CLEAN AIR BILL

HL Deb 30 May 1956 vol 197 cc587-650

2.48 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Prohibition of dark smoke from chimneys

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove either— (c) that the contravention complained of was solely due to the use of unsuitable fuel, that suitable fuel was unobtainable, that the least unsuitable fuel which was available was used and that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke as the result of the use thereof; or (d) that the contravention complained of was due to the combination of two or more of the causes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection and that the other conditions specified in those paragraphs are satisfied in relation to those causes respectively.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (3), after "section" to insert "except in the case of the emission of black smoke." The noble Lord said: In this Amendment, I am making another effort to alter or amend the one really serious retrograde step which has been taken in this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides that: dark smoke shall not be emitted from a chimney of any building, and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted, the occupier of the building shall be guilty of an offence. Then the Bill goes on to provide for various absolute defences. In my submission, that is an alteration and a worsening—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene for one moment? It might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed generally this Amendment and the next three Amendments which all concern the point which the noble Lord has already mentioned, and then, with your permission, my Lord Chairman, they could be put individually after a discussion. I do not know whether that would suit the right reverend Prelate.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

I am in the hands of the House in that matter. If the right reverend Prelate agrees, I have no objection. I was going to say that I think that under the present law there is no defence to a charge of the emission of dark smoke, providing evidence is given, which of course would quite reasonably be given by the authorised officer, that a nuisance exists. The present Bill, by providing all these defences, worsens that law; and the object of my Amendment is to provide for that contingency and to ensure that when dark smoke is emitted an offence shall be committed. I am assured that there is no reason whatever why in any circumstances dark smoke should be emitted. There is ample advice available and there are ample appliances which avoid the necessity for the emission of dark smoke in any circumstances. It would be a retrograde step if no provision were made to the effect of my Amendment. In the circumstances, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, after ("section") insert the said words.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

The Amendments which are down in my name are really aimed at the same objective as the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and I do not much mind how the end is arrived at so long as we arrive at what we think is a desirable end. All those with whom I have consulted on this subject from various points of view are agreed that these wide open defences in the clause are startling to the many public-spirited and forward-looking industrialists who are putting in or have put in smokeless plant, and are encouraging to those who do not care very much about it. As I understand it, where solid fuel is still used, with improved plant and good stoking the continuous emission of dark smoke can in fact be ended. Of course, economically, it is also a matter of waste which the country can ill afford.

As we look at this clause, I think we have also to remember that the period recommended by the Beaver Report is extended from three to seven years. Seven years seems to be a long period in which to allow such strong defence clauses to remain as they are. If the Minister is wedded to them more or less, I wonder whether he would at least consider the possibility of qualifying them. One way in which this could be done, so it seems to me as an amateur in drafting, would be, in line 15, to substitute for "defence" some such phrase as "accepted as a mitigating and extenuating circumstance." I cannot imagine that any local authority would proceed against an owner who was honestly doing his best; on the other hand, in dealing with one who is not doing his best, argument would be more persuasive if power to prosecute successfully were in the background. Those I have met are rather dismayed at the way in which this clause reduces, rather than increases, the power in the hands of local authorities.

Then, if I may say a word about the other two Amendments standing in my name, I would point out that the purpose of both of them is to make paragraph (c) much less rigid, by giving the Minister power to specify and prescribe by regulation. Paragraph (c) has no parallel in the Beaver Report. On the face of it, it seems to ignore the relation between efficient plant and suitable fuel and the likelihood that the situation may change radically in the course of seven years, the cost of fuel being what it is. In support of this plea I should like to quote from a letter from the head of the Department of Fuel Technology and Chemical Engineering at one of our Universities, part of which I must confess rather outstrips my own knowledge. He says: I adhere to the view that the only way to make the Bill usetul is to be specific about defining the types of appliances and the unsuitable fuels. … I think that we can specify rather stringent requirements beyond which the claim of unsuitable fuel would be definitely permissible. Then he says something which is quite beyond my knowledge, but I quote: My present statement on these requirements would be: for chain grate stokers—no fuel is unsuitable"— for certain other stokers, certain kinds of fuel only are unsuitable… The onus would be on the user to prove that his fuel was one of these two types. This formula might require slight modification, but I think that most technical men would agree with it. Therefore, in moving these two Amendments, I would say that on the whole I prefer the latter one, and I hope that the Minister or the Government will be disposed to look at this clause, with a view to qualifying the rigidity of the defences.

LORD AMULREE

I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and at the same time of the two Amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate. I do not think it would be of great importance which of the various Amendments were accepted, provided the Government see their way to accept one. Quite apart from the economic matters which have been mentioned, and apart from the possibility of ensuring that by proper stoking and the efficient use of furnaces one can get comparatively pure smoke coming from chimneys, from a medical point of view great danger continues so long as people in the towns and in built up areas are allowed to breathe these rather noxious fumes.

I do not want to mention them again to-day, but on Second Reading some figures were quoted showing the great difference between bronchitis and respiratory infections in the country and elsewhere. The same would apply to cancer of the lung and various other respiratory diseases of which we do not really know the cause at the moment although there seems to be some connection between the two. Therefore I should like to put forward a strong plea to the Government, from a humanitarian point of view and also from an economic point of view, because the amount of money spent during the course of a year on these people with chronic respiratory infection is very large.

LORD SALTOUN

It seems to me that once again we are up against the same difficulty as arose in regard to the 1876 Bill against the pollution of water. You will remember that in that Bill there was a proviso that waters were not to be polluted except by people who were using the best processes known to industry at that time. Under that proviso most of the waters of Britain have been so polluted that several years ago, when I sat upon a Private Bill Committee considering the Leicester Water Bill, it was shown that the whole of the waters of the Peak District, with the exception of one small stream which disappeared periodically, were absolutely polluted and unfit for drinking. That being the effect of such a proviso, experience shows us that if this Amendment is not to be accepted the Government should promise that we shall have complete information at a later stage of the Bill as to how the Minister proposes to exercise the discretion which is allowed him in the clause: because people who want to pollute can always bring forward an excellent technical case and the people who suffer are a quite amorphous body who very often find it difficult to get their case properly presented.

LORD ROCHDALE

I should like to agree with the right reverend Prelate when he applauds certain large industrialists for their great efforts and the immense amount of work they have done to ensure that their plant does not produce smoke. We have to remember, however, that firms who have not done so are by no means blameworthy. I am given to understand that there are in this country to-day something like 40,000 hand-fired boilers, a large number of which, we may assume, will be converted to some form of automatic stoking during the seven-year period after this Bill becomes an Act. But there will still remain a large number of small boiler plants which it would be unreasonable or impracticable to convert to automatic stoking. The question is: how are we to deal with those plants? With hand-fired boilers it is almost inevitable, unless one can be absolutely sure of getting the right fuel, that dark smoke will at some time be made. It may result from varying loads, special processes or other causes. On the other hand, as the right reverend Prelate said, while plants that have been converted to automatic operation can cover a wide range of fuels, even those will make smoke and dark smoke from time to time if they do not use exactly the right type of fuel.

This group of Amendments therefore really boils down to the question of whether firms will be able to get the right kind of fuel. Industry is very concerned with its position should they be unable to do so. What are they to do—close down until the right type is available? I believe that this defence that the right type of fuel is not available meets a very reasonable request from industry and I hope that when my noble friend comes to reply he will leave the present clause unaltered so that this defence of lack of suitable fuel will remain as it is now. After all, we all know that at present the provision of fuel is difficult. Though we hope the position will get easier as years go by, as demand continues to rise so the provision of the right type of fuel may also remain difficult. I would add that this is not an attempt by industry to avoid the duty laid down by the Bill not to make black smoke. I believe that it is reasonable for industry to agree with the present provision.

LORD MOYNE

The noble Lord has just explained that in certain circumstances the emission of dark smoke may not be avoidable, but the Amendment absolutely prohibits not dark smoke but black smoke. Does the noble Lord say that black smoke must sometimes be emitted, or does he think that the prohibition of black smoke could stand, as provided in the Amendment?

LORD ROCHDALE

As the Lord Chairman suggested, I was discussing all these Amendments together and primarily I was referring not to black smoke, to which the noble Lord opposite referred, but to smoke in general. We all know that even with the Ringelmann test, mentioned in the Beaver Report, it is difficult to set a precise limit where one type of smoke changes into a darker type.

LORD BURDEN

I should like to say a word or two in support of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds and also those to which the right reverend Prelate has spoken. It seems to me that the Amendment suggested by the right reverend Prelate meets the difficulty outlined by the noble Lord who has just spoken. But I would urge, in support of the principle behind these Amendments, that the problem is a very real one; and when, as now, we have the opportunity of doing something about it, the position should not be weakened. So far as Sheffield is concerned, anyone who has stood on the hill outside the city and looked down on Sheffield will almost always have seen a pall of smoke hanging over the Don Valley. Looking through a book by Mr. Richard Aldington, recently published, I was rather startled to find these words: Sheffield, under the perpetual mushroom-shaped Vesuvian eruption of black smoke eclipsing the sun and poisoning human lungs … How long is that state of affairs to continue? Anyone who has flown over Manchester cannot have failed to notice the smoke hanging over that city, or to see the bright spot of Wythenshawe, where there is greenness and no dark smoke. I know Sheffield well, though not so well as the right reverend Prelate, and I know that there are public-spirited industrialists in Sheffield who will do all in their power to meet the difficulties and to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government. But is it right, is it fair to these public-spirited industrialists, that people who are not prepared to do so, even bearing in mind the difficulties suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, should be able to "get away with it" and in this Bill be provided with even greater protection than they have had in the past?

In particular, I would submit for your Lordships' consideration the views of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, who, as your Lordships will realise, will obviously be much concerned in the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Their view is that the defence of non-availability of suitable fuel in subsection (3) will undoubtedly prove a serious loophole when they come to try to carry out the provisions of the Bill. In the nature of things, that defence will almost always be put forward, and local authorities will obviously be in great difficulty in trying to ascertain whether or not the plea is justified, and whether "all practicable steps" had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark or black smoke. Even if the local authority is satisfied that the plea is not justified, in the next stage—the courts—all the resources of those people will again be used in order to make that defence carry the day. Unfortunately, one must admit that the use of unsuitable fuel may give rise to dark smoke, but I would suggest that we either delete the words "unsuitable fuel" or accept the words of the right reverend Prelate, or something along those lines, and leave it to the good sense and discretion of the local authorities—who, obviously, are not concerned to harass businesses in their areas, and like to encourage businesses—to take action when it seems warranted. I would urge Her Majesty's Government and the Minister to give consideration to this plea which has been put forward from these Benches and supported from the Government Benches.

3.10 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and to the right reverend Prelate for agreeing to the discussion of these various Amendments at the same time, because I think they raise quite a serious point. On the one hand, we all recognise the dangers and ills that have arisen from pollution. On the other hand, everyone in this House must have a reluctance to establish criminal offences without any defence in cases where we proceed on the hypothesis that the defendants have done everything possible and practicable to prevent the offence happening. There is always a real danger, in trying to cure ills by creating offences, that what is caused is a disrespect for the law, which consequently has to suffer. That is the balance I want to put to your Lordships, and I hope you will bear with me if I show how the Government have approached the matter and how we have tried to place fairly and squarely on the persons affected the onus and burden of proving their innocence in the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, approaches it slightly differently, and I will just say a word on that because the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, picked up the point after Lord Rochdale had spoken. Lord Milner of Leeds' Amendment deals with "black smoke," and I assume from that (I think I am right) that he was referring to the smoke which is Number 4 on the Ringelmann Shade Chart and which is described in the Chart as "black." If your Lordships have the Beaver Report, I think you will find it on page 49: it is that in which 80 per cent. of the white card is covered by the black lines. Therefore it would be included in dark smoke. In Clause 32 (2) it is included in "dark smoke" but refers only to this limited degree of it which is shown on the chart. I think the answer to that, and the difficulty which we must consider, is that if the Amendment were accepted there would be no defence, however much the defendant could otherwise have proved that he had taken all practicable steps to prevent or minimise the emission of black smoke, if any black smoke were emitted at all.

