Sitting of 10 April 1956

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 29th March, 1956, for the Easter Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    London Assembly Centre
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War how many troops, belonging to which units, have been, accommodated, and for what periods, in the London Assembly Centre in Goodge Street deep shelter; when it was first used for these purposes; and, in view of its admitted unsuitability, when he intends to discontinue its use for these purposes.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): These premises were first used as transit accommodation in April, 1950. Their use will be discontinued as soon as we can get agreement about alternative accommodation. The detailed information about troop numbers and units for which the hon. and learned Member asks is not available, but since that date about 50,000
    2
    troops a year have stayed there, usually for one night only.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember writing to me and telling me that this place was quite unsuitable for the purpose, and does he realise that thousands of gallant young men will be very pleased to hear that its use for that purpose is to be discontinued and a more suitable place found?
    Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. I am keen to get the Centre moved; it is not easy to find a place to accommodate about 500 men in Central London. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I am with him in wanting to get it changed.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War the extent and nature of the sanitary, sleeping, eating and other conveniences at London Assembly Centre in Goodge Street deep shelter for the troops accommodated there from time to time.
    Mr. Head: As the Answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that, whatever the amenities may be, it is disgraceful to put gallant young men in a place like that when there are plenty of great barracks, hotels and indeed mansions available?
    Mr. Head: If the hon. and learned Member has any ideas about a place for 500 men in Central London, I should be most grateful if he would let me know.
    Following is the Answer:

    Sleeping Accommodation

    Officers

    26

    Warrant officers and sergeants

    31

    Other ranks

    339

    Officers, warrant officers and sergeants sleep in ordinary beds, other ranks in 3-tiered berths.
    Messes, canteens, kitchens, etc.
    Messing at one sitting for:

    Officers

    24

    Warrant officers and sergeants

    20

    Other ranks

    180

    The canteen accommodates 80 men; kitchens are all electric. Baths, shower baths, washbasins and lavatories are provided.

    Regimental Ball, Gloucester (Dress)
    Mr. D. Howellasked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances men of the Gloucestershire Regiment were dressed in period costume and armed with pike staffs at a ball at their depot at Reservoir Camp, Gloucester; whether this practice has his approval; and what action he is taking in the matter.
    Mr. Head: The function to which the hon. Member refers was a ball which has for a very long time been held annually by the sergeants' mess of the Gloucestershire Regiment as part of the celebrations of the Battle of Alexandria on 21st March, 1801, the action in which the regiment earned the right to wear a badge at the back of their caps as well as one in front. At this ball it has long been the tradition for the Colours of the regiment to be guarded by men dressed, armed and drilled as in 1801. The men taking part are always volunteers.
    I am in favour of the retention of regimental traditions.
    Mr. Howell: Is the Minister aware that the then Under-Secretary of State for Air told me last October that this sort of nonsense would be ended in the Armed Forces? Why, in these circumstances, does the Army perpetuate this sort of thing with National Service men when the Air Force has given an undertaking not to do it? Does the Minister realise that one man lost twelve days' leave in order to take part in this?
    Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman is comparing like with very unlike. I think he must be referring to the question of airmen dressed as footmen. What is
    4
    referred to in this Question is a regimental tradition. I think that the hon. Gentleman has been misled by what I must confess was a highly misleading report of this incident.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that on future occasions steps will be taken to make quite sure that the men who take part are volunteers?
    Mr. Head: Yes, indeed.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this presentation of the changing of the guard in its old form with the traditional costume was not nonsense at all, but was a presentation at which the Mayor, the High Sheriff of Gloucester and myself were present, and was a performance which was well applauded and which everyone appreciated? It can be criticised only by people who were not there; everybody who was there appreciated it.

    Ferguson Car
    Mr. Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War on what date he was asked to consider the design of the Ferguson car; what tests have been carried out by his Department; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Head: Mr. Ferguson has been in touch with us since 1951 and has several times been invited to submit a prototype for testing. This is not yet forthcoming so no tests have been made.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House how it is that his Department and not the Ministry of Supply is in touch with Mr. Ferguson? Will he tell us whether Mr. Ferguson is the only person who has made representations and, if so, can we then take to be untrue the reports which have appeared in the Press that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has considerably interested himself in this project?
    Mr. Head: The answer to the first part of the question is that representatives of my Department have seen the car, but, of course, any official question of testing is the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply. It is perfectly normal and customary for experts of my Department to see a vehicle of interest. The answer

    5
    to the second part of the supplementary question is that, for all I know, it is perfectly true that His Royal Highness has taken an interest in this car. I am merely stating the facts from the point of view of my Department.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the question: has his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh interested himself in this question sufficiently to make representations to his Department to test the car?
    Mr. Head: I know of no official representations of that kind to my Department to test this car.
    Mr. Wigg: In view of the totally unsatisfactory and evasive reply of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Married Quarters
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War what machinery is available to enable wives of Service men living in married quarters to raise at an effective level matters connected with their accommodation which are generally of greater concern to the wives than to their menfolk.
    Mr. Head: Normally the Commanding Officer nominates an officer to administer married quarters. In case of need wives have access to him.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at Woolwich, for instance, the women are desirous of all sorts of suggestions being put forward in connection with their living quarters? Does he not think it would be much better for them to do so direct, rather than through their husbands, because that often makes trouble between husbands and wives?
    Mr. Head: Yes, Sir; but there is a Quartering Commandant at Woolwich, and while I do not know whether the hon. Member could inform me subsequently, I know of no difficulty, from the point of view of the wives, in dealing with him.

    Queen's Birthday Parade
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for War the number of spectators to be accommodated in stands and on their feet, respectively, at
    6
    the Queen's Birthday Parade at Horse Guards Parade; and whether this will show an increase on past years.
    Mr. Head: Five thousand five hundred and eighty-one sitting and 3,720 standing. This is 250 more than in 1954, when the Queen's Birthday Parade was last held. In addition, the St. James's Park side of the Parade will be open to the public as usual.
    Major Anstruther-Gray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will consider looking further into the possibility of increasing the accommodation even by encroaching a yard or two on the parade ground itself, because it would not materially affect the ceremony?
    Mr. Head: I have been into this matter with great care. It is a question of either encroaching on the parade ground or of blocking windows. Secondly, this is a parade for Her Majesty's Birthday carried out by the Brigade of Guards, and I think that we should not encroach on the parade ground. I think we have reached the limit of stand accommodation.

    Cyprus (Mail)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he has made to ensure the swift passage of mail to and from soldiers serving in Cyprus; and what concessionary charges are available.
    Mr. Head: Advantage is taken of all available air and land routes between this country and Cyprus. Forces concessionary postage rates, as set out in a Written Answer given on 17th February, 1955, by the then Minister of Defence to the hon. Member for the Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) are available.
    Mr. Swingler: Are not these concessions miserably meagre? Is it not a fact that the wives and mothers of men serving in Cyprus have to pay 6d. for an airmail letter, particularly as it takes some 20 days for the mail to go by sea? Is it not also a fact that they have to pay the full civilian rates to send parcels by airmail? Surely, we can offer some better service to the men serving in this disagreeable situation?
    Mr. Head: No, Sir; the airmail letter, first-class, is 2½d. From the men or from their families at home; over the first one

    7
    and a half ounces, the cost is 6d. We are spending £1¼ million a year on these concessions, and I do not think they are unfair so far as Cyprus is concerned.

    Jerricans (Stocks)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War what stocks of jerricans are being held by his Department; their estimated value; and for what purposes they are being held.
    Mr. Head: Fifteen million, worth about £12½ million. Some are in use, some are reserves and some are being reconditioned or disposed of as scrap.
    Mr. Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he does not think that this is rather a lot of money to have tied up unnecessarily? Is there not some risk of being left to "carry the can"?
    Mr. Head: No new jerricans have been ordered since I have been at the War Office. The majority of this stock has been held over since the war.

    Exercise, Deerbolt Camp
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for War on whose authority members of the special force, under training at Deerbolt Camp, County Durham, are instructed to blacken their faces to symbolise inhabitants of Africa or other Colonial Territories participating in a riot, in the course of which three natives are represented as being shot; and if he will give instructions that this impersonation which will be resented by British subjects and protected persons throughout the Empire be stopped immediately.
    Mr. Head: They represented no particular country or territory, and I do not see that there is any cause for offence.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again? Is it not the case that this exercise is to be repeated monthly? Will he consult with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who, if he reflects colonial opinion, will tell him that this is the crude stupidity of a blunted and stunted imagination?
    Mr. Head: I did not think that this would cause offence, but I will certainly talk to my right hon. Friend about it.
    8
    May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have seen native shows in which the Evil One appears with his face white?
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Secretary of State if he has seen some of the Press photographs, and if he realises that, if they are published in Africa, they will cause great offence? Will he not reconsider this matter? May I also ask him if the photographs were published with his authority?
    Mr. Head: I have seen the photographs. It is not usual for me to be asked for my authority. I should not have thought that such things would have caused offence, but I will certainly ask the views of the Colonial Secretary.

    Stores (Control)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War what improved methods of controlling Army stores are being introduced.
    Mr. Head: Various steps are being taken in this very complex field, and I cannot outline them all in answer to a Question; but I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Army Appropriation Account for 1954–55.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shocking waste and muddle of which he is guilty could be avoided if only the War Office had a list of all the stuff which is lying about throughout the country? When will the War Office take the elementary precaution of providing itself with such a list?
    Mr. Head: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had read the Report, he would have seen that it states very categorically the immense difficulty of having a comprehensive list of all this war-time surplus equipment. A number of steps have been taken, and a great many will be taken. There has been a diminution in the size of orders, and there is difficulty in anticipating them.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the Minister say whether the War Office employs any personnel for the purpose of checking these items?
    Mr. Head: Yes, we do; a great many.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Danish Bacon Imports
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will amplify Command Paper No. 9707 by publishing the text of correspondence with the Danish Government in relation to the proposal to impose a 10 per cent. tariff on bacon imports.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): Command Paper 9707 contains the Agreed Minute of the discussions on arrangements relating to the import of Danish bacon and requires no amplification. It would be contrary to normal practice to publish correspondence exchanged in the course of confidential negotiations.
    Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister of Denmark made it plain that Denmark could not sign a formal agreement and accept the principle of a tariff; at the same time, they had no means of preventing Britain from applying it? In view of that statement by the Danish Prime Minister, would the right hon. Gentleman explain his statement to the House that there had been a definite agreement on this matter?
    Mr. Low: The question whether a tariff would or would not be put on was not the subject of the negotiations, which were held to consider the necessary steps to be taken after a tariff had been put on. There was a satisfactory settlement, and it is a good thing that, as a result of the negotiations, the good trading relations between Britain and Denmark have been maintained. The Prime Minister of Denmark has acknowledged that as well.
    Mr. Baldwin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the British bacon producer is entitled to tariff protection just as much as the manufacturers of motor cars in Coventry?
    Mr. Speaker: That is going beyond the Question.
    Miss Burton: May I ask the Minister of State if he will answer the question which I put to him? Why did he tell the House that there had been a definite agreement and that we did not impose settlements on our friends, when such was not the case?
    Mr. Low: There was a definite agreement, which was announced to the House on that occasion. It is set out in the Command Paper referred to, and if the hon. Lady would be good enough to read my statement again in its context she will see that I made it quite clear that there was no agreement by the Danes to accept our tariff. There was not.
    Mr. Bottomley: Would the Minister of State accept the view that it was an imposition on our friends in Denmark, with whom we have had such friendly relations in trade matters, and that it is most unfortunate that we should hamper them now?
    Mr. Low: I will not accept that it was wrong to do what we did about the tariff. There was a satisfactory conclusion on the matters which were discussed during the negotiations.

    Toothpaste (Manufacturers' Claims)
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken concerning the evidence submitted to him by the hon. Member for Coventry, South, on 15th February last, dealing with false claims made by toothpaste manufacturers; and when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the action he is taking.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): After taking expert advice, my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that the available evidence would not support a prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Acts.
    Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the British Dental Association will be very disappointed at that result? Is he further aware that the Association has said that this advertisement of Colgate's is a definite infringement of fact? Does he propose to allow these toothpaste manufacturers to get away with it?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the hon. Lady misunderstands the position of the British Dental Association, which has been consulted in this matter. It is a fact that it deprecates the form of advertisement, which it thinks may be the result of inadequate evidence, but it is not prepared to say that the claim is false.

    Steel Supplies, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is still a shortage of steel in Aberdeen; that this shortage is preventing the fulfilment of orders for agricultural implements and machines for foreign export, thereby depriving Britain of foreign currency; and if he will take steps to rectify this position.
    Mr. Low: The demand for steel continues at a high level, and I am aware that manufacturers in Aberdeen and elsewhere are not always able to secure their full requirements of steel from home suppliers. The Iron and Steel Board is in touch with the manufacturer of agricultural machines about whose case the hon. and learned Member wrote last month.
    Mr. Hughes: Does that long and involved answer mean that the Minister thinks that he is supplying enough steel to Aberdeen? Does he realise that his failure to supply that steel is contrary to the national interest because it is interfering with the export trade and the intake of foreign currency?
    Mr. Low: I am well aware of the importance of steel being available to the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. Of course, it is no part of my responsibility to supply that steel; that is done by the steel manufacturers. I think that the hon. and learned Member knows that the difficulties here have been looked into, and that six of the items in short supply have now been obtained from stockholding merchants. Another one will be delivered shortly, and efforts are being made to find a source of supply for the other two items, which are of small size. My information is that the production of small sizes of steel has been increasing lately.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the fact that the Minister's information seems to be completely wrong, and his answer unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Motor Vehicle Industry
    Miss Burtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the motor industry, which, before 1951, exported two-thirds of its output,
    12
    now exports less than half; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter.
    Mr. Low: Yes, Sir. The industry is fully alive to the importance of increasing its exports, and I have nothing to add to recent statements by my right hon. Friend on that subject.
    Miss Burton: That, of course, gets us nowhere at all. Has information reached the Board of Trade that yesterday there was a meeting in Birmingham of representatives of trade unions very much affected in this matter? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that a statement was made at that meeting that, while British motor production had doubled since 1951, about 80 per cent. of it had been sold on the home market? Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it is time he did something about it?
    Mr. Low: We have previously discussed this matter at some length. I have seen reports in the Press of the meeting to which the hon. Lady refers. I have nothing to add to the answers which my right hon. Friend has given to her and to others.

    Italian Pears (Import Licences)
    Sir. D. Robertsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if will now amend the allocation of import licences for Italian pears to include canners who are compelled to pay pre-1939 importers, some of whom only handle documents, a profit of 3d. a lb. because of scarcity created by import restrictions.
    Mr. Low: No, Sir. Licences to import fresh pears from Italy are issued to traders, who did so in 1951 when imports were unrestricted. Imports of pears and of all other fresh fruits from the sterling area are unrestricted as are imports of all fresh fruits except pears and apples from Western Europe.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case that the vast majority of people on this import allocation list are those who were in business before 1939? Is it not also the case that the licences are being trafficked in by firms which are no longer in business selling them at a profit?
    Mr. Low: I am not aware of any case of that kind. If my hon. Friend likes to bring to my notice anything that he thinks is irregular, I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Holt: Would not the Minister agree that this Question reveals a ridiculous state of affairs? Why does he not do the obvious and simple thing—put these commodities on open general licence?
    Mr. Low: Because of our balance of payments position, as the hon. Gentleman and the House well know.

    Apple Imports (Consultations)
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will undertake to consult representatives of the apple-growing industry when international discussions on import policy are held, as he does in the case of the timber industry.
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the need for close and continuous consultation with those engaged in the growing of apples at home, so that in the timing of imports the fullest regard can be paid to the availability of homegrown produce; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Low: On matters where consultation is appropriate we should consult the apple-growing industry as we consult other industries. But the size of quotas for imports which are imposed to safeguard our balance of payments is not an appropriate subject for consultation with United Kingdom producers. As regards the timing of apple imports, we seek to ensure, by the present arrangements which limit pre-Christmas imports, that the bulk of imports come in when the market needs them most.
    In present circumstances, if we were to have under consideration a proposal substantially to increase the total quotas for imported apples from Europe and North America, we should certainly wish to take into account the views of apple growers.
    Mr. Hurd: Does my right hon. Friend realise that that statement will be much welcomed by the apple-growing industry because of the fact, that, in the past, it has often happened, under this Government and previous Governments, that the industry has not been consulted when changes have been proposed in import policy?

    Grain (Exports to France)
    Mr. Hurdasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities and values of the export of home-grown
    14
    grain, showing wheat, barley and oats, separately, exported to France in the past three months.
    Mr. Low: Figures for March are not yet available. Exports to France during the three months December to February were a negligible quantity of barley, value £2, and 15 tons of all other un-milled cereals valued at £506.
    Mr. Hurd: Could not my right hon. Friend brush up his statistical department? In fact, there has been an export worth about £1,500,000 in that period. If I put a Question down in a fortnight's time may we have some up-to-date and accurate information?
    Mr. Low: The March export figures are not available. I think that my hon. Friend is referring to reports that there has been a contract to make the export, but it is quite possible that the contract was not completed in February.

    British Industries Fair
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Exhibitions Advisory Committee was consulted before it was decided to close the London section of the British Industries Fair.
    Mr. Low: There was full consultation with the Directors of British Industries Fair Ltd., who are experienced businessmen and whose Chairman is a member of the Exhibitions Advisory Committee; but there was no consultation with the Committee.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is it not unfortunate, in view of the valuable services rendered by this Exhibitions Advisory Committee to the Board of Trade over many years, that its advice was not sought? Would the Minister take steps to find out the Committee's views on the subject?
    Mr. Low: I do not think that is necessary. We are well aware of the views of industry, because they have been expressed upon this matter. As a large sum of finance was involved and an early decision was important, it seemed to us right that we should take the responsibility for the decision ourselves, after consultation with the gentlemen to whom I have referred.
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how

    15
    many exhibitors there were at the Birmingham section of the British Industries Fair for 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1955;
    (2) how many exhibitors there were at the London section of the British Industries Fair in 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1955.
    Mr. Low: As the Answer contains several figures I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Bottomley: In view of the fact that the general manager of the British Industries Fair, London section, says that the number of exhibitors is on the increase, how was it that the President of the Board of Trade, in making his original statement, said that the number of exhibitors was declining?
    Mr. Low: There has been a large decline in the number of exhibitors in the London section since 1947. In fact, the decline started from the next year, 1948, onwards, and has been steady ever since then.
    Following is the Answer:

    Year

    Exhibitors at the Birmingham section (These figures were provided by the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce who are responsible for the Birmingham section of the Fair)

    Exhibitors at the London section

    Number

    Number

    1947

    1,012

    2,153

    1948

    1,091

    2,309

    1949

    1,104

    2,040

    1950

    1,139

    1,781

    1951

    1,140

    1,640

    1952

    1,172

    1,220

    1953

    1,128

    1,184

    1954

    986

    1,010*

    1955

    979

    600

    * In 1954, 318 of the firms exhibiting only took display windows and not complete stands.

    Cotton-Growing Industry, Nigeria
    Mr. Rhodesasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the Nigerian Government and other bodies on the difficulties confronting the Nigerian cotton-growing industry.
    Mr. Low: None, Sir.
    Mr. Rhodes: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept one or two from me? Is he aware that 200,000 bales were grown in Northern Nigeria this season; that we used most of them; that Lancashire could use 400,000 bales; that it is a dollar saver; that, through the chaos there is in the international cotton market, it looks as though Northern Nigeria may be faced with a loss of £1 million or £2 million during the next season; and that it will be very serious indeed for Lancashire and Northern Nigeria if the matter is not taken up?
    Mr. Low: I am aware of some of those things and of the importance of the Nigerian cotton industry; but I was asked a Question about representations, and I have answered it fully and correctly.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Does not this experience, taken together with many other experiences, at last indicate to the President of the Board of Trade what a serious thing the Government have done to Commonwealth trade by the abolition of the Raw Cotton Commission and the reopening of the Liverpool Cotton Market?
    Mr. Low: No, Sir.

    United States Surplus Cotton Stocks
    Mr. Rhodesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider making joint representations with other European countries to the United States Government about the effect of their Department of Agriculture's cotton export policy for the coming season on European trade in general and British trade in particular.
    Mr. Low: As I informed the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 27th March, Her Majesty's Government attach importance to the United States Government's assurance that it is their intention to effect sales in an orderly manner so as to avoid disrupting world market prices. The subject will be discussed at the meeting of the International Cotton Advisory Committee in Washington early next month, and our representative will be instructed to give appropriate expression to our views on that occasion.
    Mr. Rhodes: Is the Minister aware that that Answer will not do? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well it will not. The heads of the cotton industry in France, Belgium, Holland and Italy have all expressed the same opinion, that it is time that joint action was taken, so that the opinion of European cotton users could be put to the American Government, that the only people who are benefiting from this lack of imagination and action on the part of the Board of Trade are the most bitter opponents of Lancashire in the cotton industry, namely, Japan, which is getting its cotton on favourable terms from America.
    Mr. Low: I quite agree with the importance which the hon. Gentleman attaches to this matter, but he really should not falsify the position. We have made a series of representations at very high levels to the American Government. During the last two annual plenary sessions of the International Cotton Advisory Committee the point has been discussed, and it has been the subject of special study by the Standing Committee of that body since last year. On those two occasions other member countries joined with us in emphasising the importance of American policy to world trade in cotton goods. There is discussion with European countries and others or these matters already.
    Mr. Fort: In view of the importance of this matter, not only to ourselves but to other textile manufacturing countries in Europe and also to the cotton growing areas in our Dependencies, would the Minister consider taking this matter up with O.E.E.C. in order to enlist the support of the American representatives there when making representations in Washington?
    Mr. Low: I will certainly consider that suggestion, but we are already dealing with the matter through the appropriate international machinery.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Tobacco Duty (Receipts)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the welfare services together cost approximately the same amount as is produced by tobacco taxes; the cost of each service; and what
    18
    new sources of revenue he has in mind to replace the tobacco income, in view of the possible reduction or complete elimination following the lung-cancer report.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Total net receipts from the tobacco duty in 1955–56 were estimated in the 1955 Financial Statement at £660 million. This is approximately equal to the estimated cost to the Exchequer in 1956–7 of the Health Service, National Assistance, and welfare milk and foods. The cost of these services is estimated at £501 million, £127·6 million and £35·9 million respectively.
    My hon. Friend will not expect me to answer the last part of the Question, which is purely hypothetical.
    Mr. Osborne: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend anticipates that his colleagues' representations in the health field will result in a large reduction in smoking, and how far it will affect his income?
    Mr. Macmillan: This is a period of the year when I do not like to anticipate anything.

    Government Surplus Stocks (Disposal)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the investigations into the disposal of Government surplus stocks; how many Departments are represented on the committee looking into the matter; how many meetings have been held; and when he proposes to make a statement on the results of the investigations.
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the constitution of the committee which is investigating the disposal of surplus Government stocks; and how soon he anticipates being able to make a statement on the work of the committee.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: As soon as my inquiries are complete I shall submit to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the report for which he has asked. I cannot yet say when it will be possible for him to make a statement. These inquiries are being conducted in consultation with the disposing and purchasing Departments chiefly concerned.
    Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the evidence available of the colossal waste

    19
    of money, there should be set up a Select Committee, which could deal with this matter much more effectively than a Departmental Committee reporting to Ministers?
    Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. I am doing what I was asked to do and making my inquiry. I will make my report to the Prime Minister, who will no doubt then consider what action he should recommend.
    Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. In connection with this business of Government surplus stocks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for your guidance. As you are well aware, for many weeks I have made application for an Adjournment debate so that the matter of Government surplus stocks could be raised on the Floor of the House. This week's Whip mentions that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) has been allocated the Adjournment debate on Government surplus stocks. That having been so allocated, may I ask if that means that I shall not be considered for an Adjournment debate on Government surplus stocks in future?
    Mr. Speaker: In addition to the hon. Member mentioned, there are other hon. Members who have applied for the Adjournment on this matter. I shall have to wait to see what the result of the Adjournment debate is, and what further information comes forth. I cannot pledge myself in advance about that.

    Liverpool Docks (Customs Clearance)
    Mr. K. Thompsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the delays to export of goods caused at Liverpool docks by inadequate provision for customs clearance, he will arrange for the necessary improvement to be made.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I am not aware of the delays referred to, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the cases he has in mind I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. Thompson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

    Rating Valuation, East Shropshire
    Mr. W. Yatesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) the total expenditure of public money for the revised
    20
    valuation of 46,000 properties and premises in east Shropshire;
    (2) in view of the anxiety caused to the ratepayers, the local councils, and finance officers of east Shropshire, if he will take action concerning the valuation officer and staff who have wasted public money on an incompetent valuation of properties and premises in east Shropshire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I regret that in east Shropshire, which is one out of some 270 valuation areas in England and Wales, a question has arisen as to the general standards of values applied and a special review is in progress. The valuation officer concerned has been relieved of command.
    In order to carry out the review in the area, the professional and clerical staff have been reinforced from other offices. Most of the extra work will fall as an additional burden on the existing staff of the valuation service. The additional expenditure will not be great.
    Mr. Yates: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will cause great satisfaction to east Shropshire, and that we are grateful that the matter has been dealt with by the Valuation Office so promptly?

    Income Tax (School Fees)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to prevent seven-year covenants being used by parents to obtain Income Tax relief on the cost of their children's school fees.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: The Income Tax Acts provide that a parent shall not be given relief from tax on payments which he makes under deed of covenant or otherwise for the benefit of a child who is under 21 and unmarried, if they exceed £5 a year in the aggregate. This applies to payments made to meet school fees just as it does to payments made for other purposes.
    Mr. Thomson: In view of the importance of extending equality of opportunity amongst our children, would the Chancellor not agree that it is quite wrong to encourage what amounts to tax evasion among parents who wish to buy a privileged education for their children?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am afraid that I do not understand the point of that supplementary question. I was asked what the law was and I stated it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman approves or disapproves of it.
    Mr. Vane: In view of the value of education to the country as a whole, as well as to individual children, will my right hon. Friend consider amending the law to enable parents to do the best they can for their children?
    Mr. Macmillan: That is another question. I was merely asked what the law was.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Even though it is the case that parents cannot undertake covenants for their children, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a large amount of tax avoidance through this kind of covenant, under which uncles can take out these covenants for nephews and, in return, their children are beneficiaries of covenants taken out by the parents of the children helped?
    Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. Agreements of that kind would not be possible under the law. If one has such a kind uncle that he will look after one that is one thing, but a mutual arrangement would be out of order.
    Mr. Wilson: Is the Chancellor not aware that the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, Finance Acts and so on dealing with this subject relate only to the case in which the Inland Revenue Department can establish an undertaking or agreement between the parties concerned; and these things, as we know in other directions, are done without any written or oral understanding?
    Mr. Macmillan: If I may say so, that is not a very strong point. Obviously the law can be applied by the Inland Revenue Department only where it is aware that the law has been broken.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that Income Tax and Surtax payers already contribute considerably to the cost of educating other people's children?

    Capital Issues Committee (Application Forms)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Capital Issues Committee to issue a simplified
    22
    form of application in cases where applicants wish to borrow sums of £10,000 or more for the purpose of repaying an existing mortgage of an equal or greater amount.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. The present forms are designed to elicit in a way as convenient as possible to applicants and to the Committee the information that the Committee requires to do its work. I will, of course, consider any constructive suggestion for simplying the form.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Chancellor aware that the Question refers to people who do not wish to increase their borrowing, but nevertheless have to answer a form containing some thirty questions? Is not this a waste of the time of both the staff and the applicants, and does he not think that a simple question, such as indicated in the Question on the Order Paper, would serve his purpose?
    Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. I am afraid that it is not quite as simple as that, but if the hon. Gentleman will get in touch with me I will certainly put before my advisers and the Capital Issues Committee any method which would make the work easier both for the Capital Issues Committee and for the applicants themselves.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Rating Valuation (Review)
    Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, having regard to the fact that the new rating assessments have been completed and that most of the local authorities have fixed their rate poundage for the ensuing year, he will now implement his undertaking to review the position in view of the hardship caused to shopkeepers.
    Mr. Viantasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the increased assessment of properties for rating purposes, he will issue an order permitting the statutory allowance for repairs to be increased accordingly.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): There will be no avoidable delay in reviewing the effects of revaluation in all its aspects.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has now transpired that this arrangement is throwing a disproportionate burden on the shopkeepers, many of whom may even be driven out of business? Will he postpone the operation of the Socialist Act of 1948 until the whole of local government finance can be properly reviewed, so that every party bears a fair burden and not an unfair one?
    Mr. Sandys: I have a great deal of understanding of the point of view of the shopkeepers. [An HON. MEMBER: "But no sympathy."] I thought that perhaps they would not welcome sympathy, but I have sympathy also. I must point out, however, that any wholesale and indiscriminate lodging of appeals such as is being urged upon them at the present time will inevitably postpone the time when a reliable appraisal of the position can be made.
    Mr. Mitchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that to rerate industry would appeal to their sense of justice?
    Mr. Sandys: That is a rather wider issue and, as I have already explained to the House on a number of occasions, that is one of the matters being examined as part of a comprehensive review of local government finance.
    Mr. Marlowe: While I agree with what my right hon. Friend says about the irresponsible lodging of appeals, does he not appreciate that if he postponed the operation of the Act that would obviate the need for any appeals?

    Private Street Works (Loans)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the total value of loans for which local authorities have applied for sanction for private street works since 1st January, 1956; and for what proportion he has given sanction.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Extraction of these figures would involve much work, which my right hon. Friend would not normally feel justified in authorising. In this case, however, I am having the figures got out and will send them to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that most local authorities plan these works very carefully in relation to their general roads programme and there is no extravagance at all; and that any postponement of such works is a deplorably tragic decision for the people who live in areas with unmade roads?
    Mr. Powell: The House will be aware that since 17th February this year it has been the policy, for the time being, to reduce to an absolute minimum capital expenditure by local authorities.

    Resale of Land, Halesowen
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he has considered the correspondence from the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen relating to the resale of land acquired by the Halesowen Borough Council by purchase from Mrs. B. Grove; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sandys: I am making inquiries into the circumstances of this sale. When these are completed I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  ARMED FORCES (CO-ORDINATION)
  Mr. Bellengerasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a lecture given by Lieut.-General Sir Ian Jacob at the Royal United Services Institute, of which details have been sent to him by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw; whether he has considered the proposal by Lieut.-General Jacob that an examination of the desirability of a closer co-ordination of the three Armed Services should be undertaken; and whether he will set on foot such an inquiry on a scale similar to that carried out by the Esher Committee in relation to the War Office in the earlier part of this century.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I have read with interest the suggestions put forward by Sir Ian Jacob in his lecture to the Royal United Service Institution. As the House knows, I took certain steps last autumn to strengthen the position and powers of the Minister of

  25
  Defence. I should prefer to allow sufficient time for the results of this action to be tested by experience before deciding whether further changes are needed.
  Mr. Bellenger: Although the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman was a step forward in the right direction, is he not aware that there is a growing accumulation of opinion from experts that it is very necessary that not only the Ministry of Defence itself should be reorganised but also the three Services, in relation to integration; and does he not agree that evidence from Sir Ian Jacob, who has occupied a very high position, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, should not be cast aside lightly; and, therefore, an inquiry should take place at some time, even if not in this particular form?
  The Prime Minister: I should certainly be the last to wish to cast aside evidence of Sir Ian Jacob, with whom I worked in the war, as other right hon. and hon. Members in this House did, nor is my mind closed to the project of an inquiry. I think that might be the right way to proceed, but I do not want to commit myself on this until I see more clearly the way we are going.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is it not clear that the Minister of Defence has ample powers to effect what is called co-ordination of the three Services, but that that is an entirely different thing from integration of the three Services? Integration is a very formidable task to undertake, and it is very doubtful whether it should be undertaken, but co-ordination is in the hands of the Minister of Defence.
  The Prime Minister: That is perfectly correct but I think it fair to say that the steps we took last autumn were with a view to long-term integration.
  Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are not many obvious signs yet that the increased powers, whatever they may be, given to Sir William Dickson, are producing any result; and will he tell us what period of time has to elapse before we can have his mind open once again to this question of an inquiry, for which some of us have been pressing for a long time?
  The Prime Minister: I said that my mind was not closed. When we have taken steps like the ones we took last
  26
  autumn, we must see how they are developing within the machine, and it would be unwise to take further steps until we have come to a conclusion. I would rather not commit myself at the present time.

  FRANCE AND THE UNITED KINGDOM (TALKS)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister in what form he communicated to President Eisenhower the results of his discussions with the French Prime Minister; and what official communications have passed between him and the French Prime Minister since the latter's visit to London.
  The Prime Minister: It would not be in accordance with normal practice in relations with our Allies to disclose the content of confidential exchanges—if and when there happen to be any.
  Mr. Swingler: Are we to understand from that reply that exchanges have been taken place; and is the Prime Minister aware of the spreading bewilderment and confusion about certain aspects of Western policy, especially in relation to the Middle East and the handling of the disarmament proposals? Are we to take it from his silence on this subject that he gives consent to M. Mollet's criticisms of Western and particularly American foreign policy, since these were made after and not before M. Mollet's visit to London?
  The Prime Minister: M. Mollet is entitled to say anything he wishes at any time in the French Chamber or anywhere else. I was answering the Question on the Order Paper, and I thought that I had answered it in such a way that no undue harm was likely to result.

  SCOTLAND

    Bridge of Don, Aberdeen
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in reconstructing the Bridge of Don, Aberdeen; when it is expected that the work will be completed; and what arrangements he is making to allow the flow of traffic to continue during the reconstruction period.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I expect that work will start very shortly. The contract provides for the completion of the work within 32 months, and for the erection of a temporary bridge to enable reconstruction to be carried out with the minimum interference with traffic.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that this is one of the main arteries to the North-East of Scotland, and that it is of the utmost urgency that there should be an adequate alternative route provided in order to maintain contact?
    Mr. Stuart: A tender has now been accepted for this work by the Town Council of Aberdeen and I hope that the work will start very shortly.

    Road Works (Agricultural Land)
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated acreage of agricultural land taken in Scotland during 1955 for the purpose of constructing or improving roads.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed that about thirty acres of agricultural land were taken for trunk roads and about forty-four acres for classified roads.

    University Bursaries
    Major Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he is sending to the letter from the British Medical Students Association requesting the establishment of a central grant issuing authority in Scotland in order to standardise the provision of awards for university study in Scotland.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I have told the Association that, while there are differences in practice among education authorities in the assessment of bursaries, particularly as regards items of expenditure which vary in individual cases and in relation to which authorities must have a certain degree of discretion, I cannot agree that there are grounds for transferring award making functions to a central grant issuing authority. I am sending my hon. and gallant friend a copy of my reply to the Association.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present system leads to maldistribution of university students in relation to the university
    28
    resources of Scotland, and in particular is making it difficult for St. Andrew's University to have an adequate number of students?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the number and value of university bursaries awarded by the education authorities have gone up very considerably in recent years—63 per cent. in number and no less than 127 per cent. in value. I think that due care is being taken of this matter, and I shall be very glad to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my reply.

    Mental Patients (Criminal Tendencies)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients with criminal tendencies are housed in Scottish mental and mental deficiency hospitals.
    Mr. J. Stuart: It would be difficult to estimate the number of patients with criminal tendencies, but I shall send the hon. Member a statement of the numbers detained by order of the court under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice is very undesirable, and is making it increasingly difficult to get adequate staff for many of these institutions? Will he look at this matter again very closely to see whether patients in this category could be transferred to a place in which they could be segregated in conditions appropriate to their circumstances?
    Mr. Stuart: I shall be glad to look into the point, but these people have to be stationed or located somewhere; and it is only those who have actually been detained by order of the court of whom I have knowledge.

  POST OFFICE

    Surplus Stocks (Disposal)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Postmaster-General why 532 unused motor cycle tyre covers and inner tubes, 1,429 unused assorted files, 3,968 unused No. 36 electric bulbs together with numerous other articles have been offered to the public for sale; what action was taken to acquaint other Government Departments and nationalised industries of the surplus

    29
    stock before deciding on this method of disposing of the goods; and what resulted from contacting Departments and public authorities.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): These are surplus goods of a total value of £2,300 being disposed of because they do not meet present Post Office needs. Three Government Departments were advised that these goods were available for sale, and concurrently 54 merchants were invited to tender; the list of Government Departments was subsequently increased to seven. Six have replied that they do not require any of them; a full reply from the seventh is awaited. Nationalised industries were not approached because it was thought unlikely that they would have a use for the goods.
    Mr. Dodds: Can the hon. Gentleman deny that the amount of money that will be received for the sale of these and other goods sold previously will only be a fraction of what they cost? Can he also deny that there is a Government Department that could use these tyres or electric bulbs? Is it not about time that some pressure was applied to ensure that other Government Departments used some of these surplus stocks instead of buying new ones?
    Mr. Alport: It is possible, although not necessarily the case, that we would get on the market, as a result of tender, a better price than we should get by transfer to a Government Department. During eleven months of the financial year 1955–56, when we were buying some £35 million worth of stores, only £7,000 worth have been withdrawn for redisposal, which seems to show a high level of skill in the purchasing department of the Post Office.
    Mr. Dodds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I wish to give notice that I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Lost and Damaged Parcels
    Mr. Collinsasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the increase in parcel post rate, he will now increase the maximum amounts recoverable on parcels lost or damaged.
    Mr. Alport: My right hon. Friend is looking into this question and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Collins: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him if he will pay particular regard to the fact that whilst in a few years the rates for parcel post have almost doubled, the purchasing value of the £ has nearly halved? Therefore, will he or his right hon. Friend accord a greater measure of justice?
    Mr. Alport: That will be one of the considerations which my right hon. Friend will bear in mind in reaching his decision.
    Mr. K. Thompson: In view of the great importance of the changes which may follow from my right hon. Friend's consideration of this matter, will he not regard the sending of a letter to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) as rather inadequate, and will he find some way of making public the news which he has to convey?
    Mr. Alport: Certainly if my hon. Friend cares to put down a Parliamentary Question at the appropriate time, anticipating the Question which I have no doubt the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) will put down, it will be the subject of an Answer.

  WEST INDIAN AND INDIAN WORKERS
  Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the number of West Indian and Indian workers who have recently been discharged in the automobile, electronic and other industries, he will make representations to the Governments of the territories from which these workers come that a warning should be given to intending emigrants regarding the employment situation in Britain.
  The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service informs me that very few West Indian or Indian workers are affected by redundancy in the automobile electronic and other allied industries. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
  Mr. Brockway: While recognising the absolute right of British subjects to come to this country, may I ask the right hon.

  31
  Gentleman whether he is not aware that at the E.M.I. works at Hayes and at the Southern Forge in Slough, a considerable number of these workers have been dismissed under the rule of "last in, first out," not because of the colour bar? In view of this tendency, would it not be well, in their own interests, to sound this kind of warning?
  Mr. Hare: My information is not quite the same as the hon. Gentleman's. I understand that there have been about a dozen dismissals of West Indians at Slough. Every effort is being made to find other work for those men, and I hear that two have already found jobs. On the point of sounding a warning, I would inform the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has attached to the Colonial Office welfare liaison officers from the Jamaican and other West Indian Governments, and they are kept informed of the employment position in this country. If there were to be any serious prospect of unemployment, my right hon. Friend would inform those Governments.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his right hon. Friend is in consultation with the Jamaican Government arising out of the interesting and valuable Report on this question that has been submitted to the Jamaican Government and published recently? Would not the adoption of some of the recommendations in that Report be the best way of dealing with the problem in this country?
  Mr. Hare: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take heed of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that 40,000 Jamaicans are expected in the country this year, and as the principle of "last in, first out" will be applied, irrespective of colour, ought not the Colonial Secretary to see that this warning for which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) asked, is sounded very well and truly in Jamaica?
  Mr. Hare: I have already informed the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) that my right hon.
  32
  Friend is watching this matter very carefully, and if in his opinion a warning is necessary I am sure that warning will be given.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Retirement Pensioners (Earnings)
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how soon he expects to receive the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the financial problems connected with the employment of retired persons; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir C. Taylorasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects to receive recommendations from the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the question of employment of retirement pensioners.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): My right hon. Friend hopes to receive a Report on the earnings limit for retirement pensioners in a few weeks' time.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware that a great many pensioners anxious to augment their incomes are interested in this subject, and will be very glad to receive the statement as soon as possible?
    Dr. King: Could not the Minister, in the meantime, have raised the £2 to the spending value that it had when it was first instituted?
    Mr. Wood: On the merits of the question, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in her speech on 3rd February. I think that the Report will not be very long delayed, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for it.

