestic open coal fire, and one of the major questions is whether anything can be done to deal with this great source of atmospheric pollution.
The great difficulty, no doubt—Lord Newton I have heard state it more than once—is the prejudice of the ordinary man in favour of burning coal upon the open hearth. But I think it is sometimes forgotten that if you get free burning semi-coke, which can be produced by low temperature carbonisation of coal, you have a bright fire, with the advantage that the amount of pollution is comparatively unimportant. I recollect going down to Richmond. I wish many of your Lordships could go down to see the scientific work which is being carried out in the Department of the Privy Council, in various directions. I went down to Richmond, where large experiments were being carried out in the low temperature carbonisation of coal, and I noticed particularly the brightness of the fire in the room in which I was entertained. On inquiry the fire turned out to be the semi-coke which resulted as one of the byproducts of the carbonisation of coal at a low temperature. As a matter of fact now there are many places in London where this coke can be obtained, but the advantages are not realised. Of course, there is no compulsion, because, so far as the open hearth is concerned, it is, I think, outside all the provisions of the Act of 1926.
§ LORD PARMOORI do not think so, but I do not want to controvert what my noble friend says. But practically there is no working power to prevent the ordinary open hearth coal fire being used in the ordinary dwelling house.
§ LORD PARMOORThat is what I meant. I was sure we should be agreed upon that, and I am much obliged for what the noble Earl has said. Then you have to recollect that it is no good a comparatively small number of people taking the precaution of using this semi-coke unless it is a matter of general custom, because it is not from one or two hearths, but from the multiplication of 913 hearths, that the difficulty arises; and that cannot be cured without some satisfactory provision. I am sorry to say that, anxious as the Government are, and as I am, that this atmospheric pollution should be dealt with, there seems little prospect at present of obtaining powers over the domestic hearth which would really be of use in order to bring about a reform in what is an ever-increasing danger. Perhaps I ought to say that the use of semi-coke does not necessarily diminish the immediate amount of sulphur acids, but what it does is to get rid of the tarry, gritty, and dirty materials which smoke from domestic coal fires carries out with it and disperses to the detriment of all vegetation and the promotion of impurity in atmospheric conditions generally.
Before I come to the administrative question, which is a very important one—and I may say in passing that I believe everything is being done by the Ministry of Health which can be done, under existing conditions—I should like to say something about the scientific side of this very important question. Perhaps your Lordships will not mind my emphasising this factor. The Scientific and Industrial Research Department of the Privy Council, which is now under the extremely able chairmanship of Lord Rutherford in all these matters, publishes Annual Reports: and those Annual Reports show the work that has been and is being done. I wish I could persuade your Lordships to read this Annual Report with some care, in order that you might know how much is being done. I agree that there is an immense amount which remains to be done, and it is in that direction that we are making further experiments.
Let me give one or two illustrations of the experiments which we are making. One very important point is the area over which the pollution is carried. Many experiments show that in some cases the area is very wide indeed. Defects in visibility, from experiments at Valentia, were shown to extend to 350 miles. Flying at Catterick has been noted to have been brought to a standstill by a thick haze from the Leeds area fifty miles away, though the weather was otherwise fine and bright. There is an interesting experiment going on at the present time. The difficulty, of course, is 914 to isolate the source of pollution in any particular case, and therefore Norwich was taken for the purposes of our experiments. Norwich was taken because it is itself an isolated industrial centre. The results have not yet been fully analysed, but they are being analysed, and I hope that, there again, fresh information which it is very necessary to obtain will be obtained on a scientific basis.
There is another point—I am not quite sure how far at was dealt with in the Report of the noble Lord, but certainly further scientific experiments are being carried out at the present time—it is very important to develop some simple method of being able to determine the amount of sulphur impunity in the air. For this purpose, appartus has been developed by the Government Chemist, on behalf of the Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research which is dealing with this question, a description of which has just been issued. Similarly, a simple method for routine measurements of daylight is being developed at the National Physical Laboratory for the Committee. Parenthetically, I wish your Lordships could pay a visit to the National Physical Laboratory, which is the largest and best equipped in the world. I am sure you can have no idea of the scientific investigation which is going on without an actual visit to the spot.