We have considered this matter very carefully. As your Lordships are aware, there was a great and prolonged discussion on it in another place, and we have come to the conclusion that it is wrong to say that there could never be any exceptions or unforeseen circumstance in which defence could be provided to the issue of black smoke. We think that circumstances do arise when, after all precautions have been taken, it may be emitted for a short time; and we do not think that it would be right to give no defence at all.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

Is it not the fact that this clause is retrograde? Previously there was no defence; now the Government are providing a defence.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not agree that it is retrograde, because the defences under this clause are so carefully de-limited. I propose to deal with that aspect in one moment, if the noble Lord will allow me.

I should like now to pass to the approach of the right reverend Prelate, who wants the word "defence" to be left out in relation to dark smoke—not to black smoke but to dark smoke—and to provide merely that any one of the matters specified should be "accepted as a mitigating and extenuating circumstance." Now we have to look at the defences that are provided in subsection (3) (a) (b) and (c). It will be seen that the defences to proceedings for offences under the clause is to prove that the emission of dark smoke was unavoidable for one or other of the following causes: (a) the lighting up of a furnace from cold; (b) some unforeseen or unavoidable failure of plant and (c) the use of unsuitable fuel, and that no suitable fuel was available. Defences (a) and (b) were dealt with in the Beaver Report. I see that some of your Lordships have that Report with you. If you will be good enough to look at Page 28, paragraph 96, you will see these words: In addition, we recommend that it should be a defence in any proceedings for the defendant to prove that the emission of dark smoke was solely due either to lighting up of the furnace from cold and that reasonable care and efficiency had been exercised, or to temporary mechanical failure which could not have been foreseen. In a moment I shall ask your Lordships to consider whether we have fairly and properly followed the recommendation of the Beaver Report in that regard. I do not think that in the broad sense we can be said to be acting in a retrograde manner if we have followed the recommendations of the Report which gained so much approbation in your Lordships' House in the first discussion which we had upon it, and has done so ever since. With regard to the defence under paragraph (c), that paragraph was inserted in the Bill after my right honourable friend the Minister had been advised that the emission of dark smoke may be unavoidable, even with the most up-to-date plant, if certain types of coal have to be used. I urge upon your Lordships that subsection (3) has been carefully drafted to avoid the risk of abuse. Take the first point which I have mentioned. The onus of proof is, of course, on the defendant, who must show that all practicable steps have been taken to prevent the emission of dark smoke and, in case (c), that the most suitable fuel available is used. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, realises as clearly as anyone in your Lordships' House that putting the onus on the defendant is something which happens comparatively rarely in criminal law.

I ask your Lordships to consider what would happen where an industrialist wishes to defend himself on one of these three grounds. I take (a). He has to prove first that the contravention complained of was solely—and I emphasise the word "solely": I do not think this is a debating point, but a sound one—due to the lighting up of a furnace which was cold. That means that he will not "get away with it". He must show that it was not due to inadequate plant or to out-of-date machinery, or anything of that kind, but solely to the heating up of a furnace which was cold. He must also prove that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke. That is a severe burden. He could establish his defence only by showing that it was due solely to something which I think everyone has recognised as an unavoidable cause of dark smoke—the lighting up of a furnace when cold. He has also to prove that he has reduced the chance to the minimum.

Now let us take the second case, (b). He has first of all to show that the contravention complained of was solely—again I emphasise the word—clue to some failure of the furnace or apparatus used in connection with the furnace. He has also to prove that the failure could not reasonably have been foreseen, or, if foreseen, could not reasonably have been provided against. In addition, he has to prove that the contravention could not reasonably have been prevented by action taken after the failure occurred. Your Lordships will see that he has not only to prove that it was solely due to some failure in his plant, hut, if I may put it another way to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, he has to show also that there was no neglect at all. I ask your Lordships to look at this matter objectively and dispassionately. An industrialist has a breakdown in plant which could not have been foreseen or prevented, and it is suggested that he must be convicted of a criminal offence. I must say that that idea does not appeal to me.

Case (c) has given rise to some difficulty. As the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Sheffield has made a quotation, should like to make a counter-quotation—and I promise that I will not make any more. My counter-quotation is from the head of the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, Dr. Macfarlane, who said: In this country there is a great variety of furnaces which can burn a wide range of coals without dark smoke, but however well-equipped and carefully tended they may be, occasions might arise when they cannot avoid making Clark smoke if they are supplied with another type of coal to which they are not adjusted. Your Lordships will find that the matter is envisaged, though not specifically dealt with, on the preceding page in the Beaver Report to that to which I referred. How can we deal with that? Paragraph (c) provides that he has to show that the contravention complained of was solely due"— again the word "solely" is used— to unsuitable fuel, that suitable fuel was unobtainable, that the least unsuitable fuel which was available was used and that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke … My right honourable friend gave great consideration to this matter between the different stages of the Bill in another place. Noble Lords who have studied the Bill's progress may remember that he said at a relatively early stage: If it can be shown that efficient and up-to-date plant should not in any circumstances, however unsuitable the fuel, emit dark smoke, I consider that the case has been made out for leaving paragraph (c)". My right honourable friend accepted that, and between the stages made all inquiries; but he was not satisfied on the point. If he was not satisfied on that point, from the fun information which the Government could command, then he had to leave in (c) and I think that, if it is left in, it places a severe burden for anyone to carry if he is to escape liability for a criminal offence.

The right reverend Prelate, whose ingenuity, as well as his eloquence, on this matter is practically inexhaustible, has considered another method of approach. I want to deal with that equally seriously, because I recognise that it is done in the most helpful way, to see whether the difficulties facing the Government, which I have tried to explain, can be dealt with by regulations. Obviously the right reverend Prelate has considered with great care the question: "If we cannot reject the idea of a defence, can we consider whether we can regulate the types of fuel?"—I am passing now to the second Amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate. I should like to assure him that we have considered this point carefully, and so far as I can see none of the critics has been prepared to state that dark smoke can be avoided in all circumstances when unsuitable fuel is used.

I consider the effect of the Second Amendment, which would be to restrict the meaning of the term "unsuitable fuel" to those specified in regulations made by the Minister. We are doubtful whether this would be a practical possibility. I am sure that everyone will agree that different types of fuel are suitable or unsuitable for different kinds of furnace, and it would be difficult to identify and define them all with sufficient precision. However, there is an even more serious objection—namely, that if account were taken (as I think it would have to be taken) of all the types of fuel which might be unsuitable for different types of plant, the list of proscribed fuels would be a long one. It is not just the length of the list—I am sure the right reverend Prelate appreciates what is in my mind—but that it would really defeat the purpose of the Amendment, because it would tend to widen rather than to restrict the ground of defence.

As I understand the last of the Amendments of the right reverend Prelate, that approaches the matter not only from the point of view of fuel, but of appliances as well. We have considered that the defence should be limited to certain types of furnace. But there, again, we have been faced with the difficulty of defining, out of the great variety of types, the kind of furnaces which are liable to make dark smoke if unsuitable fuels are used. Here, again, I hope the right reverend Prelate appreciates what I am trying to convey. Even if it were practicable, it would seem undesirable to do so, since the effect might be to discourage the continued use of the improved types of furnace.

I hope your Lordships will forgive me for taking so much time over this matter, but it is important. Her Majesty's Government are just as anxious as everyone else to make this Bill successful and workable. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will appreciate that it is one of the responsibilities of any Legislative Assembly not to use the malum prohibitum as opposed to what is malum in se, unless one is absolutely certain that the interests of the community demand that someone should be punished for something for which he is not to blame at all. One has to face up to it; that is the legal logicality of creating a malum prohibitin. Here I feel—particularly after what my noble friend Lord Rochdale said on the subject, with, I may say, great moderation and good will—that it would be wrong to deprive people of any defences, and it would not meet the object to try and do it by detailed regulations. I have tried to show to your Lordships that we have given this matter grave consideration, and I do ask you, in these difficult circumstances, not to press for the creation of an offence to which there is no defence.

EARL JOWITT

Before the noble and learned Viscount sits down, I should like to ask him this question, to which, perhaps because I have not followed the matter carefully, I am unaware of the answer. What is the position of a man who is using an old-fashioned furnace, which is more likely to emit smoke than a modern furnace? I know that the Beaver Report says that much money must be spent on modernisation. Suppose the man has done the best he can with the furnace he has got, but that because it is an old-fashioned furnace he cannot prevent it from emitting smoke, though there would be no danger of smoke if he got the furnace modernised; what would be the position of that man under the Bill? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can clear up that point.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl. I gave one example in relation to paragraph (a); that is, the defence from heating up. There, as the noble and learned Earl will see, the first requirement the defendant has to prove is that the contravention complained of was solely due to the lighting up of a furnace which was cold …". There I take it that his defence would fail (this was stated without challenge by my right honourable friend in another place) if it was due to inadequate plant or out-of-date machinery, or the like, because then it would not be solely due to the heating up. With regard to paragraph (b) the noble and learned Earl and I have often in the past had to consider this sort of question in Factories Act cases. But paragraph (b) begins: … the contravention complained of was solely due to some failure of a furnace or of apparatus used in connection with a furnace. Then there are the two provisions dealing, broadly, with negligence, where it says, either, that that failure could not reasonably have been foreseen, or, if foreseen, could not reasonably have been provided against …". We have often had it said in the past that if you have an old or out-of-date machine you have constructive knowledge of these points.

The question of fuel turns on rather a different matter, but, there again, the words to which I would draw the attention of the noble and learned Earl are, that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke as the result of the use thereof. I do not want to anticipate a later Amendment which the right reverend Prelate has on the word "practicable," but I would just refer the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, shortly, without quoting them, to the many cases that have dealt with "practicable" (I will try to summarise them in answer to the later Amendment) which really say that regard must be had to the newness of the plant in proportion to the danger that is caused. I think that answers the point made by the noble and learned Earl.

LORD MOYNE

Before the noble and learned Viscount sits down, could he explain the apparent contradiction between the word "solely" in paragraph (a), which he has several times stressed, with the inclusion of paragraph (a) in paragraph (d)? There seems to be a contradiction. It is a difficult thing to reconcile the two. I daresay the noble and learned Viscount's clear mind can clear the question up straight away; but if not perhaps he will look at it later.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful to my noble friend. If your Lordship; look at paragraph (d), you will see that it says that the contravention complained of was due to the combination of two or more of the causes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection …". I agree that it appears to cause a difficulty, but I do not think it actually does. I think my noble friend will see it if he considers it in this way. Paragraph (d) deals with a combination of the causes. Therefore, there has to be, say, a heating up or a breakdown in plant. But the heating up, in so far as it is the heating up which comes into the picture, must be only the heating up; as I have pointed out to the noble and learned Earl, the obsolescent state of the plant must not be the cause. Equally, when you are dealing with the second part, that there has been a breakdown in plant, the emission must be due to the breakdown and not to any pre-existing causes which make that breakdown likely and then bring you within the other portions of this clause. In other words, we come down to subspecies, but each subspecies must be the sole cause, the primary reason; there must not be any attempt to shelter in that primary reason for the obsolescence of your plant. I am sorry if it is not very clear. I will take another course in metaphysics and try to make the theory of causation clearer to my noble friend on the next stage of the Bill.