  MIDDLE EAST (SITUATION)
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I expected that a Private Notice Question might have been put down to the Prime Minister but that is apparently not the case, may I ask the Prime Minister a question on business?
  Mr. Speaker: There has been no notice of any such Question or of any statement on business. I am afraid that I could not allow it now. If the right hon. Member wishes to find out, I have no doubt that he will be informed if he asks, but I could not allow a question now, without notice.
  Mr. Shinwell: I merely wanted, in view of the growing tension in the Middle East, to ask the Prime Minister whether he intended to make a statement on the subject at a very early date.
  Mr. Speaker: We had better leave that for another occasion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.)—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CLEAN AIR BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 15, page 12, line 38, and page 13, line 5; and to Clause 29, page 22, line 30, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Dr. Summerskill.—[Dr. Summerskill.]
  3.29 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) to move his proposed Amendment, I would point out what I think he has probably noticed already, that if an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) is accepted in Committee his proposed Amendment will fall. In calling him to move his Amendment to the Motion, I am in no way prejudging what the course of the discussion in Committee should be.
  Question amended, by adding, at the end:
  and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 15, page 13, lines 6, 7, 10 and 15, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. David Jones.—[Mr. D. Jones.]
  and, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  CLEAN AIR BILL

    Clause 15.—(RELATION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, ALKALI ACT.)
    3.30 p.m.
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 12, line 38, at the beginning to insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section."
    It would also be convenient if we were to discuss, at the same time, the next Amendment, in page 13, line 5.
    These Amendments arise out of fairly lengthy discussions in Committee on the whole question of the position of local authorities in relation to smoke and the duties which those authorities should have. In Committee upstairs an Amendment was agreed to which, under certain provisions, transferred certain powers from the alkali inspectors to the local authorities, provided that the Minister

    35
    gave his sanction. Subsequently, we have given a good deal of consideration to the matter, and we agree that many local authorities are not in a position to carry out the whole inspection responsibilities which would attach to them if they had to do the work of the alkali inspectors. It may well be that there are not more than one or two cities where this could be done.
    On the other hand, it is true that the main desire of the local authorities is to ensure that the smoke powers which they have always had are retained in their hands. There was very considerable anxiety on the part of local authority associations throughout the country about what their position would be and there was some doubt about the position even if the Amendment which was passed in Standing Committee had stood.
    I think there can be no doubt that the main desire of the local authorities was to ensure that their officials retained the same smoke powers as those which they had held in the past and that these powers were not weakened in any way. To ensure this, the Amendments have been placed on the Notice Paper.
    It will be noticed that we are taking out the provisions which were passed in Standing Committee. We are doing this to secure, we hope, the approval of the whole Committee for this Amendment. The effect will be that a local authority can make application and, subject to the Minister's approval—which, we understand, will not be withheld except for a good reason—the local authority officials will be able to carry on being responsible for dealing with smoke emissions, even from the scheduled processes and even from processes which the Minister may schedule in the future.
    We want to take this opportunity to confirm our understanding that the Minister desires to review the processes which are at present scheduled. We understand that he intends to schedule certain extra metallurgical processes but that he is also anxious to reduce the number of processes which are scheduled, where there appears to be no particular necessity for scheduling them today. This scheduling procedure took place a long time ago and it is probably highly desirable that we should think not only in terms of adding certain processes to
    36
    the schedule, but also of removing some from the schedule. The Minister takes specific powers in the Clause to do so, and we want his assurance that he is as anxious to make use of that power as he is to add to the list of scheduled processes.
    It has been suggested to us that, if that is his attitude towards the scheduled processes, then the defence provisions as they stood under Clause 1 would need some reconsideration in regard to the wider powers for the local authorities' inspectors, and we have, though with some doubt, agreed to insert in the Amendment the rather wider term—the old term—"the best practicable means" defence, but only for this Clause. I hope that by accepting this position and putting down the Amendment we shall obtain the agreement of the whole Committee.
    We are all anxious, I am sure, that local authorities should retain the widest possible powers in this matter. The success or failure of the Measure depends very much on their activity. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment commands the support of everyone in the Committee.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, (Mr. Blenkinsop) that the Amendment made in Standing Committee was unsatisfactory, the main reason being that it empowered the Minister to transfer to local authorities the duty of operating the Alkali Act, which includes far wider matters than those of smoke, grit and dust, with which we are primarily concerned in the Bill. Although, owing to the absence of one or two of my hon. Friends, and the presence of one of my hon. Friends, the Amendment was carried in Standing Committee, I pointed out on that occasion that it would not be a suitable function for local authority inspectors to carry out. These are technical processes of a very specialised character.
    The Standing Committee was concerned mainly to see that where a local authority had competent staff and facilities, and where in all other circumstances it was desirable, the authority should be empowered to carry out these functions by itself. The Committee was concerned that in those cases the Minister should

    37
    be able to transfer these responsibilities to the local authority in question.
    As the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, indicated, there have been consultations between the Government and the Opposition in this matter. I feel that the Amendment which he has moved is satisfactory and that it goes as far as is reasonable to meet the point of view which has been expressed both by the local authorities and by hon. Members in Standing Committees. I recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. David Jones: I gathered from what Mr. Speaker said a few moments ago that if the Minister uttered the words he has just spoken I should not be likely to have an opportunity to move the Amendments to Clause 15 which are in my name.
    If a local authority is big enough to have all these powers, surely, in heavy industrial areas such as Tees-side, where the authorities are virtually side by side, they should have the same responsibility. At present, they are separate authorities and, therefore, would not of themselves be competent to undertake these powers. If they were to combine to deal with this matter, as has been done on Tees-side, they might be able to acquire the powers of bigger authorities through a joint committee.
    I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, later, he would insert into the Bill the words "joint committee," as, by doing so, he would improve the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Not only would big authorities be able to undertake this responsibility but groups of authorities closely associated, as, in certain parts of the country, they are, particularly on Tees-side, could perform the same functions and be given the same responsibilities.
    Mr. James MacColl: I am always a little embarrassed in intervening in a discussion of a subject which has been exhaustively examined in Committee upstairs when the Bill comes to Committee of the whole House. My excuse for doing so on this occasion is that I imagine no one has a stronger constituency interest in this matter than I have. I do not think that in the normal calculus of size my authority can be called a large town, but it certainly is a place which
    38
    has a large smell. The whole industrial prosperity and existence of the borough I represent rests on the fact that not so very long ago—about 100 years—the chemical industry was moved consecutively out of Liverpool and St. Helens to my borough.
    This problem of pollution—alkali pollution as well as ordinary smoke pollution—is a very difficult and acute one. It is difficult and acute from both points of view. On the one hand, damage done and suffering caused by pollution is very great indeed, but it is equally true that the whole industrial prosperity—and it is a very great prosperity in the area—depends on the fact that the chemical industry is able to operate there.
    It is a problem of balancing good against evil. It is a problem of balancing trouble caused by smoke and other forms of pollution that come out of chimneys against the vital industry which is of tremendous national importance and on which the whole country depends and which, I suppose, has led to my borough becoming the premier chemical town of the country.
    3.45 p.m.
    These things have to be examined and ought to be balanced locally. This matter is one of tremendous local importance. That seems a very strong reason why the local interest and responsibility of the local authority ought to be very much emphasised. I saw with some pleasure the original subsection in the Clause. I gather it was inserted in Committee upstairs. It made clear that in an area like mine, where no amount of money expended in dealing with this problem could be regarded as extravagant and where local authorities must regard this as a major responsibility, it would be possible for the authority to have responsibility for this work.
    I would not have intervened after hon. Members have been discussing this question for many hours, but I wished to underline a point which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate when he considers how much power can be devolved to local authorities. I hope he will bear in mind that it is not just a question of the great county borough with tremendous resources, but of an area like mine, a small non-county borough to which, nevertheless, this is a problem of disproportionate size. Its whole life and

    39
    prosperity and economic well-being is bound up in the chemical industry.
    Therefore, for good or evil, we have to tackle these problems. We must have a knowledge of them as we have to live with them. I hope the Minister will see that everything is done to bring the local authority into the picture when he examines how much he can devolve responsibility under the terms of the Bill. I accept the agreed compromise for what it brings. Although I have been rather an extremist about it, I am glad to accept this compromise.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I do not want unduly to take up the time of the Committee, because the Minister has been good enough to accept this Amendment. Over a long time progressive local authorities which have had to deal with the problem of smoke, grit and dust in their localities have found themselves frustrated by reason of the scheduled industries concerned with the Alkali Act and regulations and the exempted processes under the Public Health Act.
    I welcome this Amendment because it gives those progressive local authorities an opportunity now of dealing in part with the problem with which for a long time they have wanted to deal. It is true that the Amendment does not go quite so far as we should have liked, for instance, in Sheffield, but it goes far enough to give help and encouragement to local authorities to deal with the problem in its wider aspects as they have been trying to deal with it for a long time. I welcome the Amendment, not because it will do all that we require, but because it goes as far as the Minister can go having regard to the Alkali Act and because I believe he has conceded as much as possible. I thank the Minister on behalf of the City of Sheffield, which has been in the forefront of this fight for a long time. We appreciate the action which he has taken.
    Commander R. Scott-Miller: I welcome this arrangement because my constituency has been affected by a similar situation to that described by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). There is a large chemical works in King's Lynn which supplies just as much service to the agricultural industry as the great chemical industries supply to industrial firms in the Midlands.
    40
    During the processing at this chemical and manure works, there has, most unfortunately, been the emission of fumes which have been a source of great inconvenience to the nearby residents in the town. Indeed, I have corresponded with my right hon. Friend on this very point. Since it could not, however, be established that there was any danger to the health of the residents, the local authority was quite limited in its power to do anything about it.
    It remained to my right hon. Friend to bring his alkali inspectors on the scene and between them, and with the good and active co-operation of the works concerned, steps have been taken to improve matters. I certainly welcome the opportunity afforded by the Bill to give local authorities a closer interest in these matters so that they can help to improve the amenities of their towns.
    Mr. Arthur Moyle: The Minister has been exceedingly diplomatic in marrying both sides of the Committee and securing an almost unanimous decision on the Amendment in utilising the co-operation of local authorities who have the technically qualified people to contribute towards strengthening the central inspectorate. There is no doubt that there was strong feeling among local authorities on this issue, although, as the Minister knows, I come down strongly on the side of the central inspectorate.
    In view of the Amendment, which the Minister has accepted in the light of what happened elsewhere, may I take it that when the right hon. Gentleman uses the technical staff of local authorities, he will contribute towards the cost? He will know that the Alkali Act, 1906, provided for a contribution of 50 per cent. in the case of approved appointments.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: I rise only to urge further the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), who asked that consideration be given by the Minister to the question of joint committees. Obviously, the type of technician who must be employed by a local authority—or, if the Minister accepts my hon. Friend's plea about joint committees, by a group of local authorities—is not easily found, nor would his salary be small.

    41
    Moreover, the Minister will agree that in our discussions upstairs, we accepted that this type of civil servant, technician or scientist was one who could supervise a fairly large area and that, therefore, it would be rather invidious for, say, Manchester to ask for these powers, which are permissively mentioned in the Amendment, and for Salford next door to do so at the same time or that the Tyneside should not collaborate together to have one technician or to have the service concentrated together, in the same way as a joint board concentrates upon the purpose of providing water for a large area including a number of local authorities.
    In Stoke-on-Trent, we have on our doorstep the loyal and ancient Borough of Newcastle. If we were ever to qualify in this way, we would want to bring our neighbours in with us, or vice versa.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Newcastle-under-Lyme?
    Dr. Stross: Yes. Did I say "on-Tyne"?
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: No.
    Dr. Stross: I said "the loyal and ancient borough," which puts it in its proper setting, for Newcastle-upon-Tyne has no such claim. Indeed, the borough is the second oldest in the country, which again puts it in its proper setting.
    If one local authority may say to the Minister, "We are now ready to do this work. Will you accept that we may do it?" it would seem to be right for a group of contiguous local authorities to act in the same way.
    Mr. Sandys: I am glad to know, from the speeches on both sides of the Committee, that this solution to the problem is generally acceptable. Two or three points have been raised during this short debate. One was by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), who asked whether the salaries and expenses of the inspectors who might be appointed by the local authorities would be paid by the Exchequer. The answer, I am afraid, is "No".
    Local authorities cannot have it both ways. If a local authority wishes to take over responsibility for this function, the salaries and expenses of the inspectors concerned will have to be treated like the salaries and expenses of the sanitary
    42
    inspector or any other local authority official.
    Mr. Moyle: Even in relation to specific instances of excepted industries like the chemical industry?
    Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Member is referring to the alkali inspectors, that is another matter. There are special provisions for the appointment of additional inspectors. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to inspectors who would apply the provisions of the subsection with which we are now dealing—
    Mr. Moyle indicated assent.
    Mr. Sandys:—and who would be concerned exclusively with the prevention of smoke, grit and dust. In that case, it would be proper for a local authority which applies to have these functions transferred to it to meet the expenditure in the ordinary way. I do not see that we could make a case for treating these inspectors differently from other inspectors employed by the local authority.
    A number of hon. Members—the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller)—all expressed the hope that local authorities would be as closely associated as possible with the operation of this part of the Bill, and, in fact, with the operation of the Bill as a whole. I have on a number of occasions made it quite clear that in my view the whole success of this policy depends upon the close co-operation and active participation of local authorities in its administration and in the general pursuit of this policy.
    An important point was raised by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), who was supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). They raised the point which is set out in the Amendments of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools, which, no doubt, will not be moved if the present Amendment is adopted. It is the question whether, in the case of local authorities who by themselves are not financially or technically sufficiently strongly equipped to carry out these functions individually, it would be possible for these duties and responsibilities to be transferred collectively to a group of local authorities in an area.

    43
    The Bill does not specifically provide for that, nor does the Amendment, but I have gone into the point and am reasonably satisfied that there would be no difficulty in transferring these powers to a number of local authorities and making it a condition of such transfer that they should set up a joint committee for the purpose of operating these powers. Since there is power in the Amendment to terminate the delegation of powers, obviously that should be a sufficient guarantee that the joint committee would continue to be operated. It should be entirely satisfactory.
    4.0 p.m.
    Nonetheless, I will look into it further. Should it be necessary, I will see that the point is not lost sight of in another place. I believe that the Amendment as it stands would satisfactorily meet the point raised by the two hon. Members.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 5, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
    (2) The Minister may, if, on the application of the local authority, he is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is expedient so to do, by order apply the provisions of this subsection to the whole or any specified part of any premises controlled under the Alkali Act, and, in that event, in relation to any period for which the order is in force—

    (a) subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the premises or, as the case may be, to the specified part thereof; but

    (b) it shall be a defence to any proceedings under section one of this Act in respect of dark smoke from the premises or, as the case may be, from the specified part thereof, to prove that the best practicable means had been employed to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke therefrom; and

    (c) in any proceedings brought by virtue of section fourteen of this Act in respect of smoke from the premises or, as the case may be, from the specified part thereof, the defence provided for by proviso (ii) to subsection (1) of that section shall be available whether the smoke was emitted from a chimney or not.

    Any order under this subsection may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order of the Minister.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 29.—(REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.)
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 22, line 30, after "orders", to insert:
    44
    "(other than orders under subsection (2) of section fifteen of this Act)".
    This is largely consequential upon the Amendments already passed. Obviously, it would be undesirable for orders provided for by these Amendments to come within the category of Statutory Instruments.
    Mr. Sandys: I entirely agree; it is consequential.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

    New Clause.—(DENSITY METERS, &C.)
    (1) Regulations made by the Minister may in such cases as may be prescribed by the regulations impose requirements as to—

    (a) providing and installing apparatus for the purpose of indicating or recording (or indicating and recording) the density or darkness of smoke emitted from any furnace in any building or any furnace of any boiler or industrial plant, not being a furnace in a building, or of facilitating the observation of smoke so emitted with a view to ascertaining its density or darkness;

    (b) making adaptations for any such purpose to any chimney serving such a furnace;

    (c) using and maintaining apparatus provided in pursuance of the regulations; and

    (d) making available to the local authority any results recorded by such apparatus.

    (2) If regulations under this section are contravened in relation to a furnace, the occupier of the building or, as the case may be, the person in possession of the boiler or plant shall be guilty of an offence.—[Mr. Powell.]

    Brought up and read the First time.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    In Committee, the general opinion was expressed that there should be the most widespread and rapid use of methods and instruments for measuring and giving warning of the emission of smoke. This new Clause is designed to enable the Minister to make regulations requiring instruments for that purpose to be installed and used.
    I have heard it said, I think with truth, that measurement is of the essence of science, and that without the means of measurement we cannot tackle scientifically the more serious aspects of smoke pollution from major industrial processes.

    45
    This is pre-eminently a suitable subject for ministerial regulations. Clearly, it will be only in the case of some types and classes of furnace that such prescription will be required, and the instruments appropriate will differ in each case. Therefore, it would be convenient that the requirements should be prescribed from time to time in detail by regulation. The general effect of the Clause is to give power to enforce measurement wherever desirable and practicable.
    Dr. Stross: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary and to his right hon. Friend for moving this new Clause, which, we know, is in response to a promise made to us in Committee. At that time our argument was that it was obviously desirable to establish throughout the country as regular a standard for the measurement of the density and volume of smoke passing up the stack as was possible.
    I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want as few cases to go to the courts as possible. Sometimes prosecution cannot be avoided, but prosecution does not mean persecution; we want as much good feeling as possible. We shall achieve that end in this way more readily than in any other way. There must be as good feeling as possible between the sanitary inspector and the man who has to fire his boiler, and between local authority and employer.
    By this means we shall ensure that records will be kept and made available for examination. Under the provisions of paragraph (d), those records will be made available to the local authority, which means that this is a method by which we can collate information and, having collated it, be assisted in our study and understanding of the problems which will always beset us in the future.
    It will obviously be very useful in the collation of information that there should be one specific standard of measuring apparatus throughout the country; the calibration must be the same so that, whatever volume of smoke there may be or whatever the density may be, the results of measurement will be consistent throughout the country no matter what stack or furnace is involved. I understand that the British Standards Institution is now preparing such apparatus. We shall thus ensure that whatever
    46
    information is made available to local authorities will be such that the authorities will be able to compare one result with another so that we shall be in a position to compare like with like and be better equipped in the future to know what is happening throughout the country.
    It was, perhaps, impossible for bodies other than local authorities to be provided with this knowledge and with these records. Ultimately, of course, the information must go to the Clean Air Council. I should not, perhaps, be in order in speaking on that now; it will be referred to in a few moments. We are very grateful indeed for this Clause and believe it will be most effective.
    Mr. Charles A. Howell: This is a Clause which we can welcome, for this reason. If an offence takes place during the night at a time when an inspector cannot be certain whether it is phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 or phase 4 of black smoke, although strong complaint is made, paragraph (d) will provide for
    "making available to the local authority any results accorded by such apparatus";
    and the local authority will thus be able to investigate whether or not an offence has taken place.
    I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly what is meant by the expression,
    "the person in possession of the boiler"
    in subsection (2). Does it mean the stoker who, for the time being, is in possession of the boiler, or does it mean the employer? It is something which ought to be made absolutely clear, so that one may know, if an offence takes place, who is the "person in possession of the boiler."
    Mr. Anthony Fell: I welcome this new Clause in the hope that it will enable the Minister to bring in regulations which will provide a method of measuring the density of dark smoke to replace the Ringelmann chart. I understand that there are hon. Members more knowledgeable than I who hold some brief for the Ringelmann chart. There are others, particularly those connected with this problem in industry, who think that the Ringelmann chart could make nonsense of the Bill because smoke measured according to that chart by three or four different individuals will produce a different result on every single occasion.

    47
    Therefore, while welcoming this Clause, I hope that it will very quickly lead to the establishment of a better method of measuring dark smoke than by means of the chart.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(CLEAN AIR COUNCIL.)
    (1) For the purposes of—

    (a) keeping under review the progress made (whether under this Act or otherwise) in abating the pollution of the air in England and Wales; and

    (b) obtaining the advice of persons having special knowledge, experience or responsibility in regard to prevention of pollution of the air,

    the Minister of Housing and Local Government shall appoint a consultative council, to be called the Clean Air Council, of which he shall be the Chairman.
    (2) The Minister of Housing and Local Government may by order make provision with respect to the constitution and procedure of the said council, and any such order may be varied by a subsequent order.
    (3) For the like purposes in relation to Scotland as those mentioned in subsection (1) of this section the Secretary of State shall appoint a consultative council, to be called the Clean Air Council for Scotland, and subsection (2) of this section shall apply in relation to the said council, but as if the reference therein to the Minister of Housing and Local Government were a reference to the Secretary of State.
    Brought up and read the First time.
    Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    In Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave an assurance that statutory provision would be made for the appointment of a Clean Air Council. It is not quite clear from the Beaver Committee's Report whether it was the intention of that Committee that the Clean Air Council which was recommended should be a statutory council or not. We thought that it would be a good thing to hear the views of the Standing Committee before making up our minds what form the council should take, though I had already on Second Reading given the House an assurance that it was the Government's intention to set up a Clean Air Council. My hon. Friend in Committee made it clear that the kind of council which the Government had in mind was a consultative
    48
    body, and it is that for which the new Clause provides.
    This is admittedly somewhat different from the Clean Air Council which some both inside and outside the House have suggested. The Beaver Committee in paragraph 119 of its Report suggested that the proposed Clean Air Council should be given the duty of co-ordinating both the administrative and research work of the various Government Departments and other interested bodies concerned with the problem of clean air.
    The House considered very carefully the recommendations of the Beaver Committee, and I think the House will agree with me that it would be impracticable and constitutionally undesirable for an outside body to co-ordinate the work of Government Departments. That is obviously the function of Ministers and of the Cabinet. The introduction into the Governmental machine of an extraneous, autonomous body with quasi-executive functions would not only create administrative confusion, but would seriously impair the principle of accountability of Ministers to Parliament, a principle to which this House so rightly attaches importance.
    To a lesser extent the same objections apply to the suggestion made that the Clean Air Council should make an annual report to Parliament. It would be possible, though, I think, unusual, for an outside body to report to Parliament upon the progress of a policy the execution of which had been entrusted by Statute to the Government and to the local authorities. That does not, of course, mean that the Minister cannot and should not make a report to Parliament upon the progress of this policy. However, if we wish to retain the principle of the accountability of the Government for the progress of this policy, in my view it is better that any reports that are made should be made on the authority of the Government and not on the authority of an outside body which, in any case, is appointed by the Minister.
    I think that that would only confuse the issue, more particularly if the Minister were himself to be a member of the council, as, in my view, it is most desirable he should be. If the Clean Air Council were to be given the duty to make reports to Parliament, then it would clearly follow that no member of the

    49
    Government could be a member of the council, since no Minister could very well sign a collective report presented to Parliament with which he was not himself in complete agreement. I think it would be undesirable and invidious for a Minister to be a member of an advisory body—that is really what this will be—a consultative body making a report to Parliament, but himself having, perhaps, to sign a minority report expressing his views, even though he did so in conjunction with other members of the council.
    It does not follow, however, that reports and accounts should not be made to Parliament by the Government upon the progress of this policy, and in my view it is most desirable that they should be. Obviously it would be in the light of the discussions which the Minister would have had with the Clean Air Council that any such report would be made.
    4.15 p.m.
    There is one other way of doing it, and that is to set up the Clean Air Council without any Ministerial participation, and to leave the Council, so to speak, as a freelance body to make its own independent reports. On this, I feel that the Clean Air Council, at any rate from the standpoint of its usefulness to the Government in pushing forward with this policy, would lose very much of its value if the Minister principally concerned could not be a member of it. For my part, when this Clean Air Council, to which I attach importance, is set up, I intend to make a great deal of use of it in trying to obtain the views of those who are principally concerned in the operation of the policy, and I should regard it as unfortunate if I were not able to be a full member and also the chairman of the council.
    It is these considerations which have led me to propose the constitution of the Clean Air Council on the lines set out in the new Clause, and I believe that, constituted in this way, the Clean Air Council will provide a most valuable and important means of securing effective consultation between the Government and those organisations outside on whose co-operation the success of this policy depends.
    Dr. Summerskill: We welcome this new Clause, as the Minister knows, because this matter was discussed exhaustively
    50
    on Second Reading, and then and in Committee my hon. Friends and I stressed the importance of the Clean Air Council. I regard the provisions for the establishment of the Council as among the most important of this Measure, because I am very anxious that the interest in clean air should not lapse, and, indeed, that it should be stimulated. Excellent as it is, I regard the Measure as only the first step, and I hope that there will be other steps forward when further investigation of the whole problem has been made. For this reason we feel that the Beaver Committee's recommendation about the Clean Air Council was of the utmost importance.
    However, I am very disappointed by what the Minister has said precisely for this reason—the fear that the interest may lapse. He has, I think, given an academic explanation of why the Minister cannot participate with the Council in making a report. We in this House, and especially hon. Members representing industrial constituencies, are anxious to be kept alerted to what the Clean Air Council does. The right hon. Gentleman must, as an old Parliamentarian, know as well as I do that there is a tendency for people to lose interest. Advisory committees are set up, and at first people are enthusiastic about them. The Minister, no doubt, intends that there should be on the Council representation of all the interested organisations including, no doubt, private industry, the local authority authorities, and so on, but then the representatives themselves may, perhaps, become a little tired because the efforts they make are not noticed by other people who matter. The Minister may say that this cannot happen because he is to be the chairman of the Council. However, the Minister is a very busy man, and his successors will be very busy people. No doubt, the Minister will not always take the chair; he will be chairman only in name.
    Having been a Minister myself, I speak with some sympathy when I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman wants us to have to press him every year to make a report to the House, to give a broad survey of what the Clean Air Council is doing. That is what he is inviting us to do. He said he could not make a report because his position would be invidious and because he would, perhaps, have to identify himself with a

    51
    majority report which he did not support, that he might have a minority point of view and so would find himself in an embarrassing position.
    Many of us are keenly alive to the importance of clean air. We shall agitate for it, just as people in the last century agitated for clean water and just as we, including myself, agitated to the House for clean milk until I had the great honour of piloting a clean milk Measure, the Milk (Special Designations) Act, 1949, through the House. I am on the warpath. My constituency of Warrington, I am sorry to say, is one of the dirtiest in the whole country. I shall find myself in the position of pressing the Minister every year to come to the House, perhaps on a Supply Day, and give us a broad survey. Would it not be much easier for him to say today that the Council shall make a report?
    Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Lady said earlier that it would not be possible for the Minister to make a report and now she is saying that she would have to press the Minister to make such a report.
    Dr. Summerskill: In the House.
    Mr. Sandys: Yes, but the point I was making earlier was that I did not think it was suitable for the Council as such to make a report. I believe in this policy, and I want the maximum publicity directed upon it. Therefore, I think that it is not only suitable but desirable that the Government of the day should make a report to Parliament once a year on this subject. I am quite prepared to give an undertaking, from the standpoint of this Government, that such a report would be made every year to Parliament, without any agitation or pressure by the right hon. Lady.
    Dr. Summerskill: That is a most generous undertaking, but has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Whips? We are only too ready to accept the undertaking, but certain predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman went even further in relation to other Bills and their undertakings were accepted, but subsequently they found it difficult to fulfil them.
    Here is a most important undertaking incorporated in the Water Act, 1945:
    52
    "The Minister shall appoint a committee, to be called the Central Advisory Water Committee, for the purpose of—
    (a) advising him or any other Minister concerned upon matters connected with the conservation and use of water resources.…"
    The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the conservation and use of water resources are of tremendous importance to the location of industry and indeed to our whole economy. What happened? Although this requirement was incorporated in the Water Act, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Minister of Housing and Local Government saw fit, for economic reasons, to suspend the operation of this most important Committee. It is true that the Committee has not been disbanded and I believe that in recent months, under the present Minister, it has been recalled. This is an illustration, Sir Charles.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that it will not go on very much longer.
    Dr. Summerskill: I am very conscious of the fact that you have your eye upon me, Sir Charles, but I think that it is fair to illustrate the point. The Minister is asking us to have confidence in him. He has comported himself in the last few weeks in such a way that we on this side of the House are beginning to have confidence in him, but some of his predecessors have gazed at us from the Front Bench opposite with the same look as the Minister has given us this afternoon in asking us to support him. Yet the right hon. Gentleman must see that we have been betrayed in the matter of the Water Act. The responsible Minister set up a committee and incorporated that requirement in the Act, but later the Committee was disbanded. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman says, "Do not ask for a report, you can trust me," we feel a little apprehensive.
    The Minister's proposal is a second best. If the right hon. Gentleman is still in his present position next year we shall ask him to make a report, and those of us who are interested will have to see that in successive years a report is made. I, therefore, accept the Clean Air Council with this reservation. We raised this matter in Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary did not reject the idea of a report. He said that it would be looked

    53
    at, and I am rather sorry that in Committee neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary had been advised that it was inadvisable to accept the suggestion of an annual report. However, we may be able to raise this matter again next year when we shall be able to consider what the Minister has to say about the work of the Committee. Perhaps, after further consideration, even he may change his mind.
    Mr. Sandys: The report from the Minister which I had in mind would be a report on the whole progress of this policy and not just a report on the work of the Council, because there would be much done outside the Council. The Council will be a very useful instrument and an adjunct to the whole policy, but very much will be done which will not be within the duties of the Council. I envisage that the report will contain an account of progress in various local authority areas and perhaps an account of progress in research, though undoubtedly it will include a report on the work of the Council. Therefore, I think that I am offering something wider and more comprehensive than what is asked for by the right hon. Lady.
    Dr. Summerskill: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking. Only next year will prove whether it is possible for him to give a broad survey and at the same time detailed information about what has been done, because it is clear to me that the House is very interested in this matter. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for incorporating the Clean Air Council provision in the Bill. Let us hope that it will be of tremendous value to the country.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I welcome the proposal to establish a Clean Air Council, which was discussed exhaustively in Committee. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend will not write into the Bill that he proposes to give a comprehensive report on the progress of clean air policy. I intervene only to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one fact which may have escaped his attention. I notice that, advisedly, he used the word "research." It would be quite impossible, and I quote the words of the new Clause, to keep "under review the progress made" in clean air policy unless
    54
    very detailed information were given about the progress of research work year by year.
    The point came up again and again in Committee that we could not go as far as we would wish in our statutory provisions because of the state of our scientific knowledge of the abatement of noxious fumes, and I give the well-known example of noxious fumes from the exhaust pipes of motor vehicles. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an exact analogy, and I am sure that on Second Reading of the new Clause it will be in order to quote from a Measure which is now before another place.
    Clause 2 (7) of that Measure, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Bill (Lords) contains these words:
    "The Research Council"—
    in this context it is a council for scientific and industrial research—
    "shall in each year send to the Committee of the Privy Council referred to in subsection (2) of the foregoing section a report of their proceedings during the preceding year, and the Lord President of the Council shall cause a copy of that report to be laid before each House of Parliament."
    4.30 p.m.
    That is a Government Bill. It seems to me analogous that there should be a comprehensive report made to both Houses of Parliament on the progress of clean air policy. Therefore, I welcome the introduction of this new Clause to provide for a Clean Air Council, which was originally recommended by the Beaver Committee, though not exactly in this form. It was also the subject of a proposed new Clause moved during the Committee stage of the Bill in which the right hon. Lady, hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself were associated. Now we have this proposed new Clause which, although it largely meets the case, still omits what I regard as a vital feature for a periodical review of clean air policy, namely, that it should be a statutory responsibility on the Minister to lay before both Houses of Parliament his progress report year by year in a generally accepted form, such as the words of the Measure I have quoted.
    Mr. Moyle: I welcome this new Clause and fully appreciate the reasons advanced by the Minister against making the Clean Air Council a statutory body. Much of

    55
    the support for the Council being made a statutory body by this Bill arises from the fact that there are several Government Departments, referred to by the Beaver Committee in paragraph 119 of its Report, which are responsible in some measure for the problem of clean air.
    Therefore, my first question to the Minister is a practical one. Assuming for the moment that the Minister makes himself responsible under this proposed new Clause for issuing a report to the House each year as Minister, he will also be chairman of the advisory committee, which is to be a purely consultative and advisory body. Can I take it that in those circumstances the Minister would be wholly responsible to the House of Commons for the entire policy of clean air? Or would it remain, as it is at present, the responsibility of the several Ministers whom I need not indicate?
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) said so ably, the Clean Air Council will be of immense value to this country since, for the first time, it will provide a consultative body responsible for carrying out various functions of the clean air policy. It will be a focal point for all those interested in fighting air pollution, not only the local authorities. I am thinking especially of our citizens, some of whom suffer exceedingly. Indeed, I wonder how some of them face air pollution day after day. It will give these people an opportunity to voice their strong feelings about the subject and should help us to develop more speedily than would be possible in any other way a national consciousness of the importance of securing an effective clean air policy.
    Now I come to a point to which I referred several times in Committee and also on Second Reading. One thing which the Clean Air Council will do is to bring home to our citizens the tremendous problem involved in seeking a solution of the problems of pollution. At the moment citizens suffering from air pollution do not know whether the problem is capable of solution. However, when the Clean Air Council is established local authorities will be able to submit their problems to it, and this can also be done by interested citizens and by bodies such as the Smoke Abatement Society. For the first time, therefore, we shall have
    56
    an organisation which will help us to understand the problem and which will help to find a remedy for the more vexatious forms of air pollution. I have in mind particularly the chemical industries, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) referred, and in respect of which my own constituency is a victim.
    I regard it as vital, therefore, that the Clean Air Council shall have as its first duty as an advisory body the education of the public mind as to the value of solving this problem. I have been much encouraged by reading the recent history of the great fight waged by the United States against air pollution. It is one of the most interesting documents I have read for some time. Great progress has been made, and I hope that, as a result of passing this Bill, we shall have a similar experience in this country.
    Finally, I hope sincerely that the Clean Air Council will not only stimulate interest and educate the public as to the problem involved in this matter, but that it will stimulate research, supported by the Government of the day. I hope that the Council will be the means of discovering methods of combating successfully those forms of air pollution which have up to the present outwitted the experts.
    Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not close his mind to the possibility of presenting a report to Parliament every year, and that in another place it will be possible to write into the Bill a subsection giving statutory effect to the desire of the Minister to present an annual report to both Houses of Parliament.
    Dr. Stross: The Minister has promised that he will present an annual report. That is what he said.
    Squadron Leader Cooper: Yes, that is what my right hon. Friend said, but Ministers change. It may be the intention of my right hon. Friend to make a report to Parliament, but other Ministers may come along. Also, as the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) rightly said, interest in this subject might gradually die. If the Council receives little or no publicity for all its work, it may be found difficult to induce people to serve on the council.
    The right hon. Lady referred to the Water Act of 1945. Obviously she has

    57
    the same brief as I have. The interesting point is that British industry itself, notably through the Federation of British Industries, is anxious that such a Clause shall be written into the Bill.
    The Minister must adduce stronger arguments this afternoon or in another place before the House and the country as a whole can accept that it is impossible to write into the Bill the subsection for which some of us ask.
    Mr. D. Jones: I think the Minister supplied the very reason why he ought to look at the matter again. It is probable that in the course of time interest in the subject of clean air will fade and it may be necessary to have a body to continue interest in making our air as clean as possible.
    We are all conscious that there are processes which it is difficult to combat at present, but who can say that tomorrow or the day after something will not be produced which will enable the difficulties of those processes to be overcome? Also, how can we be sure that that will be done unless this advisory body is entitled to present its own report to Parliament, particularly if it finds itself in disagreement with the Minister? No matter how anxious the Minister may be to make maximum progress in the matter of clean air, I fear there will always be a suspicion that behind the rate of progress is not the Minister's enthusiasm but the dead hand of the Treasury.
    When the Minister said he thought it was wrong that any outside body should determine policy for the Government, he supplied the reason why he should again look at the problem. It seems to me from what the right hon. Gentleman said that we have to decide between having him as chairman of the Council and having an independent report by the Council to Parliament. I have the greatest possible admiration for the right hon. Gentleman after having seen the Order Paper for the Report stage, but I should prefer the Council to have freedom to submit an independent report to Parliament, particularly if it finds itself in disagreement with the Minister. I should prefer that even if the Minister still carries out his intention to submit a report on the progress made.
    I have a feeling that after a year or 18 months there will be two attitudes and
    58
    two reports to be made. One report will be about the rate of progress that we have been able to make, and the other will be about the rate of progress that could have been made had all the resources been available. If that situation arises, Parliament ought to be advised of it at least annually by an independent report from the Council showing what could have been accomplished if the resources had been available.
    I know that industry is doing, and has done, a good deal, but if we are to maintain interest in the project, and it certainly is very desirable that we should in several parts of the country, we must be assured by someone that all the scientific resources available and all the necessary finance are being provided in order to make the progress as rapid as possible.
    I should have thought that this would have been desirable even in the interests of the Government. It relates to our ability to measure the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman in submitting his first report to Parliament at the end of a year if he retains his present post. There is, of course, no certainty that his will be the signature to the first report. Nevertheless, if the Council were able independently to say at the time the Minister's report was issued that the progress made in the operation of the Measure was as much as could be expected having regard to the resources available, I believe that would satisfy the people.
    4.45 p.m.
    I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have given us some idea of the kind of person he would be inviting to join the Council. Does he propose to man it mainly from the industrial side? To what extent does he propose to appoint persons who are particularly interested in scientific and industrial research? Does he intend to provide representation for the associations of local authorities? I should have thought that Members of Parliament, judging by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), are able to make themselves sufficiently vocal on this and other matters without having a seat on the Council; but local authorities should certainly be represented.
    The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that he wanted to obtain the enthusiasm of everybody to operate the Measure. One way to maintain and

    59
    improve the enthusiasm might be to have representation of the national associations of local authorities so that there might be a channel between local authorities and the Minister through the Council. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has to consider the matter again, and I am not asking for specific organisations to be mentioned, but I should have thought that he could have told us how many people there are to be on the Council and from what part of the community they are to be drawn so that we might judge how effective the Council will be.
    I regard as of great importance the ability of the Council to submit an independent report to Parliament annually, or more frequently if it finds itself in disagreement with the Minister about the rate of progress, for it is extremely important that Parliament should know about it. I am sorry to have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that if I have to choose between an independent report by the Council and his chairmanship of the Council, I much prefer the independent report.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: There has been a tremendous change in the Minister's attitude since the Bill was first brought to the House. When we embarked upon the Committee stage we were begging for bread and he gave us a stone. Now, seemingly, when we are coming to the end of the feast he is putting many sweets in front of us. The Minister hopes that we shall accept this proposal without too critical an examination. While welcoming the Minister's proposals about the Clean Air Council up to a point, there should be no interference with the Council's accountability to Parliament because the chairman of the Council will be the Minister.
    When the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) introduced a Private Member's Bill, the Minister consulted at great length with interested bodies, and particularly with local authorities. It is within my knowledge that during those consultations suggestions were made to him by people who had practical experience. Those suggestions have not been accepted and woven into the Bill. I do not want the Clean Air Council to become a kind of smokescreen behind which the Minister makes a report
    60
    to his own liking and which may contain views at variance with those of members of the Council.
    It is essential, if the Council is to be effective, that it include people who are interested and who have the knowledge and have undertaken the scientific research involved. It must be remembered that they will have a great deal more knowledge of the subject than will the chairman of the Council. They will, therefore, have a totally different point of view about what is happening in the country than will the Minister. We should provide that we have the uncompromising opinions of the members of the Council, including those members appointed to it because of their knowledge of the problems of various localities.
    Another point with which I want to deal was touched upon by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. During the Committee stage we debated at great length the topic of research into noxious fumes, especially sulphuric oxides. We especially pleaded that the Clean Air Council should have co-ordinating powers so that it could co-ordinate the activities of bodies conducting research into problems of oxides and noxious fumes. Indeed, we thought that the Minister's opinion upon that subject was the same as ours. As the Bill is now drafted, certain powers are given to local authorities to contribute towards the cost of investigation and research into the pollution of the air.
    We know that scientific and technical institutes and the fuel technology sections of some universities are conducting research into the problem of sulphuric pollution; yet we do not see any power given to the Clean Air Council to deal with the problem of sulphuric oxides, even though sulphuric pollution is one of the worst forms of air pollution. Will the Minister give us an assurance that he will specially direct the attention of the Clean Air Council to its duties in co-ordinating research into the problem of sulphuric oxides? Will he at the same time look again at the problem of Parliamentary accountability to make it possible for the Council to give an annual report to the House, irrespective of the opinions of the Minister?
    Mr. Ede: I accept the constitutional doctrine that was laid down by the Minister in moving the new Clause. Advisory bodies are very