Turning for a moment to the administrative side of the matter, attempts made by one or two authorities to make by-laws under the section applicable to the matter in the Act of 1926, have had to be rejected because of the difficulty of obtaining reliable measures of the density of smoke. You must have the scientific power of discernment before you can make by-laws of this kind really effective. This is a point on which interesting experiments are being made at the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at Greenwich, who are interested in the matter also from the point of view of the efficiency of fuel combustion. If a successful solution can be found it will be of the greatest possible value, because it will then be practicable to lay down more definite standards in reference to which it would be possible to enforce the necessary by-laws.
915 I should like to impress this also upon your Lordships. I think it is common ground now that the question of the carbonisation of coal has become a matter of very great national, industrial and public importance. I will not refer to that in detail because it has been very much discussed of recent years. But the experiments which we are carrying on at Greenwich have been of great advantage not only as regards the form of furnace which is most suitable for the process but also for producing an article, which, as I said before, would be a great element as regards the domestic consumption—that is, what is called a semi-coke which is capable of being used, I believe, as pleasantly as the present coal fire without any great risk of the corresponding dangers which arise at the present time.
Many other bodies have of course been active in connection with the general question. Let me give an illustration. I do not know exactly whether to call it administrative or scientific, but I give it in reference to the work done in the recent controversy in connection with the Battersea power station. The work there was largely under the scientific supervision of the Government Chemist. Let us see how far, where there was proper supervision, even in a great work of that kind you could really counterbalance or get rid of the evils of smoke impurity. We have all seen the Reports; I certainly have had to read them. There is no doubt whatever, I believe, as regards the sulphur acids in the air, that they could be reduced to a negligible quantity. In using the words "negligible quantity" I should like to think that negligible quantity ought to be nothing at all. Still, they could be reduced to a negligible quantity and provision has been made for that purpose. In reducing them to a negligible quantity you have to use water, and if you are not careful you merely change the source of pollution from the sulphur in the air to sulphite in the water, which, after all, may not be as bad but is a form of pollution which ought not to be allowed.
That matter has been left to the control of the Port Authority who have command over the lower reaches of the Thames, and it is for them to see in getting rid of the pollution of the air that the sulphur acid does not become sulphite in the water. I dare say your Lordships know 916 that enormous quantities of the water of the Thames have to be taken in order to wash the sulphur fumes sufficiently to reduce the sulphur acid to what is called a negligible quantity. I merely mention that to show in what an unsatisfactory condition, in some respects, the matter stands. It was only because in that case the possible pollution was so great that public attention was called to it and a whole series of experiments made. I hope that by means of those experiments any danger, at any rate of air pollution and I hope of water pollution, will be avoided.
There are one or two words on administrative action that I should like to say. Administrative action does not come within the Department with which I am particularly connected, but I know perfectly well that every effort has been made by the Ministry of Health, both by its own action and by co-operation with the local authorities, to do all that can be done to ensure that there shall be no pollution having regard to the present state of our scientific knowledge. What I have to say naturally refers chiefly to England and Wales, but I want to add that, although the Scottish Acts are not on all fours with the English and Welsh Acts, yet in substance Scotland has the same problem. A communication has reached me from the Scottish Office that they are just as anxious to deal satisfactorily with this smoke nuisance there as we are in our great industrial towns in England. The statutory abatement provisions, as I have said—this is for the purpose of administration—are contained first of all in Section 91 and the following sections of the English Public Health Act, 1875; but these have been extended and amended by the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1026. Everyone who has had to deal with these matters—and two noble Lords opposite have had experience in particular—will agree with me that the present law applicable to matters of this kind is really to be found in the Act of 1926. I have already stated with what limitation, because that Act does not apply to the fire in the ordinary domestic hearth. I know perfectly well the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, encountered. I know, too, that if he had had his way there would have been further legislation and certainly the 917 commencement of a new era in which that source of pollution might have been, not all at once, of course, but by degrees, eliminated.