LORD CHORLEY

I listened to the noble and learned Viscount's explanation of the point which was put to him by the noble and learned Earl on the question of a rather old-fashioned furnace, but I found it rather difficult to agree with him. I appreciate that it requires certain temerity to disagree on a point of construction with a lawyer of the eminence of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, but every lawyer appreciates that questions of construction are notoriously difficult. I should myself have thought that the obsolescence or not of the furnace really had nothing to do with this question. The contravention complained of must be wholly due to the lighting up of a furnace which was cold; and if, in fact, the furnace was a rather old-fashioned type which was lighted up from cold, it would be solely or, at any rate, arguably solely, due to that particular furnace's being lighted up from cold. I think dial that is a point of view which a bench of magistrates might well take in coming to a conclusion. After all, they have to look at the matter from the point of view of the making out a case by the prosecution against the defendant on a criminal charge. There has to be a case made out beyond reasonable and probable doubt.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? That is exactly what they have not to do. In this case, once the emission of dark smoke is proved the onus shifts to the defence. It is then for the defendant to prove his defence, not beyond all reasonable doubt, but to prove it as defences have to be proved—that is, by substantial preponderance of the evidence. It is not a question of the prosecution proving its case, but of the defence proving theirs.

LORD CHORLEY

With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I think there is a decision in your Lordships' House which says that if, at the end of the balancing (I think it was a jury case, but I submit the same proposition would apply), the jury are not satisfied beyond reasonable and probable doubt, then the person who is accused is entitled to the benefit. I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that, if he wishes to make it clear, there is no difficulty in doing so. If he wishes to make it quite clear that obsolescence is not to be a defence in this sort of case, then it should be made clear beyond peradventure in the clause itself. I am not suggesting that it should be done now, but there will be time later, on the Report stage. If the noble and learned Viscount wishes to secure that, then I suggest the words of the clause should be altered in order to make it perfectly clear.

EARL JOWITT

I hope the Lord Chancellor will look further at this point. I agree with him that the prosecution having proved the emission of black smoke, the onus is on the defence to bring itself within the clause. Looking at paragraph (a), I confess that I am doubtful as to what the position will be. Suppose the defendant said: "I did all I could with my furnace. It is true that it is an old one, but I have no more money to erect a new one. I took all the trouble I could. It was a cold furnace, and this old-fashioned furnace has this offensive habit of emitting black smoke." If he were to say that, I am not at all certain what the position would be. The noble and learned Viscount could easily make it plain, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley has said, if he put in some sort of proviso—"Provided always that the furnace in question is shown to be up to date or efficient."

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am always ready to look at the matter again. If the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will allow me to say so, I am the last person in the world ever to resent a different suggestion as to construction. I agree that it is one of the most difficult matters. I myself took it that the state of the plant was really the causa sine qua non, and the phrase "solely due" means that the causa causans must be the heating up. But, as I said, the question of causation is largely a metaphysical one, and is always worthy of further consideration. I will certainly give it that. The noble and learned Earl will not put it on me to make any promise, but I will certainly look at it and consider it with the officials of the Department. I hope that on the broad question the Committee will agree that this is a matter where, in fairness and in equity, a defence should be left, and that, subject to my undertaking to look at this specific point, they will not press these Amendments.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

May I ask the noble and learned Viscount to look again at paragraph (c) from the same point of view? Suppose that the person concerned has a defective and old-fashioned plant which, nevertheless, will run without emitting dark smoke, provided that some scarce form of fuel is used. In such a case, is it not likely that on many occasions he will have a perfectly good defence against the offence of emitting dark smoke, because he will say that for the time being this exceptional quality of fuel was not obtainable. He could say, "If I could obtain it, it would not matter how old and defective my plant was, and therefore I am not to blame."

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

I feel sure that the Lord Chancellor must appreciate that there is a good deal of support for the intention set out in my Amendment and those of the right reverend Prelate. I had hoped that something might be forthcoming. In effect, what it amounts to is that the Lord Chancellor says that the defences which are set out in the Bill will be difficult to make out. Frankly, I do not entirely agree with him on that. It seems to me that it would be comparatively easy to make out the defence in paragraph (a), having regard to the point of an old furnace raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I am not yet clear whether or not, if I have an old furnace and do not do anything about it and instal a new furnace, I shall be held to have "taken all practicable steps" to minimise the emission of dark smoke. It seems to me that that point ought to be cleared up, and I gather that the Lord Chancellor will look into it and come back to it at a later stage.

The Government do not seem to have followed the Beaver Report in this matter. That Report made it clear that, with appropriate appliances, the emission of black smoke should be prevented. They suggested that, in the case of old furnaces, a length of time, perhaps three years, might be allowed in which the furnace might be modernized; and thereafter they suggested a system of exemption for a period, so that some pressure was kept on the owner of the furnace to instal fresh equipment. It seems to me that in this Bill the Government have departed from the existing law in respect of which there is no defence to the emission of black smoke when it constitutes, as it almost necessarily does, a nuisance; nor have they followed on the recommendations of the Beaver Report.

In the circumstances, so far as my Amendment is concerned, at any rate (I do not know what course the right reverend Prelate will take), I must ask leave to withdraw it, and hope that perhaps at a later stage some alteration or mitigation of the present position may be put forward by the Government to make this Bill really effective. At present, in this matter of black smoke it is not so effective as the present law. Admittedly, the present law has not been administered to a very great extent but, now that so much attention has been drawn to this question of the pollution of the air, it may be better administered in future. In any event, it seems a retrograde step to provide the defences set out in this Bill. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

I should like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds. I appreciate very much the care and trouble which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor took to answer our points but on this matter I still feel uneasy in my mind. If it can be looked at in connection with subsections (1), (2) and (3), I feel that all I can do is not to move my Amendment to-day.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The right reverend Prelate is not moving Amendments Nos. 1A, 2 and 3?

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Requirement that new furnaces shall be so far as practicable smokeless

3.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no furnace shall be installed in a building or as part of any boiler or industrial plant (being a boiler or plant which is or will be attached to a building or is or will be fixed for the time being to or installed on any land) unless it is so far as practicable capable of being operated continuously without emitting smoke when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace was designed, and any person who installs a furnace in contravention of this subsection or on whose instructions a furnace is so installed shall be guilty of an offence:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a furnace the installation of which has been begun, or an agreement for the purchase or installation of which has been entered into, before the appointed day.

(3) A furnace to which subsection (1) of this section applies shall not be installed in a building or as part of any such boiler or plant as is mentioned in the said subsection (1) unless notice of the proposal to install it has been given to the local authority and any person who installs a furnace in contravention of this subsection or on whose instructions a furnace is so installed shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) This section shall not apply to furnaces designed solely or mainly for use for domestic purposes.

3.52 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved, in subsection (1), after "shall be installed" to insert "constructed or substantially reconstructed". The right reverend Prelate said: In moving the addition of these words, I assume, as I believe the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place, that "installed" means provided a completely new installation. If that is so, then one has to take note of the fact that in the steel industry, I am told (and I know this from what I myself have seen), that the normal practice is to reconstruct. Reconstruction, however, is often a costly and very thorough-going business indeed—so much so, that the amateur like myself might say, "This is almost a new installation," when apparently it is not a new installation but merely reconstruction. If that is the case, it would not be unreasonable to submit a substantial reconstruction to the same requirements as this clause provides for new plant. Unless that is done, it seems to me that the clause will have a very limited application.

In order to guard myself against the charge of arguing from the use of one industry and one area, I took the trouble to ask the National Smoke Abatement Society to find out from smoke inspectors in other parts of the country whether the practice there was to reconstruct rather than to put in an entirely new installation, and also what was the ratio between new and reconstructed furnaces. The replies from Bristol, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and Nottingham, all show, broadly, that the practice of reconstruction is the normal one, and that it is a very thorough-going process. Let me tell your Lordships of two statements made to me in the correspondence to which I have referred. One says that it is quite clear that the Clean Air Bill will very greatly increase the amount of reconstruction. So it would serve a useful purpose if such reconstruction were made to comply with the requirement that the reconstructed plant must be capable, as far as practicable, of being operated continuously without emitting smoke. From the other statement, it seems that the ratio between new installations and substantial reconstruction is, roughly, about one to three, if not one to five. That being so, it seems to me not unreasonable to ask that some such words as "constructed or substantially reconstructed" should be added after the word "installed", and consequent Amendments made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 25, after ("installed") insert the said words.—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The purpose of Clause 3, as I think the right reverend Prelate is aware, is to secure that when new premises are brought into operation and functioning in future they are properly designed to function, so far as is practicable, without emitting smoke. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 applies, as the right reverend Prelate said, to the installation of a furnace. I have been advised that this would cover any case in which a furnace might be built or assembled in situ, instead of being delivered and installed, as it were, all in one piece. If that is so, I think the right reverend Prelate will see at once that the word "constructed" is not really necessary in his Amendment.

I am in difficulty over the other three words, "or substantially reconstructed." The clause is not intended to apply in any way whatever to normal repairs or to minor renewals or alterations, or, indeed, to alterations to existing furnaces. On the other hand, the complete replacement of a furnace would entail the installation of a new furnace and therefore come within the terms of this clause. In other words, the individual installing that furnace would be caught under this subsection of Clause 3. I find it difficult to visualise any case in which one would be justified in treating the reconstruction of a furnace falling short of complete and utter replacement as being equivalent to the installation of a new furnace for the purposes of the clause. The right reverend Prelate said, as I understood him, that in the steel industry it is the normal practice to reconstruct a furnace and not replace it. I think there is probably a doubt between the right reverend Prelate and myself upon the actual meaning of his words "or substantially reconstructed," and what I should like to do, without any obligation on myself to accept the Amendment at the next stage, is to consider this matter again, in consultation with my right honourable friend. Therefore, I hope the right reverend Prelate will see his way to withdraw his Amendment at this stage of the Bill, naturally having the right to put it down again on the next stage if he so desires.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his offer. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment, No. 5, and Amendment No. 7 are consequential upon your Lordships' acceptance of Amendment No. 9 which stands in my name. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, therefore, if I discussed the three Amendments together. They are almost consequential, because they are designed to obviate a difficulty which might have arisen if Clause 3 had been allowed to stand in its present form in the Bill. The clause is intended to apply to the installation of furnaces in buildings or, in the case of outdoor plant, on the site where the plant is intended to be used. As a general rule the furnaces are installed in situ; but in certain circumstances the plant may be set up on the site, with its furnace already assembled, the furnace having been "installed" earlier at the factory or at the contractor's depôot. The effect of these three Amendments will be to make it clear that Clause 3 will in fact operate when either the furnace or the boiler or plant containing the furnace is installed on the site. As I say, these are almost consequential Amendments. I beg to move the first one.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("building") to second ("to") in line 27 and insert ("or in any boiler or industrial plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed."—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.2 p.m.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (1), to omit "when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace was designed." The noble Lord said: Clause 3 provides that no furnace shall be installed in a building unless it is so far as practicable capable of being operated continuously without emitting smoke when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace is designed. The object of this Amendment is to delete the words "when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace was designed." It would appear that those words are quite unnecessary and certainly undesirable. If such a furnace is installed, and unless it is so installed as to be incapable of being operated without emitting smoke, an offence is committed. The words which I now desire to omit appear to provide a further defence. There is one other point: namely, that the words appear to encourage the use of appliances which are suitable for a narrow range of fuels only. Obviously, as a matter of fuel policy as well as on grounds of clean air, that is undesirable. It seems to me, and I hope to your Lordships, that those words serve no useful purpose, and in the circumstances I beg to move that they be omitted.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 29, leave out from ("smoke") to ("and") in line 30.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

In moving this Amendment the noble Lord has rightly described what would be the intention behind it—namely, to leave out the words "when burning fuel of a type for which the furnace was designed." He thinks that these words serve no useful purpose. On the other hand, my right honourable friend was anxious for them to be inserted in the Bill, and was advised that they should be inserted in the Bill, because they do serve a useful purpose. I am told that furnaces may be designed to burn not only bituminous coal, but also other smoky material such as creosote pitch, trade wastes and, in certain cases, dried sewage sludge. It is probable that such furnaces could all be operated without making smoke if, for example, they were fired by coke; but the purpose of the clause is to secure that they are designed so as to function without making smoke, so far as is practicable, when burning the kind of fuel which is, in fact, likely to be used in them. The words which the noble Lord seeks to omit are intended to secure this, and in the judgment of my right honourable friend, to leave them out would in fact make the clause far less effective in its purpose than it is at present. I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to do that.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