    61
    awkward for Ministers, because Ministers are not bound to accept their advice. They become even more awkward when Ministers are by Statute chairmen of advisory councils. For instance, the Home Secretary is chairman of the Police Council where he hears a multitude of views, but woe betide him if he makes himself responsible for taking only one of those views when a police matter might come before the House.
    The Minister is bound by Statute to present an annual report to the House. He might undertake that there would always be a chapter in the report dealing with this problem. In that way he might meet us. As he pointed out, it is necessary to have not merely the views of the Clean Air Council before the House, but also an account of everything which has been happening in the country. It certainly would not be a report worthy of the Ministry if it did not include any recommendations made by the Council with an account of the attitude of the Minister towards them in his capacity, not as chairman of the Advisory Council, but as the Minister.
    I should have preferred some arrangement like that. If in another place the right hon. Gentleman can have a few words inserted in the Clause making it his duty to include in his annual report an account of progress made in this matter, everybody will be satisfied. I am not much fortified by talk that this matter might be dealt with on a Supply Day. There are twenty-eight Supply Days, and the battle to get a place for any subject is pretty grim. Far more people are disappointed than are gratified at the end of the battle. If clean air were debated on a Supply Day one year and it were suggested that it should be debated on a Supply Day the next year, plenty of people would say, "You had your turn last year, it is my turn this year to debate clean ice cream"—or some other matter which they regarded as important. If the right hon. Gentleman could indicate that the matter will certainly be reported upon every year in the annual report of his Ministry, that would go a long way towards ensuring that there will be some publicity for what has been undertaken. That would be a safer undertaking for a Minister to give when one considers the transitory nature of Ministers. One need only look at the
    62
    back of this Bill to see how it exemplifies the line in the hymn:
    "Change and decay in all around I see."
    Of the four Ministers whose names appear on the back of the Bill, one has left the Government; one has been promoted from this Department to another, and the hon. Gentleman who gave us such great hopes that he would be helpful during the Committee stage of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill was early promoted from that job into this.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The right hon. Gentleman is getting rather far from the new Clause.
    Mr. Ede: I was just pointing out how difficult it is to accept a Ministerial answer unless one bears in mind that these gentlemen are here today and gone tomorrow—and the sooner this lot are gone the better for all of us.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: On this matter of the composition of the Clean Air Council, it would be of help if we could have an indication from the Minister of his ideas on the subject; and that he will keep in mind the desirability of having as members people with practical experience of this work, such as sanitary inspectors and others fully qualified to do the work.
    Mr. Sandys: If I may have the permission of the House to do so, perhaps it would be a good thing were I now to reply to the points raised during this debate. First, I would say a word about the composition of the Clean Air Council. I will be frank and say that I have not yet thought out exactly what is the best composition for this Council. But it is clear that to be effective the Council must be really representative of those who have a technical contribution to make on this subject, and, also, those who have experience and responsibility for the execution of the clean air policy.
    In other words, we must have people who can give good technical advice, and we must also have people who have experience and are familiar with the problems of local authorities. That gives a broad indication of the wide scope which I have in mind for the composition of the Council. On the other hand, one must see that it does not get so large that it

    63
    becomes unwieldy. It is a matter of balancing those two considerations.
    One hon. Member asked whether it was the intention of the Government to entrust the responsibility for all aspects of the clear air problem entirely to one Minister. We have considered the position and we agree with the recommendation of the Beaver Report in paragraph 119, where the Committee state:
    "We are not suggesting any change in present departmental organisation or responsibilities."
    It is easy to make out a case for concentrating in one Department the entire responsibility for all aspects of a particular problem, but in so doing one finds that one has divided the responsibility for some other problem. In any large field of public policy it is quite inevitable that there should be more than one Government Department with a share in the responsibility. I consider that an inescapable situation.
    However, that does not mean that the work in these various fields cannot be effectively and efficiently co-ordinated. It does not mean that the clean air policy cannot be pursued as Government policy, which is certainly the intention of the Government. I will say a word in a moment about the annual report which, of course, bears on this point.
    The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) said that had he the choice between the Minister being a member or the chairman of the Council, and having an independent report, he would prefer an independent report. The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winter-bottom) said that he would prefer to see a Council independent of the Government. It depends entirely on the purpose of the Council. If its purpose is to be a sort of watchdog to see whether the Government are doing their job, it would be better to have an independent body. If it is intended that the Council should report independently to Parliament, as one hon. Member said, be accountable to Parliament, that is quite a different conception from the one which I believe the Beaver Committee had in mind; and, certainly, it is different from what I have in mind, and what is envisaged in the new Clause.
    I feel that there are better ways of watching the progress and efficiency of
    64
    the Government than to ask that the Government set up a committee to watch themselves which, in effect, would be the case in those circumstances. If we have a body whose job is to keep a watch on the Government and report to Parliament about how they are getting on, I do not think that the best way to create the close and co-operative relationship which I have in mind and to which I look forward when we have formed this Clean Air Council.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: The Council would have no mandate to keep a watch on the Government. We rely on the public to do that and they will give their answer at the next General Election. I do not see that in this Clause there is any mandate for the Council to watch the Government.
    Mr. Sandys: That was the point I was making. The hon. Member said he preferred an independent Council, reporting independently.
    Mr. Winterbottom: On this matter.
    Mr. Sandys: I feel that great advantage could be obtained from close consultation and frank discussion between the Government and those who have experience and knowledge of these problems. I have already indicated that I believe we shall benefit a great deal from the creation of this Council, and I am glad that, in general, the proposed constitution is agreeable to hon. Members. The detailed arrangements for setting up the Council will have to be made by Order and the House will have a further opportunity of commenting on what is proposed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) quoted as a parallel the new Bill being considered in another place and entitled the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Bill. I do not consider it to be much of a parallel, because the problem is entirely different. I think it appropriate that an advisory committee of technicians should sit independently of the Government and should make its technical report to the Government.
    It is quite a different matter when we are concerned with a problem which is not purely technical—and I do not consider that clean air is primarily a technical problem, although it has important technical aspects. It is very largely a

    65
    problem of administration and of carrying with us the entire country in enthusiastic support of this policy, as has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    If the purpose of the Clean Air Council were to report exclusively upon research, like the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, I would agree with my hon. Friend that it would be more appropriate for it to consist of scientists, who would make their scientific report, which could be presented to Parliament by the Minister. But this is a council which has to deal with a different kind of problem and, therefore, I believe that its constitution requires to be more in the nature of the one proposed in the Amendment.
    Dr. Summerskill: This is a very important matter. As the Minister has said, he has been questioned about it by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Can he state which representatives of this Council would not have technical knowledge? In my opinion, this would be a highly technical council. During the Bill's seven weeks in Committee upstairs we have observed how technical this matter is, and how my hon. Friends, who have investigated all the different techniques connected with the problem, have made important contributions to our debates. When we discuss a later Amendment the Minister will see how the technicians have gone wrong because they have not had the best advice. I should think that this Council would be highly technical and, indeed, parallel to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
    Mr. Sandys: It all depends upon what is meant by "technical." As has been suggested by one hon. Member, I should think that it would be useful to have, as members, representatives of local authority associations. Those representatives would not necessarily be sanitary inspectors or technical men; they might be secretaries or other leading members of the associations, who would gather together both technical and administrative experience. In addition to that, I should expect that other members would be pure technicians. It all depends what one means by "technical". I should not have thought that this Council would be technical in the sense in which the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
    66
    is technical. I imagine that that Department would be largely composed of scientists, although I have not studied that question.
    Mr. Nabarro: I do not want to argue whether or not the form of the annual report of this Council would be exactly similar to the one from which I quoted, which I claim to be an analogous case, but will my right hon. Friend tell the House in what form we can have some sort of report, once a year, of what the Council is up to? That is what concerns us all.
    Mr. Sandys: If my hon. Friend had not interrupted me, I should probably already have given him the information for which he is asking. I am coming to the question of the annual report, because I believe that to be the crux of the matter. The House is quite right to insist upon being given a progress report at regular intervals, so that it can form its own opinion of the progress which is being made, and can decide whether any action or criticism is necessary, or any changes in the law are required.
    My sincere belief is that the purpose which hon. Members have in mind would be better served by a report from Ministers accountable to the House than from a body which is not directly accountable to the House, and in respect of which a Minister can say, "That is their view; it is not mine," thereby leaving the House in a difficult situation, because it has nothing upon which it can get a grip. In some ways, it is rather like dealing with nationalised industries. We have all had difficulties at certain times about the form of the annual reports of such industries.
    I have said quite clearly, in reply to the right hon. Lady—and this was not an interjection, off the cuff—that it has always been my intention that an annual report should be presented to Parliament upon the progress of this policy. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it might form a section—it would be an important section—of the annual report, covering various fields for which I am responsible, which, in any case, I have a statutory obligation to make to Parliament. On the other hand, at any rate in the earlier years, it might be thought more suitable to present it in the form of a White Paper, which could deal separately with the matter I. should be

    67
    glad if the exact form in which the report is made could be left open, and if the House would accept my assurance that it is my firm intention that there should be an annual report.
    If importance is attached to the fact that Ministers come and go—although I think that assurances given by one Minister, especially upon non-controversial issues of this kind, are honoured and implemented by their successors—I will consider whether an Amendment can be introduced in another place to make it clear that, in one form or another, an annual report should be made to Parliament by the Government.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(REQUIREMENT THAT FURNACE OPERATORS SHALL HOLD PROFICIENCY CERTIFICATES.)
    No furnace which is designed to burn fuel at a rate of five tons a week or more shall be operated after the appointed day except by a person who holds a certificate of proficiency of a kind approved by the Minister for the purpose of this section and any person who operates a furnace or causes a furnace to be operated in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence.—[Mr. Nabarro.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    It is significant that in all the provisions which we have considered in the earlier stages of the Bill, none goes as far in fuel conservation and clean air matters as those which are extant in the United States of America. I can give the House a glaring example by reminding it what we decided to do in Clause 3 (2), which says:
    "Any furnace installed in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the local authority shall be deemed to comply with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section."
    In the United States of America they are much tougher about it than that. In New York, Pittsburg or St. Louis, every undertaking which wishes to install a boiler has to obtain the permission of the city authority, and then get the specification and plans approved. The plant is then installed and is subsequently inspected by the city authority. To add
    68
    insult to injury, in the United States the firm which desires to install plant has to pay the full costs of the examination and all other processes associated with its installation. No part of the cost is paid by the city authorities.
    Similarly, in all the principal industrial cities and States in the United States it is required that boiler men shall hold certificates showing that they have achieved minimum standards of proficiency. This matter was referred to in the productivity report of the Anglo-American Council on Productivity. On page 75 of its Report on fuel conservation it says:
    "In America a number of States and cities have enacted legislation requiring every class of steam and power plant operator to possess the necessary qualifications for the job. A certificate of competence is obtained by examination. This is subject to renewal annually, and the continued competence of the man is thus assured. Not only so: the individual is encouraged to study and attain progressively higher standards. A man starting with a boiler operator's licence may ultimately step up to a chief engineer."
    Similar provisions are contained in the legislation of most of the Canadian and Australian States, and the Germans are also considering similar legislation. I ask hon. Members to consider whether Britain has fuel and power resources even equal to, let alone better than, those of the United States and Canada. In fact, our fuel and power economy today is facing a most difficult situation.
    The new Clause is concerned primarly with coal. The earlier stages of the Bill, and our deliberations on them, revolved for the most part around fuel conservation considerations and methods of saving coal by greater burning efficiency. I have said on a good many occasions—and I have been supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides—that efficiency in the burning of coal connotes smokelessness, and the visual evidence of inefficient combustion of coal and solid fuel must be the ignition of dark and black smoke.
    To cut short discussion on this Motion, perhaps I might be permitted to quote a passage from the Second Reading debate of the Private Member's Clean Air Bill on 4th February, 1955, for in a few short words it summarises the position:
    "The poorest grade of coal may be burned in an industrial boilerhouse without the emission of dark smoke, providing that the boiler-house is equipped with a chain grate or other

    69
    form of mechanical stoker, notably an underfeed mechanical stoker, providing that there is proper thermostatic control in the boilerhouse, providing that there is a correct draught to the boiler, of a primary and secondary character, and providing that the boilerman or fireman is himself fully trained. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1955; Vol. 536, c. 1432.]
    I am not being in any way derogatory about standards of boilerhouse practice when I say that the standards of training of British boilerhouse operatives are notoriously low. They date from the time when coal was abundant and cheap and it did not matter very much if coal was wasted. In fact, in pre-war days there was no real economic need at all to save coal. Any measures on a national scale to save coal were generally opposed by the National Union of Mineworkers, for there were a large number of coal miners out of work at the time.
    Today, however, we are in exactly the opposite situation. Coal production over four years did not increase; coal products last year actually fell by a substantial margin—by about 4 million tons compared with the three preceding years. We were obliged to import about 11,500,000 tons of coal which cost £80 million and caused a severe drain on our resources of foreign exchange, and a great part of that coal had to be hauled all the way across the North Atlantic. There can be no dispute that if our standards of boilerhouse practice and the firing of boilers, mechanically or otherwise, were raised within a measurable space of time, if a concerted effort were made in all parts of industry to train boilermen thoroughly and up to fairly high standards, a large amount of coal could be saved.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power may reply to the debate. I should like to remind him of the words printed in a document issued by his Ministry on 9th January, 1952. I will give him plenty of time to send for the document so that he can check the words. It had the reference E.F.A. (52) 5, and it contained these significant words:
    "In reviewing the educational ladder erected a few years ago for the training of stokers"—
    a ladder erected by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) during his tenure of office as Minister of Fuel and Power—
    70
    "the Education Committee find that less than 1 per cent. of the stokers employed in the country have taken advantage of the training facilities. If the remaining 99 per cent. are given a basic training they believe at least 1 million tons of fuel could be save each year by efficient stoking.
    The Committee therefore proposes special training methods for stokers and, in order that such training may be fully embraced and become effective, recommends that a system of licensing be introduced through the country, whereby, on and after 1st January. 1955, or other appropriate date, boilers of a capacity of ten therms per hour (or say 2 cwt. per hour) and over shall be attended only by qualified licensed stokers."
    I repeat the last few words:
    "… shall be attended only by qualified licensed stokers."
    That was a recommendation of the Education Committee of the Ministry of Fuel and Power as long ago as 1952. It is a practice widely accepted in the United States of America, Canada, Australia and elsewhere—all countries which are very much better off in regard to indigenous supplies of fuel and power than we are in Britain.
    It is therefore, my purpose to give some statutory effect to this recommendation made four years ago by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and in doing so I should mention that the Ministry's recommendation of "ten therms or say two cwt. per hour" I have converted by assuming fifty hours of work per week for the average industrial boiler, assuming it is well damped down or extinguished overnight, and that fifty hours multiplied by two cwts. would give approximately five tons per week, which is the figure which I have included in the new Clause.
    There must be overwhelming justification for a provision of the kind I recommend in the Clause if we have regard to what is being done by the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service. In its first full year—and I direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the annual report on the first year's activities—the Service said that it had succeeded in securing the training up to City and Guilds examination standard of approximately 675 industrial firemen for boiler operator's certificates. I put those 675 men against the total number of firemen engaged in every branch of industry. As far as we are able to estimate, including the nationalised industries, there are 75,000 to 80,000 industrial firemen. Last

    71
    year 675 of them reached the standard of the boiler operator's certificate.
    I would not say for one moment that the whole of the remainder of these firemen are untrained, but a very large number are. A very large number have no skill or training whatever. They are the men employed on hand-fired boilers of which, sad to relate, there are still about 40,000 left in this country. Usually strong men—labourers or navvies—and I am not seeking to be derogatory—are chosen for this work. They are given a shovel and told, "There is a pile of coke or coal; there is the boiler; put that coal or coke into that boiler." These men have no skill at all. There is no mechanical control. There are no thermostats or other instruments fitted to the boilers, and the result is a prodigious waste of coal.
    It was on that that the Education Committee of the Ministry of Fuel and Power was centreing its criticism when it made the statement in 1952 which I have quoted. The National Union of Mineworkers has been among the pioneers in this respect. As long ago as 1904 the Union required that no man should be employed in a colliery boilerhouse unless he held a certificate with a minimum standard of proficiency; yet it is extraordinary that when a trade union affiliated to the Trades Union Congress, namely, the Engineers and Surveyors Association, raised this at the T.U.C. at Margate in 1952 and asked for that National Union of Mineworkers' principle to be made universal in British industry, it was defeated by Congress.
    In the following year when the same trade union, the Engineers and Surveyors Association, raised the same matter and put it on the agenda of the T.U.C., it was persuaded by the executive of the T.U.C. to withdraw the motion on an assurance that the T.U.C.'s Economic Committee would give close consideration to the matter with a view to improving standards of technique and training for industry's boilermen.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Tom Brown: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I want to correct him on one point. He has referred to the National Union of Mineworkers in 1904. There was no
    72
    such organisation. It was the Miners' Federation of Great Britain.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose knowledge of mineworkers' union matters is infinitely superior to my own.
    The appropriate trade union representing the miners has for 52 years past recognised the principle which I am expounding today, and it does seem a trifle incongruous that, although the mineworkers recognise that, they are not prepared to have that principle applied throughout industry generally. The National Coal Board has supplied me with some detailed figures in this regard, and it is significant that in 1951 about 11½ million tons of coal was burned in colliery boilerhouses. By 1956, that had been reduced by 3½ million tons—from 11½ million to 8 million tons—partly by putting in mechanical stokers to hand-fired boilers, partly by improved standards of technique and the training of industrial boilermen, and by other factors.
    It is inescapable that a policy of clean air demands not only satisfactory and efficient equipment in the boilerhouse, but also that the boilerman himself shall be fully trained and absolutely proficient in the equipment he is operating. I have mentioned nothing about safety standards, but there are, of course, explosions in boilerhouses. There is a loss of life, and we would be well advised to have some regard to the fact that the men operating plant of this kind, given minimum standards of proficiency, might be able thereby to raise the safety standards in an important part of every factory.
    May I conclude on this note? Opposition from the Trade Union Congress to a proposal of this kind has generally been to the effect that if it became a statutory requirement, it might so narrow the entry to a profession or craft as to cause either financial hardship or a measure of unemployment. I cannot accept either of these allegations. I do not believe them to be true. Anybody who knows anything about the burning of industrial coal will recognise that one could afford to pay a fully proficient industrial boiler-man 50 per cent. higher wages as a bonus to save coal and still make a huge profit out of what he saves. Firms which have given their stokers a big bonus for saving coal have reaped a rich reward from it.

    73
    The second point in regard to narrowing the entry to this particular calling or profession—the point about unemployment—I would meet by saying that this new Clause gives as a basis an appointed day some years hence. Of course, a measure of this kind would not be brought into being overnight. It must require four or five years to make the necessary training arrangements for the whole country. Of course, there would be some men who could not qualify, and I recognise that there would be some hardship in some directions, but a very large number of the men would qualify, given the incentive and given the training. I believe that we cannot make a policy of clean air for the next few years fully effective unless we tackle the proficiency standards of the men who are most generally concerned, who are these boilermen and firemen in general industry responsible for the plant in the boilerhouses.
    Sir Albert Braithwaite: I beg to second the Motion.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. David Renton): I am sure that the House will agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said. The House will agree with him that in this country we have lower standards than we should have, that it is necessary that boilermen and stokers should be efficient, that those who are not proficient should be trained or instructed, and that those who take the trouble to undergo training courses should have a certificate of proficiency. With all that none of us will disagree.
    My hon. Friend, in support of his case, mentioned experience in the United States, Canada and Australia with regard to giving and, indeed, insisting upon certificates of proficiency. I must remind him that it is rather dangerous to generalise on that matter, especially as far as the United States is concerned, because I am advised that most of the certificates there are given to ensure proficiency in regard to safety rather than in regard to fuel economy or clean air. In this country, I can assure the House, the safety aspect of the matter is well cared for under the Factories Act, the Ministry of Labour inspectors and a well-established system.
    74
    In this country, we also have a very much fuller system of voluntary training and certification already in operation than my hon. Friend referred to.
    For example, my hon. Friend mentioned that in the annual report of the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service it is stated that 675 industrial firms were trained to boiler operators' certificate standard. But the complete story is a more impressive one. Instead of only 1 per cent. of the men now working having been trained, it is probable that the figure comes very much closer to 10 per cent. today. It may have been only 1 per cent. in 1952, the year for which my hon. Friend gave figures, but the position is that, since the war, very nearly 10,000 men have undergone training of one kind or another, elementary or advanced, practical or academic, specialised or general. In particular, under the course for the boiler operators' certificate, which was first introduced in 1953, by arrangement with the City and Guilds Institute the results have been as follows. In 1953, 144 men took the course and 115 passed it; in 1954, 756 men took the course and 590 passed it; in 1955, 666 took the course and 794 passed it; and in this year, it is expected that double the number of men will enter for the course as compared with last year.
    Dr. Stross: May we have the last figures again, please, relating to the numbers who entered and passed in 1955?
    Mr. Renton: In 1955, 966 men entered and 794 passed. I am sorry.
    With regard to that fairly simple kind of course, which is essentially a practical one and one which can be taken by the men without too much effort, there is a steady increase to show. I do not propose to burden the House with all the detailed figures for the intermediate and final grades of the boilerhouse practice certificates which are organised by the City and Guilds Institute, but the balance of the figure of nearly 10,000 men trained since the war is made up by those who entered for the City and Guilds Training courses, and they too are increasing all the time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster wants to go much further than this practice, while developing the

    75
    strength of voluntary training and certification. He wants certification made compulsory, and he wants to punish everybody who operates a furnace burning more than five tons a week, or who causes such a furnace to be operated, unless the operator of the furnace has a certificate of proficiency. Moreover, he wants most of the 75,000 to 80,000 boilermen to be trained before the appointed day. I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend meant by the "appointed day" in this case, and whether he suggested that a specially-appointed day should be arranged for the bringing into operation of the proposed new Clause.
    Mr. Nabarro: Yes.
    Mr. Renton: That is my hon. Friend's intention. I see. I should point out that even if it were desirable under statutory procedure to introduce a compulsory licensing system of that sort it is fortunately not necessary to do so in order to carry out the purpose of the Bill. Clause 1 will make it illegal to produce dark smoke. If the stoker or boilerman is inefficient, dark smoke may be produced, and then the occupier of the building will be punished. Therefore the occupier will have to make sure that his stokers are efficient. The view of the Government is that the further sanction of compulsory certification is not needed.
    For those reasons I am unable to accept my hon. Friend's Clause, but I assure him that the importance of proficiency among stokers is not overlooked and that the Ministry of Fuel and Power is in consultation with N.I.F.E.S. continually about the matter. There has been great co-operation on the part of industrialists and trade unions to get more men to undergo training. We are confident that, in view of the sanctions contained in the Bill, it is unnecessary to insert a further compulsory element.
    Question put and negatived.

    New Clause.—(INDUSTRIAL REFUSE.)
    The owner of land shall employ the best practicable means for preventing combustion of refuse, other than refuse to which section sixteen of this Act applies, deposited on his land an for preventing or minimising the emission of smoke and fumes from the refuse and if he fails so to do, he shall be guilty of an offence.—[Mr. D. Jones.]
    Brought up and read the First time.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. D. Jones: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    We discussed this matter in Committee, but the Association of Municipal Corporations is not entirely satisfied. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 16 deal with what I might call "live" dumps, in the sense that the heaps are still being produced from refuse taken from a mine or quarry still in operation. Subsection (3) removes from the operation of those subsections spoil heaps which are no longer in use for the depositing of refuse from mines and quarries; but there are other heaps of industrial spoil from which there is a danger of combustion and the emission of smoke and fumes, apart from those formed as a result of the exploitation of coal or shale.
    The Association of Municipal Corporations feels that the position at the present moment is not as clear as it might be about where the responsibility rests for the prevention of smoke and fumes from refuse dumps. It might be difficult to fix responsibility upon the party responsible for the deposits where the dumps have been used by more than one industrial process, but it is fairly clear that no industrial refuse is deposited without the acquiescence of the owner of the land. Therefore responsibility for the prevention of smoke and fumes from this rubbish ought to be placed fairly and squarely on the owner of the land. I have no doubt that the landowner was adequately compensated in the past for the use of his land for the depositing of industrial refuse. Having received his compensation, he must accept the consequences of the user of the land for that purpose.
    The purpose of the Clause is to remove any possible ground of doubt and to place on the owner of the land this obligation to use the best practicable means. An argument may arise about the best practicable means, but I can at least plead that the words are used in other parts of the Bill with the approval of the Minister. If it is right to use them in other parts of the Bill, I see no reason why I should not use them in the proposed new Clause. We feel it is right that responsibility to comply with the provisions of the Bill should be placed on the owner of the land.
    Mr. T. Brown: I beg to second the Motion.
    This Clause will strengthen the Bill, because there is a danger that some people will escape their responsibilities if the Bill remains as it is. The question of spoil heaps has been a burning question for nearly a century, particularly with those who happen to live in districts where spoil heaps are on fire. I have always maintained that spoil heaps in these days are a disgrace and are unnecessary. The stuff that is now deposited upon the surface ought to be packed or stored underground, but we have not reached that stage yet and we must therefore deal with the problem as we see it.
    My purpose in supporting the Clause is partly because of the tremendous effect spoil heaps have on the men who work underground. It may not be within the knowledge even of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and certainly not of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and some hon. Members opposite, that men have had to cease work underground because of pollution from smoking spoil heaps. That may surprise some hon. Members. I remember an instance when we could not work underground in a downcast shaft adjacent to a spoil heap. When the wind was serving from the east we had to cease work because of the polluted condition of the air sent down the shaft. That is a very serious state of affairs which ought to be prevented.
    Most of these spoil heaps emit large volumes of smoke, not for an hour or two hours a day, but for 24 hours a day, seven days a week and twelve months in the year. They sometimes look like Mount Vesuvius in eruption. They are pouring forth these highly obnoxious fumes.
    The Minister or the Department should take a very serious view of the situation now prevailing in the mining areas. There are three urban authorities in my district which are suffering tremendously from the effect of smoke pollution from this source. In one area five such spoil heaps are emitting smoke and sulphuric acid which is poisonous to the people living in the neighbourhood. The Clause will not impose any great hardship but will at least give the local authorities in whose
    78
    areas these spoil heaps are situated some authority to deal with the position.
    Many years ago I was a member of a health committee. We did our best to limit the laying down of these heaps. We were told that the new system of laying them down would mean that they would not burn. We were told by the experts that if the heaps were made in the form of a pyramid they would not be subject to spontaneous combustion. But what did we find? We found, much to our surprise—and much to the astonishment of the experts—that they did get on fire. There is conclusive evidence in the district from which I come that heaps have been burning since 1919. They are still on fire, and still the health committee of the local authority has no power to help to prevent that kind of thing taking place.
    It may surprise the House to be told that one local authority area in my constituency has three and a half acres per head of the population under pit heaps or water. The Parliamentary Secretary is frowning, but it is nevertheless true; three and a half acres per head of the population in that local authority is at the present moment under either pit heaps or water. It is quite true. We went to the trouble to find out. Who was responsible for it? It is true to say that what we understand today as private industry in the coal industry was responsible to a large degree. Private enterprise failed to do its duty. There was no penalty inflicted upon offenders, and time and time again they asked, "What must we do with the refuse which comes from the pit?" We have found the answer in some quarters and could find it in many other quarters if we applied our minds to the task with the seriousness which we attach to this Bill.
    This Clause seeks to give local authorities some power to deal with the matter. I therefore make a strong plea to the Minister or to the Department to accept it. It would strengthen the Bill, and would give some hope in the mining areas where pit heaps are now burning away and have been burning, to my knowledge, for nearly half a century. But the salient point is this. Men who work underground are breathing air that is already polluted without any additional pollution from the surface. When men have to work in temperatures of 80 to 110 degrees, the one essential thing is that the air they breathe should be as pure as

    79
    possible. In this case the situation is aggravated by these spoil heaps.
    I beg of the Minister to accept the Clause. It will not entail any additional hardship in the application of the Bill, but will at least give some hope to those people who unfortunately live on top of the pits that they will be covered by the Bill, give them hope that at long last a genuine attempt is going to be made to get rid of burning pit heaps.
    Mr. Powell: The importance, and the difficulty, of dealing with nuisances from abandoned pit heaps and from other industrial heaps is not in dispute, but the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) is under a misapprehension in thinking that the terms of his Clause would add anything to the powers which are already available to local authorities. Taking Clause 16 in combination with the relevant parts of the Public Health Act, 1936, the position will be that in regard to spoil heaps which are still accumulating, the colliery spoil heaps which are abandoned in future, the responsibility, under Clause 16, will lie upon the owner of the mine or quarry.
    In the case of colliery spoil heaps which have already been abandoned, which are no longer being added to at the time of the passing of the Act, and of all other industrial refuse deposits, the local authority has power to proceed for nuisance under the 1936 Act, subject, of course, to the same qualification as to the best practicable means as the hon. Member has quite rightly found it necessary to write into his own Clause. Indeed, they have wider powers under the 1936 Act than this new Clause would give, for under the 1936 Act they can proceed not only against the owner of the land but also against the occupier—who may be the person who has the actual control of the land—and also against any other person who is responsible for the deposit.
    The effect of this new Clause, therefore, would be rather to narrow than to widen the scope of the powers available to local authorities at present. It is, of course, as the hon. Member well recognises, upon the practicability of the measures for dealing with these—in many cases—old deposits, that enforcement founders. That is a real problem, and one with which one hopes that future techniques will enable us to cope, but I
    80
    must advise the House that no extra powers—indeed, rather less powers—than at present would be given to local authorities by the addition of this Clause to the Bill.
    Mr. T. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the Public Health Act, 1936. I appreciate, and I agree at once, that there are very wide powers contained in that Act. Nevertheless, it is true that no action has been taken under that Act to enable local authorities to eliminate present nuisances or to prevent the creation of new ones. I should like to ask him what number of local authorities have taken action under the 1936 Act to prevent this taking place.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: The question before the House is whether local authorities would be in any better position as a result of this new Clause being added to the Bill, and the point is that it would add nothing to their powers. If those powers are inadequate at the moment, they would remain inadequate in exactly the same degree, or, indeed, in a greater degree, with the substitution of this new Clause, and I must advise the House that it would be ineffective to make this addition to the Bill.
    Question put and negatived.

    New Clause.—(SAVING FOR SMOKE, GRIT AND DUST EMITTED DURING INVESTIGATIONS AND RESEARCH.)
    Where notice is given to a local authority by any person of his intention to carry out investigations and research on a specified plant or process operated by him for the purpose of improving the plant or process so as to reduce the emission of smoke, grit or dust therefrom, the local authority shall not take proceedings for any offence under this Act arising solely from the investigations and research without the consent of the Minister:
    Provided that any notice so given shall be limited in the first instance to a period of two months as specified in the notice, and that subsequent notices shall refer to similar periods or such longer periods as may be agreed by the local authority.—[Mr. Fort.]
    Brought up and read the First time.
    Mr. Richard Fort: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I have put down this Clause because I think that many hon. Members know that I have been long associated with one of the leading companies in boiler control and with other departments of technology. The Clause will not come

    81
    amiss to local authorities which have the permissive power under Clause 21 of contributing towards the cost of investigation and research into the problem of air pollution. In the course of investigation and research into preventing smoke and the emission of grit and dust, it is likely that from time to time the apparatus being developed and the methods of research being investigated, as well as the instruments needed for controlling the equipment to see how it is working may result in the emission of smoke, grit or dust, and the Bill would render those who are undertaking this work liable to prosecution.
    The purpose of the Clause is to give grounds of defence should a prosecution be launched against a company or individual who may be undertaking this work which he would not have under the Bill at present. One of the difficulties in developing smoke abatement apparatus and other apparatus for tracking down grit, etc., is that there are relatively few fundamental scientific facts known about it, and in consequence work often has to be done on large-scale apparatus which is changed as results are brought in. Much of the equipment which has been developed so far is limited to rather set conditions, and one of the things which those who want to bring about smoke abatement will be aiming at is the development of equipment which is rather more flexible and adaptable than much of that on the market today.
    I believe that if my hon. Friend will accept the Clause or its intention he will be aiding the progress of developing suitable, flexible apparatus which will make it easier for smoke to be abated and for dust and grit to be stopped before it gets into the air.
    Mr. Nabarro: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. Powell: The new Clause has drawn attention to what is certainly a difficulty in the Bill as it stands. There is no provision in the Bill whereby smoke, grit or dust emitted by way of research or experiment is exempted from the provisions of the Bill. It is not a defence incorporated in the Bill and an offence would have been committed in those circumstances. That is not a desirable effect and therefore it would clearly be right that an amendment to the Bill should be made to meet the case put
    82
    by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort).
    I cannot advise the House to add the Clause as it stands to the Bill. For example, it is not sufficient, surely, that notice should be given to the local authority. There should be some tighter requirement of proving or establishing that research is in fact being proposed which necessitates the emission of smoke, grit or dust. Secondly, the Clause does not seem wide enough to cover pure research work in addition to experimental operations by a firm already operating a furnace. I would, therefore, suggest to the House that while this Clause should not be added to the Bill at this stage, it would be right that an appropriate Amendment to meet the requirements of research and experiment should be made to the Bill in another place, and that would be the intention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Fort: I thank my hon. Friend for this undertaking, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1.—(PROHIBITION OF DARK SMOKE FROM CHIMNEYS.)
    Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "occurred" to the end of line 11.
    When we were upstairs we had a long discussion about this matter. I think that it lasted between five and six hours and I am sure that it would be most improper of me to go over the ground again. We are, however, dealing in this part of Clause 1 with the three specific defences which came under our notice in Committee, namely, firing up from cold, failure of furnace or apparatus, and the specific one with which this Amendment is concerned, undue black smoke as a result of unsuitable fuel.
    The right hon. Gentleman told us that he would take all possible advice between the Committee stage and the present time to see whether there was a way out of the dilemma. The point of view that was expressed to him on both sides of the Committee—and it was put very strongly in the Second Reading debate—was that this specific defence which is made available in Clause 1 would mean that a horse and cart could be driven through the provisions of the Bill. The Minister was

    83
    very kind and wrote, I think to all of us who had expressed anxiety, and asked whether we could give him the names of experts with whom he could get in touch in order that he might ascertain their views. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has now armed himself with a great deal of information which was not available to him at the time when he gave his answer to us in Committee.
    One of the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman used was that although in paragraph 27 of the Beaver Report it is clearly stated that unsuitable fuel is rarely the cause of smoke, the word "rarely" does not mean always; in other words, the fact that it is only rarely the cause does not mean that he can get rid of Clause 1 (3, c), which deals with the defence of unsuitable fuels. The Minister said that in his opinion the advice which he had had to date was that where fuel was highly volatile and caking in type there was no known method by means of which one could guarantee that black smoke would not at some time or other be emitted from a stack.
    Mr. Sandys: Dark smoke.
    Dr. Stross: I beg pardon—dark smoke. Dark would be shade 2 on the Ringelmann chart, or worse. When I wrote to my own local authority about this specific point—the letter has probably been forwarded to the Minister—I was not given an absolute assurance that it could be guaranteed that in all circumstances dark smoke would not be emitted.
    On the other hand, I have a letter which was addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) from the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Durham King's College, which reads as follows:
    "I understand that the Clean Air Bill is coming up for Report stage on Tuesday and there is certainly one point upon which I am still rather concerned. If the defence in Section 1 (3, c) is to be retained in the Bill, and I imagine that it will be impossible to move the Minister from this, I feel very strongly that the offender who proposes to use this defence should be required, in the Act, to give notice of his intention to use this defence within 48 hours of receiving the notice from the local authority under Section 26."
    I quote that letter as an example of the fact that there is obviously concern about this matter.
    84
    6.15 p.m.
    This defence that unsuitable fuel has been used is going to lay us open to all sorts of difficulties, and I would mention just one of them. Suppose the Minister agrees that notice should be given in order that the sanitary inspector should be able to say, "Let me have a sample of the fuel, and if it is very highly volatile and tends to cake, that is that and we shall not bring a prosecution." But the evidence may have been burnt. There may be none left. Although I am not a suspicious person by nature, it may be rather tempting to someone who thinks he has committed an offence to say, "I have not got any evidence for you. I burnt it all. None of this fuel is available for you."
    It is for such reasons that we ask the Minister to give us all the information that he has been able to garner to see whether he can satisfy us that this defence, which we found so objectionable on Second Reading and against which we struck so hard in Committee, is really necessary. If we feel that it is not necessary, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it will be our bounden duty to divide the House. We are, therefore, putting upon him an obligation to use all the charm that he has evinced so remarkably both here and in Committee to see if he can over-persuade us.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In Committee, we had a long discussion about this defence Clause. I want to make it quite clear that we in the City of Sheffield oppose all the defence provisions in Clause 1. We are dealing with the defence of unsuitable fuel. In the City of Sheffield there are 275 solid fuel-fired furnaces. Some of those 275 are efficient. Each one of these furnaces has been installed since 1946, and in most cases, thanks to the interest shown by the industrialists in Sheffield, most of these furnaces are free of dark smoke.
    Good industrialists in the City of Sheffield are setting an example not only to Sheffield, but to the rest of the country. But what about those who have not taken the trouble to install that type of machinery which does not emit dark smoke? They can use precisely this excuse which we are now debating. In

    85
    other words, the good employer will be penalised by the inclusion of this paragraph, by giving to the bad industrialist a liberty which can become a licence.
    By the inclusion of this paragraph we are legislating for the person who is not doing his duty to the community, by having a furnace which emits dark smoke. This is the type of provision that he would use in a court of law relentlessly. Who can prove whether the fuel is suitable or not? It has probably been burned and gone up the chimney. Even the remarkable skill of a Sherlock Holmes could not discover whether that fuel was suitable or not. All that he has to do is to go into a court of law in the event of a prosecution under Clause 1 and say that the fuel was unsuitable.
    The Bill should not only deal with the problems that we have in respect of dark smoke at present, but should anticipate the problems that we shall meet in the immediate future. If we are to anticipate problems and encourage good industrialists to install the type of furnace which does not emit dark smoke, the Clause ought to be withdrawn, for it is behind the Clause that many of the bad industrialists will hide.
    Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I am glad to note the support of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). I would go a little further and say that in respect of furnaces and boilers of this type it is unnecessary that dark smoke should be emitted. I hope the hon. Member for Kidderminster will agree with that.
    Mr. Nabarro: I have said so.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I will quote the words of Professor Sarjant, of the fuel technology section of Sheffield University, who has been highly regarded by most organisations dealing with the problem of fuel conservation or the problem of the elimination of smoke. He says:
    "The smoke problem is due to two main causes: (i) the use of old-fashioned appliances and outmoded techniques, for which there may be no valid scientific reason, and (ii) the lack of application of existing knowledge, either from lack of interest or ignorance."
    The provision in paragraph (c) is the one behind which will shelter those who are not prepared to buy the latest scientific devices or are ignorant of them.
    86
    Sheffield has already had difficulty in sustaining prosecutions, especially in regard to furnaces outside the exempted metallurgical processes. There has always been difficulty under the "best practicable means" defence. If the defence in paragraph (c) goes through, it is envisaged that Sheffield's problems will be intensified, for this is a heaven-sent defence to those whom we have been trying to bring to book for a long while.
    If there are certain extenuating circumstances under the existing law of which a defendant can make use, that law, not being altered by the Bill, could also be used. We are not only allowing the defendant the ordinary defence in terms of extenuating circumstances, but are providing him with another clear-cut defence which cannot be contradicted by any prosecutor. The Clause will undermine the effect of the Bill in respect of hand-fired furnaces. It will provide a defence for the industrialist with no social conscience about air pollution. We know that it is not often that an industrialist will voluntarily install plant purely because he has a social conscience; more often it has to be plant which brings more profit to his concern. The Clause will help such people.
    I urge the Minister to withdraw this defence before the Bill goes to another place. I and Sheffield object to the three defence provisions but that in paragraph (c) is the most pernicious, for it will make local authorities impotent against transgressors.
    Mr. Nabarro: On Second Reading, I said:
    "I shall seek the total elimination of Clause I (3, c). That is the subsection which allows a defence on grounds of unsuitable fuel. There is no unsuitable industrial fuel, provided the boiler house is properly equipped and the boiler man fully trained, and it is for that reason that I say that the subsection should be eliminated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 1250.]
    Nothing has occurred during the last few months to change my views. In Committee, I moved an Amendment to give precisely the same effect as the Amendment now before the House. I would tell my right hon. Friend that had I not been struck down by influenza the day before the vote was taken I should have voted against the Government on this issue, for this is the worst feature