No directly active function of smoke abatement is vested in the Ministry of Health or any other Government Department, but the Ministry stands in general supervisory relation to the activities of local authorities. It has the function of confirming by-laws, power to require information from local authorities, to extend or contract by Provisional Order the list of industries which are exempted, and to require the making of by-laws by local authorities as to smoke. It is contemplated, and was indicated in a circular to local authorities at the time of the passing of the Act of 1926, that the activity of a local authority should include not only the legal enforcement of the provisions of the Acts, especially the Act of 1926, but the co-operation of the local authorities with industry so as to secure, the improvement of smoke reduction methods whether by improved stoking, which is a very important matter, or the adoption of adequate appliances to prevent a nuisance. In addition, there was the promotion of and collaboration in research directed to secure improvements, with power to contribute to the cost of investigation and research by other bodies or persons. The value of this combination with the local authorities in the formation of what are called regional committees to secure uniformity of administration, and for the investigation of common problems and better cooperation with industry, was specially emphasised in the whole of that circular.
So far as I know, there have been no direct complaints of the administrative action of the Ministry of Health under the Act of 1926. At any rate, I am very grateful to think that the noble Viscount will answer me, because then we will know more exactly what his points of complaint are. But, judging generally, there has been great co-operation and mutual assistance between the local authorities and the Ministry and some of the greater municipalities. Although for the reasons I have stated, you cannot expect a very large measure of immediate reform, very many steps have been taken in the right direction. I will give one more illustration of the effect of this atmospheric pollution. Experiments were 918 made in Leeds in growing certain vegetables in the City and also six or seven miles out, and the effect of the air pollution was such that the growth was four times greater in the purer atmosphere outside than it was within Leeds itself, where there is a large amount of industrial and other work going on. Then, in Manchester, the Pollution Advisory Board estimated that were the air of Manchester as pure as that of Harrogate—taking Harrogate as an illustration of pure air—the cost of household washing in Manchester would be reduced by something like £250,000 a year. I wish all these facts could be produced and printed in a more complete form than they can possibly be given in a speech in your Lordships' House, but I think I have said enough already to indicate how very important this question is.
Again, going back to sunlight, of which we do not have too much, and which is an important factor in our national health, sunlight in winter is obscured to the extent of about 50 per cent. by smoke atmospheric pollution in some of our larger and more thickly inhabited districts. I would ask your Lordships to look at the Sixteenth Report on the Investigation of Atmospheric Pollution issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research only a few weeks ago, which showed that there was no ultra violet light at all recorded at a station in the centre of Sheffield in November and December of 1929. I have already dealt with the question of visibility. There is a very curious illustration from Falkirk, where experiments of visibility were made, and a calculated visibility of 230 miles was reduced by the ordinary atmospheric pollution to a distance of only 20 miles. One other illustration I may give from abroad, where of course the same scientific principles apply. At Pittsburgh an attempt was made in 1912 to ascertain the assessable financial losses due to smoke pollution. The result showed the loss per head of the population to be about 20 dollars per annum—£4 to £5 per annum. A similar estimate was made in 1918 in Manchester, indicating an annual loss of about £1 per head. The volume of evidence upon the economic losses attributable to smoke pollution is really overwhelming, and to this must, 919 of course, be added the interference with all the amenities and health of life in our urban districts.
I hardly think it worth while to give your Lordships further statistics. What we want to do, if possible, is to get something done. I wish to say on the scientific side, with which I am connected, that we are making experiments in every direction in order to get results which, if placed in the hands of the local authorities and the Ministry of Health, would enable effective by-laws to be made. It is surely a terrible matter that, without more protection, London should be further surrounded, as it is at the present time—encircled one might almost put it—with industrial chimneys. May I give another illustration. I live forty miles away, in Buckinghamshire, and whenever there is an east wind we have an atmosphere—a murky smoky atmosphere—which reminds one very much of the atmosphere in the great industrial towns of Lancashire. I should like to think that there would be no real delay in further dealing with this topic, but I am bound to admit that just now, at any rate, is not a time when further work can be undertaken in these directions by the Government. I know the Departments concerned have done and are doing all they can, and will do all they can. What is really wanted is a careful analysis of the results obtained, and then to use that analysis to put an end to what is not only a loss to health but also a loss in many other directions which I pointed out. The pollution should be stayed, if it can be, without further delay, in order that the principles enunciated by Lord Newton in 1926 may be made practically applicable to this great question.