While not altogether accepting what the noble Earl says, in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 43, leave out ("as part of") and insert ("in").—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.5 p.m.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to add to subsection (4): not being furnaces of boilers with a maximum heating capacity of fifty-five thousand or more British thermal units per hour. The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to give the Government an opportunity of carrying out what I think was something of the nature of a pledge which was given in another place. The short point is that under the clause as it at present appears in the Bill larger domestic type furnaces, serving blocks of flats and hotels, and so on, would be excluded. Obviously, it is desirable that they should be brought within the purview of the clause. The aim has been a rather difficult one: namely, to exclude furnaces of small domestic boilers, for small hotels and so on, but to bring within the clause the larger types of furnace. I am advised that the most satisfactory test of the size of a furnace is the heating capacity in terms of British thermal units per hour, and that the figure set out in my Amendment would be appropriate in the circumstances. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 5, at erd insert the said words.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The noble Lord is quite correct: my right honourable friend in another place undertook to consider this particular point after it had been discussed at some length in the Committee stage. The Amendment which the noble Lord has put down is one which fulfils the requirements, and I therefore have pleasure in accepting it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 5, at end insert— (5) This section shall apply in relation to the attachment to a building of a boiler or industrial plant which already contains a furnace or the fixing to or installation on any land of any such boiler or plant as it applies in relation to the installation of a furnace in any boiler or industrial plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed to or installed on any land.")—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Requirement that grit and dust from furnaces shall be minimized]:

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

May I express my appreciation that the Government have thought fit to accept the last Amendment I proposed? As the present Amendment is on much the same lines, I hope that they will see their way to accept this one, too, if only for the purpose of consistency. The terms are identical to those of the Amendment which I moved to Clause 3 (4), and I submit that it is desirable that a similar Amendment should be made to this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, at end insert ("not being furnaces of boilers with a maximum heating capacity of fifty-five thousand or more British thermal units per hour.")—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The next Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 15 standing in my name: namely, to insert a new clause after Clause 8. Perhaps I might deal with them both on the present Amendment. They are largely consequential on an Amendment which was made on the Report stage in another place, to reduce the rate of fuel consumption which is specified in Clauses 6 and 7 from ten tons an hour to one ton an hour. I do not think there is any need for me to give any further explanation, and accordingly I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Requirement that new furnaces shall be fitted with plant to arrest grit and dust

6.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no furnace in any building shall be used—

1. (a) to burn pulverised fuel; or
2. (b) to burn, at a rate of one ton an hour or more, solid fuel in any other form or solid waste;

and no oven in any building or on any land shall be used to subject solid fuel to any process involving the application of heat, unless the furnace or oven is provided with plant for arresting grit and dust which has been approved by the local authority or which has been installed in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the local authority, and that plant is properly maintained and used, and if a furnace or oven is used in contravention of this subsection the occupier of the building or land shall be guilty of an offence.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The next two Amendments, Nos. 12 and 12a, are alternative and if the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, agrees, your Lordships will probably find it convenient if he speaks to the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Might I be so bold as to suggest that the next four Amendments be taken together?

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "ton" and insert "hundredweight". The right reverend Prelate said: This is one of the important points of this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that, as the provision was first drafted, the figure was 10 tons. May I start by mentioning figures from my own area? A careful survey of innumerable chimneys in the Sheffield district showed that only power stations were burning above 10 tons of solid fuel an hour; and only half a dozen of the biggest works above 1 ton. Of these, an actual sample of 1,946 showed that 52 were burning above 1 cwt., 21 were burning between 1 cwt. and 1 ton, and only 3 were burning over 1 ton. I have also been given figures for Birmingham showing that in recent years no furnace has been installed burning above 5 tons. The conclusion which our Smoke Abatement Committee reached was that not only is 10 tons far too high but that even 1 ton was really too high to be effective.

The discussions which took place in another place on this subject did not seem to be very conclusive. I read carefully the Parliamentary Secretary's reply in which he argued, as against the Association of Municipal Corporations, that the critical rate of fuel consumption at which arrestment plant becomes complex was round about 1 ton. The view of our committee is that the figure is considerably below that, and that rather more elaborate methods are required for it to be extended down to 1 or 2 cwt., or at any rate to 5 cwt.

This is a matter which vitally concerns not only industry but the community. The increase of dust and grit in the air has been very considerable in recent times. There are various reasons for this, one of which, in a sense, is economic and industrial progress. But the effect of grit and dust upon the stonework of buildings and fabrics is very serious. Many of our buildings which have for centuries withstood the English climate are unable to stand up to the wear and tear caused by grit and fine dust. We realise that to ask industry to eliminate grit and dust from their plant is to ask them to spend money on which they themselves will get no obvious return. It is a service to the community; and there it differs from getting rid of smoke, which is economic waste. One cannot say that of dust and grit. Nevertheless, it is of very great importance to the health of human bodies and to the fabric of buildings that we should control, and try so far as possible to eliminate, the emission of grit from chimneys. That being so, I suggest that the figure of 1 ton now in the Bill is still too high.

Arguing this matter in another place the Parliamentary Secretary said he thought that furnaces burning less than 1 ton would be caught by the provision in the previous clause. But leaving aside the question of whether the phrase "any practicable means … for minimising" is strong enough to catch so solid a fish as a furnace burning 1 ton of fuel or more an hour, what assurance have we, under the Bill as it stands, that this clause implies that special installations will be required for furnaces using above 1 ton? This is a growing evil and the community have the right to ask industry to install expansion chambers and flues in the smaller type of furnaces, and even to go to the very substantial expense, in many cases, of more elaborate machinery to control grit and dust in furnaces burning fuel at a higher rate than 1 cwt. per hour.

My only other point is that I am proposing a figure of 1 cwt. per furnace, not 1 cwt. per boiler. I understand that the words "furnace" and "boiler" are ambiguous: a boiler may have more than one furnace. It so happens that in my part of Yorkshire they seem to use a large number of what are called "Lancashire boilers" which have two furnaces. The Amendment asks that the figure should be 1 cwt. per furnace, and not 1 cwt. per boiler. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, leave out ("one ton") and insert ("one hundredweight".—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)

4.18 p.m.

LORD ROCHDALE

It has been suggested that my Amendment, No. 12A, might well be discussed with that of the right reverend Prelate. I also gather that it is proposed that we should discuss the four Amendments dealing with the measurement as well as with the arresting of grit. I am quite happy to take that course, but I would make the point that they are not exactly the same arguments. Whilst the first two Amendments might not be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, it could still be an advantage if one or other of the others could be. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the community could reasonably ask industry to do its utmost to get rid of the emission of grit and dust, but we ought to put more emphasis on the general obligation placed on anyone, irrespective of the size of his installation, in complying with Clause 5. I welcome the fact that this Bill has followed the suggestion in the Beaver Report that the question of smoke on the one hand and grit and dust on the other should be kept quite separate, because, as the Report made clear in paragraph 98, separate and special apparatus needs to be used for each. The Report uses the word "independently."

As has already been mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the Bill as it originally went to another place had in it a figure of ten tons—the figure that was proposed by the Beaver Report. I cannot imagine for one moment that that figure of ten tons was a figure arrived at haphazardly or without careful consideration, bearing in mind what an extremely eminent Committee that Committee presided over by Sir Hugh Beaver was. It must have been considered to be the right figure, for one reason or another. It must have been thought, rightly or wrongly, that ten tons was the correct figure. We then come to the Report stage in another place, when, quite suddenly, the figure was changed by the Parliamentary Secretary from ten tons to one ton. That is reported in the House of Commons Hansard for April 10, Columns 107 to 109. The interesting thing about what the Parliamentary Secretary said on that ocassion was that he gave no real explanation why that change should be made. There was no real attempt—except the one mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—to say why one ton was better than ten tons.

What was particularly curious about what the Parliamentary Secretary said was that he made no reference to another clause in this Bill which must be taken into account if we are considering the figure in this particular clause: he made no reference to Clause 32 (7). Clause 32 is the interpretation clause, and I should like to read to your Lordships the three lines of subsection (7), because unless we have those three lines in our minds, we cannot properly consider this figure and whether it should be ten tons, one ton, five tons or anything else. Clause 32 (7) reads: Any furnaces which are in the occupation of the same person and are served by a single chimney shall, for the purposes of sections six to eight of this Act, be taken to be one furnace. That, to my mind, is fundamental to consideration of the point which we now have under discussion. The Beaver Committee, in Paragraph 98 of their Report, did not use the word "furnaces"; they used the word "installation." Unfortunately, the Report did not give any definition showing what they meant by "installation," but it seems pretty obvious that what they must have had in mind was not one furnace but a number of furnaces served, shall we say, by one chimney or more than one chimney—in other words a boiler-house or a place where furnaces were installed from which there was a focal point for the emission of smoke in the works as a whole.

If that was what they had in mind, the inclusion of Clause 32 (7) was, I take it, the Parliamentary draftsmen's attempt to interpret the Beaver Committee's Report. To a considerable degree they have succeeded, I think, but not entirely, because I would suggest that Clause 32 (7) was not inconsistent with the original figure of ten tons but is inconsistent with the present figure of one ton. That is why I am seeking, by my Amendment, to take the figure, not lower, like the right reverend Prelate, to one hundredweight, but upwards to five tons. The effect of Clause 32 (7) is to bring under control furnaces burning very much less than one ton if there are a number of furnaces emitting into one chimney. The result of all that, as I see it, is that the Bill is very far away from the recommendations of the Beaver Committee in this respect, and will have the effect of making a large number of firms spend considerable time, effort and money on small furnaces, when the fact is that a large number of small furnaces do not really emit dust and ash. They emit smoke, certainly, but not dust and ash. The effect of putting effort, time and money into these small furnaces will tend to detract attention from what is most important—that is, doing the most that possibly can be done for the larger plants to see that they have really efficient, up-to-date dust and grit arrestors.

One way of getting over the difficulty later would be to omit Clause 32 (7). That, for a large amount of industry, would meet the case. But it would not meet the case for those in the iron foundries industry. They have a rather special problem about which I should like to say a word or two. The changing in another place of the figure from ten tons to one ton brought a great number of small foundries within the ambit of the clause. It means to them that, despite their general obligations under Clause 5 (which, of course, stand), they have also to satisfy their local authorities as to the precise means they are going to employ for arresting the emission of grit and dust. That may be all right for furnaces in boilers; but melting iron in a cupola is not a simple furnace operation. It is a highly complex metallurgical process, in respect of which there can be said to be no one fixed standard for measuring the efficiency of grit and dust arrestors. I think it is to the credit of that particular industry that, irrespective of this Bill—in fact before this Bill came into view at all—it has done a considerable amount of research to determine how grit and dust can be most appropriately arrested in its plants. There are a number of different methods, varying very considerably in complexity and cost.

But the position as we have it now is that there is no protection for the iron foundries apart from their being able to appeal to the Minister under Clause 6 (4), which, for a small firm, is an undesirable thing to have to do often. There is no protection against the establishment by some particular local authority of an unreasonably high standard with the result that those firms which come under that particular local authority will be put at a serious disadvantage as compared with other firms under other local authorities which may not take such a particularly strong line. I should like to emphasise that there are these different forms of arrestors which iron foundries can use, from dry arrestors and wet arrestors right up to the most expansive electro-static precipitation methods, which would be quite unreasonable in the case of small firms. These last arrestors are very expensive, and insistence on their adoption might mean disaster to a small firm. What is the best course, therefore, to adopt? I have suggested that the omission of Clause 32 (7) would cover a large range of industry, but not the iron foundry industry. It seems, in the light of that, that it would be preferable to take a fair compromise and change the figure of one ton to five tons, which would leave under control of the local authorities some thousands of furnaces in the country as a whole.