    87
    of the whole Bill. Once the unsuitable fuel defence in paragraph (c) is written into the Measure it will be nearly impossible successfully to prosecute the recalcitrant industrialist who is still largely responsible for black and dark smoke.
    When I returned to the Committee after my influenza I found that the Government had carried the day and included paragraph (c) in the Bill. However, the Minister was in one respect forthcoming and a little more generous than I had hitherto supposed he might be. He said he would take professional advice on the issue of whether there was no unsuitable industrial coal and that he would approach various bodies to sound opinion as to whether the views that I had expressed were correct or otherwise.
    Subsequently, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has said, the Minister wrote to hon. Members interested in the problem and suggested that we might tell him what professional bodies we had in mind. I want to tell the House what I replied to the Minister, and I think I shall carry the majority of hon. Members, irrespective of party politics, with me on this. I said, "Do not go to the local authorities or the local authority organisations because they are violently biased in favour of the exclusion of paragraph (c)." I also said, "Do not go to British industry, the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers or any other similar body, because they are violently biased in favour of the inclusion of paragraph (c), for it provides such a perfect defence in the event of prosecution."
    I said, further, to my right hon. Friend, "There is only one body in the country really qualified to advise you in a highly technical matter of this kind. That is the Institute of Fuel. It contains in its membership the foremost fuel technologists in the country. All are professionally qualified; none has a partisan interest in a matter of this kind." Subsequently, my right hon. Friend went to the Institute of Fuel which, under the President of the Institute, very rapidly—for only a short time was available—set up an ad hoc committee to advise the Minister.
    88
    6.30 p.m.
    I think the House will profit by the opinions expressed by the Institute of Fuel for they are not confidential and I have the honour to be the only Member of Parliament who is a member of the Institute and, therefore, have access to what the Institute told the Minister on this matter. The Institute told him, first:
    "When there is a marked change in the character of the fuel supplied for use it may not be possible to avoid the temporary emission of dark smoke and a suitable period will be needed for adjustment of combustion conditions."
    I aver, in connection with that statement, that it is not very usual for there to be a marked change in the character of the fuel supply; it is an exceptional circumstance.
    The second statement made by the Institute was:
    "When a new plant is being commissioned there are teething troubles which may again make dark smoke inevitable, and for this provision should be made in the Bill for time to make the necessary adjustments, which may be major, and in the case of large boilers may occupy up to six months or more."
    That, again, is a somewhat exceptional circumstance.
    The third statement was:
    "Since industry is continually endeavouring to improve plant and equipment, it should be recognised that smoke may be inevitable during any period of development of new designs, and this, again, should be taken into account in the Bill."
    Then the Institute went on to say:
    "The committee recognise that there are numbers of existing boilers and furnaces in which certain fuels cannot be burned smokelessly and they consider accordingly that Clause 1 (3, c) must be retained in the present Bill. It is their view that a smoke darker than Ringlemann 2 should not arise from modern plant and that there should, therefore, be a fixed and limited period only during which Clause 1 (3, c) should remain in force."
    Here we have a pretty kettle of fish. This professional and technical body is telling the Minister that he should continue with his "unsuitable fuel" defence in the Bill, but that he should put a time limit on the inclusion of that defence.
    I express an opinion on this important matter neither one way or the other until I have heard what the Minister says in reply. My personal inclination, as things stand at the moment, is to continue to press for the total exclusion of Clause 1 (3, c) from the Bill, but I should expect the Minister, were it carried, in

    89
    another place to make suitable provision for these caveats entered by the Institute of Fuel which, in my view, are irrefutable as defences, as further defences, or exceptions—if it may be expressed in that way—to the operation of Clause 1 (3, c) for only a limited period.
    I hope that this will not be regarded as a party political issue. I think the Minister has done his best in the matter. It is a highly technical and difficult question. Many hon. Members on this side of the House have said that there are 40,000 hand-fired boilers in the country and that we cannot avoid dark smoke being emitted from them. My reply to that is that surely one of the principal objectives of the Bill is to force people to put mechanical equipment on those ancient boilers and thereby burn coal efficiently and prevent the emission of dark and black smoke.
    If my right hon. Friend is to take the line, during the remaining stages of the Bill, that those people who own ancient equipment are irreproachable and must not be coerced or compelled into replacing that equipment, there is little salvation for this policy, because I think that what was said by the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) is absolutely correct. If Clause 1 (3, c) remains in the Bill in its present form it will undermine the whole edifice we have sought to erect, legislatively, by 18 months of painstaking effort in this House, from start to finish, following the publication of the Beaver Committee's Report, I should like my right hon. Friend to reply comprehensively with special reference to the admirable advice tendered to him by the Institute of Fuel.
    Mr. Sandys: I was under the impression that I was being criticised for the introduction of this particular defence in Clause 1 to which the debate refers, until the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) described it as "a heaven-sent defence." That seemed to make it all very respectable.
    The issue is an important, but very precise one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) quoted himself a little earlier, I might be allowed also to quote myself, when I gave a certain undertaking to the Standing Committee, I said:
    "Almost any type of hand-fired furnace would be likely to produce some dark smoke
    90
    when burning slack containing a lot of fine coal, but the difficulty is not confined to hand-fired furnaces. If it were confined to hand-fired furnaces, a possible remedy would be to introduce a mechanical stoker, in which case the owner of the furnace would be able to rely on Clause 2, which allows a period of grace for alterations or improvements to plant where they are necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 14th February, 1956; c. 73.]
    I should like to remind the House that the question of hand-fired furnaces is really not an issue on this Amendment. The hand-fired furnace, if it is inefficient and produces dark smoke, would have to be eliminated under the Bill, but a period of grace is given, not exceeding seven years, under Clause 2. That is not an issue which arises in regard to this Amendment. Here we are concerned only with the question of the use of unsuitable fuel.
    Mr. Moyle: During the period of grace allowed under Clause 2 in regard to inefficient hand-fired furnaces, who is to say whether the air pollution is due to the use of unsuitable fuel or to an inefficient hand-fired furnace?
    Mr. Sandys: I think it is very simple. The defence must be that it is solely due to the use of unsuitable fuel. Therefore, it would be quite clear that if the owner of that furnace wished to put forward a defence he would have to do so under Clause 2, which provides in certain circumstances a period of grace to allow a little time during which old-fashioned equipment can be scrapped and replaced by modern and efficient plant.
    Mr. Winterbottom: Even if, under Clause 2, new equipment is installed by an industrialist the "unsuitable fuel" defence would still remain part of the Bill. If by chance dark smoke were emitted, the industrialist could use the defence of unsuitable fuel, even though the fuel used was admirably suitable.
    Mr. Sandys: Of course, that defence remains in the Bill; that is what we are discussing. I went on to say:
    "I am, however, advised that certain types of mechanical stokers are liable to emit dark smoke, even if they are mechanical stokers, if highly caking volatile coals have to be used.
    I base my argument in support of paragraph (c) on that advice. If it is incorrect, I undertake to look at the paragraph again. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 14th February, 1956; c. 73.]

    91
    I added that I was not prepared to try to discuss the technical aspects in Committee.
    Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster has pointed out, I asked hon. Members to let me know of any technical authorities which they thought it would be useful for me to consult between Committee and Report stages. I was given the names of twelve different authorities by various hon. Members. In all cases I wrote to them and asked their advice on this point. I have received replies from most of them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, who, as we all know, has taken a specially keen interest in the whole subject, recommended, above all, that I should consult the Institute of Fuel. As he has frankly explained, the Institute of Fuel, having discussed the matter at some length, recommended quite clearly that the provisions of Clause 1 (3, c) must be retained in the Bill. The Institute added the qualification that after a period, which it suggested should be seven years, the defence of unsuitable fuel should be eliminated. Seven years, however, is quite a long time, and I doubt very much whether that would meet some views which have been expressed by hon. Members opposite. The views of the Institute of Fuel are representative of the other letters I have received, except that it is the only one which suggests a period of seven years. As far as I know, although there may possibly be others, no other body suggests that the defence should be a temporary one and limited to a certain period of years.
    I have not had a single letter in which the writer was able to give a simple, clear, unequivocal answer to the effect that it was possible to avoid making dark smoke if the furnace was of a modern type and properly operated even though it might be burning unsuitable fuel.
    Mr. Winterbottom: The Minister has had an invitation from Sheffield to see the operation of these things. Observation is probably a great deal better than correspondence.
    Mr. Sandys: What I undertook to do was to consult these various authorities, and I have done so with all fairness. While most of those I have consulted take the view that with proper care, good modern plant and good stoking, the
    92
    emission of dark smoke should be only very occasional, nobody is prepared to say that if the fuel is unsuitable, dark smoke can in all circumstances be avoided. Some, however, say that the period during which it would be emitted—that is, while the plant is being adjusted to the unsuitable fuel—might not necessarily be a long period. That is the result of my inquiries.
    6.45 p.m.
    I should like to quote an extract from a letter which I received from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), because it refers to the same city as that which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment represents. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South sent me a letter which he had received from his town clerk, whom he had consulted. The town clerk sent not his own opinion, but the opinion of the Chief Sanitary Inspector of the City of Stoke-on-Trent. This is the opening paragraph of the opinion given by the inspector:
    "It is obvious that it is impossible to avoid the emission of dark smoke when using unsuitable fuel even with a modern furnace properly maintained and operated in all circumstances."
    He then explains the circumstances in which it might be difficult to avoid the emission of dark smoke. I have a number of other letters but I do not want to weary the House by reading a lot of extracts. If, however, there are any authorities whose opinions hon. Members would like to know, I have the letters with me and can give them if desired.
    That is the position. In other words, no expert authority is prepared to say that in all circumstances it is possible to avoid the emission of dark smoke if unsuitable fuel is used, even though the plant is modern and is properly operated.
    One hon. Member said that the effect of this defence was to drive a horse and cart through the Bill and to make it impossible to secure convictions when prosecutions are made for this type of offence, but I ask the House to bear in mind exactly what this defence is. It is the tightest thing that could possibly have been drafted, and it was intended to be so.
    The defence is governed by the words at the beginning of subsection (3), which states:
    "In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove … (c) that the contravention complained of was solely due"—

    93
    I have already drawn attention to the word "solely"—
    "to the use of unsuitable fuel, that suitable fuel was unobtainable. …"
    In the first place, therefore, the owner of a furnace cannot advance as a defence the use of unsuitable fuel if he could have obtained suitable fuel.
    Paragraph (c) continues:
    "that the least unsuitable fuel which was available was used. …"
    In other words, if the owner of a furnace is unable to obtain the right fuel, he is then obliged to take the trouble to buy the next best fuel that is available—"the least unsuitable fuel."
    Mr. Winterbottom: How can one distinguish between good and bad fuel?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member is making a point in favour of the tightness of the Clause. This is what the defendant must prove. He must prove to the satisfaction of the court, first, "that suitable fuel was unobtainable"; secondly, that of all the unsuitable fuels that were available, he chose "the least unsuitable"; and, finally, he must prove
    "that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke as the result of the use thereof."
    In other words, after having proved that suitable fuel was not obtainable and that he used the least unsuitable fuel that he could get, he then has to prove that he used that unsuitable fuel in such a way as to cause the least amount of dark smoke. Personally, I would regard that as a very tough proposition, a very difficult thing to have to prove before the court. For anybody to suggest that this is driving a horse and cart through the Bill really implies that he has not studied the implications of this paragraph,
    Mr. Nabarro: A lot of the misunderstanding may well arise from what is perhaps a technicality. If the Clause were to read as my right hon. Friend is now saying it means
    "that the contravention complained of was solely due to the use of unsuitable fuel and that suitable fuel was unobtainable and 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,"
    there might then have been a different interpretation placed upon it.
    Mr. Sandys: Let us be quite clear about this; that is certainly the intention. In the English language, one does not always put "and" between every phrase. I can see no difficulty in doing so, and if I were thus able to satisfy my hon. Friend I would gladly insert in line 8, after the word "unobtainable," the word "and," and also in line 7 after the word "fuel," again the word "and," so as to make it perfectly clear that the courts have to be satisfied that every one of these requirements has been fulfilled. I thought that that was reasonably clear to the House.
    If it is clear to the House that those provisions have to be satisfied, I would have thought it was equally clear that this is a very tight provision, about which it would be exceedingly difficult for furnace owners that satisfy the courts.
    At the suggestion of hon. Members, I consulted technical experts. This was not the first consultation I had. Naturally, before introducing the Bill, I had most extensive consultations with expert authorities. The main issue before the House is this. If these expert authorities whom I have consulted are right in thinking that there are circumstances in which it will not be the fault of the furnace owner if he emits dark smoke, at any rate for a short period, then I ask the House what is its intention? What do those hon. Members have in mind who suggest that this defence should be withdrawn?
    There seem to be only two alternatives. The first implies that the factory owner must close down his furnaces until he has adjusted them or until he has been able to obtain more suitable fuel.
    Mr. Winterbottom: There is the seven years' provision.
    Mr. Sandys: The seven years' period does not apply to this Clause at all as it now stands. I do not believe that anybody has seriously suggested that to avoid the emission of dark smoke, possibly only for half an hour or an hour as may well be the case while furnaces are being adjusted to new fuel, those furnaces must be shut down altogether. It must be remembered that fuels vary; it may be possible to receive a consignment of fuel which is not entirely consistent.
    Mr. Winterbottom: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in Clause 2, in the first line, it uses the words
    "In any proceedings for an offence under Section 1 of this Act …"
    if the seven years' period does not apply?
    Mr. Sandys: That provision applies to plant and not to the use of fuel. I thought I had made that clear. If the hon. Member would study Clause 2 very carefully he would see that it has nothing whatsoever to do with unsuitable fuel.
    I believe I carry the House with me when I say it would not be reasonable to ask a factory to shut down its furnaces because it was unable by any other means to avoid the emission of dark smoke for a short period, or possibly for a long period if suitable fuel were quite unobtainable and only the very worst types were obtainable. I do not believe that anybody has suggested that, at any rate during the Committee stage.
    If we reject that solution, and if we remove this paragraph, what we are in effect saying is that Parliament will make it an offence to do something which is unavoidable. During the Committee stage several hon. Members said that we should leave it to the good sense of the courts; the courts will not convict somebody for doing something which is entirely reasonable and quite unavoidable; the courts will look after that. That, of course, is one way of getting round the difficulty.
    Sometimes the courts do have to look after oversights by Parliament; it is fortunate for us that they do. It is, however, a very slovenly approach to design our legislation on a basis we know is wrong, relying upon the courts to gloss over the mistakes we have made. If we do not have a defence of this kind, and if the courts do not ignore the provisions of our legislation, then there is no doubt about what will happen: people will be prosecuted, will be convicted, and will be fined for doing something which almost every hon. Member will agree is a reasonable and necessary thing to do. Proceedings will be taken against people for an offence which would be quite unavoidable. Such a state of affairs would serve only to bring Parliament and legislation into disrepute. It is quite unfair to place upon our courts the
    96
    obligation to put right nonsense committed by Parliament. That is, in effect, what we should be asking the courts to do.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend put into the Bill, in another place, the two words "and" at the points I have indicated? Secondly, will he put a time limit on the operation of this Clause, as recommended by the Institute of Fuel?
    Mr. Sandys: I will certainly consider it. I know that the Parliamentary draftsmen will have a fit if they are asked to put in two words "and" which are not necessary; but if it would give my hon. Friend a more peaceful night, I will certainly consider whether that can be done. However, I do not want to do something which is really quite unnecessary; it is really quite clear to everybody what this Clause means.
    The proposal for a seven years' time limit is a specific one. If I thought that this was to be the last time that Parliament would ever have to consider passing legislation on the subject of clean air, there might be quite a strong case for putting a time limit of some kind on the application of this subsection. I do not know whether it would be exactly seven years or whether the period might be made a little shorter or a little longer; but I share the views of the Institute of Fuel on this and I have little doubt that after a period of years this defence of unsuitable fuel should be eliminated.
    I do not think that for all time it should be considered to be unavoidable to emit dark smoke with unsuitable fuel. I am quite sure that inside of ten years Parliament will have to consider whether, in the light of experience, the necessity for this defence has past.
    7.0 p.m.
    I would ask hon. Members to be fair to me. I have fully consulted all the people I was asked to consult. I have their opinions. I have read out two of them, and I have offered to read out any others about which any hon. Member likes to ask me. I assure hon. Members that there is not an authority I have been asked to consult which is prepared to say without qualification that the emission of dark smoke can necessarily in all circumstances be avoided even if the plant is

    97
    modern and even if it is operated efficiently and with care. In these circumstances, I think it would be wrong and irresponsible for Parliament to make an offence of something which the experts tell us may in certain circumstances be unavoidable.
    Dr. Summerskill: I should not have added to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said in moving the Amendment if the Minister had not spoken as though we were amateurs in the subject and he had all the expert advice. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had consulted all the experts.
    Mr. Sandys: I said that I had consulted all the experts whom I had been asked by hon. Members to consult.
    Dr. Summerskill: That is rather a quibble. The House, listening to the Minister, would have thought that he had consulted the experts. That is why I must add a word before we go into the Division Lobby.
    The Minister's remark was deceptive, in my opinion, because we have exhaustively debated the subject both on Second Reading and in Committee and the Minister has heard the views of experts quoted from this side, also. I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment because there is expert advice to which he should have listened,
    the advice of the sanitary inspectors to the Minister, and I would quote it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House probably know personally the sanitary inspectors in their own constituencies. They are men of the highest integrity, who have a responsible job, and, generally they are very well informed.
    Without any interjections of my own I quote to the Minister what the Sanitary Inspectors' Association's advice to him on this matter is:
    "Clause 1 (3, c). The General Council believe that the 'unsuitable fuel defence' will prove a serious loophole when dealing with emissions of dark smoke. Offenders will probably put forward this defence frequently and local authorities may find it difficult to satisfy the courts that the plea is not justified. No power is given to officers of local authorities to take samples of the fuel being used at the time the dark smoke is emitted. By the time proceedings are commenced in court all the fuel concerned may have been burned. The paragraph should be deleted."
    How the Minister can now tell us he has consulted the experts, even those he was asked to consult, when there is this expert advice given to him by this very responsible body, I find it difficult to understand, and for this reason I must ask my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 151.

    Division No. 135.]

    AYES

    [7.5 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Freeth, D. K.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Cole, Norman

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Glover, D.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Godber, J. B.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Gower, H. R.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Balniel, Lord

    Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Green, A.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Cunningham, Knox

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Barter, John

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Danoe, J. C. G.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Gurden, Harold

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Bevins, J. R. (Tosteth)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Body, R. F.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Bossom, Sir A. C.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Hay, John

    Brainy, B. R.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir. A. (Warwick&L'm'tn)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Bryan, P.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Hinohingbrooke, Viscount

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hirst, Goeffrey

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Russell, R. S.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Shepherd, William

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Marples, A. E.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

    Mathew, R.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Maude, Angus

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Thompson, Lt,-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Neave, Airey

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Keegan, D.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Kerr, H. W.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Kimball, M.

    Osborne, C.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Page, R. G.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Partridge, E.

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Pott, H. P.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

    Lloyd, Mal. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Profumo, J. D.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Redmayne, M.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Roberston, Sir David

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison and

    Mr. Barber.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Anderson, Frank

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Finch, H. J.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Benson, G.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mason, Roy

    Beswick, F.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Blackburn, F.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Monslow, W.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Moody, A. S.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mort, D. L.

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Moss, R.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Moyle, A.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Grey, C. F.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Oram, A. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hastings, S.

    Oswald, T.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Paget, R. T.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Burke, W. A.

    Holman, P.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Holt, A. F.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Paton, J.

    Clunie, J.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pearson, A.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

    Poppiewell, E.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

    Randall, H. E.

    Caddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Kenyon, C.

    Reeves, J.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Ross, William

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Royle, C.

    Deer, G.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Short, E. W.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Dye, S.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    100

    101

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Weitzman, D.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Woof, R. E.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Thornton, E.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.

    Question put and agreed to.

    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end to insert:
    "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."
    The effect of the Amendment is little more than drafting. As the Clause stands, there are three alternative defences, each of which, to succeed, must be shown to be the sole cause of the contravention. An absurdity arises, however, because if two of these clauses should happen to coincide neither of them would be the sole cause of the contravention, therefore both defences would fail.
    Whatever hon. Members may think about the validity of any or all of these defences, it is clearly absurd that if they are valid separately they should not be valid cumulatively. It is absurd that it is a defence to prove lighting up of a furnace and a defence to prove, with the necessary qualifications, unsuitable fuel, but no defence if unsuitable fuel were used while the furnace was being lit up. It is merely to eliminate that absurdity from the drafting that I advise that it is necessary to add these words.
    Dr. Summerskill: In the circumstances, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2.—(TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS FROM SECTION ONE.)
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 2, line 45, at the end to insert:
    "so, however, that a certificate issued after the expiration of six, but before the expiration of seven, years from the passing of this Act shall not remain in force after the expiration of the said seven years."
    The Amendment is to make clear a point which was discussed in Committee and which, I believe, is acceptable to the
    102
    House. It is designed merely to make quite sure that in any question of exemption, the period in Clause 2 is at no point to be longer than seven years. This was a matter which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) raised very forcibly in Committee.
    Dr. Stross: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: Although the addition of these words is not perhaps strictly necessary, since the defence itself expires after a lapse of seven years, they avoid the appearance of a conflict between the provisions of the Clause and I recommend the House to make the addition.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3.—(REQUIREMENT THAT NEW FURNACES SHALL BE SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE SMOKELESS.)
    Mr. John Hynd: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, after "approved," to insert:
    "for the purposes of this section."
    Dr. Stross: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: This is a desirable clarification and I suggest that it might be made.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Speaker: The next two Amendments, both in page 3, line 41, seem to be alternatives and should be discussed together.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, at the end to add:
    (4) This section shall not apply to furnaces designed solely or mainly for use for domestic purposes.
    This brings some of us back to a subject on which we had much discussion in Committee. The Clause with which we are dealing requires that new furnaces installed after the appointed day shall be
    "so far as practicable capable of being operated continuously without emitting smoke. …"

    103
    It also provides that a local authority may approve the plans and specifications of such a furnace.
    I think there is general agreement that the main object of the Clause is to deal with industrial furnaces. I think there is also general agreement that we would not wish these provisions to apply to small boilers or furnaces operated in a private house or even serving two or three flats in the same building. The difficulty has arisen over furnaces, which may be large ones, that serve an hotel or a large block of flats or even conceivably, under community heating, a series of blocks of flats. The difficulty of bringing those large furnaces under the scope of this Clause, while not bringing in all furnaces, is to find some criterion which will distinguish between those we want to include and those we want to exclude.
    This Amendment uses design as the criterion, making it dependent upon the purpose for which the furnace is designed, whether or not it will fall within the scope of the Clause. Certainly, it is necessary that there should be some limitation and, up to the present, the criterion of design is the best which my right hon. Friend has been able to find. However it leaves out large furnaces which, it might be claimed, were designed for domestic purposes but which were heating large blocks of flats or hotels, and which ought not to escape from the provisions of the Clause.
    Therefore, my right hon. Friend is considering whether some other criterion—for example, that of size—might not be rendered capable of definition in such a way as to be written into the Bill. The objects are agreed on both sides of the House and I would hope that for the time being the House would agree to what is, in effect the re-insertion of this subsection, which imports the criterion of design, on the understanding that my right hon. Friend will endeavour to find, for insertion in another place, a form of words and a criterion which will enable large furnaces serving hotels or large blocks of flats to be brought within the scope of the Clause.
    Mr. J. Hynd: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot move that Amendment because we
    104
    are discussing another Amendment at the moment. However, these two Amendments can be discussed together, as I have said. The hon. Member is entitled to refer to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and to explain its purpose but both Amendments cannot be accepted.
    Mr. Hynd: I am sorry, Sir. I assume that I can discuss the second Amendment and then move it formally at the end?
    Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I misheard the hon. Member. There can be only one Amendment before the House at a time. The one before the House is that moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, in page 3, line 41, to add a new subsection (4). The hon. Member may speak to that Amendment, but he cannot move his Amendment unless this one is defeated.
    Mr. Hynd: Thank you, Sir. I shall speak to the Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary and, in doing so, I shall welcome the spirit in which he has moved it. However, I speak for my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friends when I say that we are not entirely satisfied with the assurance given to us.
    As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this point was widely discussed in Committee. The fact that the Government have gone so far as to say that they will seek further definition which might deal with the real objection which they now realise can be directed towards the words that they are trying to insert in the Bill is, of course, proof of the fact that the Government recognise that their own wording is not entirely satisfactory.
    That, of course, was the burden of our criticism in Committee, and the criticism that I am making now against the idea that we can cover the point with which, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, we are all concerned, namely, the great possibility there is of avoiding the purpose of the Clause under this type of work.
    In dealing with the Government Amendment I presume, Sir, that I can explain why we prefer another type of wording, particularly that mentioned in the later Amendment. The reason is that the definition "domestic purposes" is, as

    105
    the hon. Gentleman admitted, not sufficiently explicit. My hon. Friends and I still feel that the words
    "a separate house or part of a house occupied as a separate building"
    are much more clear and distinct and allow no loophole that we can see.
    As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the question of design brings in not the use of the furnace, but what it might have been designed for originally. The hon. Gentleman said that the Minister might find a criterion which would deal with its size. It may or it may not be possible to find such a formula, but I would like from the Government an answer to the question, why is it necessary to look for anything further than the words in the latter Amendment:
    "a separate house or part of a house occupied as a separate building"?
    Dr. Stross: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, I know of some houses that are bigger than many large hotels.
    Mr. Hynd: That is the kind of difficulty we are up against.
    What we are really concerned about, however, is that the furnace should be generally used for what are popularly known as domestic purposes, but which ought not to be covered by the phrase "domestic purposes" inserted into an Act of Parliament. The phrase
    "a separate house or part of a house occupied as a separate building"
    seems to be specific, and in an Act of Parliament could not possibly be misunderstood.
    We are faced with the difficulty not so much of the size of the house, although that creates another slight difficulty, but with the large blocks of flats or other masses of buildings of this kind which could require immense boilers to serve them. The boilers could then be claimed to have been designed for domestic purposes because they were designed for the purpose of serving domestic premises, however great the area over which they were spread. That, in itself, would give rise to the nuisance we are trying to abate and from which we are trying to exempt purely dwelling houses.
    It is also possible to conceive of a boiler designed for that purpose being used either within the same premises which might be transformed into industrial premises in the long run, or being
    106
    taken out of these premises and being installed in a factory and used in exactly the same way as another furnace in another factory, but being exempt because originally it was designed for domestic purposes. Obviously, such an anomaly should not be permitted to stand in an Act of Parliament, and it is for that reason we have put down our Amendment.
    The Parliamentary Secretary has given us an assurance, which we are glad to have, that the Government are concerned about putting into the final Measure the purposes which we are all seeking to meet in this Clause. However, before we could accept that as the final assurance for passing the Clause in its present form we are entitled to a clear statement as to why the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister consider that our alternative wording does not meet the difficulty which the Parliamentary Secretary says his right hon. Friend will try to overcome in some other way.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree not to tie himself down too narrowly in looking at the point again. We are glad to hear that he and his right hon. Friend are prepared to examine it. I would remind the hon. Member that in Committee his hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) mentioned that in its Bill Manchester Corporation has wording similar to that proposed in our Amendment, and seems to find it a satisfactory provision. Consequently, I find it a little difficult to understand why the Parliamentary Secretary should boggle at accepting a similar form of words here.
    Mr. Nabarro: I should like to put a further question to my hon. Friend. There is a good deal of doubt in certain quarters about the use of the expression "domestic purposes." This relates itself to the use of "dwelling" in Clause 10.
    Is a boarding house or hotel a building which may be classified as being in use for domestic purposes, or is a boarding house or hotel a dwelling? This is an important point. Certain large buildings may be used in part for residential purposes by the owner or occupier, but the remainder of the building may be let. Where the dividing line is as between a boarding house or hotel, on the one hand, and a private dwelling, on the other, and

    107
    whether a boarding house or hotel is properly classified as a building used for domestic purposes appears to be somewhat vague. This is a matter of some importance on this Amendment and on an Amendment in my name to Clause 10.
    Mr. Powell: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I do not think that the expression "domestic purposes" is interpretable in the light of the meaning of "dwelling". Its purpose in this subsection is to represent the opposite to "industrial purposes" and it has to be read in conjunction with the word "design". It follows that if the criterion of design is to be reconsidered, the expression "domestic purposes" must also be reconsidered in that connection.
    One of the difficulties about accepting the alternative form of words proposed by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), namely, that many separate houses may well be as large as or larger than blocks of flats or hotels which we all feel it would be desirable, if possible to bring within the scope of the Clause. It seems that it is something to do with size that we are all endeavouring to define. It is the small domestic appliance that we want to exempt, and we want some means of turning that into statutory language. It is that means which my right hon. Friend has undertaken to seek.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5.—(REQUIREMENT THAT NEW FURNACES SHALL BE FITTED WITH PLANT TO ARREST GRIT AND DUST.)
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out "ten tons" and to insert "one ton".
    Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the Amendments in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), in page 4, line 18, and page 5, line 6, and the Amendment in the name of the Minister, in page 5, line 6, cover a similar point. I am entirely in the hands of hon. Members, but if it is agreeable, I think there might be a useful discussion upon the four Amendments and they might be put separately, if necessary, afterwards.
    Mr. Powell: I should like to put these Amendments into their context in the Bill. In Clause 4 it is made an offence not to take any practical means that there may be for minimising the emission of grit and dust from a chimney serving a furnace or oven. That is the general provision; it is a universal requirement that any practicable means that there may be shall be taken for minimising the emission of grit and dust.
    Then we come to Clauses 5 and 6. We insert in the Bill special provisions in regard to furnaces to be installed in future. The object of those special provisions which in the case of Clause 5 require prior approval to the grit arrestment plant by local authorities, and in the case of Clause 6 make it possible to impose requirements for measuring and recording the emission of grit and dust, is to avoid a situation in future whereby the user of a large furnace might say, "It is not practicable for me, owing to the layout and design of my furnace, to take effective means for minimising the emission of grit and dust." That is the background to and purpose of Clauses 5 and 6 in laying down the requirements in regard to certain types of furnaces to be installed in future.
    The furnaces to which Clauses 5 and 6 are to be applied are those which burn either pulverised fuel at whatever rate and whatever amount or solid fuel at a certain minimum rate. The question that we are discussing is what is the right minimum rate of fuel consumption which should make it necessary that the design of the grit arrestment plant should be approved by the local authority before installation takes place in future.
    I suggest that the right approach is to ascertain at what rate of consumption of solid fuel special measures require to be taken for the arrestment of grit and dust. We are trying to determine the critical rate of fuel consumption at which the arrestment plant becomes really complex and perhaps part of the layout of the furnace as a whole so that if the furnace were erected without such arrestment plant it would be a possibility for the defence to prove that it was not practicable to add it or insert it in the existing furnace.
    I am advised that where fuel is burnt at a rate of up to one ton an hour the

    109
    grit arrestment plant can be of a very simple and yet effective character—for example, the provision of an expansion chamber to the flue may be a satisfactory means of arresting grit and dust where the rate of fuel consumption does not exceed one ton an hour—but that above that rate it is necessary to have elaborate equipment which would be specially designed for the furnace and the process. If that advice—it is the best technical advice I have been able to obtain on the point—is correct, then one ton an hour is about the right critical point at which to bring into force the provisions of Clauses 5 and 6, because that is the point at which grit arrestment has to be thought of as part of the design of a furnace and plant.
    In Committee, I indicated that the critical point of ten tons an hour was quite certainly much too high. It would affect very few furnaces indeed which are being installed. On the other hand, there is no point in going too low. For example, furnaces burning fuel at the rate of only one hundredweight an hour will be caught already under Clause 4, because the prosecution will be able to show that by a comparatively simple adaptation of the equipment it will be possible to minimise the emission of grit and dust. I therefore suggest to the House that one ton is about the right critical rate of burning to insert in Clauses 5 and 6, although one cannot perhaps have an exact figure in these matters.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this is an outstanding example of where the technicians went wrong. It is a most curious thing that the Beaver Committee should have advised ten tons. That reminds me of the last speech of the right hon. Gentleman, when he was quoting experts. In the course of discussing the Bill we have become a little sceptical when experts have made pronouncements. I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary was not too dogmatic, because he may later be compelled to reduce the figure of one ton.
    I appreciate his point about the figure of one hundredweight. Perhaps he will recall the figures given by the Association of Municipal Corporations about the combustion per hour in factories in Birmingham, Manchester and Sheffield. I gave those figures in detail in Committee, and I do not want to repeat them. However,
    110
    I remind him of what was said about Stoke-on-Trent:
    "No detailed figures are available from Stoke-on-Trent, but of the three water tube boilers, five Lancashire boilers, nine economic boilers and three Belgian continuous brick kilns none consumes solid fuel at a rate of ten tons an hour or more and only the water tube boilers consume fuel at more than one ton an hour."
    For this reason the Association of Municipal Corporations advises that ten tons, which it says rightly is a useless figure, should be replaced by one hundredweight. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that for all practical purposes one ton will cover these, and in those circumstances I do not want to press the two Amendments in my name.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(MEASUREMENT OF GRIT AND DUST EMITTED FROM FURNACES.)
    Amendment made: In page 5, line 6, leave out "ten tons" and insert "one ton".—[Mr. Powell.]
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, at the end to insert:
    (3) Regulations under subsection (2) of this section may make different provision in relation to different classes of furnace or oven.
    In a sense, this Amendment is consequential from the Amendments which have just been made. If a much wider range of furnaces is now covered by Clause 6, it is desirable that the power of regulation-making in regard to measuring and recording instruments should be more flexible, so that the requirements may be different for different sizes of furnace.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 8.—(HEIGHT OF CHIMNEYS.)
    Amendment made: In page 6, line 38, after "court", insert:
    "or the body exercising the functions of a dean of guild court, any reference to the deposit of plans in accordance with building byelaws shall include a reference to the deposit of plans in accordance with any requirement of the common law."—[Mr. J. Henderson Stewart.]

    Clause 9.—(SMOKE CONTROL AREAS.)
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move in page 7, line 20, to leave out "undue smoke" and to insert:
    "any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke".

    111
    This Amendment is put down in implementation of an undertaking given in Committee to seek an improvement upon the word "undue". The purpose is one which we all share. We recognise that we want to encourage the use in smoke control areas of fireplaces which will burn fuels other than inherently smokeless fuels, without emitting very much smoke. The difficulty is to define in statutory terms that minimal amount of smoke. There was, rightly, objection to the word "undue" as being a very subjective expression and we have therefore, endeavoured to substitute for it something more objective which can be more easily grasped.
    I hope that the House will feel that the requirement that these appliances shall either cause no smoke or no substantial amount of smoke will be thought to be an improvement on the existing wording.
    Dr. Stross: I am sorry that I pressed for the omission of the words "undue smoke", for I strongly feel that the words
    "any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke"
    are worse than those to which I objected.
    Of course, I appreciate the difficulty in trying to find words that will stand investigation and which can possibly replace the adjective "undue". I must at once admit that I am in cordial agreement with the phrase "any smoke", but the next phrase is as difficult to define as the word "undue". It could be argued that
    "a substantial quantity of smoke"
    does not mean -anything very different from the word "undue".
    Will the Minister consider the word "appreciable" instead of "undue"? I think that that would meet the wishes of the House. I know that I am springing this suddenly, but we have all been in difficulty over this matter. In Committee, I suggested the word "minimal". The word "appreciable" in this context is something that most of us would understand. The advice from the Technical Committee of the National Smoke Abatement Society was:
    "Technically, it is considered that a domestic smoke-reducing coal burning appliance designed to be appropriate for a
    112
    smoke control area should not be approved unless the smoke reduction is of the order of 90 per cent. compared with that from the stool-bottom grate."
    The Parliamentary Secretary has seen that document. If he agrees with me, will he not let us have our way and withdraw his suggestion and agree at a later stage to use the word "appreciable"?
    Mr. Sandys: I am most anxious on this point to meet hon. Members in all parts of the House. That is why we put forward the Amendment. I feel that the words which have been proposed, after a good deal of thought
    "any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke"
    really meet the point raised in Committee. I should not be happy about the use of the word "appreciable," because almost any amount of smoke is "appreciable," if one can detect it, and I do not know what interpretation the courts would put upon that. Obviously, the 10 per cent. would not be substantial. That was the amount referred to by the hon. Member. I hope that the House will accept this revised version which certainly was intended to meet the point, and I think does so "substantially" or "appreciably."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, at the end to insert:
    Provided that before making an order under this subsection the Minister shall consult with the local authority unless he is satisfied that, on account of urgency, such consultation is impracticable.
    This Amendment, together with the following Amendment in line 31, was put down following the sympathetic reception by the Minister of our approach to this subject. Both Amendments are self-explanatory.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 31, at the end insert:
    "and the proviso to subsection (7) of this section shall apply to the revocation or variation of an order made thereunder."—[Dr. Summerskill.]

    Clause 15.—(RELATION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, ALKALI ACT.)
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 12, line 46, after "one" to insert "four."
    This Amendment enables local authorities, with the consent of the Minister, to

    113
    take proceedings for infractions of Clause 4 relating to grit and dust offences as well as of Clause 1 relating to dark smoke offences in the case of processes scheduled now or hereafter under the Alkali Act. It is in a sense consequential on the Amendment made during the Committee stage which applied the Alkali Act in respect of grit and dust as well as in respect of smoke.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: We are grateful for this Amendment, which we agree is consequential and meets the points raised in the Committee discussions.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 3, after "one", insert "the said section four."—[Mr. Powell.]
    Mr. D. Jones: I beg to move, in page 13, line 4, to leave out "with the consent of" and to insert "after consultation with".
    It seems to me that here the Minister has to treat local authorities as responsible bodies. As the Clause now stands, local authorities must secure the consent of the Minister before they take action. Local authorities are responsible bodies with public-spirited officials in control. Except in the most exceptional circumstances, so long as there is a provision in the Bill for consultation with the Minister, local authorities will consult him and accept his advice. But there may be occasions when, as it would be entitled to do, a local authority would disregard the advice of the Minister. Having consulted the Minister the authority might proceed to take action of its own accord.
    In that way it would appear that local authorities were being treated with respect and as an adult body of people rather than as children being told what they ought to do by the Minister and his Department. I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to inspire enthusiasm among local authorities the way to do it would be by inserting the words in the Amendment. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred local authorities would consult with the Minister and accept his advice, but if they did take another course they would do it on their own initiative.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: Although on the face of it this is a very modest and reasonable Amendment, in reality it is not consistent with the principle of the Clause as amended. The principle of Clause 15 is that there are certain processes which, by reason of technical difficulties, cannot at present be subjected to the general provisions of the Bill. Rather than write into the Bill escape Clauses which would be defences for those processes, they are to be subjected to the control of the Alkali Inspectorate.
    The House has agreed that in certain circumstances the Minister may, by Order, make specified local authorities responsible for dealing with smoke, grit and dust from those processes so long as they remain scheduled in consequence of Clause 15. The principle which we are adopting is that those processes are to be policed by the Alkali Inspectorate; that the Inspectorate is to have the duty of keeping them up to the mark and ensuring that the prevention of noxious fumes and smoke, grit, and dust is at the highest level attainable on current techniques.
    We can subject them only to one discipline at a time. In the last resort, so long as they are, if I may use the phrase, under the tutolage of the Alkali Inspectorate, it must be the Inspectorate which says "Yes" or "No" to the question whether they should be prosecuted for a particular alleged offence. It would be unreasonable to allow industries operating these processes to be subjected to two concurrent disciplines without means of co-ordinating. I suggest that co-ordination can be applied only by the requirement of the Minister's consent, which means that the requirements of the Inspectorate will be harmonised with the wishes and requirements of the relevant local authority. It would therefore be wrong to allow the local authority to prosecute a firm carrying on a scheduled process for an offence which the Alkali Inspectorate did not consider it was practicable for the firm to have avoided in the current state of technique and knowledge.
    Having regard especially to the earlier Amendments to this Clause, I hope the House will agree that it is right that the consent should be retained as a requirement and should not be replaced merely by consultation.
    Amendment negatived.