§ LORD NEWTONMy Lords, it is very gratifying to me to find the noble and learned Lord taking so much interest in this question, but I think that is the only point upon which we can congratulate ourselves. I observe that his colleague, the Minister of Transport, speaking at some function in connection with the new power station in Battersea, expressed the opinion that there was great need for more vigorous legislation in order to combat the smoke nuisance at the present time. I repeat that we have, after all these years of labour, very little to con- 920 gratulate ourselves upon. It is true that fogs, for instance, are not as bad as they were, but they are just as prevalent, and the damage that a really bad fog can do can be illustrated by what occurred not long ago in Belgium. We have had no such experience in this country, but it is quite conceivable that the same thing might some day occur here.
The noble and learned Lord dwelt a good deal upon the necessity for investigation, but there is not the smallest necessity, so far as I can see, to investigate how fogs are produced. It is the simplest matter in the world. The reason why fogs in this country are blacker and worse than anywhere else, with the possible exception of certain parts of Belgium, is perfectly plain. The blackness and the dirt of fogs in this country are due to the national practice of burning raw coal in open fireplaces, a process which has been described, I rather think it was by myself, as an extravagant and a dirty one. The plain truth is you cannot enjoy the amenities of burning raw coal in open fireplaces, as we nearly all of us do, without at the same time contributing to the general dirt and discomfort of the smoke with which we are periodically afflicted. As long as that frame of mind continues, there is not likely to be much improvement, and we shall present a most melancholy, and humiliating contrast in our industrial districts compared with those in Germany, for instance. I confess that I have seldom been more humiliated as an Englishman than when I visited, in the course of this inquiry, towns like Cologne, Dusseldorf and Essen, and compared them with the corresponding towns of this country, such as Birmingham and Manchester. It was a most humiliating experience for an Englishman.
For the present, however, I see little prospect of our conditions being radically improved. If the Government were in earnest there is not much necessity to embark upon further investigations. They should insist upon the provisions of the Act of 1926 dealing with this particular question being enforced. I would like to point out what are the main provisions of that Act. The first provision is that the penalty shall be increased. So far as I know, there has not been a single case in which the increased penalty has been imposed on on offending body. 921 That is, however, a minor matter because, at this moment, with industry in its present, state, the last thing a local authority would wish to do is to impose increased penalties. An important matter is, however, dealt with in Section 2, which refers to the colour of the smoke and lays down that it shall not be merely a, question of black smoke, but that it shall be permissible to take action whatever the colour of the smoke. Everyone knows that smoke is equally objectionable whatever its colour may be.
I now come to the action of the Ministry of Health, that institution for which the noble and learned Lord has such admiration. The Ministry takes the view that local authorities have only power to deal with black smoke, and any attempt to deal with anything else has been a failure. As the Act was introduced in order to remedy this particular difficulty, and as it has been in existence for five years, it is a most extraordinary thing that the Ministry of Health should have allowed these five years to pass without taking any steps to amend this section.
There is another respect in which this Department is equally, if not more, to blame. Different Governments have always persistently refused to deal with private dwelling houses. Although there is a great deal to be said from that point of view, I cannot help thinking that circumstances have changed now and, as public money is now used to build houses, it is not altogether unreasonable that steps should be taken by the Ministry in order to prevent the unnecessary emission of smoke in consequence of the use of the open fireplace. We who are interested in this question thought we had been very clever when we had Section 5 inserted in the Act, because that section provides that a local authority shall have power to control the heating and lighting arrangements in new buildings used as offices, shops and for commercial purposes. That sounded all right and looked all right; but, when one came to administer it, the Ministry of Health, that much-admired Ministry, said the section was so badly drawn that it was unworkable, and that is its view at the present time. I have pointed out two cases where the Act has proved to be unworkable and the Ministry of Health during 922 these five years has not begun the slightest attempt to put the matter right.