So much for the question of the provision of arrestors of one kind and another. As we are also considering in this debate the question of measuring apparatus, I should like to make one or two farther points. First of all, the clause that deals with the measurement of the emission of grit and dust applies to all furnaces, not merely to new ones, and in this case the arguments would apply for most of industry, exactly as the arguments I have already given in regard to the arresting equipment itself. Again, iron foundries raise a specifically difficult point. I understand that, following the recommendations in paragraph 42 of the Beaver Report, the British Standards Institution are investigating the standards for sampling the flow of smoke from furnaces to determine the grit emission. That is all to the good in most foundries, but in those where the cupolas work intermittently and often for short periods, the measurement of grit and dust is liable to create a serious problem. My information, from good authority, is that it might be necessary to have round the point of emission a number of stations where the grit would be measured and the total emission calculated. That is all right with a big firm who have highly qualified men to do such work, but I doubt whether the smaller firms would have the qualified staff to do this work and make the necessary deductions. Therefore, I hope that, even if the noble Earl cannot see his way, as I very much hope he will, to give any help on the argument put forward on Clause 6, he will at least do something in the case of Clause 7 and not make it obligatory for the smaller firms using smaller furnaces to put in complex measuring equipment.

LORD JESSEL

My noble friend Lord Rochdale has dealt fully with these two Amendments. I am puzzled when I see all the different figures which have been put forward. We have 10 tons in the Beaver Report. One ton was inserted in another place. The right reverend Prelate now wants 1 cwt., and my noble friend and I are asking for 5 tons. Obviously, this is a matter on which there can be a wide difference of opinion. I should like to support my noble friend particularly on the points he made in regard to Clause 32 (7). I know of an instance which illustrates the difficulty of this clause. It is of a boilerhouse which has five Lancashire boilers, all of which use the same chimney. They each raise 10,000 lb. of steam per hour and the total fuel consumption is 3¼ tons of fuel per hour. Just because they use the same chimney, they are considered as burning 1 ton of fuel per hour, when in fact each is burning considerably less. If they had had five separate chimneys, they would have been outside the scope of these provisions.

If the Government cannot accept my noble friend's suggestion of substituting 5 tons for 1 ton, I hope that between now and the Report stage they will consider substituting some figure considerably in excess of 1 ton—maybe 3 tons would be the right figure, or at any rate a more acceptable figure to industry. But I think it is important that if any figure less than 5 tons is going to be retained in Clauses 6 and 7, then Clause 32 (7) should be deleted and small furnaces using the same chimney relieved of these onerous obligations.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

We have had a long and detailed debate on the four Amendments under discussion. If I may say so, with deep respect to the right reverend Prelate and to the two noble Lords who have spoken, I find myself "between the devil and the deep blue sea." In view of the arguments which they have presented, I cannot help thinking that the action that the Government took in another place in deleting the figure of "10" and putting in "1" should commend itself to your Lordships. What are we trying to do in this Bill? We are trying to relieve the people who live in industrial areas of quantities of smoke in the air and to reduce the amount of grit and dust that flows into the air from these furnaces. In the Beaver Report it was explicitly stated that any furnace burning fuel at the rate of 10 tons an hour and more should be provided with a grit-arresting plant. After considerable discussion in another place that figure was reduced to 1 ton, for the purpose of trying to prevent a large amount of grit and dust from being thrown into the air by these furnaces. I think it would be quite unreasonable to reduce this figure to 1 cwt. and equally unreasonable to increase it to 5 tons.

Reference has been made to Clause 32 (7), which provides that if two or more furnaces are served by a single chimney, they shall be treated, for the purposes of Clauses 6 and 7, as one furnace. This was taken into account, of course, when my right honourable friend decided to ask in another place for the insertion of the figure of 1 ton an hour; and, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, I do not think that is in any way inconsistent with the Bill. I am advised that the amount of grit and dust discharged from a chimney is approximately the same whether the chimney serves a single furnace or a group of furnaces burning the same quantity of fuel, and the requirements of Clause 6 are not more onerous in the latter case. Where two or more furnaces discharge through a single chimney, a single grit-arresting plant will often suffice.

It is true that the other two Amendments dealing with Clause 7 are not quite on the same line as those dealing with Clause 6, but the same argument applies in both cases, because one clause requires that new furnaces shall be fitted with grit-arresting plant and the other says that the measurement of grit and dust emitted from furnaces must be measured, if it is so decided. Taking all in all, I am bound to say that, judging between the right reverend Prelate and the two noble Lords, I think they would both be wrong; and I commend to the Committee the figure which was inserted in the Bill in another place—namely, 1 ton an hour, instead of 10 tons, and rather holding to that figure, instead of altering it to 5 tons.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

The noble Earl is obviously in a strong position between these two Amendments, and in view of what he says, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD ROCHDALE

Before the right reverend Prelate withdraws the Amendment I should like to make one further point. My noble friend Lord Munster did not mention anything about iron foundries. There is a special case there, and I would ask whether it is possible for him to give them some sort of assurance. The obvious thing for the iron foundries to do, when the Bill becomes an Act, if it goes through as drafted, is to apply under the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1926, to be regarded as a special process. They would then come under the jurisdiction not of the local authorities but of the Alkali Commission, and would not be subject to local politics, which are always an undesirable thing in anything so technical. That procedure might or might not be successful; it has to go through a public inquiry.

There is another way in which my noble friend might be able to help. Clause 6 (3) says: The Minister may give directions to any local authority, or to local authorities generally, requiring that any application for approval under this section, or all such applications … shall be referred to the Minister and shall be dealt with by him … Could my noble friend give an undertaking to discuss that provision with his right honourable friend the Minister to sec whether it would be possible to give a direction under this subsection as regards iron foundries. Alternatively, if the whole of that industry could be taken out of the jurisdiction of the local authorities and put under the Alkali Commission, it would make it much easier for them, seeing that it is such a technical matter.

LORD BURDEN

I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has used one or two phrases which I think that, on consideration, he will agree are not quite fair. I think it would be wrong to say that the administration of this Bill, when it becomes an Act—or, indeed, of any Act of Parliament, so far as officers or members of a local authority are concerned—will be subject to local politics. From my experience of local authorities, which is a fairly long one, the question of politics never enters into whether there is an infringement of the law. I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will not agree to the removal of a large number of furnaces from the purview of local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, must know that it would be impossible for the Alkali Commission to carry out anything in the nature of adequate inspections if large numbers were to come within their purview, unless the Commission were strongly reinforced with fresh staff. With the manpower situation as it is to-day, that would seem to be a wrong proceeding, when we have men trained for this work at present employed by local authorities.

LORD ROCHDALE

I feel that I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Burden. He says that the Alkali Commission would be quite unable to deal with the problem. But surely, by the same token, many local authorities would be quite inadequately equipped to deal with anything so technical as an inspection in the case of iron foundries. It is because there is that danger that we in industry feel it would be much better to halve the responsibility the same for the whole industry over the whole country.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I apologise for not answering ray noble friend's point before, and I will do so now. My right honourable friend the Minister has decided that he will reach a decision in any case after there has been a public inquiry. I cannot go beyond that at the present time. As regards Clause 6 (3), that deals with a somewhat technical point. I understand that the choice of grit and dust arrestment plant to serve any particular purpose often calls for specialised technical knowledge, which may not in every case be available to local authorities concerned. What the subsection does is to enable the Minister to direct that applications for approval under subsection (1), either generally or in such special cases as he may specify, should be referred to him and be dealt with by him, instead of by the local authority. However, I will certainly convey the other remarks of my noble friend to my right honourable friend.

LORD FARINGDON

I profoundly regret the decision which I believe that the right reverend Prelate has arrived at—namely, to withdraw his Amendment. To be perfectly frank, and with respect, I thought that the noble Earl who replied for the Government "waltzed away" on a very easy tactical reply; in fact, I do not think he replied at all to the right reverend Prelate, whose figures I found most impressive. The temptation, with two such Amendments as these, was apparently more than the noble Earl could resist, Frankly, I do not consider that the right reverend Prelate has been answered, and I regret what I think to be his intention of withdrawing the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question: Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD ROCHDALE

I should like to raise one matter on the question that this clause should stand part of the Bill. Suppose that an industrialist applies to a local authority for approval of plans and those plans are approved; that the industrialist spends a considerable amount of money implementing them, and that then, for one reason or another, the results are not satisfactory and grit and ash are emitted. Will he still be liable under Clause 5? In other words, does Clause 5 override the provisions of Clause 6?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I regret that I cannot answer that detailed and technical point offhand, but if the application has been accepted and approved by the local authority I do not believe that it would arise. However, I will inquire into the matter.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Information about furnaces and fuel consumed]:

4.50 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved to add to the clause: (3) In order to promote full-scale research into the best means of reducing and eliminating the emission of fumes, and of sulphur oxides in particular, the Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make a contribution to facilitate such full-scale research. The right reverend Prelate said: I am not sure whether this is the right place for this particular Amendment, but it is a simple point. Industrialists, members of local authorities and the general community are increasingly concerned at the growing menace from fumes which cannot be distinguished from fine dust, and also from sulphur oxides. We are told by all the experts that a great deal of research needs to be done before an effective and not too costly means can be found of dealing with this matter so as to control the emission of fumes and sulphur. I am told that it will require full-scale research, which may necessitate the setting up of comparatively expensive experimental plant—the kind of thing which can be done only on the national level.

So far as I have been able to discover, the only reference to research in the Bill as it stands is in Clause 23, paragraph (a), which to some extent throws the onus on local authorities. We know, of course, that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, over which the Leader of the House presides, grants aid for research, not only with regard to fuel but also on many other matters, and many university departments benefit by these grants. But there are many claimants on the funds of the Council, and it is the opinion of many working on research that the kind of plant required to deal with this difficult matter is larger than any one university or one local authority can finance and set up. Therefore while I do not suggest that this matter should be taken altogether out of the purview of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, I suggest that the Minister concerned with the operation of this Bill should have power to make direct grants for research. Responsibility should not be left to the local ratepayers. The subsection which I am proposing is only a permissive one. It will, of course, have to be moved and considered in another place, but I believe—and I make this point to your Lordships—that its presence in the Bill would give encouragement to scientists and technicians working on the subject who know both its importance and also its considerable difficulties. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)

LORD AMULREE

I should like briefly to support the right reverend Prelate's plea for more work to be done on the effective ways of dealing with the sulphur fumes which are emitted. We know—and it was borne out during the bad fog in 1952—that to a great many people the effect of sulphur di-oxide fumes are lethal. Yet not a great deal appears to be known about methods of preventing the discharge of these fumes into the atmosphere. Like the right reverend Prelate, I am not quite sure whether this is the right place in the Bill to put in words of this nature. Perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply can tell us whether work is being done by the Government Department, or whether there will be any possibility of encouraging such research in the future.

LORD BURDEN

I should like to support the plea which has been put forward by the right reverend Prelate. I am sure the Minister will agree that the right reverend Prelate has put his Amendment in such a way as to command acceptance, and that he has been eminently reasonable. What is asked for is that there should be an inquiry into these problems which everyone agrees are with us to-day, and upon which there is a good deal of difference of opinion as to the causes or the remedies, as is shown by the correspondence which appeared in The Times some little time ago. I think we shall be shamefully neglecting our duty if, now that we are on this problem, we sidetrack this particular question which is relevant to clean air and the cause of pollution. If this is not the right place for the Amendment, I beg the Minister to give us some assurance that it will be looked at, and that at an appropriate place an Amendment can be moved. I ask him not to say "This is going on; it is being done", and so on. How many times have we found that we have had promises of that kind—not particularly with regard to this Government, but any Government—and have found that nothing effective has been done! Time after time, when the Labour Government were in power we had pleas from the Opposition, "Put it in the Bill and then we know that something will be done." In this instance, I urge the Government: put something in the Bill, and then we know that something effective will be done in connection with this very real problem.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I fed that noble Lords, in whatever part of the House they sit, will fully appreciate the reasons which have prompted the right reverend Prelate to put down this Amendment. There is, of course, nothing of more importance to the successful functioning of this Bill in future years than a continual and constant research. Let me say at once to the noble Lord opposite that there is, of course, no intention whatever to sidetrack research in any way. It has been continuing over a number of years now. It has been continuing with such success—as I shall endeavour to explain in a few moments—that I do not think it would be appropriate to insert in the Bill a provision to cover something that is in fact being done. As the right reverend Prelate has truly said, the work is undertaken by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, for which the Lord President is responsible. He is advised by a Council, one of whose members is Sir Hugh Beaver himself, who was, I suppose, the founder of this Bill. The D.S.I.R. arranges for research on air pollution to be carried out by the Fuel Research Station or by a research association, the chief one of which is the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, or by a university or industrial firm under contract.