    Clause 30.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 24, line 10, to leave out:
    "to cost and other financial consequences."
    Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if the Amendment in page 24, line 11, at end insert "to the financial implications," were considered with this Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Yes, if that meets the convenience of the House.
    Mr. Powell: The purpose of these two linked Amendments is to deal with the difficulty which some hon. Members felt in Committee, namely, that the words,
    "cost and other financial consequences"
    in their present position in the definition of "practicable," placed an entirely undue emphasis upon the financial element, as compared with other elements, in judging practicability. These Amendments are an attempt to ensure that whilst the cost and financial implications are taken into account in assessing practicability by the courts they are not in any way treated as pre-eminent or over-riding factors or considerations.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not want to seem ungrateful, and I agree that since we raised this point in Committee the Minister has obviously looked at it again—but I have to be honest and say that I do not really feel that we have got very much farther. When I raised the matter in Committee I tried to direct the attention of the Minister to the desirability of leaving out these words, not of putting in what is questionably a more inoffensive form of wording.
    I hope that what was in the minds of everyone in Committee was that there were two sides to this matter—not only the question of costs and financial implications as they affected the firm which was being asked to make alterations to its plant, but also the financial implications to the people living round about. I want the courts at least to keep in balance those two points. If we can be given some assurance that these Amendments do not exclude the possibility of the courts having some regard to the damage, destruction and cost involved to the public in the area suffering from smoke emission, I should feel a little
    116
    happier, but I object to the attention of the courts being concentrated exclusively upon the question of the financial implications which fall upon the firms.
    This is a matter where a balance must obviously be held between the effect upon the public and the practicability of the operation. There is no isolated test of practicability; no line can be drawn of which it can be said that anything falling upon one side will be within the scope of what could be done. Some regard must be paid to the amount of nuisance and damage that may be caused. That is what most of us are anxious about. We feel that if the words had been altogether cut out of the Bill the question of finance would inevitably colour the views of the courts when they considered what was and was not practicable. But we do not think that the courts should have their direction focused so determinedly upon this issue.
    I cannot feel very happy about the Parliamentary Secretary's proposal. The position may be slightly better than it was before, but I cannot feel absolutely satisfied, and I hope that, even at this stage, another place might take a different view of the matter and make certain provisions which we have not been able to achieve here.
    Mr. D. Jones: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. It seems to me to be a case of shifting the position of the words without altering their consequences. Whatever we may feel about their interpretation the fact is that the courts will be called upon to interpret "practicable" in their light. That will mean that three things must be present—local conditions and circumstances; financial consequences, and the current state of technical knowledge. I should have thought that with those three qualifications inserted into the meaning of "practicable" it is hardly likely that a conviction would ever occur.
    I should have thought that any two of these three qualifications might be present at any time, anywhere in the country; indeed, it could be argued that the effect of these words now being put in after "local conditions and circumstances" would be that more emphasis could be placed upon financial consequences, in connection with such local conditions, than was formerly the case. I should not think that the mere shifting of the words

    117
    from line 10 to line 11 would make an atom of difference to the interpretation placed upon them by the courts. It will be practically impossible to obtain any kind of conviction so long as the word "practicable" has these three qualifications. I hope that the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend will look at the matter again and see that these words are deleted altogether when the Bill goes to another place.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) is unduly anxious when he says that with this wording it will be practically impossible to obtain a conviction. I would point out that this wording is already contained in Section 110 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which includes a reference to costs and local conditions and circumstances, and under that section prosecutions are continually and quite effectively taking place.
    Mr. D. Jones: Very few.
    Mr. Powell: If there are very few in any particular respect it is not because of the difficulties of implementing Section 110 (2) of the 1936 Act.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) produced the best possible argument against the Amendment which, perhaps, he is not now going to move. He asked to be assured that the courts would take into account not only the financial effect upon the firm concerned but also the effect upon the neighbourhood. It is the presence of the words" local conditions and circumstances "which enables and obliges the courts to do that, so that with the two factors together, mentioned in the definition Clause, the courts will be both enabled and invited to strike that balance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 24, line 11, to leave out:
    "to local conditions and circumstances".
    I rise with avidity to accept the invitation of the Parliamentary Secretary to explain my views about this Amendment. The point is that hon. Members on this side of the House, at least, are not at all satisfied that this is the intention or, indeed, is the way in which the provision will be interpreted in the courts. Our fear, which was dealt with rather cursorily
    118
    in Committee, is that the courts will conclude that the words were inserted in order to suggest that where the general conditions of an area are bad there is no reason why one furnace which is emitting smoke should be picked out for special treatment.
    That is the sort of connotation which Members of the House have become used to in regard to other Measures which, indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary himself has been concerned with, in relation to housing. There are references and definition Sections in housing Acts regarding the action which should be taken about certain types of property in relation to local conditions and circumstances—and in those Measures the phrase means just what I suggest it means here. In this case we fear that local conditions and circumstances refer to the general pall of smoke, dirt and grime in an area.
    If an area is generally afflicted, as is the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom), and, indeed, many others, then this definition Clause may well be prayed in aid of the factory that is committing the nuisance. It may well be said, "We are doing no more than has been done for generations in this area." I am not satisfied with the noble intention, which I put into the Parliamentary Secretary's mouth, of urging courts to consider the damage and trouble that is being caused by a particular emission in the area.
    I feel very strongly, as indeed do the local authority associations, who take strong exception to this provision, that in the general context of this definition Clause these words should not be included. If the intention is as suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, he should at least promise to examine the matter to see whether a clearer definition of the intention could be devised and inserted at a later stage in another place, where I am sure their Lordships, at any rate on one side of the Chamber, would give such an interpretation their blessing. As the matter stands, I feel that it would be desirable that these words should be omitted from the Measure if a clearer definition could be devised.
    Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East

    119
    (Mr. Blenkinsop) in his plea to the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what he thinks these words mean. It is not sufficient merely to tell us that they appear, as apparently they do, in the Public Health Act. 1936.
    I have taken a great interest in this Bill throughout its passage, although I did not serve on the Committee and have not spoken before during any of its stages, but when the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) introduced the original Bill I gave the House some information about the sort of conditions which obtain on Tees-side. I will not weary hon. Members with any repetition of that information, of the kind of incidence of chronic bronchitis and other diseases associated with the prevalence of pollution of the air which are all too frequently found in my constituency and the surrounding constituencies.
    What I am anxious about is that this phrase "local conditions and circumstances" shall not in a grimy area like Tees-side, which is afflicted constantly by smoke and grit discharged by smoky appliances, be held to mean: "It has been like that for fifty years; these are the local conditions and circumstances. The fact that there is some grit in the air should be regarded as one of the things which people always put up with in this area, and the emission of this small volume of smoke which comes out of one chimney ought not to be taken too seriously because people are used to it, and where there is muck there is money." I hope that kind of consideration will not be brought to bear in determining what is reasonably practicable in such an area.
    8.15 p.m.
    An even more important aspect of this matter has recently been brought to my attention. In areas like Tees-side, where very great industrial expansion is taking place, it might be argued when this particular formula is used that because the area is expanding, with new industry coming in and additional furnaces being installed, this very desirable development which all the inhabitants welcome inevitably results in some further emission of smoke and therefore no notice ought to be taken of it.
    I have previously given the House some figures relating to Tees-side, which I do not propose to repeat, but it seems
    120
    to me to be significant that when we look at the figures for the year 1955 as compared with 1954, we find a most remarkable increase. In 1954, in the industrial areas on Tees-side, the monthly deposit of objectionable matter was 48·41 tons per square mile, but in 1955 that figure had risen to 54·80. In the semi-industrial areas the deposit which was 24·76 tons per square mile per month in 1954 was 32·36 tons per square mile per month in 1955. In the residential areas a similar increase from 14·12 to 17·26 tons per square mile per month has taken place.
    I recognise that there may be special explanations for these figures. It may be, for all I know, that the prevailing winds which blow from the west and blow the smoke out to sea did not prevail so much during 1955 as they did during 1954. There may be some technical explanation about the places at which the measurements were taken, or something of that kind. Nevertheless, it is rather disturbing to find such large increases. Another possible explanation may be that this extension of industry on Tees-side has been taking place at a rapid rate.
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider whether these words which we propose to omit might be wrongfully construed so that the excuse can be made that in an industrial area people must put up with what they have been accustomed to for year, that it is an expanding area and that the emission of smoke and grit from the chimneys is increasing because the properity of the area is increasing. There is surely no reason why that should happen. If it is an expanding area, steps ought to be taken from the beginning to make sure that the industries going there are properly equipped to prevent the emission of dirt and smoke to which we all object.
    Mr. D. Jones: I do not wish to weary the House with figures relating to the other side of the River Tees. The same problem prevails, as hon. Members are aware, because the figures were given during the Committee stage. This matter was raised in Committee, and although we got from the Minister an undertaking that the financial provisions would be reexamined, he was asked to consider the wording. Like my right hon. Friend the

    121
    Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), I rather fear that the court may take into account the local conditions prevailing.
    If one takes Tees-side from the village of Yarm, right to the North Sea, on both banks of the river it is completely industrialised for about 15 miles. If there were any vacant spots, they are now being taken by the Wilton and Dorman Long extension. Will it be argued that because there are industrial developments on both sides of the River Tees, that is one of the penalties which the local citizens have to pay for living in that area? Will the court be entitled to argue that those are the local circumstances which are meant in this context? Will it mean that because those local circumstances prevail and are likely to prevail for a long time to come, nothing can be done to abate the solution of the atmosphere nuisance on Tees-side?
    One could multiply the example in a number of parts of the country. For instance, the City of Newcastle and its environments are in precisely the same position. Would the court be entitled to argue that nothing can be done because these are the "local conditions and circumstances"? Is it to be argued in the mining district of County Durham and of Yorkshire, or in the industrial districts of South Wales, that because people have to live and have their being in the centre of a highly industrialised area, those are the local conditions which they are expected to endure? One must not forget in this connection that as a result of the Amendment which has been made the words "financial implications" now immediately follow "local conditions and circumstances". If they are taken together by the court it seems to me that the industrial districts of the country have very little to expect from the Bill.
    We have already inserted into Clause 1 three main routes of escape. We have inserted into Clause 2 two subsidiary routes of escape. Now we are proceeding to take off the gates from all the remaining routes of escape for the industrial areas. Is that what the people of the industrial areas are to expect from the Bill? If it is, then I prophesy that the right hon. Gentleman will not get the enthusiasm which he has himself more than once admitted will be necessary to make this Bill an effective reality. If it is too late
    122
    to do anything about it now, I hope something will be done in another place to see that these objectionable words are taken out of the Clause.
    Mr. Powell: I can give hon. Members opposite the assurance that the effect of these words is opposite to that which they apprehend. If there were a remote part of the country with few or no inhabitants, and there was emission of smoke, or grit and dust, clearly it would not be reasonable to impose upon the operators of that plant such stringent requirements as upon a plant in the centre of an inhabited area. If local conditions and circumstances are taken into account to mitigate the force of what is practicable in a remote and lightly inhabited area, then, conversely, the effect of the words "local conditions or circumstances" where there are many people to be affected and much damage to be done by the emission of smoke, grit and dust must be to strengthen the requirements which would be regarded as practicable.
    If these words have the effect which is feared, I can assure the House—and I think they will accept this in view of what has been said about the pioneer position of Manchester throughout debates—that the Manchester Corporation would not have written these very words into the Act of 1946. They are in Section 36 (4) of the Manchester Corporation Act, 1946, which says that in determining, for the purposes of this Section, whether a furnace is as far as practicable capable of being operated continuously without emitting smoke—that is, in interpreting the practicability—the corporation or a court shall, if either of the parties, so desire have regard to cost and to local conditions and circumstances.
    The words are also in the model Clause which Manchester was no doubt using, and, as I have reminded the House, they are in the relevant Section, Section 110 of the Public Health Act, 1936. If therefore, they had been interpreted in the way in which some hon. Members fear, they would certainly not have been retained by the Manchester Corporation and they would not have been a part of legislation for 20 years without these anticipated interpretations having been placed upon them. The House is, therefore, not relying upon my, I admit, ineffective ipse dixit interpretation of these words but is making the natural assumption that they

    123
    will be interpreted in the future as they have been interpreted in the past, both in general and in local legislation.
    Mr. Marquand: Have these words been pronounced on by the courts at any time or is the hon. Gentleman referring to Manchester Corporation in the context only of what the pronouncement might be?
    Mr. Powell: I cannot say that they have been pronounced on by the courts, but if they have not been pronounced on by the courts it must be because no attempt has been made to use them as an escape in the manner in which has been apprehended.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: With the leave of the House, may I intervene again? Even the Parliamentary Secretary can quote the Manchester Act when he wishes, apparently. We still have some anxieties on the matter, but in view of what he has said is the clear intention of himself and his right hon. Friend, and in view of the fact that the matter can, I hope, still be looked into a little further in another place, if required, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 24, line 11, at end insert "to the financial implications."—[Mr. Sandys.]

    Clause 31.—(REPEALS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)
    Mr. Eric Johnson: I beg to move, in page 26, line 17, after "may" to insert:
    "after consultation with any local authority or county council appearing to him to be concerned".
    Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to consider this Amendment with the following Amendment in my name—in line 23, at the end to insert:
    Provided that in the case of a provision of a local Act which appears to the Minister to be unnecessary having regard to the provisions of sections nine and ten of this Act, the power conferred by this subsection shall not be exercised without the consent of the local authority.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that meets the wishes of the House.
    Mr. Johnson: The purpose of these two Amendments is to reassure those local authorities which already have local
    124
    Acts dealing with smoke and which feel they should be consulted or that their consent should be sought, as the case may be, before those Acts are repealed. The matter was discussed on Committee stage when my right hon. Friend said that he would look into it and see if a suitable form of words could be found to give that assurance and I hope he will accept the Amendment.
    Mrs. Eveline Hill: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I second the Amendment in the hope that the Minister will accept both Amendments to help local authorities, such as mine, which have been in the forefront of the battle for clean air for so long.
    Mr. Powell: I would recommend the House to make this and the next following Amendment which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) said, would have the result that the smokeless zone provision of a local Act cannot be repealed without the consent of the relevant local authority and that other provisions cannot be repealed until after consultation with the authority.
    The difference is justifiable on the ground that I think the House would agree that it is wrong that the citizen should be subjected simultaneously to two separate requirements in respect of the same matter. For example, there are regulations governing the height of chimneys in certain local Acts which differ in regard to penalties or details from those now standing in the Bill. It would clearly be undesirable that the provisions of the Bill should be brought into force while the local provisions were still unrepealed and the citizen did not know by which code he was governed.
    8.30 p.m.
    Perhaps it might be of interest and use to the House if I were very briefly to indicate the relationship, particularly financially, between the smokeless zone provision in local Acts and the smoke control provisions in the present Bill. The financial provisions, of course, apply only to work which is done after an Order declaring a smoke control area has been confirmed. Therefore, in cases where smokeless zones exist and where all the necessary work of adaptation has

    125
    been done, of course no question arises of any advantage from making a smoke control area Order. In future, after the Bill comes into force a local authority which wishes to benefit by the financial provisions of the Bill will naturally make a smoke control Order under this Measure.
    There remains the transitional case where a local authority may have a smokeless zone under its local Act but where not all the necessary work in implementation, adaptation and so on has yet been concluded.
    Mr. Nabarro: I am now thoroughly confused. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what happens in the case of Manchester? He will have read the third leader in the Manchester Guardian today? What happens in the case of local Acts of Parliament affecting this matter in Manchester in which there is no "unsuitable fuel" defence as is provided in Clause 1 (3, c) of this Bill? What is the position of Manchester? Is it to have an unsuitable fuel defence after this Bill reaches the Statute Book or not?
    Mr. Powell: The position after the Bill reaches the Statute Book will be that if a local authority wishes to profit by the financial provisions of this Act it can proceed under the Act, but if it does not, there is no reason why it should not continue to proceed under its local legislation.
    I was dealing with the transitional case where a local authority may have a smokeless zone under a local Act but where not all the necessary work has yet been done and where it might decide that it would like to obtain the benefit of the Bill for the remaining work which was left to be done. In such cases my right hon. Friend will be prepared to confirm a smoke control Order under this Act which will enable the outstanding work to attract grant under the Act, although, of course, in order that there should not be two simultaneous codes applying to citizens in the same area, it will be necessary for the relevant smokeless zone provision to cease to have effect before the smoke control order comes into force. I thought it might be of interest if I explained how that transitional arrangement can be made if local authorities so desire.
    Mr. Ede: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what is the exact significance
    126
    of the three words, "or county councils" in this Amendment? A county council is a local authority in England. There is no definition in this Bill of a local authority in England. There is a definition as to what a local authority is in Scotland. There it is to include a county council, but in England and Wales a county council is a local authority and the words, "or county council" appear to be unnecessary in this Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: For some purposes, the Bill is read in conjunction with the Public Health Act, 1936, for the relevant purposes of which "local authorities" does not include county councils. It is therefore necessary that those words should have been added here.
    Mr. Ede: Thank you.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 26, line 23, at end insert:
    Provided that in the case of a provision of a local Act which appears to the Minister to be unnecessary having regard to the provisions of sections nine and ten of this Act, the power conferred by this subsection shall not be exercised without the consent of the local authority.—[Mr. E. Johnson.]
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
    8.36 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    At this late stage in proceedings on the Bill, there is no need for me to recapitulate those events, which are fresh in the memory of most of us, which in the last two or three years have intensified public interest in the purity of the air. Changes of many kinds in the techniques of using fuel and generating power have made it possible to impose much higher standards and much stricter requirements than would have been practicable as little as a decade or two ago. The Bill represents an attempt to capitalise our gains by giving statutory force to the codes of good conduct and good practice which are now attainable.
    In the Bill, which replaces the existing code of the relevant part of the Public Health Act, 1936, the guiding principle throughout has been enforceability. Both the House, which gave the Bill a

    127
    Second Reading, and the Standing Committee, which considered it in detail, were agreed that nothing should be put into it which could not and would not be enforced. Such a Measure as this would fail if its provisions were not in every respect practicable and if, therefore, the courts or the local authorities—or, what matters in the last resort, public opinion—did not support enforcement.
    We have, therefore, sought to avoid some of the characteristic faults of the code of 1936, with its large prohibitions and its large avenues of escape and the dependence of that code on the concept of nuisance. Instead, the Bill has proceeded by the method of dividing the whole sphere of pollution of the air into its various sectors and imposing requirements which were appropriate to each of them.
    In three of those sectors, full-scale prohibition will be enforced. The emission of dark smoke, not only from furnaces and chimneys, but also from railway engines and from vessels in ports and harbours, becomes an offence per se, and the purpose of such temporary or exceptional defences as are expressly defined in the Bill is to render enforcement everywhere else the more certain and easy. Our old familiar friend the "best practicable means" defence of 1936 has gone in regard to dark smoke.
    For all new furnaces with substantial rates of fuel consumption or which burn pulverised fuel, equipment to prevent grit and dust emission is an absolute requirement. In this direction, too, the "ifs" and "buts" have gone.
    Finally, in the smoke control areas which will be established on local authority initiative under the provisions of Clause 9, the emission of smoke will itself be an offence. Here, too, such few and narrow exceptions as are provided for are intended to have the means of facilitating and tightening enforcement. In this connection, it is fitting that once again, as has happened so often throughout the proceedings on the Bill, a tribute should be paid to the pioneer work of the authorities which have had smokeless zones under local Acts and have successfully operated them. Outside these three sectors, absolute prohibition would have been inconsistent with the principle of enforceability.
    128
    In regard to the emission of light smoke, if I may coin that expression to describe what is not dark smoke, the Bill requires that all new furnaces shall be as far as practicable smokeless and that the emission of grit and dust from both new and existing furnaces shall be reduced to a minimum. It also takes the opportunity, where the nuisance provisions of the 1936 Act still apply, to simplify and facilitate prosecutions under that Act. Sheer technical practicability has also dictated the provisions of Clause 15, which deal with the problem of children of air pollution, those processes of the kind listed in paragraph 99 of the Beaver Report. Without entering again into our long controversies on the subject of Clause 15, we shall, I think, all agree that a means has to be found for keeping an eye on these problem children for so long as they require that treatment, and that co-operation between an expanded Alkali Inspectorate and the local authorities is the best tutelage to which to entrust them. As soon as technique permits in the case of any particular process, that process must be taken out of Clause 15 and dealt with under the other provisions of the Act.
    Thus, for enforceability's sake, the Bill combines requirements of varying strictness in varying circumstances but I believe its whole tendency will be to promote a rise in standards everywhere, to intensify public interest in the prevention of air pollution, and to direct the work of science and technology into the solution of the problems which are still outstanding.
    Some of these problems it has been impracticable to touch at all in our present state of knowledge and technique. I have in mind particularly the problems of sulphur pollution about which the Beaver Committee and many hon. Members have spoken, certainly without any exaggeration. I repeat here what I said in Standing Committee, that I hope this will not be the last Clean Air Bill in the Parliamentary lifetime of many hon. Members now present. But it would be quite wrong to have waited any longer to put this new code on to the Statute Book. Later legislation which future advances in science and technology will make possible will have to fill the gaps which we are leaving, and which we know we are leaving, in this Bill. There would

    129
    have been more gaps but for the intensive examination to which it has been subjected, both by the House and by the Standing Committee which devotedly considered it for thirteen successive sittings and which made in the Bill a number of very substantial improvements
    To mention only a few of those improvements, there are the new Clauses dealing with the height of chimneys and with the measurement of smoke. There are the provisions which cover furnaces outside buildings, and also those which deal with smoke arising from the burning of waste substances. Those are only a few of the very many improvements for which my right hon. Friend is indebted to the criticisms and suggestions of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    When this Bill reaches the Statute Book, it is the intention to bring its provisions into force as soon as practicable. Those dealing with the establishment of smoke control areas should be in force before the end of the year, and all the remainder of the Bill is intended to be in effect in approximately two years' time.
    The interval will not be wasted, for the passing of the Act will put all those concerned upon notice as to what are the future standards and practices which are required of them, and even before the relevant appointed days come along very real improvements in equipment and practice ought to have taken place as a result of this Bill.
    If I may be allowed to end with a personal word, it cannot be often that a member is lucky enough to commend from this Box on Third Reading a Measure of which he supported the forerunner as a Private Member's Bill from the back benches. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) had the good fortune early last year to be able to strike while the iron was hot upon the anvil of his own favourite subject. He did me the honour of allowing me to put my name, along with those of several others from both sides of the House, on the back of his Bill. I hope he will allow me to congratulate him on seeing its heir and successor pass the House tonight, though I know he would be the first to acknowledge that this Bill, as it leaves the House, is the work of many hands, and its implementation will depend on the co-operation of all.
    8.45 p.m.
    Dr. Summerskill: I have pleasure in following the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that those of us here who found the thirteen weeks of Committee work at times perhaps a little tedious were sustained always by the knowledge that we were playing our part in promoting a Measure which will, I think, be regarded by those who are interested in public health as a most important addition to the public health law.
    We have been involved in all kinds of technicalities, and I do not think it would be wrong to say that at times both sides felt somewhat bemused and bewildered. Nevertheless, we have struggled on, and now that we have come to the end I feel a tremendous satisfaction in thinking that I have played some part in bringing the Bill to Third Reading. I like to think that I have stood both at that Box and at this Box to assist in the passage of Measures to help ensure that we have clean food, clean milk, and now clean air.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: And clean water, too.
    Dr. Summerskill: I missed that, but I have been trying to think of other things we can clean, too.
    This is an important Bill, and here I must say a word about the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), for I think we have seen him at his best during the passage of the Bill, and I am sure all of us have welcomed the contributions he has made to our deliberations.
    I am very pleased to think we have established the machinery of the Clean Air Council which will ensure that we shall be kept informed of what is happening. I agree that there is much more to be done, and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary stressed the fact that we are only at the beginning of our work, for it would be quite wrong to think that this Bill will ensure clean air. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) is not here, because during the passage of the Bill he has repeatedly emphasised that the important thing is to remove sulphur from the air.
    Technicians tell us that there is no practical way of doing this. However, I am not a bit dismayed. I am quite certain that in a few years' time another Bill will be passed, and I hope that, if

    131
    I am not too tottery, I shall stand at that Box and shall be able to say, "A few years ago we had no idea how to remove sulphur and other noxious fumes, including fluorine, from the air, but now the technicians say that it can be done." So we move on this long road of public health legislation, and I think that all of us here tonight are proud to think we have established another landmark upon it.
    I have been a little sorry for the experts. I assume that many of them have been following our debates. So many of them have been confounded. I must comment again that it is extraordinary that so many experts who have given advice on this subject have proved to be wrong. It is a most curious thing that so many of them apparently have devoted all their academic lives to the subject only to hear amateurs like us deriding them. They must find that a little difficult. The outstanding case was the Amendment which we recently discussed whereby "ten tons" had to be changed to "one ton".
    I thank the Minister for his kindly co-operation in the Amendments which he has accepted. I am sorry that occasionally we have had to force him into the Division Lobby. Nevertheless, I think that we have been tolerant, and we have felt very appreciative when he has accepted arguments from this side of the House.
    I think that the Minister will agree, however, that the Bill contains certain defences which can be used by the antisocial individual. These give us a great deal of concern. While the use of authorised fuel can be a defence against the emission of smoke, the Minister tells us that he has no intention of authorising fuel capable of emitting smoke. We hope that this undertaking will be binding upon his successors, otherwise the Bill will completely fail in its important provisions.
    It has been mentioned on several occasions, the last time by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), a former Home Secretary, that Ministers come and go. I quoted the Water Act, 1945, to show how a Minister of that day appointed a Committee and his successor decided to abandon that most important body. It gives some
    132
    of us who have been in the House for many years cause for apprehension when we listen to Ministers giving undertakings, which perhaps cannot be incorporated in a Bill, and we wonder whether their successors will honour those undertakings. We hope that in this important respect it will be the case that the undertaking will be honoured.
    The passage of the Bill has been marked with very little acrimony. Harmony has prevailed. Harmony always should prevail in the passage of a Measure designed to protect the health and well-being of the people. I look forward to the day when hon. Members who have shown their interest in the Bill will again be called to serve on yet another Committee to consider a Bill far in advance of this one. I am sure that they will serve as faithfully, as well and as expertly as they have done in the case of this important Measure.
    8.52 p.m.
    Mr. Nabarro: At the outset, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) for the references made to our combined activities during the course of the last 18 months. It is almost without parallel in parliamentary fortunes that a private Member should have won first place in a Ballot for Private Members' Bills within three weeks of publicaton of the voluminous report of a Committee established by the Government, namely, the Beaver Committee Report, on this issue.
    The fact that I was privileged to bring in a Private Member's Bill was due largely to the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who happens now to be the Parliamentary Secretary, assisting in the piloting of this Measure, for at the time he gave admirable advice in the drafting of what was a most complex Bill. Undoubtedly, no Private Member's Bill of that kind could have begun to succeed without the co-operation of the other side of the House, and the fact that we succeeded on 4th February, 1955, in securing the cognisance and support of Her Majesty's Government for the ensuing legislative Measure of a similar kind, was in no small degree due to the support of hon. Members opposite. In fact,

    133
    the success of ensuing events could not have been achieved without their help.
    I must say, however, that I am not entirely satisfied with the Bill in its present form. The Parliamentary Secretary has wisely observed that the co-operative efforts of many agencies will clearly be required before any full implementation of the policy of clean air can be achieved in this country. We shall require the co-operation of industry, both private and nationalised. We shall require the co-operation of the local authorities, of private persons dwelling in houses in various parts of the country, of Her Majesty's Government, and of many bodies and agencies which, by their co-operative effort, can achieve what we all have in mind and in view.
    The trouble with a somewhat abstract matter of this kind, is that while all piously pay lip service to the desirability for a policy of clean air, the individual person and the individual firm are often less than anxious to make their own personal contribution towards the success of the policy. I use those words with due care and prudence.
    In fact I find, amongst people with whom I have talked on this important topic, a good deal of scepticism about the prospects of securing really clean air in what the Beaver Committee referred to as the black areas of the country, notably the heavily industrialised areas. The sceptical folk are inclined to say that they and their forebears have endured since the earliest days of the Industrial Revolution, heavy smoke in all the industrial districts, and that it seems hardly practicable for those areas to be rendered free from smoke.
    I had, what I thought was an enlightening and stimulating experience last Friday afternoon, in Manchester. I was privileged to be addressing a meeting at the Engineers' Club in Albert Square, which is in the middle of Manchester's smokeless zone. I had driven there from Kidderminster, through Birmingham and the Black Country, through Wolverhampton and through the Potteries. I had seen heavily smoke-polluted districts and yet, in the middle of Manchester, in the middle of this smokeless zone—I was speaking in a room on the fourth storey of that building—I looked out upon air which was as clean and as pure as the air in
    134
    the village of Broadway, Worcestershire, where I live.
    It was, indeed, extraordinary to me that there could be this identity of air conditions, as between a village in rural Worcestershire and the centre of a vast industrial city such as Manchester, the smokelessness of the centre of which has been created by the foresight and skill of the Manchester City authorities during the last ten years. This should be evidence that what has been achieved by a local Act of Parliament in one heavily built up area in the North-West can be achieved elsewhere. I suggest that the sceptics will still say, "Oh, yes, but the smokeless zone in Manchester is very small. Think of the vast areas elsewhere that we have yet to clean up." Before I see this Bill depart from this House I think it is instructive for the British House of Commons to view with approbation what has been achieved in the American city of Pittsburgh.
    There the city conditions were ten years ago similar in many respects to our black areas. Their local ordinances—or to give them our expression, local Acts of Parliament—were not dissimilar in character to what, during the last few months, we have built into the Bill before the House tonight. I think that the whole House will be interested in the latest available statistics from Pittsburgh. I say this because they are a measure of the tremendous success that can be achieved within one decade in this important realm of social progress and reform, provided that there is enthusiasm and a co-operative spirit between all the agencies and bodies to which I have referred.
    The City of Pittsburgh reports that between 1945 and 1952 the number of hours per month of moderate smoke were reduced from 701 in 1945 to 263 in 1952. The hours per month of heavy smoke were reduced from 226 in 1945 to only 21 in 1952. The total hours, as an aggregation of moderate and heavy smoke, were reduced from 927 in 1945 to only 284 in 1952, or a reduction of not less than 69 per cent. A reduction of almost seven-tenths in just seven years.
    It is evident from that if we, notably the local authorities who are responsible for what the Beaver Committee referred to as the black areas, tackle our atmospheric pollution problems with the same enthusiasm as has been displayed

    135
    not only in the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but in St. Louis, Missouri, and many other American cities, and with the full support of Her Majesty's Government, and with parallel legislation in days to come on the issues raised and provisions recommended by the Beaver Committee, which it has not proved expedient or legislatively practicable to include in this Measure, the black areas of Britain may achieve what has already been attained in the U.S.A.
    I hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading tonight and will swiftly pass through another place. Before I resume my seat, I should like to record my most sincere and grateful thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister for having met me on so many controversial issues. I hope he will forgive me—I say this in a spirit of due contriteness—for having agreed to disagree with him on two fundamental issues. It takes a lot to make a right-wing full-blooded Tory vote against one of his own Ministers, and I voted against my right hon. Friend once in Committee and have voted against him once more this evening because I fundamentally disagreed with him on the two issues concerned. None the less, he has produced a fairly good Bill, and I hope that the results and the success achieved by the Measure in the years ahead will be a monument to his personal perspicacity and tenacity throughout the protracted stages of the Bill.
    9.2 p.m.
    Mr. Denis Howell: In these days when the world has seen the cult of the personality discarded it is very nice to hear the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) doing the same thing before sitting down. Those of us who were privileged to be members of the Standing Committee on the Bill never thought we should see this moment arrive, but it is in keeping with the general pleasantness of the occasion that both Front Benches should congratulate each other upon the co-operative efforts and now even the hon. Member for Kidderminster, who almost brought the Government down at one stage during Committee, has been able to recant in a proper manner.
    It is true that the Bill is a great step forward, and I join my right hon. Friend
    136
    the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) and other hon. Members in paying tribute to the Government for what they have done. Nevertheless, it is proper to say, as my right hon. Friend mentioned and as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that this is not the end of the matter. A great deal still remains to be done.
    Although I give the Bill every support as far as it goes, I am one of those who still feel that it does not go far enough. It still leaves a lot to be desired, and it is to those matters that I wish to direct attention. Local authorities will be particularly disappointed at what my right hon. Friend described as the escape Clauses. I am sorry that those Clauses have come through the Committee and Report stages without serious interference. That is unfortunate. I believe that they place local authorities in an impossible position.
    I have discussed these Clauses very carefully with the authorities in Birmingham which have to implement them, and the officials there are still firmly of the opinion that it will be practically impossible to prosecute or to contradict evidence put forward by defendants under the terms of the Bill. We do not have far to look. In the case of dark smoke, in Clause 1 (3, b) we find that it would be a defence to prove:
    "that the contravention complained of was solely due to some failure of a furnace or of apparatus used in connection with a furnace, that that failure could not reasonably have been foreseen, or, if foreseen, could not reasonably have been provided against, and have the contravention could not reasonably have been prevented by action taken after the failure occurred."
    It is all very well to put language of that sort in a Bill, but we must stop and think what it means in practice.
    In Birmingham we have a chief smoke inspector who has an establishment, because the Birmingham City Council is particularly concerned with this problem. If a smoke inspector observes a contravention, as the Bill is now drafted, he will have to stand aside and observe the contravention for a time. When he is satisfied that there is a prima facie offence, he has to enter the building. His position is more difficult if he waits outside the building until the offence has ended so that he gets the fullest possible information. It will be possible for an inspector to report an offence and to get

    137
    his local authority to proceed and for a long period to elapse before the case goes to court. No contravention of this sort will come up in a magistrate's court within two months of the offence occurring, and it will not be until then that the local authority will know what the defence will be.
    We are not bothered about good industrialists, because we know that they will take reasonable steps. Bad industrialists need not tell a local authority what their defence will be. Local authorities may have to take an army of experts to court to hear the defence and then try to destroy it. That is an impossible position for local authorities. In Committee I mentioned the example where a furnace bridge collapses. It would be impossible for the furnaceman, the manager of the firm, or the smoke inspector to be able to prove whether or not that had happened, unless the furnace were allowed to die out to permit an inspection. Nobody can believe that that will happen, and if the furnace bridge did collapse, it would allow air to enter and would thereby create black smoke.
    I take issue with the Minister who earlier said that nobody had contradicted the fact that unsuitable fuel must create some smoke. The Minister said that he had discussed the matter with several expert organisations. Some of us have asked the Minister to visit our local authorities. I extended that invitation on behalf of the City of Birmingham. I do not know whether the Minister has contacted Birmingham City Council. If he has done so, I shall be delighted to hear it. It is the view of the Birmingham City Council that there is no ground for suggesting that unsuitable fuel must cause smoke. Will the Minister tell us whether he has contacted National Smoke Abatement Society, a very important body with experts and upon whose Committees large local authorities are represented?
    I regret the new rate of burning solid fuels of more than one ton per hour which has been agreed today. Again the figures are most revealing. It is proved that in Birmingham since the war 87 per cent. of the furnaces installed since 1946 are capable of burning at the rate of one hundredweight per hour or less and 76 per cent. are capable of burning at the rate of one ton per hour or less. So it
    138
    will be seen that most of the furnaces being installed in Birmingham will be excluded from the provision regarding plans passed and agreed by the local authority. Where local authorities are in the position of having to implement these measures one would have thought it reasonable that they should have power to see details and plans of the furnaces erected.
    I am sorry that the Minister has compromised on the figure of one ton. That figure is to be welcomed when compared with the original figure of ten tons, but it does not go far enough, and I am sure that this House will eventually have to consider this matter again. I am certain that local authorities will press strongly for an improved figure.
    There are two other points I wish to mention and to which I hope attention will be paid by the Minister. The first relates to the Government's fuel policy. It is no use the nation starting out on a clean air policy without having some idea of what sort of policy is to be followed. The Government should be thinking in terms of an adequate supply of smokeless fuel for the smoke control areas which will gradually come into being. They should consider the economic factors of a clean air policy; how much smokeless fuels will cost. We have heard nothing about that, except that there will be adequate supplies of coke. That is one type of smokeless fuel, but there are others which some of us consider preferable. The Parliamentary Secretary, who has become almost an old friend of mine during the Committee discussions on this Bill, has said nothing at all about the Government's policy.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: The hon. Gentleman has made a speech. It was a small one, but he did make a speech.
    Mr. Howell: I am delighted to know from that intervention that the Parliamentary Secretary has made a speech. Although I did not have the privilege of listening to it, being a betting man I am prepared to accept odds that the hon. Gentleman said nothing about the Government's policy regarding the supply of smokeless fuel, which is an important consideration to all of us who have an interest in this matter. It is hopeless to suggest to local authorities that they should embark on a policy of creating

    139
    smokeless zones when the Government say nothing at all about the provision of an adequate supply of smokeless fuel and what the price of it will be. We have heard nothing to encourage householders to change from coal to Coalite or coke, or similar fuel.
    A problem which is still left untackled is that created by sulphur and diesel fumes. That is not dealt with in this Bill though it creates a sickening, nauseating and growing evil. I do not blame the Government because the provisions of this Bill do not touch that problem. Everything could not be included in one Measure. I was happy to learn in Committee that the problem of diesel fumes is being considered. There is a growing medical opinion that these fumes represent one of the greatest modern dangers to health, particularly in regard to cancer, and I hope that if we are concerned to have a proper clean air policy the Government will continue to give urgent consideration to this matter.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member has just made a statement about the effect which diesel fumes have in connection with cancer. Can he substantiate that? Is not he aware that Dr. Doll says that there is no connection between the two?
    Mr. Howell: I was saying that there is a growing medical opinion to that effect, and I believe it to be so. I am quite aware that some medical authorities say that it is not so, and that in this matter science has not reached perfection, but many medical officers—including the Medical Officer of Health for Birmingham, as I know, having served for six years upon the Birmingham Health Committee—are of the opinion that all the statistics show that there is a very close connection between diesel fumes and the growth of lung cancer.
    I am not arguing that this is an absolute fact, but it is certainly true that diesel fumes are nauseating and sickening. There is a case for the Government taking much more positive action, and doing much more research into the effect of diesel fumes, if only to stop the nauseating effect which they have upon most of those who live in confined city centres. The Government should take steps to determine the matter once and for all, and set
    140
    the public's mind at rest in the light of this growing medical opinion.
    Most of us, however limited we feel the Bill is, will do our best to make it workable and to assist the Government in every way, but we must have a public education campaign in respect of it. There are millions of families in the country who are so attracted to the old-fashioned coal fire that the very thought of departing from it will be horrible to them. The Government must bear in mind the fact that when local authorities implement the Bill, with more and more smokeless zones, they will face a great deal of opposition. Now that the Bill is shortly to go upon the Statute Book the Government and local authorities must realise the necessity for this public education campaign. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House, and other enlightened people in the country, will be only too happy to join with the Government in such a campaign.
    I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Government, the hon. Member for Kidderminster and others who have played a pioneer part in preparing the Bill, and I hope that it will not be too long before we have a second instalment, so that we may really have a clean air policy instead of the partial one which we will have as a result of this Measure.
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. J. A. Leavey: I merely want to express very briefly my support of this Measure, and to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) at this stage in the Bill's passage. It is described as a Bill "to make provision for abating the pollution of the air." I come from industrial Lancashire, and have the honour to represent the constituency of Heywood and Royton, which I would prefer not to have described as one of the black areas. If it has to be described by a colour then I hope that it will be described as blue.
    For many years in that part of the country we have suffered from the disagreeable effects of air pollution. Indeed, in company with many other industrial parts of the country we have suffered from air pollution ever since the Industrial Revolution. It is a district where the incidence of bronchial disease is very