I can draw a gloomy picture of our position at the present moment, but I am going to refrain from doing so. Possibly because I am a pessimist by nature, I see very little hope of improvement. As long as the private citizens of this country insist on burning raw coal and as long as the Ministry of Health adopts its present attitude, I see little prospect of any improvement. I may be singular in my views, but it has always seemed to me that smoke is not a local nuisance but a national nuisance, and that therefore the power to deal with it ought to come from the central power, which is the Ministry of Health. As far as my experience goes, I have never found the Ministry of Health very anxious to deal with this particular question. It is always very easy to find excuses to refrain from pressing local authorities, and I admit that, at the present moment, nothing could be more distasteful than to put pressure upon local authorities which causes further expenditure in any direction. But, still, if the Ministry of Health is going to persist permanently in this apathetic attitude, I do not see how any permanent improvement is going to be effected, although we have the machinery at our disposal, if we care to take advantage of it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for having raised this question to-day because it is always interesting to know how this matter has progressed. I have had a good deal to do with it in the past and I do not know how many Bills I have brought in dealing with this matter. None of them, however, was passed and the 1926 Act was some body else's. All the time I was in the Ministry of Health I had to deal with the matter and I was ably assisted and urged forward from behind by my noble friend Lord Newton. He blessed the Act but said at the time it did not go as far as he would have liked. We all know that the crux of this matter is the question of domestic smoke and the difficulty is that the habits of the English people and of many other nations are fixed in the desire for the open fires. If I were to ask any of your Lordships whether they preferred central heating or the 923 open fire, there would be no doubt as to the answer they would give. Lord Newton has told us that Section 5 has not been carried out. It was thought that that section was a workable provision and I am surprised to hear that the Ministry of Health now find a difficulty in carrying it out. It provides that in offices and shops, though not in dwelling houses, where possible something else shall be substituted for the open hearth.
The way out of this difficulty is the one suggested by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He has given us an interesting and instructive account of recent experiments carried out by his Department which make it possible to substitute for coal some other combustible substance. In that way one can meet the objections of the people who want the open fire and do not want central heating. I gather that the experiments have not gone so far as to require legislation, but they are of a very promising description. Another point mentioned by Lord Newton was Section 2, which deals with the possibility of the inclusion of all kinds of smoke as well as black smoke. That was a point on which great stress was laid when the Bill was brought in. It was looked on as a great advance in the right direction that not only black smoke but other smoke should be treated as a nuisance. If that has not been carried out, then the Act has not been made as much use of as possible. I understand the difficulties there are in this matter. We do not want to do anything that might depress industry. It may be that, at the present time, it is not possible to carry out Section 2 as far as one would wish, but possibly later on more opportunity may be afforded for the use of this section.
There are, of course, certain processes which one cannot include in the clause. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Sheffield as a particularly smoky place, and I remember very well a deputation coming from Sheffield and pointing out that certain processes—possibly Lord Ponsonby, who knows the town very well, will be able to say more definitely—were carried on there in which it was almost impossible to prevent the making of black smoke. It is an exceptional instance which the noble Lord gave us. The noble Lord has told us of experi- 924 ments which are being conducted, and I am sure we may be satisfied that great care is taken to find processes and methods which may abate the nuisance, because everybody agrees that it is an intolerable nuisance. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Battersea and I think he told us that the precautions taken there were very satisfactory, but the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I think said that the Ministry of Transport was rather disturbed as to Battersea. I live near Battersea and I hope that the noble and learned Lord may prove the more correct. Really the way of dealing with this matter is by constant experiment. I do not think any of your Lordships would suggest that further legislation can help very much at the present moment. It is no use saying that this or that must not be done if you are going to cause harm to industry or to private persons.
The method of experiment in all directions is the right one, and when the time comes for further legislation then I am sure we shall welcome it. At the same time I should like to associate myself with Lord Newton in urging that the Ministry of Health should encourage local authorities to make use of the powers of the Act, and the greatest vigilance should be exercised to see that wherever possible local authorities insist on the terms of the Act being carried out. I have no doubt that the present Ministry do all they can, but, of course, there are great difficulties. It may seem very easy, but I know from my experience when I was at the Ministry that it is very difficult indeed to abate the nuisance and at the same time not do anything to injure industry or private persons. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having raised the question and to the noble and learned Lord for the explanations he has given.