Without wearying the Committee at great length, I think I ought to give them some indication of what is happening at the present time. First of all, the means of making existing furnaces capable of burning fuel smokelessly. Work is con- tinning on this matter at the Fuel Research Station, and further research on the metallurgical furnace is carried out, as the right reverend Prelate probably knows, at Sheffield University, under contract for the Fuel Research Station. Secondly, there is the improvement of existing methods of measuring the amount of grit and dust emitted from furnaces. Work on this problem is being undertaken by the Fuel Research Station and the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, in conjunction with the Committee of the British Standards Institution.

I come, thirdly, to the provision of increased supplies of smokeless fuel. Here, the Fuel Research Station is carrying out research with the object of producing reactive coke more cheaply by a slight modification of normal gasworks practice. Next, a word on the sulphur oxides and the prevention of the release of sulphur in coal by the addition of lime and other substances. Research here is being undertaken by the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, under contract for the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Then there is the question of removing sulphur oxides from flue gases. Possible methods of removing these sulphur oxides are being examined at the Fuel Research Station and at Sheffield University, under contract for the Ministry of Fuel and Power. In addition, there are other researches going on into questions of fumes from the exhausts of motor cars and all motor vehicles; into iron and steel, clay products, the chemical industry, and so on.

So the House (and, I trust, the right reverend Prelate) will agree that we are actively pursuing this matter by having research into all these vitally important subjects upon which so much of the success of this Bill must ultimately depend. But, as I have said, with all the sympathy I can command for the right reverend Prelate's proposal, I do not honestly think that there is any necessity to include in the Bill something which has been already done and which has, in fact, been continuing for some years. It is vital that this research should go on and, I hope, at an ever-increasing pace.

LORD BURDEN

Before the right reverend Prelate deals with his own Amendment, could the noble Earl give us an approximate idea of the amount of Government monies allocated for these purposes in the last financial year, or is it left largely to private enterprise to do these things?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

If I remember rightly, the total Vote for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research—either this year or last year; I am subject to correction—was £6½ million.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

I appreciate very much the noble Earl's reply but, on the facts that have been given to me, I am not altogether satisfied with it. We are dealing here with something which may menace the health of this country and at an increasingly rapid rate. There are other things which we have to bear in mind—atomic plants, and so on, up and down the country. One must appreciate very much the amount of Government money going into scientific and industrial research, but there are many other demands upon that fund and upon the good will of the Council in all directions, quite independent from this particular one. It is a matter of consideration whether we are not here dealing with a particular issue, vital, urgent and menacing, which may require more centralised research and experiments than can be conducted by any single university. Therefore I think there is a case for some special treatment of this particular matter over and above the many excellent things which are being done at present under the auspices of the Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Obviously, I cannot press my Amendment against the opinion of that Council, but I would ask the Minister to look into this matter and satisfy himself that all is being done as quickly as it can be done, and effectively and centrally, to deal with this particular problem which is menacing human life in this country at the present time.

LORD BURDEN

Before the Minister replies to that, I am sure there was no intention to mislead, but what I should have asked—I do not know whether I made myself clear—was for the expenditure by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on this specific problem of pollution. I take it that the figure I was given was the overall expenditure of the Department. I believe that, under the Bill which we had before us a little while ago dealing with the organisation of the Department, the Lord President of the Council is authorised to give a specific direction to the new Council to undertake a definite piece of work. If the Government cannot accept this Amendment, can that aspect of the problem be looked at, to see whether a specific direction can be given for this real problem to be investigated?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Let me say at once that I have no doubt whatever that, when the Lord President reads the Report of the discussion which your Lordships have had on the Amendment of the right reverend Prelate, he may be in a position to give the matter further consideration. But, in point of fact, I ask your Lordships to believe that there is ample inquiry and research going on into this matter at the present time. As I said, Parliament provides a sum of £6½ million for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I could not possibly divide that sum and say how much is spent on examining sulphur oxides and how much goes on making existing furnaces capable of burning more fuel smokelessly. Nevertheless, a sum of £6½ million is provided by Parliament for this Department.

Moreover, the field of research carried out by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in co-operation with other Government Departments and industry is a wide one. For instance, the industrial research associations which are sponsored by the Department number over forty, and they have a combined income of some £5 million a year. It is true that they are controlled by their subscribing member firms and, of course, they are helped by grants from public funds. Your Lordships will observe at once that a considerable amount of research work is being done in this matter. I should be in a very difficult position if I tried to give any assurance to the right reverend Prelate that I could accept this or any other Amendment. On merely a technical point, I am told that, if an Amendment of this nature were inserted in the Bill, it would be necessary for a new Money Resolution to be passed in another place. That would not be possible at the present time.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

I must not put that matter to the test. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

Grit and dust from outdoor furnaces, etc. (". The four last preceding sections shall apply in relation to the furnace of any boiler or industrial plant (being a boiler or plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed to or installed on any land) as they apply in relation to a furnace in a building: Provided that in relation to a furnace which is not in a building, the references in those sections to the occupier of the building shall be construed as references to the person having possession of the boiler or plant.")—(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9:

Height of chimneys

9.—(1) Where plans for the erection or extension of a building outside the administrative County of London, other than a building used or to be used wholly for one or more of the following purposes, that is to say as a residence or residences, a shop or shops or an office or offices, are in accordance with building bye-laws deposited with the local authority and the plans show that it is proposed to construct a chimney for carrying smoke, grit, dust or gases from the building, the local authority shall reject the plans unless they are satisfied that the height of the chimney as shown on the plans will be sufficient to prevent so far as practicable the smoke, grit, dust or gases from becoming prejudicial to health or a nuisance having regard to—

1. (a) the purpose of the chimney;
2. (b) the position and description of buildings near thereto;
3. (c) the levels of the neighbouring ground; and
4. (d) any other matters requiring consideration in the circumstances.

LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words beginning "other than" down to and including "offices". The noble Lord said: This clause was inserted in another place during the Committee stage. Of course, it was a welcome addition to the Bill. It does not, however, apply to residences, shops and offices, and there seems to be no necessity to exclude those premises, since fuel-burning plant installed in them can give rise to nuisances, particularly in the case of shops and offices. Does the term "residences" include hotels? If, as I understand, it includes hotels, why should offices, shops and residences be excluded? I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 36, leave out from ("London") to ("are") in line 39.—(Lord Burden.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

As the noble Lord has pointed out, the clause makes provision to secure that certain new chimneys are of sufficient height to prevent, so far as practicable, nuisance from the smoke, girt, dust or gases discharged from the chimneys. As he quite rightly points out, chimneys of residential property, of shops and of offices are excluded from the clause. This clause was inserted so that it should apply chiefly to industrial chimneys, to the chimneys of buildings such as laundries and incinerators, and to other chimneys—your Lordships can judge for yourselves where it would be necessary for the clause to apply. I am informed that in point of fact there is no necessity to exclude these words which the noble Lord seeks to omit, for the height of chimneys in general may be regulated by building by-laws made under Section 61 of the Public Health Act, 1936. This enables general requirements to be imposed as to the height of chimneys of houses, shops and offices, and it is not thought that further provision for this purpose is necessary in these cases. The noble Lord will appreciate at once that Clause 9 of the Bill is supplementary to the general by-law provisions, but that the by-law provisions under the, Public Health Act, 1936, still remain in force.

LORD BURDEN

In view of that explanation, for which I am most grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Smoke control areas

(4) The Minister may from time to time by order exempt any class of fireplace, upon such conditions as he may specify in the order, from the provisions of this section, if he is satisfied that such fireplaces can be used for burning fuel other than authorised fuels without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke.

5.12 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved to delete subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Would the noble Lord like both his Amendments to be discussed together?

LORD BURDEN

If that would meet the convenience of the Committee. In regard to the first Amendment, the point that I would submit to the Committee is that if a certain class of fireplace can be used for burning fuel other than an authorised smokeless fuel without producing more than a little smoke, there can be no guarantee that this will be so operated. The important point is that no officer of a local authority has any power of entry into a private house to ascertain how the fireplace is being operated. Furthermore, even if the amount of smoke emitted from a single chimney is not substantial, a group of chimneys in one neighbourhood will, in the aggregate, obviously cause a considerable nuisance and, in effect, defeat the object of the Bill.

My second Amendment is to enable any local authority, by order confirmed by the Minister, to declare the whole or part of its district to be a smoke-control area. What can be done by a local authority with the co-operation of the residents and local industry and the railways in preventing smoke and nuisance arising from it can be seen from a most interesting report produced by one member of the Home Counties Smoke Abatement Society, at Watford. It is a most interesting document. Subject to certain exemptions and limitations, the emission of smoke from the chimney of any building in such an area creates an offence—that is, if the order is confirmed by the Minister. Under the clause there are exceptions which the Association of Municipal Corporations particularly would like to see removed, and one in particular with which this Amendment is designed to deal is contained in subsection (4). This subsection provides that: The Minister may from time to time by order exempt any class of fireplace, upon such conditions as he may specify in the order, from the provisions of this section, if he is satisfied that such fireplaces can be used for burning fuel other than authorised fuels"— that is, inherently smokeless fuels— without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke. I would submit to the Committee that this subsection should not have been included in the clause. I agree that the matter was fully argued in another place, but as Her Majesty's Government have refused to withdraw the subsection, I venture respectfully to submit that it should be tightened up so far as possible, so that no class of fireplace should be exempted unless it can be used without producing any smoke at all. That is the object which I seek to achieve with this Amendment. I do not say that it will happen, but conceivably under the clause as it stands with that particular subsection, the whole purpose of the Bill may be defeated by the Minister, under pressure, granting the exemptions which he is empowered to do under the subsection. I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 7, leave out subsection (4).— (Lord Burden.)

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

Whilst appreciating fully all that my noble friend has said and the source from which the Amendment comes, I am sorry to say that I feel that there are preponderant reasons why the clause should be retained rather than omitted. It seems to me essential that every encouragement should be given to those who can invent or produce appropriate smokeless appliances burning any kind of fuel. Of course, there are such appliances. The subsection which my noble friend is proposing should be left out has been called the "escape clause" because it enables the Minister to approve domestic solid fuel appliances for use in a smoke control area when burning bituminous coal, so that the use of such appliances, even when burning such coal, shall in itself be a defence to a prosecution by a local authority.