    141
    high, and although air pollution is, perhaps, only a contributory factor, I am sure that medical opinion would support the view that it is a serious menace to health.
    If this Measure will reduce the degree of air pollution it will, I believe, deserve and command widespread support. Something of which none of us can be proud is the fact that for many years we have at one and the same time polluted our precious air and wasted our precious fuel. Air pollution implies that. It would not be reasonable to suggest that a change will be made overnight—that would obviously be quite unrealistic—but I believe that a reasonable balance has been struck between what is desirable and what is practicable. I would only add once again a word of congratulation to my right hon. Friend and to all those other right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this very worthwhile Measure.
    9.22 p.m.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: Most of my hon. Friends and most of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been congratulating the Government tonight have been speaking from their experience in industrial constituencies in the North of England. On this occasion I have to congratulate the Government as the representative of a London constituency. Indeed. I am congratulating the Government through a Minister who also sits for a London constituency and who knows, as I do, that the conditions of this city of ours so far as clean air is concerned are really quite deplorable.
    Those of us who have lived and worked in the city know that it is unnecessarily dirty and that it suffers horribly from smoke that could be avoided. That is the reason why some of us who have worked so hard on the Bill congratulate the Minister on what he has done so far. But one of the problems which worries us is the extent to which the escape provisions in the Bill are to be used by delinquent smoke producers. Ultimately, the success of a clean air campaign will depend not on administration or on the actions of the local authorities, nor even on prosecutions; it will depend on whether manufacturers are induced to produce really efficient furnaces and fireplaces. That will be the real measure of success.
    142
    The Bill uses the word "practicable over and over again. That means that so long as somebody can show that every practicable effort has been taken to prevent smoke there shall be a defence. That, really, is doing no more than arguing for the best, but the best, as we all know, is the enemy of the good. What we have to do is to get the manufacturers of furnaces and fireplaces to undertake the necessary research so as to see to it that it is almost humanly and mechanically impossible to continue the pollution of our towns and cities.
    I hope that the local authorities, the law, the Minister, the Clean Air Council and all the organisations that are to be responsible for seeing that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, works properly, will also see to it that every encouragement is given to manufacturers, whether by competition or by appeals for new designs, to stop this pollution at the very beginning. What is important is not so much what is put into the furnace as to ensure that the combustion machine itself is an efficient converter of fuel.
    If we can induce a real sense of urgency in this problem among the manufacturers, I believe that in a few years' time we shall be able to make London a clean, pleasant and beautiful city in which our people can go about their work happily and live decent, healthy lives. If the escape Clauses are to be used simply as an excuse for saying that we are doing our best and can do no more, we shall have wasted fourteen Committee meetings and several days spent on the Floor of this House.
    9.26 p.m.
    Mr. Moyle: I wish to join with my colleagues in extending to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary a word of congratulation on achieving the Third Reading of this Bill. One matter on which they may both reflect with great pleasure is that it happens to be a Bill for which there is no precedent and no blueprint. I think this is the first comprehensive piece of legislation in this country which we have introduced in the fight against air pollution.
    We have suffered under the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the last two or three months. First we had him on the Housing Subsidies Bill. Then we had seven weeks of him on the

    143
    Clean Air Bill. I must say that he is the finest stonewaller of a Minister I have ever met. In fact, he reminded me vividly of the days of George Gunn, the opening bat for Notts., who, as everybody knows, could keep his wicket intact all day and, indeed, until the morrow and be content enough to score at the end of the day only fifty runs: but he kept his wicket intact, and so did the Minister.
    During the last two days on this Bill in Standing Committee the Minister scored a few excellent boundaries in the form of the Clean Air Council and modifying the Inspectorate by marrying the local authorities to the centre, and those two boundaries, with one or two more, relieved an otherwise monotonous and colourless long innings.
    It is a matter of considerable satisfaction that this is a better Bill now than it was when we first went into Committee. The finest thing in the Bill is the Clean Air Council, and I am not much concerned whether it is a statutory body or not. What is so important is the fact that the Minister has agreed to undertake the chairmanship of this advisory body and to accept gladly the responsibility of himself submitting a report to the House, which of course will canalise interest in the field of air pollution and will certainly give us every opportunity of criticising the Minister in relation to his Parliamentary accountability for the fight against air pollution.
    I share the view expressed by some of my hon. Friends, as well as by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), that the most unsatisfactory feature of this Bill is the defences provided in Clause 1 in particular and to a lesser extent in Clause 2.
    May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) in relation to this problem of smokeless zones or, as I prefer to call them, smoke control areas, because I doubt whether we shall get any smokeless zones.
    I should not have mentioned this tonight in this connection but for the optimistic reference by the Minister in Committee when speaking on smokeless fuel as a factor in producing a smoke control area. He said:
    "What we are doing is to press forward to the utmost practicable extent to increase the
    144
    quantities of smokeless fuel which will be available in the years ahead."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee B, 6th March, 1956; c. 327.]
    The Beaver Committee said in its Report, as the Minister will recall, that practically half the air pollution from smoke came from domestic chimneys. Coal is the basic fuel from which all smokeless fuel is produced. Since I had the temerity to suggest to the Minister in Committee that he should take steps to nationalise the private industries concerned with the production of smokeless fuel, I have been brought into touch with one or two of the directors who are responsible for the private production of smokeless fuel.
    The position as I see it is that the National Coal Board is responsible for the production of coke and Phurnacite, but other smokeless fuels are produced by private enterprise. Unless the National Coal Board tackles this problem in co-operation with the Ministry of Fuel and Power we are not likely to get anything like a fraction of the supply of smokeless fuel necessary to the task of establishing smokeless zones.
    I am informed, concerning smoke control areas, which are among the main objectives of the Bill, that unless we get adequate supplies of smokeless fuel there is no possibility of anything like smokeless zones being set up, partly because the air pollution comes largely from domestic chimneys and partly because the price of smokeless fuel is prohibitive. I used the figure of 10s. 6d. a cwt. when I spoke in Committee and I have since been advised by people who know that the price in fact reaches about 12s. 6d. a cwt. The cost of producing smokeless fuel involves such a heavy capital expenditure that it is not likely that we shall get adequate supplies of this fuel unless the National Coal Board seizes the opportunity and becomes the major producer of smokeless fuel at a much lower price.
    I mention these facts so that in replying to the debate the Minister may perhaps have something to say about the supply of smokeless fuel at reasonable prices. It seems, in the light of what the experts in private industry, concerned with the production of smokeless fuel, have told us, that unless the Government ease some of its credit squeeze or unless

    145
    the National Coal Board gets down to the job there is no likelihood of our getting anything more than a mere percentage of the smokeless fuel that is required to bring about any improvement in air pollution caused by smoke.
    Those are my main observations. I should not have used the time of the House so extensively on smokeless fuel had it not been for the Minister's rather optimistic observations on the subject, and the advice which I have received from those people who are much more competent to know about the serious difficulties with which they are faced in seeking to ensure an adequate supply of smokeless fuel.
    9.35 p.m.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I am almost at a loss for words. With the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) recanting and everybody praising everybody else or sitting at the mercy seat, it is rather difficult for me to express that inward glow of satisfaction that I am an unredeemed sinner. I have gloried in this Bill: I have enjoyed it right from the beginning because I have tried—although I fear that I have failed—to make it a really effective Clean Air Bill.
    The Government have produced a Parliamentary Secretary who has argued the Bill in a very good way. I congratulate him on his performance, but the Bill is still a bad one. For thirteen Committee sittings and two full days in this House we have been sailing towards the horizon of clean air, with our engines full astern and our flag half-way up the mast. In that mixed metaphor I am saying that I am still very unsatisfied with this Bill.
    The Parliamentary Secretary listed all the beneficent things we had done by way of amendment, but that was very easy. What was much more difficult—and the Parliamentary Secretary has done it well—was so to list them that one does not show the things we have done which are not beneficent. Against the minor Amendments which have been conceded, I would point out that the defence provisions in the Bill, especially the definition of "best practical means" in terms of combination, will make it awkward for local authorities to sustain successful prosecutions against the worst offenders.
    146
    If a great deal of progress is made under this Measure in the very near future, it will be because there has been discussion about clean air, because there has been parliamentary debate on the matter and the general public and employers are prepared to co-operate. A great many have gone far beyond what the Bill would at the moment require, but there are bad employers and bad industrialists—people who will take advantage of the defence provisions and not do what is right about equipment.
    We have been debating something which goes even beyond the health of the community; we have been debating something which is connected with its economic condition. The Government have just published a pamphlet on the economic conditions of the country. It should give rise to a great deal of disquiet when we realise that Britain is badly equipped to meet competition in the world and that we have to survive as a nation by importing all our raw materials. It is not without significance that if this country is to survive as a first-rate industrial Power it can only do so with the best machines. Strangely enough, the best machines are those which do not emit contamination into the atmosphere. From that point of view alone this Bill ought to have made a much more valuable contribution to our industrial and economic development.
    The Parliamentary Secretary said that we have done very well with the Bill and have said that the "best practical means"—one of the phrases used in the courts for a long time under the Public Health Act—has now gone and that there are now no "ifs" and "buts". There are some "ifs" and "buts" in these defence provisions. A great many lawyers will soon enrich themselves by trying to find ways and means of applying defence provisions and opposing defence provisions. It has been wrong to include in the Bill those defence provisions which will be used, I am convinced, as a means of escape to avoid doing what is right and proper, in terms of equipment, to free the air from the noxious poisons from which not only people but the economic condition of the country suffer.
    With the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope that this is not the last Clean Air Bill. I should be very sorry if I thought that, except for what happens in another

    147
    place, our legislation for clean air was virtually finished here tonight. I do not believe that even the Beaver Committee went as far as it could have done in its recommendations to improve the health of the country and equipment, so that it would make its full contribution to the nation's economic well-being. The Beaver Committee could have spent more time in Sheffield. By going into various places in the city it could have learned far more than it did from its brief visit there.
    We have put one or two teeth into the Bill and we have slightly improved it, but we have given it nothing like a full set of dentures. We have done the best we could, and in the circumstances we have made all that it was possible to make of it. Even so, with all our efforts, I do not believe that the Bill will meet the country's needs in purifying the atmosphere and saving us from the tremendous cost of these impurities in the air, which the Beaver Committee estimated at £250 million a year.
    Those are my sentiments on Third Reading. The Parliamentary Secretary comes out of these debates with great credit for his courtesy and kindness in handling a difficult subject, but that does not prevent me from saying that I am still disappointed, even though we have nearly reached the end of the road.
    9.43 p.m.
    Dr. Stross: The Minister will remember that on Second Reading I had the honour to speak last from these benches. I finished my speech by asking him to take careful note of the things we wanted by way of improvement in the Bill, and then by saying that if he consented to our requests I was sure he would be proud of his child. When the Minister rose to speak, he said he was not so sure about that except that it was apparent that a good time had been had here by all. That was because everybody in turn had criticised the Bill on Second Reading.
    At that time, it appeared as if the Minister, after the most careful scrutiny and consideration of the whole matter with his experts, had made up his mind that he had gone as far as he reasonably could without harming industry or the cause generally that we all had at heart. I think, however, that he must now admit that some of his fears were not well
    148
    founded, for he has been able to give us some very real further improvements. I note that when he goes abroad, as he has done lately, he commends his child to other countries and asks them to follow suit by assuming paternity over similar legislation.
    All of us, on both sides, have found the transactions of the Bill during Committee quite fascinating. To a medical man like myself, it has appeared throughout not as a piece of normal legislation connected with industry, but as a piece of preventive medicine, and a very important and exciting piece. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) feels as pessimistic as he does. His advice was so very valuable during the Committee stage, but I am quite sure he is mistaken in thinking that very little has been done by this piece of legislation.
    The real parents of this Bill, of course, were misery and death, to say nothing of squalor and disease. A few years ago we had the great fog, which cost us so many thousands of lives in Greater London; and the House will perhaps have noted that this last winter a further thousand people died as a result of what is called "smog" in London itself, as compared with the normal year.
    It is that which has forced this legislation upon us. The fact that we have had to wait so long should not make us too ashamed, for is it not the first piece of comprehensive, national legislation of its kind in the world? In saying that it is comprehensive and national in character, I believe that it has gone as far as, if not further than, anything else on a national scale anywhere in the world. There have been other fragments of legislation, state by state or city by city, some perhaps a little more comprehensive than this. This, however, is national legislation, and I do not at all object that the Minister should boast of his child when he goes abroad and commends it to other countries. I am sure he is absolutely right to do so, and we, too, are all proud of it.
    If there are two faults in the Bill, they are due to two factors. The first, as has already been pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary, is the limitation of our scientific knowledge, which prevents our doing all we would like to do. We do not as yet know how to cleanse the

    149
    atmosphere of sulphur or carbon monoxide, for instance, produced from the exhausts of petrol or diesel motor vehicles. When we do know, we shall. I am sure, press forward with a second Bill in order to bring about what is desirable.
    The other limiting factor is the consciousness that industry is not working in all branches at the same level; some sections of industry are backward as compared with others. We must give them reasonable time to bring themselves up to date. That has been one of the reasons why escape Clauses—like the one we have dealt with today, perhaps—have been inserted in the Bill. None the less, taking the Bill as a whole, all of us on both sides have been very happy to participate in it. It is something we shall always remember.
    The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will have noted that when he introduced his Private Member's Bill I opposed it and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) supported that opposition. We did so because we were satisfied that a Private Member's Bill could not give us the comprehensive type of legislation which we now have. At that time, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, said to me—if I might quote words of his spoken behind the Chair—"Are you sure you are doing right in opposing this Bill? Is not a bird in the hand worth more than two in the bush?"
    Nevertheless, we took the risk, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Kidderminster understood full well at that time what our motives were. I am sure that he is now as pleased as we are that he then failed to get his Private Bill through so that, after a short time, we might have this particular Measure.
    9.49 p.m.
    Mr. Sandys: First, I would refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who said I should be proud of the paternity of my child. Nowadays, personal leadership is out of fashion. Collective leadership is the order of the day. I think we can all agree that this Bill represents a collective effort, and that we can all join in paying tribute to the collective paternity of the child. [Laughter.] If the doctors on the opposite benches object medically to that description, I can only say it was not intended in that sense.
    150
    The right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) referred to the harmony which had characterised our discussions. That harmony has been due in no small measure to the leadership displayed by the right hon. Lady herself. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that everyone in every part of the House and in the Committee upstairs, if one can describe a Committee downstairs as a Committee upstairs, has played his part in bringing about this happy result.
    I should like to add my word of appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). There were times when perhaps we did not feel that his absence delayed our progress, but we were genuinely sorry that in our consideration of the Bill, in which he played such a big part, he should have been kept away through illness from some of the proceedings. I would say to him what, I am sure, he will be fair enough to recognise, that the Government have also had something to do with this Bill. At the same time I am the first readily to recognise that my hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill did something also to put pressure upon us and to accelerate the timetable. It was not, as he knows, the Bill's origin, which was, of course, in the Beaver Committee's Report, but I have no doubt that the introduction of his Bill at that psychological moment did make quite sure that no time was lost in introducing the full-fledged Measure with the necessary financial provision which, of course, it was not possible to include in a Private Member's Bill. We all pay our tribute to my hon. Friend for his determination and pertinacity in the pursuit of this object.
    I am sure the House will join with me in expressing our appreciation again—for it has already been done by several hon. Members—to the Parliamentary Secretary. I think everybody has appreciated his profound grasp not only of the Bill but, what I admire so much, his grasp of pretty well every other Measure even remotely connected with the Bill. He seemed able, as I certainly could not, at a moment's notice, to quote any Section of any Public Health Act without the slightest hesitation. I do not know how he does it. He seems to have a Bradshaw mind. I do pay my tribute to him for the absolutely invaluable help and support I have had from him throughout the passage of the Bill.

    151
    The Bill is, of course, based upon the recommendations of the Beaver Committee, and I must once more say how much we owe to Sir Hugh Beaver and to the members of his Committee. Although in the original drafting of the Bill and by Amendments in Committee we have made a number of changes, some of them quite important, we recognise that the foundation and the structure of the Bill rest upon the recommendations of the Beaver Committee. We have had from that Committee a really fine piece of constructive work. As the House remembers, the Committee was set up as a result of the public consternation at the deaths which occurred in the great smog of December, 1952, in London, when about 4,000 people died. The Government at that time decided not to confine the inquiry strictly to smog, but to give the Committee wide terms of reference with regard to air pollution in general. I think that the results fully justify that decision.
    The Committee's Report did much more than recommend preventive measures. It not only awakened public opinion to the threat to health of smoke, grit and dust, but also to the appalling material destruction which they caused, estimated by the Committee to represent about £250 million a year. Furthermore, the Committee reminded us all that the emission of excessive smoke implies an inefficient use of fuel. It estimated this waste of fuel at about 10 million tons of coal a year. In the present state of our economy and our balance of payments, we certainly cannot afford a waste of that order.
    I mention these points because, as the hon. Member for All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) said, we need not only legislation but also an effort of education and propaganda to arouse public interest in this whole subject. I believe that the Beaver Committee's Report did more than anything that has been done in the past to arouse public interest in support of this policy. I also wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge the debt which we all owe to the pioneering efforts of certain local authorities like Manchester and the City of London and others, which have led the way in promoting a clean air policy through their own local Acts.
    This is not the first time that Parliament has enacted legislation to deal with
    152
    air pollution, nor, I am sure, is it going to be the last. Nevertheless, I think that we can claim that this is far and away the most comprehensive Measure yet introduced on this subject. If hon. Members glance at the Fourth Schedule of the Bill, they will see that it repeals all or part of twelve Acts and replaces them by a unified code, which establishes for the first time a comprehensive control of smoke, grit and dust from all sources, including domestic chimneys.
    An encouraging feature about the whole of our proceedings has been the wide support which this policy has evoked not only in the House but among all concerned outside. This fact has emerged clearly from my consultations with local authorities, with industry and others, and, as is evident from their speeches, from the contacts which hon. Members have made in their own constituencies with local authorities and with industry and expert bodies. The same warm support has been evident throughout in the House. Sometimes it has been a trifle too warm, but that is a fault on the right side.
    On Second Reading, I said that I did not want what I described as "watered-down clean air". I went on to say,
    "… I am prepared to consider any advice and proposals which may be offered in Committee … to make the Bill as effective, tight and strong as possible consistent with what is practicable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 1330.]
    I hope that the House feels that I have done my best to implement that undertaking. Some hon. Members no doubt would have liked the Bill to have been a trifle stricter at certain places. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) quite fairly said that the Bill represented a reasonable compromise between what is desirable and what is practicable.
    I am sure that all would agree that in any case the success of the Bill will not depend upon prosecutions and penalties. It will depend finally upon the sincere belief of local authorities and industry and the general public in the policy of clean air and their determination to see it through. Personally I am confident that this belief and this enthusiasm will be forthcoming and that we shall have the hearty co-operation of all who are concerned with this policy. As new discoveries are made, new Bills will have

    153
    to be passed to translate them into legislation, but we should not underrate the significance of the step that we are now taking.
    The right hon. Lady rightly said that this Bill is another landmark in social progress. Like her, I am happy and proud to have had the privilege of playing my part, together with other hon. Members, in introducing this important Measure of reform.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION)
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Teachers Superannuation (Approved External Service) Amending Rules, 1956 (S.I., 1956, No. 262), dated 21st February, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th March, be annulled.
  These Rules relate to the type of service that qualifies in certain circumstances for superannuation of teachers. They might quite well be about some entirely different subject, because the real point in this Prayer is not the merits of these Rules but the suggestion I shall make that in at least one, and, I think, in two respects, they have gone beyond the limits of Parliamentary control imposed by previous legislation.
  The Rules purport to be made under Sections 2 and 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, which, in fact, deals with a number of matters besides teachers' pensions. I shall have to refer to those in a moment. The form they take is to amend some Rules made in 1951, and which are called the Teachers Superannuation (Approved External Service) Rules of that year.
  The first point is this: Sections 2 and 15 of the 1948 Act, which give what is supposed to be the authority for making these Rules, are, as regards Section 15, an ancillary section, and, as regards Section 2, a section of considerable importance, dealing with a number of specified classes of persons. These are the people who transfer between specified classes of employment or between one specified class of employment and some other form of employment. The rule-making power is in subsection (1):
  "… rules may be made with respect to the pensions payable to and in respect of those persons …"
  It goes on "by the appropriate Minister." In the next subsection one finds one of the categories, the only one with which we are concerned tonight, to be:
  "… employment in contributory service within the meaning of the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1946 …"
  There is then a Scottish alternative which does not concern us.

  155
  Accordingly, the power is to make rules with respect to the pensions payable to and in respect of certain persons, but there is no power at that point to enlarge in any way the specified categories of persons, or, more accurately, the specified forms of employment in which at some time or another they must be engaged.
  Indeed, when one goes on through the same Act one finds, in Section 11, that there is an express power to extend the definition of "approved external service." That is what these Rules purport to do, but, of course, it is not done actually under that Section 11, which is not mentioned in the Rules, and, moreover, if it were so done, it would, under another section that I need not refer to in detail for a minute, have to be laid before Parliament and be subject to annulment.
  Therefore, the first point that I make is that Section 2 gives no power to enlarge the categories of people who will be entitled to be considered for qualification for pensions, and, accordingly, that in that respect the Rules go beyond what the Act contemplated and allowed.
  I ought to say at once that that point and the next point to which I shall refer were the subject of the vigilant and careful consideration of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. Its Report to the House was ordered to be printed on 27th March last. Appended to it was a letter directed to the Ministry and the Ministry's reply. While the letter clearly calls attention to the point that I have just mentioned, and also to the point I am about to mention, it is only the one I am about to mention which the Select Committee thought fit to report formally to the House. Therefore, considerable as is my confidence in the point I have already made, and sufficient as I would consider that by itself to be as a reason for the annulment or withdrawal of the Rules, I feel an increased confidence as regards the second point.
  On this second point, I have just explained that the categories of employment which may be included are specified, and the one that is relevant here is what is termed:
  "… contributory service within the meaning of the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts …"
  156
  Accordingly, what the Rules purport to do is to amend some rules already made in 1951 under one of those Acts. When one looks at the 1951 Rules—which, by the way, were made under all three Sections and not merely two of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948—one finds that there again the categories are strictly limited. They are defined and there is no room for extension, but there is in the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, again a statutory power to extend, but to extend only within certain specified limits, and as a condition of extension the extending Statutory Instrument has to be laid before Parliament.
  What has been done by these Rules is, first, to add one specific employment, which under the statutory provisions and, subject to the first point I made, could, no doubt, be done, and then to add a very remarkable provision that there can be added
  "employment in any other capacity approved by the Minister of Education for the purposes of this paragraph."
  Accordingly, the effect of the Rules, if they were to stand, would simply be that the Minister would have by-passed both the laying provision in the 1948 Act and the laying provision, but within limits, in the 1925 Act, and would have conferred on himself, contrary to the intentions of the House, a power to make approvals without laying them before Parliament and without any opportunity of annulment.
  Considering how carefully these Acts were drawn in that respect and the obvious need for something of the sort in a great many cases, I suggest that that provision which confirms paragraph 2 (ib) and what is proposed to be added to the 1951 Rules cannot possibly stand. I repeat that I am not a bit concerned with the merits of the matter. We may be told that this is administratively convenient. That may well be so, but if it is desired to have administrative convenience it cannot be provided at the expense of going beyond the provisions of the relevant Acts of Parliament. There can be no doubt whatever, if the administrative convenience is of sufficient importance—and I take leave to be rather doubtful about that in this case—the right course is to introduce amending legislation.

  157
  In the reply which was made to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments there were some rather curious defences, which, broadly speaking, proceeded on the principle, "We have got away with it before and we may as well try to get away with it again." As regards the first point, a number of instances were given where this power has been exercised in the same way and relevant Orders were then mentioned. I simply say to that that I am not in the least concerned with any misdemeanours that this or any other Ministry has committed in the past. I am concerned that this particular misdemeanour—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not take the phrase to hardly—having been committed, should be corrected.
  I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will at once recognise that if one begins slipping over the line in this respect, even over small matters, one ends by having no line over which to slip and one then loses the parliamentary control which distinguishes this country from a number of others. I feel sure that we shall agree about that.
  Similarly, as regards the second point, which I notice is admitted to be in some sense sub-delegation—I do not know how many senses sub-delegation has—it is just sub-delegation and ought not to be there. The defence at the end of that was that it was, therefore, thought not unreasonable to follow the precedent set by Article something-or-other of the Scottish superannuation scheme. Really, that is going a bit too far. The judges of what is reasonable and unreasonable in a matter of this sort are hon. Members of this House. The judges of what is within the Orders and what is not are, of course, in the last resort the courts, and we can only express our opinion here. But here we justify ourselves by saying that this particular thing has never been done before but they got away with it over the Border.
  In the old days they got away with a lot of curious things over the Border. I should hesitate to remind the hon. Gentleman that there were gallows in Carlisle for purposes connected with little affairs of that sort. Again, I should hesitate—in fact, I should refuse—to say that the blame in the matter was all on one side. But to attempt to justify a minor misdeamour of rule-making in an English
  158
  Ministry by reference to a precedent set by a Scottish Order made under a different Statute shows that we are indeed driven to the last ditch.
  I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure me that subparagraph (ib) at any rate, is going. I say to him in all frankness and sincerity that I believe the first point is a perfectly good point. It was taken by the Select Committee. It was answered by his Ministry and I find the answer completely unconvincing. I consider that the first point is enough to remove the whole of the Rules in this form. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least consider that, even if he does not take action on it immediately. I appreciate it is a more difficult point than the other one, but it is clearly there. It may have other implications because a number of other Orders have been made under this particular piece of legislation. Let us hope that, for once, undeterred by the sucking dove atmosphere we had on the last Bill, the Government will recognise that they have gone a bit too far and that they will do the right thing about this.
  10.18 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: I beg to second the Motion which has been moved so clearly and eloquently by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
  The job of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I have the honour of being a member, is to watch the Executive to see that when it is framing Statutory Instruments it does not exceed the powers given to it by Parliament. It was the unanimous opinion of the Select Committee that in this Statutory Instrument the Executive had exceeded those powers. I think that the late Sir Herbert Williams, who took an active part in setting up that Select Committee, would have been delighted to take part in tonight's debate.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering has spoken tonight as a lawyer. He has shown quite clearly what is wrong with the Instrument which we hope will be annulled as a result of this Motion. As a layman, I follow him haltingly and stumblingly to state the layman's view of the same matter. I would only say about my hon. and

  159
  learned Friend's first point—the one which he called his more complicated point—that we made representations upon this to the Ministry, and that the reply of the Ministry satisfied members of the Select Committee that the Government had not exceeded their powers in interpreting the kind of service to which they could extend the provisions of teachers' superannuation.
  I want to deal with the simple, direct issue, which was the second point of my hon. and learned Friend. Each of the parent Acts—the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, and the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948—gives the Minister power to make rules to define what is meant by "approved external service" for pension purposes. The relevant Sections are Section 13 (1, d) of the 1925 Act, and Sections 2 and 11 of the 1948 Act. But both Acts definitely state that such rules must be laid before Parliament. Section 17 (2) of the 1925 Act says:
  "All rules made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament."
  Section 15 (2) of the 1948 Act says:
  "Any power … to make rules shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, … subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament."
  One of the new rules which the Minister seeks to make under this Statutory Instrument, and in pursuit of the powers given him by those two Acts, reads:
  "The Teachers Superannuation (Approved External Service) Rules, 1951(h), are hereby amended by deleting the word 'or' at the end of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (1) of Rule 3, and adding the following subparagraphs …"
  The Minister asks to be entitled to count
  "employment in any other capacity approved by the Minister of Education for the purposes of this paragraph …"
  In other words, the Minister is making a rule which, if accepted by the House, gives him power to make unlimited rules without submitting them to Parliament. This new rule which he asks us to approve could be a rule to end all other rules in relation to teachers' pensions.
  The Select Committee asked for a report upon this matter. The Minister's reply was, in effect, that the sort of case which the Government had in mind was
  160
  difficult to frame within the terms of a rule; that they wanted power to deal with hard cases which did not fall under the rest of the rules, which they had quite properly detailed and submitted to Parliament. I am quite willing to grant that this is a good reason for exceeding one's powers—but there usually is a good reason for doing so. That is the danger of allowing anybody to get away with a plausible reason for doing some harm.
  Whenever power is handed over to the Executive in a political democracy it always starts in a little way, for a very charming reason. I admit that this may be preferable to the way in which power is seized by the Executive within a dictatorship, but it is none the less perilous, and if Parliament ever loses control it will be because it allows what some fierce critics of Parliament, in books like "The Passing of Parliament." have said has already begun to take place, namely, the erosion away of its control of the Executive.
  I hope that we shall not hear the excuse, tonight, that this is only a tiny baby, or that to do a little right we must do a little wrong. It would be a bad thing for Britain if dictatorship crept in merely because dictatorship was administratively convenient. I am glad that the watchful eye of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is justified by tonight's debate.
  I believe that this is an important Parliamentary occasion. It is certainly not in any way a party occasion. It is worth reminding ourselves even at this time of night that above ourselves, above those who frame Statutory Instruments and above the Minister and the Government is the law. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept this Motion and that we shall annul an Instrument which no matter in how tiny a way gives to the Executive the power to legislate without consulting Parliament.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: I should like for a few moments to underline the objection raised to sub-paragraph (ib) of the Rules. The point we are discussing is not really an educational point, but a constitutional one. It so happens that it is in an educational context, but that is all.

  161
  As far as a layman, can follow it, the point is a very simple and a very important one. The relevant Act gives the Minister power to specify certain employments. As a result of his specifying them certain consequences follow which are important to the private persons who may benefit from that Act and important to the public because the expenditure of public money will be involved. Consequently, the Act requires that when the Minister so specifies employments he should inform Parliament in a document of this kind. The Minister now comes forward with a document in which he indeed specifies one employment, but then adds another phrase saying "and any other employment I may specify."
  Let me give a simple analogy which brings out the danger involved here. We have all read in our youth those romances and fairy stories in which the principal character is informed by the wizard that he may have three wishes. It would surely have been regarded as a piece of sharp practice if, after having had two wishes, he said, as his third wish, "Now I want a dozen more wishes. That is the content of my third wish." That is exactly what the Minister is doing in an Instrument of this kind.
  The Act says that the Minister can specify employment. The Minister says, "Very well, I will specify all the employments that I may in future think of." In that way, he avoids the necessity to inform Parliament of any future employments which he may choose to specify. That cannot possibly be the intention of the Act, and I am sure everyone will agree that the principle involved is an extremely dangerous one. If admitted, it could be applied to the power to make rules under other Acts where much larger sums of public money might be involved. It might be applied in circumstances where, instead of conferring rights on private individuals, it imposed obligations upon them or took away rights from them. Therefore, we ought not to accept a principle of this kind.
  As has been said, the reasons which have been given why we should accept it have been remarkably flimsy. Supposing that sub-paragraph (ib) is withdrawn from these Rules, or supposing that the Instrument is withdrawn and that it is presented in a fresh form and is approved by the House. What would that mean? It would merely mean that
  162
  on each occasion in future when the Minister wanted to specify another kind of employment, even an employment affecting only one or two persons, he would on each occasion have to bring forward a document of this kind.
  Is that really so very great a hardship? The document would not be difficult to prepare. The very fact that it would only deal with a single case would make the document a very easy one to prepare. After all, the bulk of it would be exactly the same in every case. There would be the announcement of the Sections of the Act under which it was made. They would include Section 11. Section 1 would be much the same except for the date. The body of Section 2 would be different because it would contain the particular employment which the Minister specified.
  Then one would go on as usual. Finally the seal of the Minister of Education would have to be affixed to the document, which is no very great trouble to anybody, and two Government Whips would have to be found to sign it. I have been a Government Whip, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is always gratifying for the junior Lords of the Treasury occasionally, amongst their other duties, to be presented with these documents to sign; it makes them feel, despite their enforced silence in this House, that they do in their humble way make the wheels of the machinery of Government turn round. Therefore, there really would not be the slightest difficulty, even if the Minister thought up a new employment once a month, in presenting another of these slender documents. Weigh the weight of twelve such documents in a year against the seriousness of the constitutional principle involved by allowing sub-paragraph (ib) to remain in this document, and I am sure there cannot be any question as to the judgment that we ought to pass.
  10.31 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Although the principal point raised in this debate is a fairly simple one, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—who moved this Prayer with, if I may say so, great moderation—would be the first to agree that the background

  163
  to these Rules is somewhat complicated, even if one has a legal training, which I have not. I think it also fair to say from the debate we have had that there is really no dispute about the intention of this Statutory Instrument, but that those who have spoken are much more concerned with the method of implementation.
  I would say just one word, and one only, about the intention. It is. I think, something that wins general approval, because it is designed to facilitate transfer between employments without complete loss of pension rights, and this is of no less importance in the teaching profession than in any other employment. In fact, there are three ways by which other employments in which a teacher has been or may become engaged can be taken into account for the purposes of the Teachers Superannuation Acts.
  The most favourable arrangement is complete transfer of rights from one superannuation system to another. The second is that, where transfer arrangements exist but where the conditions of transfer are not satisfied—for example, when there is too long a break between teaching and further, employment—approved external service—the subject of these Rules—may be given. The third, which does not really concern us tonight, is even less favourable, and that is qualifying service where other employment is of still more limited value.
  I mention that third category only because it is at present the case that Paragraph 2 (1a) of this Statutory Instrument seeks to elevate the National Health Service from the third to the second category, which, hereafter, will count as an approved external service. As I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering made clear, the approved external service is derived from Section 13 of the Teachers Superannuation Act,1925, and by rules made under the Superannuaton (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, where the categories have been extended. Section 2 of the 1948 Act gives the Minister power to make rules—and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted these words—with respect to the pensions payable to and in respect of the persons who have been employed in one employment and become employed in another, and the rules indicate the employments which will rank as "other employments". That Section, read in
  164
  conjunction with Section 15 of the same Act, has been taken to give sufficient power for the laying of these rules.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, I think, that Section 11 would suffice for the purpose of the first point which he raised. My advice is that Section 11 is restricted, and probably would not give sufficient power in itself to seek to fulfil this Statutory Instrument. That was the first point he raised—whether, in fact, Section 2 and Section 15 were themselves sufficient to justify the Rules as a whole. All I would say at this stage on that point is that this interpretation has not previously been questioned and is in wide usage. I have noted the views expressed in the first inquiry from the Select Committee on this point and also the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments tonight. But, of course, as I think he understands, it has much wider implications. There is no doubt that the 1951 regulations which these Rules amend would suffer from the same weakness, and, indeed, the 1949 regulations which the 1951 regulations replaced. Therefore, I would not wish to comment further on that point tonight except to say that I will have it examined, but that will be rather a long process.
  It is perhaps significant that in its final conclusions the Select Committee did not comment further or come to any conclusion on that first point, and the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) has said tonight that the Minister's reply has satisfied the Committee on that point. Nevertheless, I will have it examined.
  The second and, I think, more important point raised in this debate concerns paragraph 2 (ib) which gives the Minister power to approve other employments without naming them. This has been described as sub-delegation. As the hon. Member for Fulham said, if it were not for this sub-paragraph it would be necessary to make a new rule on each and every occasion on which a new employment arises, perhaps only as a result of one individual case.
  Criticism has been expressed in this House and outside not only of the quality of the Statutory Instruments, but of the number laid before this House. One of the reasons why these Rules were laid in this form was that it was thought desirable to limit the number as far as possible. I fully realise that to take a comprehensive power like this is, in general, undesirable.

  165
  I fully accept that. I would say in its defence—and I do not think that this is disputed—that power is taken only with the object of helping the individual concerned to bring about something which is the subject of general agreement.
  There are, in fact, quite a number of cases which would be covered by this particular paragraph, each of which I fully agree, if the hon. and learned Member is not correct in his first point, could be covered by the inclusion of a separate paragraph or a separate Statutory Instrument as and when the occasion arises. Furthermore, there have been precedents, but I am not going to refer to them tonight, particularly as the hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that one of the precedents was signed by me in my capacity as a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury. Nevertheless, although I maintain that these Rules can only be used to the benefit of individuals and not to deprive them of anything, my right hon. Friend has noted the views of the Select Committee when it says that these Rules make unexpected use of the power conferred by Statute and that paragraph 2 (ib) is prima facie an unauthorised sub-delegation.
  This Report was published only a few days ago and, in fact, since this Prayer was tabled. That Report, together with the arguments that have been advanced tonight, convince me that the correct course to adopt is to replace these Rules with something more acceptable. Hon. Members have suggested that this Prayer should be carried. I would advise the House not to adopt that course. The Rules are in force at the moment, and, in any case paragraph 2 (ia) is important and should remain at least while a fuller investigation is carried out.
  If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw his Prayer, or at least not press it to a Division, my right hon. Friend will make, at the earliest possible moment, a new Statutory Instrument revoking paragraph (ib) and laying a further Statutory Instrument which will, of course, be debatable in the normal course of events.
  Mr. Mitchison: In view of that handsome concession to the vigilance both of the Opposition and of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  BRITISH MUSEUM (NATIONAL LIBRARY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]
  10.40 p.m.
  Mrs. Lena Jeger: I wish to raise tonight the question of the British Museum's new Library, which is usually referred to as the National Library, and to ask the Minister for certain information and guidance which will assist those who are directly concerned in these proposals.
  I want to disclaim any intention of being parochial in the matter, because any project of national or, in this case, international significance must inevitably create disturbance to the people in whose neighbourhood it takes place. I am proud that the British Museum, Reading Room and Library are in my constituency; I think they are unrivalled institutions in their field in the world. But I should be failing in my duty to many of my constituents if I did not bring some of the resultant difficulties of the new scheme before the House.
  I hope that the Minister can give some information tonight about the proposals which he has for meeting some of the problems of displacement. His right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has refused to meet a deputation from Holborn Borough Council, led by myself, which wanted to discuss the implications of the scheme. In an effort to get a little more information I put a Question to the Minister of Works on 20th March, as reported in HANSARD, column 974, and I was told that the present occupants of this site
  "are not likely to be disturbed for a few years to come."
  A little later the right hon. Gentleman said it was
  "unlikely that any of the occupants will be displaced for some years".
  so that we progressed from "a few years" to "some years". Then he went on to say:
  "It is proposed in due course to let on short tenancies those parts of the site which are not required immediately for building; and when I say 'immediately' that does not mean immediately either."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 974.]