LORD COZENS-HARDYMy Lords, there is one suggestion which I should like to make. It seems common ground that the real offender is the open fire—the domestic open fire. It also seems to be common ground that the imperfect combustion of coal in the open grate leads to very serious economic loss. It may, even in these times, be good business to incur some expenditure to prevent economic loss. I would like to suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, whether the Government 925 could not in regard to assisted houses take some action directly or through local authorities to encourage the use of electric heating or gas heating and to discourage the use of the open fire. It should not be beyond the wit of man to work out some scheme by which a local authority could give some slight remission of rents in the case of assisted houses where there are no open fires. It might be carried even a little further. As it is a matter of importance to the State, why should not the State consider making some slight remission of Schedule A Income Tax in the case of houses in which there are no bad smoke-producing appliances?
VISCOUNT MERSEYMy Lords, with your permission I should like to make a few remarks at this stage. I have to thank the noble and learned Lord opposite for the very interesting account he has given of what is being done. He asked what complaints I had to make. I would like to refer him to the form of my Question. It was merely to ask what measures are now being taken to deal with smoke-abatement. I did not suggest any complaints. Although the noble and learned Lord has told us a great deal about the diagnosis of the trouble, we have not been told very much about what is being done. I would beg leave to suggest to your Lordships that the very great diminution in fog and over-loaded atmosphere is due much more to the action of private enterprise than to anything that this or any previous Government has done. It is really, if I may say so with some diffidence, the action of the gas companies and the electric light companies which is responsible for the very great alteration in the atmosphere from what it was thirty or forty years ago. Electric light and gas fires, and I would add the burning of coke, are largely responsible for the decrease in smoke from domestic fires. To apply the regulations of the Act to domestic fires would be almost impossible because of the expense, but I think the regulations could quite easily be applied a little more thoroughly to industrial concerns. The noble and learned Lord made a remark about high temperature carbonisation.
§ LORD PARMOORLow temperature carbonisation.
VISCOUNT MERSEYHigh and low. I am advised, and I believe it is correct, that the coke produced from high temperature carbonization—that is to say, the old system—is in every way as good and a great deal cheaper than coke which is being produced from low temperature carbonisation. That is really all I wish to say, and I would thank the noble and learned Lord opposite for the very great trouble he has taken in his reply. I know it has been with very great difficulty that he has made his reply to-day, but the Question had been on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House for so long that I felt it would be probably better that it should materialise to-day rather than be deferred to a later occasion.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, I do not know whether in the circumstances, having regard to the questions which have been put to me, I might be allowed to say one or two words in further explanation. For instance, the noble Viscount who spoke last, said—I do not, know where he finds it—that high temperature coke is as good as what I have called semi-coke of low temperature carbonisation. If that is so, so much the better.
VISCOUNT MERSEYI happen to be a director of the Gas, Light and Coke Company, which made the experiment.
§ LORD PARMOORAll I can say is that I have been to the experimental station and I am glad to hear that that is the result. That enables me to answer more fully the question of Lord Onslow. That is the direction, to my mind, in which we may look for amelioration. I am not aware that any alteration of grate, or anything else, is necessary if you get coke of either high or low temperature carbonisation. I thought it was low temperature. Either way, you get a delightful fire. Yon do not get rid of all the fumes, but you do get rid of the tarry and gritty factors which make smoke from open grates so deleterious. I am glad to think that noble Lords realise that this is the problem. The problem is, can we deal with these open domestic grates? I doubt whether you can do it until the habits of the people alter, or until the people are persuaded that coke will give substantially the same results while getting rid of the extreme nocuous 927 elements. There is one matter which I would like to say with regard to by-laws. The by-laws are the by-laws of local authorities, and it is for them to enforce them. I think the by-laws of local authorities are not confined to black smoke, but apply to smoke from which there is any source of impurity. I thank your 928 Lordships for the kind way in which you have received what I had to say. I think it is a matter of great importance, but the real complexity is the question of the domestic hearth.
§ House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.