As I understand it, my noble friend would agree to that being done, to such appliances being exempted, providing they consume 100 per cent. of smoke. We have already been told that that is a practical impossibility. But there are appliances, of some of which I happen to know, which are made in my own city of Leeds, which burn something like 90 per cent. of the smoke. At present there is one particular appliance which I assume will become an exempted fireplace. It is a solid-fuel furnace burning high quality bituminous coal in a closed furnace on the down-draught principle, and the emission of smoke expressed in terms of weight per pound of fuel consumed is, in fact, less than the amount of smoke emission from some of the processed smokeless fuels which are in use and which no doubt will be exempted under this Bill. That being the case, and it being extremely desirable to encourage the use of such appliances and the saving of coal effected by most of them, and to do away with smoke, it seems to me that it is right to give the Minister—not, your Lordships will observe, the local authority—an opportunity, from time to time, by order, to exempt any such class of fireplace. The fact that this clause remains in the Bill will encourage inventors to develop, as I know they are developing, smokeless fuel furnaces of every description for water heating, fire box operating, open fires and other uses, in all of which cases, I am assured, smoke emission can be reduced by 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. It seems desirable to encourage the use of such appliances, and, therefore, while appreciating what my noble friend says, I hope the Minister will be disposed to retain the clause.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

After hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, I feel there is nothing further for me to say. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, certainly managed to have considerable knowledge of the brief which was placed before me to indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, the reasons why the Minister did not wish to accept his Amendment. The purpose of the clause is to enable the Minister to exempt by order any class of fireplace from a smoke control order if he is satisfied that such a fireplace can be used for burning fuel other than authorised fuel without producing any substantial quantity of smoke. My right honourable friend is anxious to encourage the use of fireplaces which can burn any kind of fuel, including oil, with little or no smoke, or can burn the kind of fuel now being developed which I understand produces only about 20 per cent. of the smoke normally produced by an ordinary fireplace. Such appliances will make an important contribution to smoke abatement without making any serious demands on supplies of solid fuel which are at present scarce. From what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and myself, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Burden, will agree that to ellipt these words would be to defeat the very object which my right honourable friend, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, in fact has in mind; and I hope that he will therefore see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

Is the noble Earl referring to the second Amendment?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I was dealing with the two Amendments together, but I can deal with the other one in a very few moments.

LORD BURDEN

In view of that explanation and the fact that the Opposition are equally divided, I do not propose to move my Amendment No. 16.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Dealing with the first Amendment, I would explain at once that my right honourable friend thinks it desirable that he should be able lo encourage the development and use of types of appliance which may contribute to smoke abatement without the consumption of the authorised smokeless fuel, by exempting them from the operation of Clause 10 (2). I endeavoured to explain that to the noble Lord in replying to his second Amendment, but of course the same argument applies to his first Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

In view of the noble Earl's explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Abatement of smoke nuisances

15.—(1) Smoke other than—

1. (a) smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling; or
2. (b) dark smoke emitted from a chimney of a building or from a chimney serving the furnace of a boiler or industrial plant attached to a building or for the time being fixed to or installed on any land,

shall, if it is a nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, be deemed for the purposes of Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936, to be a statutory nuisance, and section one hundred and nine of that Act (which contains a saving from the operation of the said Part III for mines and industrial processes) shall not apply in relation to it:

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (1), to omit "if it is a nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood" and to insert: , if in the opinion of the local authority it is a nuisance to persons in the neighbourhood,". The noble Lord said: In my view this is a very important Amendment. This clause provides that smoke emitted from the chimney of a private dwelling or smoke from a chimney shall, if a nuisance to the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, be deemed to be a statutory nuisance. Clearly it would be extremely difficult to prove that such emission was a nuisance to the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, for those words are very general, amorphous and difficult to define, and presumably it would be necessary for a local authority to produce a good deal of evidence from inhabitants and satisfy the court that such emission was, in those circumstances, in fact a nuisance to the inhabitants. Obviously the evidence to be given might vary a good deal and would be the subject of difficulty, with experienced witnesses subjected to technical cross-examination. Furthermore, the nuisance might be experienced in streets and working places by those who are not inhabitants. The nuisance might affect a district without any dwellings and therefore without inhabitants.

In those circumstances, in order to make the matter more concrete I propose to insert the words in the Amendment: if in the opinion of the local authority it is a nuisance to persons in the neighbourhood. A local authority is clearly definable and is capable of expressing an opinion. In my experience this is quite a usual phrase in Acts of Parliament and would appear to make the matter perfectly clear and definite and enable the clause to be fully effective. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 27 and insert (",if in the opinion of the local authority it is a nuisance to persons in the neighbourhood,").—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This clause suggests that certain emissions of smoke, if a nuisance to the inhabitants of a neighbourhood, shall be deemed to be a statutory nuisance under Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936. That means that if the local authorities are in a position to prove the existence of smoke emission which constitutes a nuisance to the inhabitants of any locality, they can employ the procedure of Part III of that Act for instituting the necessary summary proceedings for securing an abatement of the nuisance. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, seeks to do something which I think is entirely revolutionary. He wants to render the person liable to proceedings if, without proof but merely in the opinion of the local authority, the smoke emission is deemed to constitute a nuisance to persons in the neighbourhood.

I think that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree with me that that is really wrong in principle. The emission of smoke may or may not be a nuisance. It is a matter upon which there may be quite legitimate and sound differences of opinion; but the local authority's opinion surely cannot be the determining factor. I would not suggest that now or in future we should deprive a defendant of his elementary right to adduce evidence to the contrary in accordance with the universal principle that a defendant in criminal proceedings is presumed innocent until he is found guilty; and I should not like to depart from that, even though it is only a question of somebody who makes a nuisance of himself by emitting smoke.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19:

(3) The waters to which this section applies are—

1. (a) all waters not navigable by sea-going ships; and
2. (b) all waters navigable by sea-going ships which are contained within any port, harbour, river, estuary, haven, dock, canal or other place so long as a person or body of persons is empowered by or under any Act to make charges in respect of vessels entering it or using facilities therein.

5.30 p.m.

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY had given notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (2) and insert: (2) For the purposes of this Act a vessel in any waters to which this section applies shall—

1. (a) if those waters are within a port health district, be subject to the jurisdiction 637 of the port health authority for that district and notwithstanding the provisions of section twenty-seven of this Act it shall be the duty of the port health authority to enforce the provisions of sections one and two of this Act in relation to vessels;
2. (b) if those waters are within the district of a local authority but not within a port health district, be subject to the jurisdiction of that local authority;
3. (c) if those waters are not within the district of any local authority or any port health district, they shall be deemed to be within the district of the local authority or the port health authority, as the case may be, whose district includes that point on land which is nearest to the spot where the vessel is."

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment has been put down after consultation with the Association of Dock and Harbour Authorities, and has at least, I submit, the merit of being capable of explanation in very simple terms. Its object is twofold, It aims, in the first place, at removing what appeared to be the possibility of a conflict of jurisdiction, or at least uncertainty as to jurisdiction, as between a local authority and a port health authority and, in the second place, at giving port health authorities power by Statute—that is, by the express terms of the Statute—to enforce the provisions of the Bill. In both respects the objects of the Amendment are to make the Bill more effective.

Since the Amendment was put down in the first instance, there has appeared on the Marshalled List Amendment No. 25, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Munster. That Amendment (which is to Clause 29 (4)) represents; if I may say so, an improvement on the original drafting of that particular subsection and appears to remove entirely the possibility of a conflict of jurisdiction. Therefore, Lord Munster's Amendment, if accepted, will deal with the first of the objects of the Amendment which stands in my name, though it leaves untouched the second object. In regard to that, those who are associated with me in this matter have all along felt that it would be a distinct advantage if the powers of local authorities under this Bill were set out clearly in the Statute itself. We still take that view. On the other hand, we recognise that according to the structural arrangements of the Public Health Act of 1936 the powers of local authorities in such matters as these are defined not by the express terms of the Statute but by orders made by the appropriate public authority. In these circumstances, while I still hope the Government may be prepared to reconsider the point to which I have referred, I do not now think it proper to move this particular Amendment, and I will not move the consequential Amendments which appear in the Marshalled List.

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "are" to insert: within the seaward limits of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and are The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with an entirely different matter. Its purpose is to make quite clear that local dock and harbour authorities are not being made responsible in any way for enforcing the provisions of this Bill outside the seaward limits of territorial waters. This is a precautionary measure which we think is rendered necessary by the fact that clock and harbour authorities have in certain instances to carry out navigational functions outside seaward limits. It would clearly be quite wrong to compel such local authorities to assume responsibility for the enforcement of penal provisions. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 19.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 15, after ("are") insert the said words.—(Viscount Waverley).

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The noble Viscount has fully explained the purpose of his Amendment, and I am glad to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 19 to insert the following new clause:

Exemption for purposes of investigations and research

".—(1) If the local authority are satisfied, on the application of any person interested, that it is expedient so to do for the purpose of enabling investigations or research relevant to the problem of the pollution of the air to be carried out without rendering the applicant liable to proceedings brought under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act, the local authority may by notice in writing given to the applicant exempt, wholly or to a limited extent,—

1. (a) any chimney from the operation of sections one, five, ten, fifteen and eighteen of this Act;
639
2. (b) any furnace, boiler or industrial plant from the operation of subsection (1) of section three of this Act;
3. (c) any furnace or oven from the operation of section six of this Act,

in each case subject to such conditions, if any, and for such period as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Any person who has applied to the local authority for an exemption under this section may, if he is dissatisfied with the decision of the Authority on the application, appeal to the Minister and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, by notice in writing given to the applicant and the local authority, give any exemption which the authority might have given or vary the terms of any exemption which they have given."

The noble Earl said: A somewhat similar Amendment to this was moved at the Report stage in another place, and my right honourable friend agreed that a provision in the Bill was desirable in order to facilitate investigations and research into methods of preventing air pollution. The Bill at present contains no saving for contraventions which might occur in the course of such investigations or research, and I think it is clearly desirable that there should be some safeguarding words. Accordingly, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 19, insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Munster.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Clean Air Council]:

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to add to the clause: (4) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section the Clean Air Council and the Clean Air Council for Scotland shall review the proceedings of local authorities under this Act and it shall be the duty of a local authority to make available to the Council each year any information required for this purpose.

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make the proposed Clean Air Council already provided for in the Bill fully effective. As at present drawn, the clause does not seem to be effective. The words I propose to insert would make it effective. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I am glad in some ways that the noble Lord has moved this Amendment because it gives me the opportunity of making the facts clear. My right honourable friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland already have power to obtain all the information of this nature that may be needed or which they may require from local authorities. That power is given to them under Section 284 of the Local Government Act, 1933 and Section 354 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. As these powers are already in the hands of my two right honourable friends, I think the noble Lord will agree that no further provision in the Bill is necessary.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Before the Committee passes Clause 21, may I just give your Lordships some indication of views which my right honourable friend the Minister has expressed? Noble Lords may remember that on the Report stage of this Bill in another place the question arose of whether there would be an annual report to Parliament on the progress of the policies outlined in this Bill and whether that report to Parliament would be statutory. My right honourable friend undertook to consider this with care. He has done so, and he has come to the conclusion that there is no necessity to make this statutory upon him, for he already reports to Parliament on a variety of other subjects connected with his Department, such as housing, water supplies or equally important mailers. He feels, therefore, that this matter might well be included in the report which he already makes to Parliament, but that he should not be under a statutory obligation to make a report, any more than he is in the cases of housing and water supplies.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Penalties]:

5.40 p.m.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Burden, I should like to move formally the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 19, leave out ("ten") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment seeks to make the offence created by Clause 3 (3)—that is, failure to give notice to a local authority of installation of a new furnace—subject to a maximum penalty of £50 instead of £10, and at the same time to increase the maximum penalty for an initial offence under Clause 10, of emitting smoke in a controlled area, from £10 to £50 for any one day on which it is emitted. I have given this matter considerable thought since the Amendment appeared on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burden. My right honourable friend has conic to the conclusion, I think rightly, that the maximum penalty of £10 in the City of London and under other local Acts which prescribe smokeless zones, which have worked successfully up to date, should be retained as the maximum in this Bill. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that it might be wiser to leave it as it is in many of the local Acts at the present time.