  167
  This statement was of such startling clarity that it made the grade for the Observer's saying of the week at that time. I think my constituents deserve a little more clarification of the situation than that.
  The plan, as approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, was incorporated at the request of the. Minister of Works into the County of London Plan. It proposes to take 7½ acres in Bloomsbury, bounded by Bloomsbury Street and Bloomsbury Square, on the West, Bloomsbury Way, the North side of New Oxford Street and Great Russell Street. At present, only about 63 of an acre is cleared or derelict, so the House can see that a great deal of clearance will have to be carried out.
  At present, on the site there are 126 commercial buildings in full use, 99 of which include some residential accommodation. There are 13 buildings which are scheduled as buildings of historic and architectural interest; 184 flats; eight apartment houses; two hotels and a Y.W.C.A. hostel which provides accommodation for 350 girls. It was stated at the public inquiry—and the figures have not been disputed—that over 1,000 people will lose their homes as a result of this plan.
  We must press the Parliamentary Secretary to give an answer to the question of the future of these people. I quote from a statement in the transcript of evidence at the public inquiry, when learned counsel said:
  "There is, of course, no statutory obligation either upon the L.C.C. or upon the Departments which constrains them to provide alternative accommodation for businesses. In so far as the Council"—
  the L.C.C.—
  "displaces persons for the performance of its functions, there is a statutory obligation to rehouse displaced persons. The Crown, of course, is not bound by these provisions, and there is therefore no statutory obligation which would constrain the Crown to rehouse displaced persons. I am authorised to say on behalf of the Departments that they fully recognise the existence of the problem and that they will do everything they can to prevent hardship."
  The Crown has no legal responsibilities in this matter, neither has the London County Council. The official witness for the Holborn Borough Council said:
  168
  "I am asked to place on record that the borough council can accept no responsibilities for rehousing anyone from this area."
  I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is being done, using the words of his official witness, to prevent hardship. Sites in this part of London are being rapidly used up for all kinds of office and institutional building, and the borough council has not yet been able to overtake even 50 per cent. of the residential loss resulting from bombing.
  One can well understand the council, with its long, distressing housing list, feeling unable to face up to any further obligations. I want to know whether the Minister is earmarking any sites in the neighbourhood for the provision of alternative accommodation under a special scheme for displaced people. It is no use saying, as the Minister suggested the other day, that it will be a long time before all this happens, because when that long time has passed all the sites will certainly have been used and it will be too late then to think about the alternative provision which we can make.
  I am also especially concerned, among the business firms who are displaced, about the publishing firms and the bookshops in the neighbourhood which we all know very well and greatly appreciate. At least 35 publishing firms and distinguished specialised bookshops are involved in the clearance area. They form an integral part of the area. They are a natural environment for the Museum and they contribute, no doubt, to the delight and the enlightenment of many of the scholars and visitors from all over the world who use the Museum.
  It is difficult to understand how the Minister, in the name and, we must assume, for the sake of the needs of the great Library, can scatter the very men who make, produce and sell the books which the Library is devoted to preserving. This is especially serious because Hitler's bombing of Paternoster Row destroyed an important publishing centre, and it would be even more serious if this second centre were to be lost.
  The Minister might also look at the question from the point of view of exports. One famous, well-established firm in the area exports 45 per cent. of its books. To develop this trade more fully, it recently asked for planning permission

  169
  to extend its premises into adjoining premises which it already owned, but this was refused by the Minister on the ground that it conflicted with the National Library proposals. Such a firm has a right to ask how long it will be before the proposals become reality, and I hope that the Minister tonight will be able to give the House a definite date.
  Another reason why I must press the matter is that the last time Parliament was asked to pass an Act enabling the British Museum Trustees to acquire land for urgent extensions was in 1894, although as yet, 60 years later, only about one-third of the land has been used and the Museum merely draws rents from the remainder. Is another 60 years likely to elapse before the present scheme is one-third of the way towards fruition? If so, surely people could be assured about their future.
  The representative of the Minister of Works at the public inquiry said that it was the intention of the Ministry to acquire the whole of these properties within ten years from the date of confirmation of the designation. Is this still the Government's policy? As yet, I understand, no plans have been received by the planning authority. Are these plans in fact ready for presentation? Has some programming and phasing yet been worked out? I want to know what the Ministry of Works witness at the public inquiry meant when he said:
  "We are quite determined to do our utmost to see that these people get a fair deal."
  What does that mean in practical terms? Will somewhere on the seven and a half acres be found for the publishers and for the bookshops and for some of the other dislocated businesses and residences? If not, where else are they to go?
  The scheme was not included in the County of London Plan in 1943, but appeared in it later. The London County Council was asked by the Ministry of Works to include this plan in the County of London Plan. The Ministry of Works representative at the public inquiry said that the Trustees of the British Museum asked the Minister to put it in. I should like to know to what extent the Trustees of the British Museum are agreed that the plan in its present form should go through. During the public inquiry the paternity was squarely placed with the
  170
  Minister of Works, for the learned counsel interrupted during the cross-examination of the Ministry of Works witness in the following words:
  "All the responsibility for this rests upon the Minister. We have got to be very careful that we do not have cross-examination of one of his officers upon matters of policy which are for him to justify to Parliament."
  At what stage does the Minister justify his policy to Parliament? Is it to be when he wants the money? Meanwhile, the fact that planning permission has been granted has led people to understand that the final decisions have been taken. I understand from the answer I received on 20th March that the Minister of Works has promised to keep in touch with me about developments, and I hope that this will be for our mutual benefit.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that I share the pride we all take in the British Museum, its Reading Room and great Library, and I do not contest for one moment that improvements are needed very urgently. I regret that the lands bought in 1894 have not been used as intended, and I regret particularly the deplorable working conditions of many of the staff, but I think that if the Minister shared my concern he could increase the current maintenance grants to the Museum. While Parliament seems unable to spend sufficient money for the proper upkeep of the present Museum Library, we must ask ourselves how provision for capital and current expenditure on this vastly bigger scheme can be made. There are many people who are very cynical about the scheme's ever coming to fruition. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us tonight whether this is just a pipe dream or whether he means business.
  I ask him again if he will consult the Trustees of the British Museum about their problems, to see whether there is some modified way in which their difficulties could be met. I am not at all sure there has been enough imaginative and constructive thought given to the problems. We have priceless collections which should be worthily housed and which are not at the moment being treated as they should be—books, music, manuscripts, State papers. On the other hand, there is the obligation under the Copyright Act, 1911, upon the British Museum to receive a copy of every book published, whatever its merits and quality or lack of them.

  171
  There are 75 miles of bookselves at the Museum, and they extend one and a half miles every year to keep pace with this obligation. Does the Minister think it essential that all these books should be housed in the centre of London?
  I believe these copies should be kept, no matter how bad the books, if only that posterity and future literary critics may be able to judge how rich and rare by contrast are the good books we manage to produce in our time. But must they be kept in Central London, on the skirt, if not in the very heart of the British Museum? The Bodleian Library, on which a similar obligation rests, stores many books at Woodstock, seven miles away, keeping in the main Library copies of books of more academic value to be more easily accessible.
  I should like to ask the Minister to ascertain in his consultations whether enough thought has been given to the possibilities of micro-filming, so that we could have all this material available in London in very much less space. The books should, of course, be still kept, because one might want to have the actual volume available to study the binding, presentation and so on. I have seen claims that micro-filming can reduce storage volume to 2 per cent. For instance, every copy of The Times from 1785 to 1942 has been micro-filmed on to reels which take up only 15 cubic feet. Surely this is Marlowe's
  "Infinite riches in a little room"
  and much to be commended.
  I am sure that further study of this scheme could produce a plan which would be more economical, more imaginative and more helpful in every possible way. If I may say so with some diffidence, the present plan is completely Victorian in conception. It belongs to an age of sprawl and spread when labour and space were cheap and expendable. Let us have a plan nearer to the modern age, using all the scientific devices to hand to produce something more stimulating to the minds and eyes of ourselves and our descendants. I put these matters forward in all helpfulness. I hope that it will be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to give me the assurances and information for which I have asked in the same spirit.
  10.56 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) for her thoughtful and imaginative contribution to this subject this evening. I hope that the discussion may serve to allay certain of the anxieties which she expressed and also, although I am less hopeful of this, to vindicate the conception of the proposals to which the hon. Lady has referred.
  I should first remind the House briefly of the history of the scheme. Towards the end of the last war, the Standing Committee on Museums and Galleries recommended the purchase of a site to the east of the existing British Museum for the erection of a new Library building. The London County Council objected to that proposal and suggested the acquisition of an alternative site, lying south of the Museum. This site covers an area of a little over seven acres, and about one-quarter of it is ripe for development as a result of bombing during the war and because of the age of many of the buildings.
  As far back as December, 1946, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, approved in principle the acquisition of the site we are considering tonight. The site was then designated in the London County Council Development Plan and a public inquiry took place into the proposal. All objections were fully considered, but the Minister of Housing and Local Government decided a year ago to approve the designation.
  The hon. Lady's criticism of the proposal falls into two parts. First, she has made certain criticisms of detail and, secondly, she is rather hostile to the whole conception of the scheme. I should like to say a few words which may allay some of the anxieties of the hon. Lady's constituents.
  The first thing I wish to make clear is that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend and the Museum authorities, with whom we are in close contact, that the scheme should be carried out very gradually over a considerable period with the minimum of hardship to interested parties in the locality. In accordance with the

  173
  Town and Country Planning Act we must acquire the designated site by 1965 and that we shall do. That does not mean that we shall develop the whole of the site within that period, or even indeed within a period of twenty years. Where land is not needed in the near future, perhaps within ten years—and that will apply to the bulk of it—we shall hand it back to the present occupiers on tenancies of appropriate duration according to the period we envisage before we shall develop it.
  That I think is clear enough. The first stage of redevelopment under our present plans will not take place before about ten years from now, when we propose to develop the area west of Coptic Street, which is a relatively small part of the site. We hope not to interfere with the block of flats known as Stedham Chambers at this stage of the project.
  We do not expect the second stage of development to start for at least twenty years; that is, before 1975, and it is likely to be later than that. I am sorry that I cannot now tell the hon. Lady which part of the site will be needed for the second stage. This is a complicated problem which involves a great deal of work. We are working hard on a timetable for the entire site, and I assure the hon. Lady that we shall give the occupants and owners a clear idea of how the time-table will proceed as soon as humanly possible.
  The hon. Lady referred to the rehousing of people displaced by the project. We all realise the difficulties of the London County Council and the various local authorities in the Greater London Area over the housing situation. However, in view of the phasing of the development, the rehousing of the dispossessed people is not a current difficulty; nor do I think it is a difficulty which is likely to arise in an acute form within the next ten or fifteen years. The first part of the site which we shall clear and build upon is an area which includes few of the people who live in the area.
  One has also to remember that by the time we reach the stage when we shall have to demolish numbers of flats and houses, the housing situation may have changed radically. When that time comes, and if we run into any difficulties
  174
  about the rehousing of displaced people, there will be no hesitation about making representations to the then Minister of Housing—although heaven knows who will be the Minister at that time—with a view to his bringing some benign influence to bear on the London County Council to help the people who have lost their homes.
  The hon. Lady has referred to the position of the publishers and booksellers, whose businesses, as she so rightly said, form an integral part of the character of Bloomsbury. In order to preserve the character of this area we, think it desirable to try to make some provision in the frontages of the area as redeveloped for bookshops and, perhaps, other shops. We have this question very much in mind, although it is too early to say at the moment how much we can do in this way.
  On the broader question, whether the present conception of the scheme is the right one, I would like to say that my right hon. Friend has for a long time been in the closest touch with the Trustees of the British Museum, and we are acting in complete harmony in this matter. I am sure that the House will agree that it is essential that the British Museum Library should be housed either inside the Museum or in an area close to it. That is desirable, as the hon. Lady knows, for various technical reasons, into which I cannot enter at this late stage, but I would mention the question of its accessibility to the students of London University.
  When I first came across this subject. I, too, had certain doubts whether it was a wise thing to attempt to house all the books, newspapers and sheets of music either in the museum or an adjacent building. I have listened to what the hon. Lady said about the possibility of sifting the wheat from the chaff and putting some of the less important documents outside London. That has been considered, but it is not a feasible proposition. It is not easy to differentiate between what is valuable and what is not. As the hon. Lady said, the museum has an obligation laid upon it by Statute to keep copies of all books, sheet music and newspapers. It would be an impossible task to try to distinguish between a book which was likely to have some value to research workers, and a book which had no such value.

  175
  Literary reputations, like political reputations, are subject to the ravages of time. I do not know who could have judged at the time whether the first published work of George Bernard Shaw was worth keeping in London. I remember reading "The Unsociable Socialist" when I was 15 years of age, and I certainly would then have come to the conclusion that it should be consigned to a place far from London. Even with regard to "Das Kapital," by Karl Marx—the gentleman who spent so much of his time in the British Museum—I am not sure that the hon. Lady's view and mine would coincide. In any case, the space taken up in the library by light
  176
  fiction and sheet music is a very small fraction of the total.
  The hon. Lady has made some most interesting suggestions, and I can assure her that they will be seriously considered. For the rest, I repeat that there is no intention on the part of my right hon. Friend to do other than his best to prevent hardship to any of the hon. Lady's constituents, and directly we are in a position to give them more definite information we shall certainly do so.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Suggestions Scheme
  Suggestions Scheme
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Suggestions Scheme
  Suggestions Scheme
  Tobacco (Dollar Purchases)
  Tobacco (Dollar Purchases)
  British Industries Fair (Overseas Visitors)
  British Industries Fair (Overseas Visitors)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wages and Output
  Wages and Output
  Entertainment Duty (Theatres)
  Entertainment Duty (Theatres)
  Rating Assessments (Errors)
  Rating Assessments (Errors)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Mining Subsidence
  Mining Subsidence
  Private Street Works, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Private Street Works, Newcastle-under-Lyme
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL
  RESEARCH Colonial Problems (Scientists)
  RESEARCH Colonial Problems (Scientists)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Gypsum and Plasterboard
  Gypsum and Plasterboard
  St. James's Park (Bridge)
  St. James's Park (Bridge)
  UGANDA AND KENYA (PUNITIVE RUSTICATION)
  UGANDA AND KENYA (PUNITIVE RUSTICATION)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine
  Poliomyelitis Vaccine
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Government Surplus Stores (Disposal)
  Government Surplus Stores (Disposal)
  DISARMAMENT
  DISARMAMENT
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement and Old-Age Pensions
  Retirement and Old-Age Pensions
Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  BARRY CORPORATION (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
  Read 2a, and committed.
  IPSWICH DOCK BILL
  Read 2a, and committed.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL
  Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH BILL [H.L.]
  2.36 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Lord President is not a departmental Minister in the ordinary sense of the word, and it is very rarely that he has to introduce a Bill into Parliament. The reason why it falls to me to introduce this particular measure is, as I expect your Lordships know, because the Lord President is, constitutionally, the Chairman of the Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research as of the parallel Committees for Medical and Agricultural Research. Anything, therefore, that affects, as this Bill does, the structure of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research directly concerns the Lord President. Quite briefly, the purpose of this small Bill is twofold. Its first and main purpose is to replace the present Advisory Council of the D.S.I.R.—if I may so term it, and as it is usually known—by an executive Council. Its second is to provide in a specific Act of Parliament for
  914
  the expenditure of the Department to be met out of monies provided by Parliament.
  To understand what we are proposing under the first count, I ought perhaps to go back for a moment into history. The D.S.I.R., which now plays so large a part in our national life, was originally a product of the stresses and strains engendered by the First World War. It was on July 23, 1915, that a White Paper was published over the signature of Mr. Arthur Henderson, the father of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, whom we are so happy to have here with us today. That White Paper started with these significant words, many of which I think have a fairly familiar ring at the present time. I am now quoting from the White Paper:
  "There is a strong consensus of opinion among persons engaged both in science and in industry that a special need exists at the present time for new machinery and for additional State assistance in order to promote and organise scientific research with a view especially to its application to trade and industry. It is well known that many of our industries have, since the outbreak of war"—
  that was the First World War—
  "suffered through our inability to produce at home certain articles and materials requited in trade processes, the manufacture of which his become localised abroad, and particularly in Germany, because science has there been more thoroughly and effectively applied to the solution of scientific problems bearing on trade and industry and to the elaboration of economical and improved processes of manufacture. It is impossible to contemplate, without considerable apprehension, the situation which will arise at the end of the war unless our scientific resources have previously been enlarged and organised to meet it. It appears incontrovertible that, if we are to advance or even maintain our industrial position, we must as a nation aim at such a development of scientific and industrial research as will place us in a position to expand and strengthen our industries and to compete successfully with the most highly organised of our rivals."
  That was said as far back as 1915 and is practically word for word the phrasing of a good many speeches which have been heard in this House during the last two or three years.
  The machinery which was proposed in the 1915 White Paper and which was established by an Order in Council three days later was, first, that there should be set up a Privy Council Committee—this is the wording of the Order in Council:
  "to direct (subject to such conditions as the Treasury may from time to time prescribe) the

  915
  application of any sums of money provided by Parliament for the organisation and development of scientific and industrial research."
  Secondly, that there should be appointed an Advisory Council to serve that Committee—I again quote:
  "composed mainly of eminent scientific men and men actively engaged in industries depending on scientific research."
  The function of this Advisory Council which was set up at that time was to be to advise the Privy Council Committee on:
  "proposals—

  (i) for instituting specific researches.

  (ii) for establishing or developing special institutions—or departments of existing institutions—for the scientific study of problems affecting particular industries and trades; and

  (iii) for the establishment and award of research studentships and fellowships."

  It is interesting to note that among those whose names appear in the original White Paper and Order in Council as members respectively of the original Privy Council Committee and Advisory Council were those far-seeing and wise men, Lord Haldane and the third Lord Rayleigh. These two were, as your Lordships know, great figures at that time (I remember them well in my youth), both in the world of science and in that of humane letters; and this great scheme for developing scientific research for industry was just the kind of thing that might have been expected to emanate from their distinguished and far-seeing minds.
  The original White Paper left it quite open as to how the organisation of the Privy Council Committee and the Advisory Council for prosecuting scientific research in industry might develop, but before long there was in being a new Department of Government, which has come to be known as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. As your Lordships will know, the activities of this great organisation, with a total expenditure now of the order of —8 million a year, fall into three main groups, corresponding broadly with the three sub-divisions of the Advisory Council's remit. First, there are fourteen directly controlled Government laboratories and establishments, ranging from the National Physical Laboratory to the Road Research Laboratory and the Geological Survey. Then there are, in addition, some forty autonomous research
  916
  associations which have been set up on a co-operative basis for different industries and which are jointly financed by the industries themselves and by the D.S.I.R. Finally, of course, there are grants to post-graduate students for training in research and for research work of many different kinds in universities and other institutions.
  The latest account of the work of D.S.I.R., lying under these three heads, is, as your Lordships know, given in the Annual Report, which was published only the other day. During the whole of that long period of over forty years, the formal structure originally set up in 1915 has remained the same. Throughout that period there has been a Privy Council Committee which, like other Committees of the same family, acts mainly through one member—in this case, the Lord President—and an Advisory Council of eminent scientists and industrialists, which has remained advisory. That setup, as we all know, contrasts to some extent with that of the Medical Research Council which was established after the First Word War under the inspiration of the late Lord Addison, and the Agricultural Research Council which was established later, in 1931. In both these cases the Councils, unlike that of the D.S.I.R., are executive, not advisory, though working under the general supervision of the respective Privy Council Committees and the Lord President.
  As your Lordships will know, it is the custom in the administration of Government in this country for independent inquiries to be carried out from time to time into the organisation of Government Departments, and useful suggestions have often emerged from these inquiries. It so happens that, in accordance with this general practice, it was suggested that I should appoint last year a small Committee of Inquiry to review the organisation and functioning of the D.S.I.R. in the light of recent developments in the world of science and industry. This seemed to me a sensible suggestion, as I am sure it will to your Lordships, and the Committee was in fact set up. Its Chairman was Sir Harry Jephcott, the Chairman of Glaxo Laboratories, and the members were Sir Hugh Beaver, who is the present Chairman of the Advisory Council of the D.S.I.R.; Sir Alexander Todd, on whom, as Chairman of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, I

  917
  rely so frequently for wise advice in many and various scientific matters with which the Lord President is concerned; and, in addition, senior officials of the Treasury and the Board of Trade. As your Lordships will see, it was an extremely powerful Committee.
  The Committee got immediately to work and last October they submitted an Interim Report which was published last week as a White Paper. I expect that some of your Lordships will already have seen it. The advice which the Committee gave in this Report was unanimous and clear, and contained one principal recommendation. This was that the existing Advisory Council of the D.S.I.R. should he replaced by an executive Council which would be put ire charge of the Department.
  The grounds on which the Committee proposed this important change are briefly as follows. They thought that the present organisation, with the Council of the D.S.I.R. only in an advisory position, places too heavy a responsibility on the Secretary of the organisation. In particular, they thought that a Council which is only advisory could not, in the nature of things, exercise sufficient control over the research programmes of the stations. In their view, better direction of the Department's research activities was needed, and this they felt could effectively be done only by introducing into the chain of executive responsibility as high as might he a number of distinguished scientists and industrialists whose professional authority would be recognised by all concerned. The necessary change, they felt, could most easily be obtained by creating an Executive Council on the model of the Medical and the Agricultural Research Councils. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research would be under the charge of this Council, which would be appointed by and responsible to the Minister—that is, of course, the Lord President.
  Needless to say, when I received this Report, I gave it a great deal of thought, in consultation with the best opinion I could obtain in the world of science and administration; and after very careful consideration I advised the Government to accept the Report. That is the reason for the Bill which is now before your Lordships. I should add at this point that I have subsequently received a
  918
  further, and final, Report from the Committee of Inquiry, putting forward a number of detailed suggestions about the internal administration of the D.S.I.R. for consideration by the proposed new Council when it has been appointed. But Reports of this latter kind into the organisation of Government Departments are, 'as noble Lords who have experience of such things will know, domestic documents, which are usually most valuable to all concerned if they are treated as-such and not published to the world. I am not, therefore, proposing to publish this second Report. I should, however, like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government's gratitude to Sir Harry Jephcott and his colleagues for their excellent and most valuable work in undertaking this Inquiry and in carrying it out so quickly.
  I hope that the House will not draw an entirely false deduction from any words in the Report that there is anything radically wrong with the D.S.I.R. I am quite certain that the Jephcott Committee themselves would agree that that is not so; they would agree with what I know from my own experience, that the Department has done, and is doing, extremely valuable work. The object of the proposed change is, quite simply, to improve still further the present administrative organisation so as to meet the additional needs of a time, forty years on from the formation of the original body, when the organisation has expanded out of all recognition.
  I should like here also to pay a tribute to Sir Ben Lockspeiser, the eminent Secretary of the D.S.I.R., who has in these last few weeks retired after a great career in the public service. In view of the extremely heavy burden which the present organisation inevitably places upon the Secretary of the D.S.I.R., it is a great tribute to the outstanding capacity of Sir Ben that he has been able to carry on the present organisation with such success as lie has. I should also like, lastly, to pay a tribute on behalf both of the present Government and., I hope I may say, of past Governments, to the eminent leaders of science and industry who, over all these years, have given their valuable services as members of the D.S.I.R. Advisory Council and its Committees. We and the country owe them a very real debt. It is indeed, I suggest, a striking sign of our confidence in the work

  919
  that they have done that we should propose, as we do, that the future Research Council should be constituted from the same kind of people as the previous Advisory Council, and that we propose in the future to entrust them with considerably greater power and responsibility than they have been able to exercise in the past.
  My Lords, I do not think it will be necessary that I should speak to your Lordships at any great length about the other main purpose of the Bill to which effect is given in Clause 3. The point in question is a somewhat technical one which was originally raised by the Public Accounts Committee in another place. It will now be provided in a specific Statute, under Clause 3 of the Bill, that the expenditure of D.S.I.R. shall be met out of monies provided by Parliament. That is a standard provision and does not, I think, need much further comment in this House. It will not mean any change in the present arrangements for?arliamentary control of the D.S.I.R.'s finances. While the Jephcott Committee evidently felt that, ideally, a research agency under the Government should follow the pattern of the Medical Research Council—financed by grant-in-aid and with a non-Civil Service staff—the Committee also seem to have felt, and I think rightly, that it would not be practicable at this stage to turn the D.S.I.R. into a grant-aided body, since this would mean withdrawing a large amount of expenditure from direct Parliamentary control. I think it would in fact be wrong for Parliament's control of D.S.I.R.'s finances to be reduced. D.S.I.R. is less well suited than some of the other research bodies to looser financial control because of the extraordinary diverse nature of its activities.
  Now I should like to say a word or two about the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) carries out the primary purpose of putting the D.S.I.R. "under the charge of" a Council for Scientific and industrial Research, which is referred to in the Bill as the "Research Council." The next subsection makes provision for a reserve power of ministerial control over the Research Council, in the hands of the Privy Council Committee and the Lord President. In subsection (5) of Clause 1 noble Lords will see that the appointment of the Secretary of the
  920
  D.S.I.R. is left in the hands of the Lord President, after consultation with the Research Council. This is, I think, a sensible provision, in view of the fact that the Secretary will, as now, have the status of a Permanent Secretary of a major Government Department, and also the status of an Accounting Officer. But I should like to say here that though it would not have been appropriate to provide for this specifically in the Bill, I feel sure that the Lord President will continue in the future, as in the past, to consult the Royal Society before the important appointment of Secretary of the D.S.I.R. is made.
  May I add that I understand that the Royal Society are themselves in agreement with the proposals in the Bill? This is important, for, apart from their general interest in scientific matters and their immense eminence in this country, the Royal Society have a particular personal interest in these appointments because they share with the D.S.I.R. the management of the National Physical Laboratory. I say on behalf of the Government that it is our full intention to retain the present relationship between the Royal Society and the National Physical Laboratory, subject to discussion with the Royal Society of any changes of detail in these arrangements which may seem necessary from time to time. As no doubt your Lordships are well aware, the future of this country depends to a vital extent on how successful we are in the practical application of the discoveries of science. I think it is probably true to say that it has never been so important as it is to-day. The D.S.I.R. is the biggest and the most important of the Government's organisations for applied scientific research in the civilian field, and I think we may fairly hope that under the new organisation proposed by the Jephcott Committee the Department will play an even more effective part in the future than it does at present in the furtherance of applied science in industry. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  2.59 p.m.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I think we must all agree that we are greatly indebted to the Lord President of the Council for his brief but lucid

  921
  outline of this most interesting institution. I agree with him that there is nothing much wrong with it, and I should like to associate myself most fully with the tribute which he paid to the brilliant and devoted service of Sir Ben Lockspeiser, with whom I had a close association at the Ministry of Supply during and after the war. He has done a wonderful job and the nation is greatly indebted to him. I was most interested, too, whey the Lord President reminded us of the history of the organisation and of the men of worldwide fame, beginning with Mr. Arthur Henderson, who had been associated with it. Therefore it is not in any spirit of criticism that I want to ask the Lord President one or two questions.
  It is felt by many who know anything about the D.S.I.R, that the time has about come to look at it again and to see whether, in the quite different circumstances from those in which it was begun, any changes are called for. One point on which I would ask the Lord President to enlighten me is this: when he speaks of the Committee of the Privy Council, does that consist of only one member—himself? Is that so?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Then the Lord President is wholly responsible for this organisation at the top level, both as a member of the Privy Council and as its President. That is a very satisfactory arrangement so long as we have a Lord President as keenly and personally interested in science as the present holder of that high office; but it is extremely important that at this juncture we should provide for occasions when that may not be the case. We can best make such provision by seeing to it that if there is anything we can do to ensure the eminence of the Council, now to become an Executive Council, we should proceed now to do it. This is not, therefore, just a matter of change of names; it is the end of a bright chapter and the beginning of a new in a great institution.
  The first question I should like to ask the Lord President is: does he not think it would have been wiser for us to have some knowledge of the contents of the full Report of the Committee which he so wisely appointed under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Harry Jephcott? This Interim Report of two pages is a
  922
  very interesting document which whets one's appetite for more. It is true, of course, that a full Report of this character, particularly in relation to this Department, probably with wide defence implications, could hardly be made public; but a résumé of the recommendations of the Committee would help us in considering this matter. I wonder whether the Lord President would give some thought to that possibility between row and the Committee stage.
  I think it is important that we should k now a little more about what the Committee think, in view of some of the things they say in this Interim Report. They say, for instance, that their investigations so far have led them to the firm conclusion that the organisation of an ordinary Government Department is not suited to the activities of this Department. I think we should all agree with that. I am interested to know, and I ask the Lord President to tell us, how far the changes proposed in paragraph 3 make this an ordinary Government Department. Are the employees, for instance, to be civil servants? Are they subject to all the Civil Service rules, advantages and limitations? Are they subject to the same salary limitations as other Government Departments?
  If they are all to be civil servants, we surely have here a constitutional innovation, in that their executive masters will be part-time and not civil servants. We have that structure only, I believe, in grant-aided bodies or bodies drawing revenue as a result of their operations—public boards. I know of no other case where there is a part-time executive body employing a very large number of civil servants with a man at its head who is a Permanent Secretary and a full Accounting Officer in the Treasury sense. Personally, I should regret it if this change meant that the rules of an ordinary Government Department were to be fully applied to the D.I.S R. I think they must have more flexibility in their arrangements, because if we refer to the most interesting Annual Report which was published a little while ago we find there is an amazing range of activities, not only in subjects but in organisations, which can hardly fall within the scope of an ordinary Government Department.
  There is another matter which seems to me very important in this Committee's

  923
  Report. As the Lord President rightly said, they are a most authoritative body. If noble Lords will forgive me, I will read what they said in paragraph 10:
  "We assume that the Department will continue to be a Vote accounting Department and that its staff will accordingly continue to be civil servants. We do not consider this to be the right organisation for a research agency under the Government, and we prefer the arrangements of the M.R.C."—
  similar arrangements are those of the Agricultural Research Council—
  "But the decision"—
  apparently the decision of Her Majesty's Government—
  "to make D.S.I.R. a normal Department was taken long ago; and we imagine it would not be practicable at this stage to turn it into a grant-aided body, since this would mean withdrawing a large amount of expenditure from direct parliamentary control. We therefore make no recommendations on this subject."
  This fills me with a certain amount of misgiving, and I should like the Lord President to tell us the truth of this matter. It would appear as though he appointed this Committee for the sole purpose of inquiring into and making recommendations about the organisation of this Department, and that he withdrew from the purview of their recommendations the question of whether it should be a grant-aided body or a Government Department. The Committee say they assume that this was decided a long time ago and, though they do not like what is in this Bill, they cannot do anything about it. I think that is a fair paraphrase of what this paragraph says, and I feel we ought to have some explanation of that. I do not quite know what it all means. Is this a Government Department like the War Office, or is it a grant-aided body like the Medical Research Council? Or (and this might well be the right solution) is it some hybrid organisation in which there is ultimate Parliamentary control over expenditure but a wide amount of freedom in the spending of monies thus voted? The last point is not without importance, because within the annual allocations, in a matter of so quickly moving change as scientific research, it seems to me that there must be the power to transfer monies from one head to another and from one purpose to another. Unless things have changed a great deal, it would seem that the full Treasury procedure, with the Public
  924
  Accounts Committee and the rest of it, will make it very difficult to transfer monies from one head to another. Can that be done?
  I would also ask the Lord President whether he could do something to strengthen the provision in regard to the appointment of members of the executive body. We have no reason to complain of the Advisory Councils we have had until now, but the Report draws attention to the fact that the system has not worked altogether well. It says in one place that much has been started but too little has been stopped. Now anyone who has had anything to do with wide-scale research organisations, either under Government or in private industry, knows how easy it is for this to happen. Something is developed, research is pushed forward, it gets to a certain stage, and then the interest is changed; something else perhaps takes the place in the light; this goes forward, and devoted people go on giving their time to something which, once of first-class importance, has come down to third or fourth-class importance. Scientists and scientific workers are among the most precious assets we have. We have far too few of them, we have much too much to do with them, and we cannot afford to have that happen.
  The Report says:
  "Headquarters determine allocations of manpower and money, but they do not and cannot exercise an effective supervision over priorities in the programmes or over the balance between them. Much is started; but not enough is stopped. As a result many of the programmes have become too diffuse or too uneven in quality."
  That is a very important and far-reaching criticism. I should like to suggest this for the consideration of your Lordships. I should like to ask the Lord President whether he would care to insert in Clause 1 which now reads:
  "The Department … shall be placed under the charge of a Council for Scientific and Industrial Research … whose members shall be appointed by the Lord President of the Council after consultation with the President of the Royal Society"
  some such words, after the words "after consultation," as:
  "with the President and Council of the Royal Society and with some representatives of the universities."
  It could happen that the President of the Royal Society was a world-famous

  925
  archœologist, and he, of course, would have no knowledge whatever of physical science. Therefore to consult him in his personal, or even in his official, capacity would really not be so effective as seeking the corporate opinion of the Council of the Royal Society who would he in touch with every aspect of the Royal Society's work. The Royal Society consists of most distinguished people for whom we have the highest admiration and respect, but, in the nature of things, they tend to be somewhat elderly persons, who have made a great mark in the world of science and may, for that reason, be somewhat out of touch with the younger men in the universities and other places of study and research. Therefore I think it would be desirable that the Lord President, in making these vitally important appointments, should also consult someone who is in touch with younger scientists than the members of the Royal Society are, perhaps, likely to be.
  I should like to ask the Lord President also whether the members of this research executive—who have, indeed, much wider and more important functions than the old Advisory Council—are expected to be part-time or practically full-time members, and what sort of fees are going to be offered to them to undertake this tremendously important task. I think it is impossible for your Lordships to exaggerate the tremendous importance of this occasion. We are laying out the structure of our scientific research organisation probably for a decade or so, and it is tremendously important that we should make it possible for the best people to be available and for the best use to be made of their services.
  I feel that at this point we ought to ask for some information about the whole layout of Government expenditure in money and staff, and, even more important, about the Government's use of all scientific manpower—the whole:range of it throughout Government services. This D.S.I.R. is only a tiny fragment of the whole. I see in the Receipts and Payments section of this Report that it is stated that the total expenditure is around £6 million. The last figure I remember mentioned of defence research expenditure alone was over £200 million. I do not know whether this figure takes any account of the research which is being carried on by the Atomic Energy Authority or by the scientific institutions asso-
  926
  ciated with the aircraft and other industries. How much is being spent by the Government en scientific research generally, and where is it being spent? I think we are entitled to know that. And I think it would be helpful in this most important matter if the Government, between now and the Committee stage, were to lay a statement telling us what is the total sum we are spending on scientific research and also how it is being spent. I do not mean to ask upon what projects—that obviously would not be desirable. But I would ask where it is spent—how much, for instance, at Harwell, how much at Farnborough, how much in the War Office establishments, how much here and how much there. If we have that information, then I am sure we shall see that this D.S.I.R. expenditure is a mere trifle. Yet it is a trifle which has its bearing and impact upon the whole vast expenditure in the field of scientific research.
  I do not know whether we have ever had a comprehensive statement from the Government on this subject. If we have, I cannot find it. I have been much concerned with this topic. In the past, defence requirements may have made it impossible to make any wide publication, but I think that Parliament is now entitled to know how much money we spend and where we spend it. We might perhaps be told of private research contracts which are given by the public Departments to aircraft firms. These are really grants in aid of research projects in respect of some particular aspect of aeronautical development. Are there research projects in other industries, financed by the Government under the heading of development and research? Without this comprehensive information we are in no position to judge whether we are making the best use of oar scientific personnel. It is obviously undesirable that there should be either waste or overlapping in the work carried on by scientific personnel, but there is reason to think that sometimes research proceeds on parallel lines at the same time in two places unknown to each other. What is the remedy? I shrink from any remedy which creates some colossus of organisation requiring inspection and reports and who knows how much work outside the actual business of research. But we have to find some way of remedying the wastage of scientific manpower.