LORD MILNER OF LEEDS

I am obliged to the noble Earl. I think my noble friend's intention was to obtain the Government's view on the purpose of the Amendment. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Application of Public Health Act, 1936, &c.]:

THE EARL OE MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert— (4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that where a port health authority or joint board has functions, rights or liabilities under this Act—

1. (a) any reference in this Act to a local authority or its district includes, in relation to those functions, rights or liabilities, a reference to the port health authority or board or its district;
642
2. (b) for the purposes of this Act, no part of the district of any such port health authority or board is to be created, in relation to any matter falling within the competence of the authority or board, as forming part of the district of any other authority."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment leaves out subsection (4), which was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in the remarks he made on his first Amendment, and inserts the words which stand on the Marshalled List. The Amendment seeks to cure a defect which has appeared in the clause. The clause provides that no part of the district of a port health authority having functions under the Bill is to be treated for the purposes of the Bill as forming part of the district of any other authority. Port health districts frequently cover areas extending into two or more local authority areas. A large number of port health authorities, however, are clothed with functions only in respect of vessels and do not exercise the functions, for instance, of the smoke nuisance provisions of the public health codes in relation to any land areas.

In these cases, Clause 29 (4) would have left the land areas outside the operation of the Bill. Paragraph (b) of the new subsection, which is the only part of this Amendment which is different front Clause 29 (4) as it appears in the Bill, cuts out the local authority only in relation to matters within the competence of the port health authority, and the local authorities will thus be left to exercise functions under the Bill in relation to land areas within the port health district. In the case or the Port of London, the port health authority exercises jurisdiction over wharves and docks, and this may also possibly be the case in some other port health districts. Paragraph (b) of the new subsection will cut out the local authorities in the case of matters falling within the competence of the port health authority. I venture to think that this is one of the things that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was anxious to secure, and I hope, therefore, that I may rely on his support of this Amendment.

VISCOUNT WAVERLEY

I am much obliged to my noble friend. As I said before, this Amendment represents a distinct improvement on the original wording of the Bill and it will have the great advantage of removing a possible doubt about the jurisdiction of the different authorities in a particular area. I gladly support the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 [Interpretation]:

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD moved in the definition of "practicable," in subsection (1), to leave out "to local conditions and circumstances, to the financial implications and". The right reverend Prelate said: It seems to me that the Bill is wise not to try to define too closely the word "practicable." I think it is good also that in this clause emphasis is laid on the importance of developing more efficient plant. I am sorry that it singles out, and not just leaves amongst the other things which are bound to be considered. "local conditions and circumstances "and" financial implications". If I were making a speech on this subject in public, I would have used the phrase "local conditions and circumstances" to enforce my argument that in the East end of Sheffield the local conditions and circumstances are so bad that it is particularly important to make this Bill operative in that area. I am told—here I stand under correction if I am wrong—that in a document of this kind, when you refer to "local conditions and circumstances", you mean exactly the opposite. If local conditions and circumstances are so very bad, you must, as it were, modify the regulations rather than stiffen them. In other words, if we are dealing with some clean-air country village, the local conditions and circumstances are such that we should be very severe with anybody who emits dark smoke from his chimney, but when dealing with Sheffield, where there are a great many chimneys emitting dark smoke, our requirements are toned down. So that the phrase "where practicable" means a watering down, rather than a tightening up, of the measure, and it does not excite me at all.

Again, if, by "financial implications", is meant the total cost, not to any particular industry but to the community, there is no objection to the phrase. But again I imagine that it means primarily the financial implications to a particular industry. Therefore, in this definition of "practicable", while I am glad that it stresses the importance of technical developments, I should much rather leave "local conditions and circumstances" and "financial implications" to be considered, as they are bound to be considered, "amongst other things."

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 10, leave out ("to local conditions and circumstances, to the financial implications and").—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the right reverend Prelate has been a little pessimistic in his approach to the wording in the Bill, and I hope to satisfy him on the point. I promised the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, earlier this afternoon that I would refer to the law on the matter, and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I indicate what it is. However, before doing that I should like to deal with one or two general points. The right reverend Prelate will remember that the word "practicable" occurs in several places in the Bill, and its definition has already been revised in the light of the discussions in the other place. The essence of the definition is that the word is to be construed as meaning not only what is physically practicable but what is reasonably practicable; and that, it is thought, must necessarily entail having regard to the local conditions and circumstances and the financial implications, amongst other things. I do not think the right reverend Prelate really is doubtful on that point although he dislikes the pinpointing of these two matters.

In these circumstances, it is right to look at the ancestry of the clause to see whether it has worked in the past. References both to "local conditions and circumstances" and to "cost" already occur in the corresponding definition in Section 110 (2) of the Public Health Act, 1936, which relates to the prevention of public health nuisances, including smoke nuisances. The words also appear in Model Clause 76, which relates to smoke from industrial furnaces, and in local Act provisions based on the Model Clause, including Section 36 (4) of the Manchester Corporation Act, 1946. With regard to the fear of the right reverend Prelate that the reference to "local conditions and circumstances" might be taken to mean that less stringent methods of prevention would be required in a heavily polluted area than in an unpolluted one, the intention, of course, is exactly the reverse. It is intended, for example, that the requirements of Clause 17 should be less exacting if practical difficulties were encountered in the case of a colliery spoil-bank in a remote part of the country than in the case of a spoilbank on the edge of a built-up area. Having regard to the purpose of the relevant provisions of the Bill, it is not thought that any court would construe the words in the definition in the way that is apparently feared.

Perhaps I may now turn shortly to the way in which legal decisions have progressed. On consideration of the decisions, it is doubtful how far the Amendment which the right reverend Prelate has moved would have the result intended. In the first place, it is thought that a consideration of what is reasonably practicable includes not only a consideration of local conditions and circumstances and the financial implications, but also of all the relevant circumstances; and that is achieved here by the words "amongst other things". In the second place, on the analogy of the interpretation given to the expression by the courts, and particularly your Lordships' House in its Judicial capacity, in recent cases on mines and factories legislation, it is probable that the courts would construe the expression as it is defined in the Bill—I say "probable", because I cannot say that it is certain. In older cases on smoke legislation in the middle of the 19th century it is apparent that the courts did not then require as high a standard of care in the execution of a duty which was to be carried out "as far as practicable" as has been called for in recent decisions in mines and factories cases. Accordingly, the Bill makes it clear beyond doubt that the gist of the modern decisions is followed in modern smoke legislation.

I hope I have made that somewhat technical point clear: that by the words one has tried to catch up the modern decisions and not the older decisions which took an easier and more relaxed view. The effect of the modern decisions is that "reasonably practicable" does not mean, as I said "physically possible"; that the court must look at the situation as it was immediately before the breach of the obligation is alleged to have occurred—and, indeed, at all the surrounding circumstances; and from this it follows that it is not reasonably practicable to guard against a contingency which could not reasonably be foreseen. Among the factors which have to be considered are, first, the cost of the measures necessary for avoiding the risk or mischief, and the time and trouble involved in taking them; and secondly (and this is the one I would emphasise particularly to the right reverend Prelate), the seriousness of the risk or mischief to be provided against. In this connection it has been repeatedly stated that the greater the risk or the mischief the less weight will be given to the factor of cost. That may be some consolation to the right reverend Prelate in the fear which he has expressed. Thirdly, among the factors to be taken into account is the effectiveness of the measures which it is alleged ought to have been taken; and fourthly, the soundness of the system adopted.

Those precautions, which have worked successfully for a number of years, will normally be held to have shown quite plainly that the requirement is to do what is "reasonably practicable." I always hesitate to introduce these words when dealing with legal matters, because so much has been said to the contrary since, but I do not think it is putting it too high to say that all the courts have done is to apply some rules of common sense to the conception of what is reasonably practicable. It is impossible to give an exhaustive list of all the circumstances which may turn out to be relevant, but common sense will usually supply the answer. Therefore, I think that what we have done in seeking, as I have said, to catch up these modern conditions here, and not get back to the older ones by misadventure, will not have an adverse effect. I hope that my somewhat lengthy disquisition has been of some consolation to the right reverend Prelate and that he will not press his Amendment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his disquisition. It does meet the anxiety I had in mind in putting down the Amendment, and in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.0 p.m.

LORD ROCHDALE moved, in the definition of "smoke" to leave out "includes soot, ash, grit and gritty particles emitted in smoke" and insert— means emissions containing gas and airborne particles consisting essentially of carbonaceous material and includes soot, ash, grit and grit particles emitted in smoke. The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to add some precision to the definition of the word "smoke", and it can be stated quite briefly. I understand that the Bill as drafted has a definition which is current practice in public health legislation, but I feel that it is by no means sufficiently precise. The need for some change now arises from the fact that for the first time smoke nuisance is to be measured in a precise quantity. Therefore, what we are going to measure must be precisely defined. This matter, of course, was clearly understood by the Beaver Committee when they made their general recommendations in their Report. They referred to what they meant by "smoke" in (I think) paragraph 94 of their Report. They stated quite definitely what they had in mind. I am given to understand that since then the British Standards Institution have been working on a definition based on the Beaver Committee's suggestion. Another reason why this is important is that the term "smoke" is often loosely used to include chemical fumes. It may well be that, in the administration of this Bill when it becomes on Act, those responsible for administering it, and even the courts, might find that they were attempting to deal with chemical fumes and not with smoke as defined by the Beaver Committee. That, I am sure, was not the intention of the Be[...]er Committee, nor the intention of Her Majesty's Government in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the words I am moving to insert in place of the existing words will commend themselves to my noble friend. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 15, leave out ("includes soot, ash, grit and gritty particles emitted in smoke") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochdale.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

This Amendment, as my noble friend quite rightly stated, proposes to make the definition of "smoke" more comprehensive. I understand that for the purposes of this Bill, and for the purposes of many other Bills dealing with smoke in the past, it has never been decided to define the word "smoke" exhaustively. I understand that the reason for that is that it is thought that the ordinary meaning of the word "smoke" is generally well understood by everyone. As I say, it is not defined in existing legislation in a comprehensive manner, but that, I am told, has not caused any difficulty in the courts or to local authorities. Therefore there is perhaps a likelihood that any definition of the kind which my noble friend proposes in his Amendment might well prove a hindrance rather than a help, by giving rise to some unnecessary technical arguments about the composition or source of particles of matter which might be found in the air. It might well involve local authorities, and the courts as well, in difficulties of proof which would certainly not otherwise arise, and thus it might make the Bill more difficult to enforce.

My noble friend suggested in the course of his observations that perhaps a fuller definition is needed in order to make it clear whether or not certain chemical fumes or vapour are smoke for the purposes of the Bill. I understand that emissions of that kind cannot be "dark smoke" within the meaning of Clause 1. If that is so, and they were regarded as smoke at all, they would be affected only by Clause 15 of the Bill on the ground that they were causing a nuisance. On the other hand, nuisance is caused by an effluvia from any trade or manufacturing process, and can already be dealt with under the nuisance provision of the Public Health Act, 1936, which I have quoted in aid on more than one occasion this afternoon. In view of what I have said—that it has never been the policy of the Government to define smoke to any large extent, and that there is provision to deal with effluvia from trade or manufacturing process under the Public Health Act—I hope my noble friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD ROCHDALE

I am rather sorry at my noble friend's reply. He mentioned that the question of chemical fumes was already dealt with under another Act, which really lends strength to my Amendment. He also mentioned that it had never been found necessary for the definition to be more precise. But what he did not mention, which I did in my original remarks, was that this is the first occasion when it has been, as a result of smoke nuisance, necessary to measure the smoke in precise terms. It is because of this innovation in this Bill that I wanted to have a more precise definition of what it was that was going to be measured.

The other question my noble friend posed was: Would it not be difficult for those who have the administration of this matter to find out exactly what was in the smoke? But, surely, the position would be that the onus of proof would be put upon the person making the smoke, and it would be up to him to show that the smoke which was coming out was not "smoke" as defined in the Act. I see quite clearly that my noble friend looks as though he is going to be adamant on this point. I regret it very much indeed, and I wonder whether he would perhaps give it further thought and we could come back to it again on the Report stage.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Let me assure my noble friend at once that I am adamant on nothing, and I am perfectly prepared, in order to purify the air, to consider this matter further.

LORD ROCHDALE

I am most grateful to my noble friend for that promise, and on that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.