  927
  I apologise for keeping your Lordships so long, but there is one other point which I should like to raise. That arises in connection with the Receipts and Expenditure statement in the Report. There are a number of receipts which rather puzzle me. I wonder whether, in the Committee stage, the Lord President will tell us how these receipts arise. Are they grants from industries for work done for them, or are they amounts received for the sale of products?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the noble Lord referring to the Research Associations?
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am referring to the D.S.I.R. Have the Department an income apart from Government grants? Apparently they sell things—either services or products. I should like to know what those things are and who buys them, and what they do. It is a matter of headings, whether it be the sale of products or grants from private industry. If private grants are made to the D.S.I.R., somewhat complicated accounting problems may arise. I am afraid that I have taken a long time. I should not like your Lordships to think that I or my friends are in any way hostile to the main objectives of this Bill, but I feel that this is an important occasion. We are doing something which, if we do not do it as well as we can, we shall pay a heavy price for it in the future. It is our duty to try by all means possible to do the best we can, and it seems to me that we are lacking information to enable us to do that. I would ask the Lord President whether, before the Committee stage or during it, he could give us the information for which I venture to ask.
  3.21 p.m.
  LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. I had intended to put to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, a few questions asking for more information, but since the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, has asked a great many questions from which any information I should like to have will emerge, I will not trouble your Lordships by repeating them. I should like to join with the noble Marquess and my noble friend in paying high tribute to Sir Ben Lockspeiser, whose work in the scientific and technological field has been remark-
  928
  able. Every side of industry owes a real debt of gratitude to his leadership and to the work of his Department as a whole.
  3.22 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have had a commendably brief debate, but I think a useful one. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, for which I am personally grateful, gives me an opportunity of clearing up some of the points about which apparently there still remain doubts. What are these points? Some of them have already been raised in the Press at the time of the publication of the Interim Report of the Jephcott Committee. Others have emerged for the first time to-day; some have made their appearance on both occasions. I will do what I can to answer the specific questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, and if I cannot give him full information straight away, I will try to see that he gets it during the later stages of the Bill.
  First of all, the noble Lord asked about the membership of the Privy Council Committee for Scientific and Industrial Research. He asked who they were; is it just the Lord President and a sort of "stage army" of Ministers who come round again and again? There is the Chairman, the Lord President, and there are the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Education. It is a fairly comprehensive body. I do not say that all play a very active part in the work of the Committee. I think that the Lord President may be regarded as the mainly operative member, but no doubt they are all consulted when the Lord President feels that they should be brought into the picture.
  The noble Lord asked about the Final Report of the Jephcott Committee and asked whether it would not be better to publish it; or, if that were undesirable—, as he quite realised it might be—about publishing the recommendations. I am not in a position to give him information about that matter this afternoon, but I promise him that I will look into it carefully. There are no dreadful secrets

  929
  concealed in the Report—I can assure him of that.
  The noble Lord also asked about the employees, whether they will be civil servants, with all the proper salaries and rules and regulations affecting civil servants, or whether they will be independent people. The answer is that they will be civil servants, who will continue to be employed as they are at present. There will he no change in that respect.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: And salaries?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So far as I know, they will carry on just as they have done in the past, in all respects. I understood the noble Lord to ask whether it was not an innovation to have a Government Department run, or partly run, by an executive committee which would consist of part-time non-official members. Of course, it is not the usual practice; but it is not unique. The Central Land Board and the British Museum have a somewhat similar structure. It is not the usual structure because the D.S.I.R. is not a very usual body, and we have to produce, as we always do in this country, the best we can find to deal with the situation which we have to face.
  Then the noble Lord quoted a passage from the Interim Report which compared the new structure to the arrangements in the case of the Medical Research Council. I propose to say something about that matter in a minute, because I think that is the main ground of criticism—or anyway the main ground of doubts and anxieties about the Bill. I will deal with that more fully, but at this point I would say to the noble Lord, who asked whether such a recommendation as that the D.S.I.R. should be a grant-aided body was outside the purview of the Committee, that, so far as I know, it was not. If they had wanted to make that recommendation, they could have done so. I am speaking "without the book," but that is my impression. What is certain is that the Committee did not think that that was a practical solution and, on the whole, came down in favour of what the noble Lord called "the hybrid body"—and that is exactly what it is.
  The noble Lord was not happy about consultation with the President of the Royal Society, and asked: Would it not
  930
  be better to have said, "consultation with the President and Council of the Royal Society"? Is that not right?
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Yes, my Lords. The Bill actually says "consultation with the President."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think that there is any difference in fact, because, so far as I know, there would be no question of consultation with the President of the Royal Society in his personal capacity. He would be consulted as President of the Royal Society. I should have thought that it must be left to him, as the head of this distinguished body, to decide how he consulted his colleagues, but I would make it clear now that it is only in his official capacity, and not in his personal capacity, that he would come into consultation. The noble Lord also suggested that it would be very valuable for many people if the Government would publish a White Paper showing what they spend annually on scientific research and how the money is allocated. I have not had time to get information on this point, but I understand that, so far as civil science is concerned, the figures are given in tie Annual Reports of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. I will look further into this to see whether it is correct, and perhaps the noble Lord will do so, too. Then, if he is not satisfied, I hope that he will get in touch with me again.
  Lord Wilmot of Selmeston also asked about the income of these bodies which come within the scope of D.S.I.R. Again I am speaking entirely "without the book," but I think the position is that, so far as the Research Associations are concerned, these are co-operative bodies formed by various industries for research within those industries. A good deal of money for those Associations comes from the industries themselves, but there are grants towards the expenses from D.S.I.R. When one comes to the research establishments, those are maintained out of Government resources. I have been round nearly all of these establishments, and my impression is that in some cases a charge is made where special work is done. If somebody comes and makes an inquiry that is rather outside the ordinary trend of the research carried out by a particular station, then they would feel it legitimate to make a charge. I must

  931
  say that I think that if some industry or firm does come to D.S.I.R. and asks for some important and rather expensive work to be done, then it is fair to expect it to make some contribution.
  Finally, my Lords, I would say a word about a point that I just mentioned earlier, and which I believe is the most important one that has been raised in the debate. It derives from the sentences which the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, quoted from paragraph 3 of the Jephcott Report. I will read part of that paragraph once more. It says:
  "We have reached the conclusion that the central direction, under the present organisation, of the scientific effort at the stations, taken as a whole, is inevitably inadequate to secure the most effective use of the resources in the national interest. Headquarters determine allocations of manpower and money, but they do not and cannot exercise an effective supervision over priorities in the programmes or over the balance between them. Much is started; but not enough is stopped. As a result, many of the programmes have become too diffuse or too uneven in quality."
  As I said before, that is not—and I am sure it was not intended to be; and I know the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, did not intend his remarks to be—a criticism of D.S.I.R.: it was merely a factual comment of the Committee when they conducted their inquiries. What the Committee did feel was that as the organisation has grown up and expanded in scope, far too heavy a burden has been thrown on the Secretary, particularly in the supervision of the research programmes of the stations. It must be remembered that in 1921, five years after D.S.I.R. was originally formed, there were only four research establishments, compared with the present fourteen, and twenty-one research associations, compared with the present forty, or thereabouts.
  The total expenditure of D.S.I.R. in 1919–20 was £330,000 gross, and in the forthcoming year it is expected to be about £8½ million gross. This enormous increase in the sheer size of D.S.I.R., and in the scope of the field which it covers, throws an extremely heavy—one might almost say an intolerable—burden on the Secretary. The view of the Jephcott Committee was that this trend had gone too far, and particularly—in the paragraph that I have just quoted, and which was quoted by the noble Lord—that the
  932
  supervision of the research programmes of the stations is not now sufficiently under control. The purpose of establishing an Executive Council in the place of the present Advisory Council is to ensure that the supervision of the programmes is adequate to ensure that the right research is being done. The members of the Executive Council are being given executive control mainly in order to carry out this job of supervising the research programmes.
  At the same time, I am sure that it was not the intention of the Jephcott Committee that the Executive Council should interfere in the detailed work of the research establishments. As the Jephcott Committee said, the directors of research must have considerable freedom. Personally, I am certain that in matters of research a fairly high degree of independence is not a bad thing; indeed, it is far better to have rather too much independence than too little. What I should hope to see is the fullest possible independence of the directors in the carrying out of their research programmes, but effective control by the Executive Council of the content and the broad objectives of these programmes. The Executive Council will, as I see it, exercise general supervision and will give decisions on broad questions of policy. That is the sphere of the Council, and I am sure if they are wise they will keep to that sphere.
  This question leads to another mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. If we are making this change, why do we not go further? Why do we not transform D.S.I.R. from a Government Department into a grant-aided body on the model of the Medical Research Council? In my view—and I give it only as my view—to suggest such a proposal as that would be to show a not complete understanding of one great difference between D.S.I.R. and the Medical Research Council which, I suggest, makes D.S.I.R. really sui generis. I refer, of course, to the extraordinary variety of subjects which come within the purview of D.S.I.R. The scope of the Medical Research Council is fairly wide—it covers the whole gamut of medicine—but all questions for the Medical Research Council are of a medical character. They have that much in common, whereas the D.S.I.R. is protean in character. There is practically nothing that does not come within its purview, as your Lordships will

  933
  see when I tell you that the establishments alone (I may be allowed to say this because we do not often have an opportunity of discussing this subject) deal with the following subjects.
  First, there is food investigation: and that includes all forms of food, from meat and vegetables to kippers—and there is a special kipper research laboratory at Torry, near Aberdeen. Then there is the Forest Products Research Laboratory, including all timber from the time it is cut to the time it is brought into use; that is to say, all timber from all parts of the world. Then there is the Fuel Research laboratory, including all forms of fuel; there are the Geological Survey, the Hydraulics Research Station and a Mechanical Engineering Research Laboratory which is by itself a vast subject. There is a Pest Infestation Research Laboratory, a Radio Research Laboratory and a Road Research Laboratory—and this includes all questions of surfaces of roads, lighting of roads, planning of roads, road safety and traffic control, the lighting of vehicles and many similar subjects. Finally, there is the Water Pollution Research Laboratory. When I mention these, your Lordships can see how wide D.S.I.R. spreads its net. And that is in addition to the forty or so co-operative Research Associations.
  That picture is a very different one. I suggest, from that of the Medical Research Council. Their work, as I have said, is entirely concerned in one way or another with medicine, and it is possible to appoint to the Medical Research Council a large proportion of members whose expert knowledge covers a very wide range of medicine indeed. It would not be possible to constitute the Executive Council of from experts in this kind of way. Moreover, quite apart from the almost amazing diversity of D.S.I.R.'s field of work, it should also be remembered that their annual expenditure, which, as I have said, is £8½ mil-
  934
  lion gross, is about four times that of the Medical Research Council. For all these reasons, I felt it right that we should not by Act of Parliament, at this moment of time, deliberately reduce Parliament's measure of control over D.S.I.R.'s finances, and that the constitutional position of the Department should remain as it is now.
  So the new structure which will grow up as a result of the Report will not be entirely new. It will be based entirely on the foundations of old; and I believe that it will be none the worse for that. But it will be modernised and brought up to date. It is easy to criticise any new scheme, but this one, I submit, has been produced by a Committee with practically unrivalled qualifications for the job. They had a Chairman who is a most successful head of an up-to-date business; there was the Chairman of the existing Advisory Council of D.S.I.R.; there was a famous scientist, who is the Chairman of the Government's Advisory Council on Scientific Policy; and there were two civil servants of great distinction. That is the body that recommended this scheme. They believe it will work, and I ask your Lordships to-day to give it a chance to do so.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, if your Lordships will give me leave, I should like to thank the Lord President for his most informative reply, and for his most ready willingness to go further into the matter when he has had time to make further inquiries. I regret to say that I was unable to give him any notice of these questions, but it appears that he hardly needs any. I think we are fortunate that in his busy official life he finds time to keep this important matter so close to his heart.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT, 1361 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  3.41 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. A little under six centuries ago your Lordships passed an Act from which I should like, with permission, to read a short extract, because it sets out in words much more eloquent than any I could use the powers of justices of the peace which had then been created and which I seek to-day to comment upon and, in one sense, to limit. It is as follows:
  "In the Parliament held at Westminster on the Sunday next before the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, A.D. 1360–61.
  "In every county of England there shall be assigned for the keeping of the Peace, one Lord, and with him three or four of the most worthy of the Counties, together with some learned in the Law; and they shall have power …"—
  then comes the particular power which I want to bring to your Lordships' attention this afternoon—
  "to take all of them that be not of good Fame, where they shall be found, sufficient Surety and Mainprise for their good Behaviour towards the King and his People, and others duly to punish; to the Intent that the People be not by such Rioters troubled nor en-damaged, nor the Peace blemished nor Merchants nor others passing upon the Highways of the Realm disturbed, nor beset by the Peril which may happen of such offenders."
  The position to-day is that the justices of the peace still have that power, and still use it.
  Now I wish to take your Lordships, by rather a big jump in legal history, to the year 1907, when your Lordships passed the Criminal Appeal Act. That Act gave convicted defendants the right of appeal to the court of quarter sessions against conviction. But your Lordships will observe that, under the Act of 1361 there need be, and indeed usually is, no conviction. Under the old Act, it is possible to take sureties from a man who has never been convicted at all of any offence. It is sufficient that it is apprehended that he will commit an offence, or even may commit an offence or be a danger to the peace or to other individuals. Therefore, there being no conviction, it follows that there can be no appeal.
  936
  If there is any doubt about that, I can quote two recent cases in the Court of Criminal Appeal which have quite firmly established that there is at present no right of appeal against the taking of sureties under the 1361 Act. I suggest to your Lordships that on the whole, in modern circumstances, it is desirable that there should be a right of appeal. One cannot blame your Lordships' predecessors of 600 years ago, because appeals against criminal convictions were then, I suppose, unthought of. But it has so arisen, and I suggest that it is desirable that a man who is convicted should have a right of appeal. Therefore, I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
  Subsection (1) of Clause 1 gives this right of appeal to a court of quarter sessions. Subsection (2) (a) establishes that the other party to the original proceedings shall be the respondent on appeal. Subsection (2) (b) does two things: it brings this procedure within the ambit of the legal aid scheme, and it also enables justices to grant release on bail to an appellant, pending his appeal. I think it necessary to include that power in the Bill because otherwise there might be a doubt as to whether there was power to grant such release.
  That is the Bill as it stands now, but I have one more thing to add. Since this Bill was introduced into another place it has been brought to notice that, in addition to the powers which justices possess under the 1361 Act to take sureties on a man to be of good behaviour, they also possess powers—which, indeed, they use, I should say, a little more often than the other—to bind over a man to keep the peace under the Common Law and not under any Act of Parliament at all. Again, because they have power to do that without convicting, there is no right of appeal. I suggest that it is desirable to bring that matter also within the scope of this Bill. If your Lordships give a Second Reading to this Bill this afternoon, I propose on the Committee stage to introduce a short series of Amendments the effect of which will be to extend this Bill to cover the Common Law power of justices to bind over a person to keep the peace, thus giving a right of appeal to a man who is bound over under the Common Law, as well as to a man who is ordered to find sureties under the Act of 1361. I think that is all I need say.

  937
  It is a short Bill, and although it may be of some little interest there is little more to be said about it. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  3.48 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, was right when he said that there is not much more to be said in support of this Bill than he himself has said. But it is right, I think, that we should all thank him for sponsoring this Bill and for bringing it to the notice of this House. It may not be of the first importance. The law has apparently been jogging along since 1361 without much hardship to anybody, but the fact that, as he himself pointed out, it is possible for a person to be in prison without having been convicted, and without having a right of appeal, makes this a worthy Bill, and one which I think we ought all to support. It is strange that a person could find himself in prison without having been convicted of an offence and, indeed, without having committed an offence—unless one regards a threat to commit an offence as an offence itself, or a danger that a person may commit an offence. It is possible for a person to be subjected to this procedure of being required to give sureties simply because it is apprehended that he will do something contrary to law.
  One of the things may he, for instance, to warn people of the danger of being arrested or charged. I remember that, certainly before the war—I do not know whether it has been done since—a certain organisation used to have patrols on the road to warn their members, by the simple, expedient of not saluting them, of the possibility of trouble occurring if they exceeded a certain speed. I do not know whether those patrols could have been apprehended, brought before a court and charged in some way with interfering, or threatening to interfere with the course of justice. While it is, on the face of it, no offence not to salute a person, such a patrol could be, required, I imagine, to give sureties for good behaviour, and, in default, could be sent to prison without any right of appeal. Therefore, while I do not think the noble Lord himself would pretend that this is a major measure, it is one which this House will wish to support, particularly in view of
  938
  the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has told us he proposes to introduce at a later stage.
  3.52 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I too should like to say a few words in support of this measure. I am not sure that I should endorse everything that has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken. My recollection is that the A.A. patrols were actually convicted of a criminal offence—namely, the obstruction of the police in the execution of their duties. But it seems Gilbertian that the offence which constituted obstruction should be that of not saluting somebody else. As I say, I do not support everything that the noble Lord has said, but there is a very strong case to be made for this Bill. What has held up this reform for a very long time has been two arguments. The first is that there has been no conviction to complain of, and the second is that if a man is merely asked to find sureties for good behaviour, so long as he behaves himself there is nothing much to be afraid of. Both those arguments have turned out to be somewhat specious and a number of people have been aggrieved when justices have thought it right to demand sureties under the Act of 1361. So much bitterness has that caused from time to time among those who felt aggrieved that some people have gone so far as to ask for the abolition of these powers of the justices. That would be a mistake. Those powers are in constant use and are of great value, particularly when neighbours fall out. It would be a pity to interfere with them.
  There has been engendered a feeling of injustice. My own feeling is that, although it is never wise to encourage unduly appeals against matters of discretion, yet this is a matter about which we can say with great confidence that the discretion of the justices, good as it almost always is, is not so infallible that the discretion of the quarter sessions may not be a little better. I would beg the House to support my noble friend in his Bill.
  3.55 p.m.
  LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, whilst ill general, like the other noble Lords, I fully agree with the purpose of this Bill, there are one or two

  939
  factors that we ought to have in mind. I think I am right in saying that under the Act of 1361 one can be bound over only by consent: that is to say, the magistrates have to ask the defendant whether he agrees to be bound over. There have, of course, been cases —a great many, I imagine—where not only the defendant but also the complainant, although not himself or herself subject to any charge, has agreed to be bound over. The noble Viscount, Lord Hail-sham, has mentioned the question of disputes between neighbours, and so forth. Frequently, one neighbour brings a complaint against another and, to make things equal, the magistrates persuade both to be bound over. If the Bill passes, as I expect it will, it will give a right of appeal to those who have consented to be bound over. No doubt, in some cases they consent under a misapprehension. Then there is a good deal of publicity in the newspapers and so on, and people, as is not infrequently the case, perhaps put a wrong interpretation on the case. As a result of all this, the defendant who has agreed to be bound over desires to appeal and to remove, as he or she hopes, the stigma from his or her name. That is one of the factors which we ought to bear in mind.
  Furthermore, of course, an appeal would be only for one purpose—namely, with a view to having the original charge dismissed. There is presumably a risk, in having a retrial, as in fact it would be, before a court of quarter sessions, of having the penalty increased. That is a factor that appellants will presumably bear in mind. The third consideration which occurs to me is that I presume we do not want the court of quarter sessions, any more than the Court of Appeal proper, the Divisional Court, cluttered up with a great number of rehearings of quite small matters. One hopes that one result of the passing of this Bill will not be a vast number of appeals. Otherwise, subject to those considerations being borne in mind, I quite agree that there are numerous cases where a defendant would wish to appeal and where the provisions of this Bill will be useful.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I intervene only to ask a question. In view of the fact that the Act to which this Bill refers has been in operation since
  940
  1361, is there really any particular reason for altering the present arrangements? Does it not work very well at the present time? Is it necessary to do anything?
  3.58 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords. I intend to trespass for only a few moments on your Lordships' time in regard to this Bill. In another place the Government intimated their sympathy with the objectives of the Bill and I am merely underwriting that to-day; but I should like to deal with the general point which was raised, first by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and then in a slightly different form by the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest. I am not going to deal with the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, about the law, because I am sure that my noble friend Lord Merthyr will be able to deal with that in his reply. On the general point, the reasons why the old Act has continued for nearly 600 years and has not been altered are really two. The first, as stated by my noble friend, Lord Hailsham, is that a conviction was not imposed and therefore the conception of an appeal did not occur to people's minds.
  There is the second point which I think was in the minds of the noble Lords, Lord Milner of Leeds and Lord Haden-Guest, that, where you have the operation of what is really precautionary or preventive justice, it is arguable, and perhaps strongly arguable, that that ought to be concluded and brought to a final state in the shortest possible time, in order that it may carry out its purposes of being precautionary and preventive. Certainly, I think anyone in considering this matter ought to take that into account. I have tried to myself. The answer to that is also two-fold. It has certainly brought me to my decision in the matter. Whatever be the technical position, in the minds of innumerable people who read the report in a local newspaper there is the belief that the person who has been ordered to enter into recognisances, with or without sureties, to be of good behaviour or to keep the peace has been convicted; and even where there is more legal knowledge there is a general feeling that behind this order is a piece of discreditable conduct. Where that impression goes forth, I think it is right that the person concerned should have a chance

  941
  in a suitable case of going on and clearing his name and reputation.
  But, apart from that, I think there is a great deal in the point which my noble friend Lord Merthyr and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, emphasised: that if he fails or refuses to find sureties, he may then he committed to prison for a period up to six months. To-day, when we have done so much to ensure exactitude in justice, the idea of someone going to prison for up to six months without a right of appeal is again repugnant to us. I hope that that summary of the considerations, though a very brief one, has at any rate quieted the doubts which existed in the minds of these two noble Lords, and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. If I may say so, I entirely agree with the intended Amendment which my noble friend Lord Merthyr has mentioned. It was only because of the difficulties of procedure in another place in amending the Title that the Amendment was not made there, and I think it is an admirable thing that the freer rules of your Lordships' House should enable the Common Law position to he dealt with. My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, the subject of this Bill is not a great matter in itself, but to me it is never a small thing if Parliament can not only improve legal matters but make lighter their burden on the citizen. I think we are doing both the improving and the lightening of the burden, and I commend this Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, it may seem strange to your Lordships that I, not a practising lawyer at all, should have had perhaps as much experience of this particular matter as those of your Lordships who know more about the law. As your Lordships will recollect, I was at one time in my life closely associated with those women who were fighting for the vote in what was called a militant manner and who were known as Suffragettes. At the beginning of the campaign they often committed minor technical offences, and instead of being convicted of the charge which was brought against them—it was generally one of obstruction—they were bound over. As the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said, in default of agreeing to be bound over they could be
  942
  sent to prison for a period of no less than six months, which was a much larger punishment than they would have been accorded for the offence itself and though they did not always receive a sentence of six months, they did receive a considerable sentence for refusing to be bound over.
  What was the result of that? I am quite prepared to admit, certainly at this late period after the events, that these women were seeking a certain amount of notoriety for their cause by a technical breach of the law. But they said, "We do not want to be sentenced for these Icing terms for what is only a small offence. It will be much better for us if we commit some real offence in regard to which the magistrate will not feel himself justified in binding us over but will definitely send us to prison. The advantage of that will be, first of all, that the sentence will be much shorter, and secondly, it will give us a right of appeal." So the effect of the law as it then stood, which the noble Lord who has sponsored this Bill in your Lax-ships' House intends to alter, was that the women deliberately committed a much more serious offence in order to escape w hat seemed to be the thoroughly unjustifiable sentence which was given because of their refusal to be bound over. With that most vivid recollection in my mind of events which affected hundreds of women at that time, I certainly have the greatest regard for the course adopted by the noble Lord who has sponsored this Bill.
  4.6 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should like first of all to say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for emphasising a point which I had rather neglected—that on failure to find sureties under the old Act a man may be sent to prison for up to six months. I think it is right and proper that your Lordships' attention should have been drawn to that fact.
  The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, asked whether any action was really necessary. Although I had nothing whatever to do with the case, or with any case under this Act—and I do not even know the details of it—I do know that this Bill was introduced largely because of one particular case. It may have been completely unjustified, but there was a grievance based solely on the fact that there

  943
  was no right of appeal. I should also like to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that comparatively recently—namely, in 1948 and in 1951—there were two attempts to appeal. In each case the matter was taken to the High Court, and in each case the High Court decided that there was no right of appeal. The mere fact that two such attempts have been made so recently may be a sufficient answer to Lord Haden-Guest who suggested that there was no ground for complaint or need for action. But if that is not sufficient, then I suggest that his point has really been answered by his colleague on the Front Bench opposite, who pointed out that it actually caused an increase in crime about forty years ago.
  The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, had some doubts about the wisdom of this measure and suggested that the courts might be cluttered up with appeals. That is possible, but I hardly think it likely that there will be so many appeals as to cause an appreciable difference in the amount of work cast upon the appellate courts. He also mentioned, rather to my surprise (he may be right, but I did not know it), that a man could not be ordered to find sureties unless he consented. But I should have thought that if he refused to agree the magistrate could certainly send him to prison; otherwise I think the whole scheme falls to the ground. That is the alternative: if he does not want to be bound over he need not be so bound over, but he is liable to go to prison.
  My Lords, I think that covers most of the points that have been raised in this debate. I am most grateful to your Lordships for supporting the Bill, and I am especially grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for saying that he supported the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  RABBITS BILL [H.L.]
  4.10 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.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Offences relating to rabbits
  1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection if,—

  (a) he—

  (i) sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or gives away a live wild rabbit or transfers to another person the property in a live wild rabbit (whether with or without any further consideration) for a consideration which consists of, or includes, the transfer by that other person of the property in other goods; or

  (ii) buys, or offers to buy, or accepts as a gift a live wild rabbit or acquires from another person the property in a live wild rabbit (whether with or without any further consideration) for a consideration which consists of, or includes, the transfer to that other person of the property in other goods;

  (b) he conveys, procures to be conveyed or consigns for conveyance from one place to another a live wild rabbit; or

  (c) he turns loose a wild rabbit.

  (2) A person guilty of an offence consisting in a contravention of paragraph (a) or (b) of the foregoing subsection shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and a person guilty of an offence consisting in a contravention of paragraph (c) of that subsection shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "consisting in a contravention of paragraph (a) or (b) of" and to insert instead "under." The noble Earl said: My Amendment is a simple one but I hope to show your Lordships that it is none the less an important one. Its object is to equalise the penalties for any of the various offences enumerated in Clause 1 of the Bill. As the Bill stands at present, the maximum penalty for selling, giving away, buying, accepting as a gift or conveying a wild live rabbit is £50, whereas the maximum penalty for turning a wild

  945
  live rabbit loose is only £20. The title of this Bill is:
  "An Act to make provision for preventing the spread of rabbits."
  I find it difficult to understand why the man who is spreading the rabbit and committing the act is liable to the least penalty under the Bill. If I give the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, a rabbit and he accepts it, we are both liable to a maximum penalty of £50; but if I take the rabbit and turn it loose on the ground where it will quickly multiply—which is the very thing we are trying to prevent —I am liable only to a fine of £20. To take an analogy, would a thief who goes and robs a till, if he is caught, get a lighter sentence than the man who conveys him there in his motor car? The part each plays is much the same, and I should have thought that, if anything, the penalties should be reversed. Certainly they ought to be equal.
  One further point: this Bill applies not only to England but to Scotland also, and in Scotland an offence under this Act will come up before one man—not, as in England, before, I presume, a bench of magistrates. The offence will be dealt with by the sheriff-substitute, one man who might well be rather fond of rabbits and might consider this a trivial offence and impose a nominal fine of £1 or so, which would be quite inadequate to the gravity of the offence; for it is a grave offence. For anyone to turn out rabbits on his land is not only a very unneighbourly thing to do when everyone is trying to co-operate in getting rid of them; worse, it is striking a blow at the economy of the country when we are trying to improve our agricultural returns and to grow more trees. I believe that the only way to impress upon the people who try these cases that this is a serious offence is to have in the Statute Book a high maximum penalty so that they know where they are. I feel that there should be a uniform penalty for all these various offences under Clause 1 and that a maximum figure of £50 would best meet the case. I hope my Amendment will meet with sympathy from some of your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("offence") to ("the") in line 2 and insert ("under").—(The Earl of Haddington.)
  LORD TEVIOT: I should like most heartily to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Haddington. It seems to be an extraordinary suggestion that one who, I should have thought, is in law an accessory after the fact, is to be let off with a lighter penalty. I should not imagine that that is the law of the land. We have to remember the frightful damage that we have escaped during this year through the elimination of rabbits all over the country, particularly when, as just lately, vast numbers of pigeons have done great harm. Had we had rabbits as well, we should have had nothing left at all. I hope that this Amendment will go through because I can see no reason at all why the person who puts a rabbit out should escape with a line of £20 while others have to pay £50. I hope Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment.
  LORD SHERWOOD: I do not apologise for speaking again on this subject and on this Amendment, for, as your Lordships know, I heartily dislike this Bill from every point of view. I believe it is almost impossible to carry out its provisions. The Bill started in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, as a tiny Bill. It then grew into a Government Bill and is now growing ever greater. Now the penalties are to be made even heavier. The penalties are to be increased until, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said, the rabbit is eliminated. But the rabbit is coming back. We are going to have the rabbit again, and this Bill will not prevent its coming back. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, says frankly that the reason he wants to increase these penalties is to make magistrates, and in Scotland, sheriff-substitutes, feel that this is a very serious offence. That means that these punishments are to be inflicted. On this point I would say that I cannot understand why the noble Lord Lord Merthyr, who wants to increase all these penalties, and quotes all that is done, does nothing about papers like the Evening Standard, which is even worse than the receiver condemned by the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Haddington. Those papers publish advertisements (for which they receive money) offering to supply these rabbits. The noble Lord quoted that fact in his own speech. We, in this House, all know

  947
  to whom the Evening Standard belongs. There is no monetary penalty which will disturb the noble Lord, Lord Beaver-brook, and therefore the penalty must be prison.
  You are not going to alter the course of the natural life of the rabbit by enormous penalties such as this. I dislike adding to the scope of this Bill, and I give notice to your Lordships that when we get to the Report stage I shall move that the word "wild" be taken out, because in this connection there is no difference between wild and tame, whatever the noble Lord may say. I shall then be able to give instances in which it is exactly the same. As regards the question of adding more and more to these laws, and offering more and more opportunity for people to give away their neighbours and bring the powers of the law upon them when really no crime has been committed, from these Benches I object.
  LORD KINNAIRD: I should like to say a word or two in support of my noble friend Lord Haddington. I do not agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that this matter is unimportant, because we support the Government's view that this is most important from the point of view of food production and tree production, both of which are national objectives. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has said about the question of the penalty. It seems odd that a man who is spreading rabbits should have to pay only £20. And I agree that in Scotland the case will come before one man. I think that the noble Earl's two points are exceedingly good, and I have much pleasure in supporting his Amendment. I am going to say a further word at a later stage on the Motion with regard to the spreading of rabbits.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Haddington, particularly from the Scottish point of view. The form of the judiciary in Scotland is somewhat different from that in England. As Lord Haddington says, these cases will come in front of one man and there may not necessarily be the balance of view which you get with several persons on the Bench as would be the case in England. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the
  948
  differential that is introduced in this Bill. To my mind, it seems a far more serious offence to turn a rabbit loose on land which is subject to a clearance order than to sell or to buy. Admittedly there is an argument which, although the noble Lord has not produced it, was, I think, in the mind of Lord Sherwood, that all the penalties are too high. That is one argument. I would not agree with it. But I think there can be no argument as to the merits of a differential in the penalties. Either they are all too high or they are too low. My own view is that a high penalty is the right one. I have yet to hear any argument which justifies the differential which is introduced in the Bill.
  4.23 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): As I see it, we are concerned with three actions—the acquiring, the transport and the turning loose, all of which form part of the process of restocking. I would entirely agree with what noble Lords have said up to now, to the effect that the final act of turning loose is not in itself less serious than the two preceding stages. In a case where all three actions are performed by the same person on a small scale, I would not expect that the court would impose a heavier fine if the offender were caught before he actually released the rabbits. I think that in a case of this kind, where a person obtains an odd rabbit or two with the intention of putting them down on his own land, the measure of his misdeed does not depend on the stage at which he is caught. Nor, I feel, should the fine depend on the particular offence with which he is charged. I agree that if we were concerned only with this type of case it would be logical to fix an equal maximum penalty for the three categories of the offence.
  Unfortunately, this is by no means the only type of case for which we have to legislate. At an early stage of the Bill, Lord Merthyr mentioned the hawking of rabbits round Bedfordshire at £1 a head. We do not expect that rabbit-mongering will be practised so openly after the Bill has become law, but if the efforts to keep down rabbits are successful—and I am confident that they will be—healthy live wild rabbits may be at a premium, and

  949
  if the penalty for trading in them is not put sufficiently high there may be a temptation to engage in black market transactions in wild rabbits. I think that in dealing with cases of this kind, where people have set themselves to provide rabbits for restocking for monetary gain, and where a number of transactions are involved, the court should be able to impose a more severe penalty than in the case of a person who buys only a few rabbits and who is concerned with only one transaction. The £20 penalty provided for is consistent with the fine relating to rabbits under the Pests Act, and is, I feel, a sufficient deterrent against that type of case. For the man who provides wild rabbits for monetary gain and is concerned in a number of transactions I consider that the higher penalty of £50 would be more appropriate. However, I appreciate that there is quite a strong feeling on this matter and I should not attempt to direct your Lordships upon it.
  4.27 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: First may I say a word or two about what fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood—I expected from him enthusiastic opposition to this Amendment. The noble Lord, as he has said plainly, does not like the Bill. He has also indicated that he does not like these penalties. Therefore I should have thought that if anyone was certain to vote against this Amendment, it would be Lord Sherwood, but I did not detect in his speech any such note of enthusiasm. But I may be being unfair. Lord Sherwood said that I wanted to increase the penalties. That is really a little hard. So far I have resisted the idea of increasing this penalty. I do not think I can take any blame for increasing any penalty—certainly not this particular penalty. I have done no such thing.
  The noble Lord spoke of the report in the Evening Standard which I mentioned on the last occasion, and he seemed to suggest that the Evening Standard or its proprietor should be prosecuted. Bit all that the Evening Standard did was to report, and nothing more. Is a newspaper or its proprietor to be prosecuted in a criminal court for reporting a murder case? All the Evening Standard have done in this case is to report a crime of far lesser gravity. They did not support it; they did not say anything for or
  950
  against it. If the noble Lord is apprehensive about advertising in newspapers, I can set his mind at rest on that matter. Clause 1 of the Bill makes it an offence to offer for sale or to offer to buy. So that subject is covered by Clause 1. Of course, as I have said, what appeared in the Evening Standard was not an advertisement hut a mere report.
  Now I come to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington. I really do not very much mind whether the figure is £20 or £50, but I would remind the House that this is a maximum fine, and even in these days maximum fines are rarely inflicted. The noble Lord was a little apprehensive that the sheriff-substitute would impose too small a fine. He will not have forgotten that this, being merely a maximum and there being no minimum, a sheriff-substitute who was too fond of rabbits could still impose a very small fine, even if the Amendment was passed. In fact the Amendment would make no difference, or little difference, to the decision of the sheriff-substitute. It does not seem to me to be really important whether the Amendment is passed or not. I am impressed by the argument of the noble Earl that there should be no distinction between these three separate actions—the transporting, the catching and the releasing. Therefore, if it be your Lordships' wish, I will accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HADD1NGTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who supported me in this Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for accepting it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 6.—(The Earl of Haddington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, in subsection (3), after "by" to insert:
  "the Lord President of the Council".
  The noble Earl said: Subsection (3) of Clause 1 enables the agricultural Ministers to grant licences authorising live wild rabbits to be obtained, transported, or turned loose for scientific purposes. Your Lordships will remember that during the

  951
  Second Reading of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, spoke about scientific purposes relating to the management of nature reserves. He said that control and management of rabbits within these reserves would perhaps be better dealt with by the authorities responsible for the reserves, and he mentioned that there was a precedent for this in somewhat analogous cases. We have looked into this and we feel that the noble Lord is right in what he says, and that it would be appropriate that the Lord President, as the Minister responsible for the Nature Conservancy and its studies of wild life, should also be authorised to grant licences. With your Lordships' permission, I will be dealing rather more fully with the purposes in connection with which the Nature Conservancy may need these licences when I move the new clause which is down in my name. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 9, after ("by") insert ("the Lord President of the Council").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  LORD MERTHYR: I have no possible objection to this Amendment and will accept it if the Committee so wishes.
  LORD HURCOMB: May I say that this Amendment, together with the following Amendment, completely meets the technical point which I raised, and I am much obliged, as I know the Nature Conservancy are, to Her Majesty's Government for having so fully dealt with the point?
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD KINNAIRD: With your Lordships' leave, I should like to say a further word here with regard to the spreading of rabbits. I think there is a danger and a loophole. The danger is that quite a number of people would be glad to see rabbits reintroduced, either for sporting reasons or food reasons. We have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has said about the advertisements in the papers. It is exceedingly difficult to find rabbits now, and if they spread again I think it will be impossible to eliminate them. The rabbits seem to have changed their ways. I have made inquiries in
  952
  Scotland. To-day, rabbits are not seen, but the people on many estates are killing a great many. If they are let loose again, the difficulty will be very much greater than it is at present.
  The loophole is that it is a simple thing to pen up a few rabbits under captivity in an enclosure of some sort and breed from them. So far as I can make out, the progeny of those rabbits will not come under this Bill. In the first Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr introduced, Clause 1 used the word "rabbit" and not "wild rabbit," but in Clause 2 "wild rabbit" was mentioned, so that both classes were covered. Now this Bill refers to the wild rabbit only, and nothing is said, even in subsection (4), about the tame rabbit bred in captivity. It is difficult to see exactly what the subsection means, but I do not think it covers the case I have in mind. It says:
  "In this section "wild rabbit" means a rabbit other than one which is of a type commonly kept in captivity and has been born in captivity and kept continuously in captivity since birth."
  It seems to me that the progeny of wild rabbits born in captivity and kept in captivity do not come under this Bill. As we know, these rabbits can profitably be sold, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, if he agrees with me, whether on Report stage he would consider putting down an Amendment to cover this type of rabbit.
  LORD MERTHYR: The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has asked me to consider this point before the next stage of the Bill. That I will most certainly do. It is an interesting point. At this stage I should like to draw his attention to the words in the definition clause which he himself pointed out. I think the important words in this connection are "which is of a type commonly kept in captivity". I will consider this point again, but I would say, offhand, that if the noble Lord construes these words his fears would not be supported as he thinks. There is one other point. If a person living in a clearance area collects a bunch of wild rabbits and keeps them, he comes under the Pests Act. He may not commit a criminal offence, but I should say that he comes under the Pests Act. Perhaps the noble Earl who represents the Ministry would confirm that statement or

  953
  otherwise. I think that may be of some comfort to the noble Lord.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
  Power of Ministers to grant exemptions from s. 1 (2) of the Pests Act, 1954
  ("4.—(1) The appropriate Minister may, for the purpose of enabling scientific research or scientific experiments to be carried orob/ on land within an area that is a rabbit clearance area under Part I of the Pests Act, 1954, relieve, for such period and subject to compliance with such conditions (if any) as he may specify, the occupier of that land from the obligations imposed on him by subsection (2) of section one of that Act.
  (2) For the purposes of this section the appropriate Minister shall, as respects land in England or Wales, he the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, as respects land in Scotland, be the Secretary of State:
  Provided that, as respects land (whether situate in England, Wales or Scotland) which is held by, or managed in accordance with agreement entered into with, the Natire Conservancy, the appropriate Minister shall be the Lord President of the Council.")
  The noble Earl said: The object of this new clause is to simplify procedure under the Pests Act. Under Section 1 (2) of that Act, occupiers of land in rabbit clearance areas are required to destroy wild rabbits on their land. There is no provision for exemption from this obligation if the rabbits are to he kept for scientific purposes, and the only way in which wild rabbits can be allowed to remain alive in a rabbit clearance area is by making an order excluding the enclosure in which they are to be kept front the clearance area. That is a cumbersome and protracted procedure for what may be only a temporary arrangement. We propose, therefore, that the agricultural Ministers should have authority to relieve an occupier in a rabbit clearance area of his obligation to destroy rabbits on his land, if the rabbits are there for bona fide scientific purposes. We also propose that the Lord President should have similar authority where the land is held or managed by the Nature Conservancy.
  I should like to say something about the kind of experiments we have in mind. As your Lordships will be aware, a weaker strain of myxomatosis has appeared in Nottingham and in a small area in Hampshire. It is very desirable
  954
  that we should know how rabbits that have recovered from this weaker strain have been affected by it and also how their progeny are affected. We therefore want to be able to allow some of these rabbits to remain in a well protected enclosure where they can be kept under observation. We also want to know more about the way in which myxomatosis is transmitted from one rabbit to another. Obviously, the more we know about the way the disease is carried, the better equipped we shall be to advise on preventing its spread to domestic rabbits and to deal with other problems associated with the spread of the disease. We shall therefore need to study the life of the rabbit flea and other insect vectors of myxomatosis under natural conditions.
  We still have much to learn about the ecology of the wild rabbit and the effect on our flora and fauna of the fall in the number of rabbits. The Nature Conservancy will no doubt he undertaking ecological studies in some of their nature reserves. Experiments will not be conducted on rabbits living in these enclosures. Indeed, so far as I am aware, wild rabbits are not used for research or experiments requiring a vivisection licence from the Home Secretary under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, and this clause would certainly not enable the Ministers to authorise such work. As I have said, the purpose of this new clause is simply to enable rabbits to be kept in enclosures in rabbit clearance areas so that they can be under observation for scientific purposes. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  LORD SHERWOOD: Will the noble Earl say how big these enclosures will be? I have been trying the same thing on a small scale, because the rabbit has come hack where I had strong myxomatosis. I managed to obtain a myxomatosis rabbit and put it among four new rabbits. The myxomatosis rabbit died, but the four new rabbits have not been affected at all. Had it been done on a bigger scale, more results might have been obtained. In talking of research, there is another point that the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, said that I might quote, as he is unable to be present to-day. He said that he was completely void of

  955
  rabbits where he was, but that they have now come back. But he has noticed that out of every eight rabbits killed, seven are bucks. They cannot have been imported by Lord Merthyr's friends, because one always imports fillies or does, or whatever you like to call them; one certainly would not breed from a lot of bucks. How big are these enclosures going to be; and where are they to be situated?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I cannot say what size the enclosures will be. Obviously they will vary greatly from one place to another. As regards the experience of the noble Lord in, so far as I can understand it, trying to spread myxomatosis, I must remind him that he is guilty of an offence under the Pests Act. I hope that he will not pursue this highly illegal practice in the Isle of Wight.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. Are the Government continuing their experiments with humane traps; or, in view of the outbreak of myxomatosis in the country, have these experiments been discontinued? I think this is important, because if rabbits ever come back in large numbers, we do not want to go back to the bad old days when millions of rabbits were trapped in gins every year—and that is a subject that has been debated in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion. I wonder whether the Government are still going on with the experiments, in spite of the fact that so many rabbits have died from myxomatosis.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: With all respect, I cannot see that the research into humane traps has anything whatever to do with the Rabbits Bill but I can assure the noble Earl that these experiments are being pressed on with all vigour, and I hope that in due course we shall get a satisfactory solution.
  LORD MERTHYR: This Amendment deals with the Pests Act and, as I see it, fills a loophole that would otherwise have caused some inconvenience. An example is to be found near my own home, where there is a wired-in enclosure in the grounds of a private house in which rabbits are kept for observation purposes on behalf of, and at the instance of, the Nature Conservancy. I am satisfied that
  956
  that experiment, if it can properly be so called, does nothing but good. But as the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has pointed out, under the Pests Act, directly the area in which that wired-in enclosure is situated is declared a clearance area, the continuation of the keeping of rabbits within the wired-in enclosure becomes impossible—legally, at any rate—unless this Amendment is passed. I quote that single instance as an illustration of what I agree is the desirability of this Amendment, because if it were not passed, as I have said, all these experiments which are conducted in clearance areas would have to be stopped. There are off our coasts some small and remote islands—some of them not far from my own home—in which it is thought, I believe justifiably, that it would be possible to keep and study rabbits more or less in a state of nature without doing any harm to anybody on the mainland. If that island was included in a clearance area, that sort of thing would be impossible without this Amendment.
  I had one doubt about this Amendment, but I am glad to say that it has been removed by the latter part of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. There are some people in this country who, most understandably, are apprehensive lest, in these observations on rabbits, there may be conducted upon the rabbits undesirable experiments—to put it bluntly—vivisection. I have made several inquiries about this matter, and I am informed that now, at any rate, wild rabbits—and this Bill covers no other rabbits—are not used for vivisection purposes. And, as the noble Earl has rightly said, this Amendment does not confer a licence upon anyone for such an experiment; it would still be necessary to obtain a licence under the Act governing vivisection experiments. I was relieved to hear that, because I know that a number of people are anxious about this matter. I am satisfied that if this Amendment is passed there will be no danger on that account, and I therefore have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  In the Title:
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: This Amendment is consequential upon the acceptance of the new clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  At end insert ("and for the grant of exemptions from subsection (2) of section one of the Pests Act, 1954.").—(Earl St. Adlwyn.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before five o'clock.