The House has been listening to much talk about monopolies, and I should like to draw attention to one particular kind of monopoly, the cement monopoly. I do not propose to deal with the cement industry at large, but only with certain of its activities which seriously affect thousands of people on both sides of the Thames Estuary, and in particular in my constituency of Thurrock.

In Thurrock we have the Tunnel Portland Cement Company, the Alpha Cement Company, and the Wouldham Cement Company, which is a subsidiary of the British Portland Cement Manufacturers Limited. On the south side of the Thames there are a number of works—the Kent Works, the Swanscombe Works, Bevan's Works and Johnson's Works. During the process of the manufacture of cement large quantities of finely ground solids enter the kilns and consequently the kiln gases are heavily laden with dust particles. Although perhaps not accurately as regards scientific analysis, usually this is referred to as cement dust.

The effect of this cement dust is as follows. About 65 tons of it are deposited per square mile of the area in question every month of the year. When the wind is blowing from south to north, the cement dust produced by the Kent works find their deposit on Essex soil, and when the wind is blowing from north to south, the cement dust produced by the Thurrock works find their deposit on Kent soil. This figure of 65 tons per square mile per month is three times larger than the average pollution of the atmosphere of ordinary industrial areas.

The effect of the cement dust in the domestic domain is extremely serious. If windows are opened within a mile of these works, furniture inside the rooms become quickly covered with a fine layer of dust. Clothes which are kept on the line become covered. A few weeks ago I had a letter from one of my constituents, a lady who said she could not hang the children's "nappies" on the clothes line because they soon became covered with a layer of dust. The houses and trees next to these factories are smeared with cement dust. One can almost see a "white Christmas" in midsummer. The effect of these conditions on the health of persons living in the area is a matter on which medical opinion cannot speak with direct authority. Subject to this, there is no doubt that a considerable amount of anxiety and worry is engendered in the minds of housewives who have to fight valiantly against these extraordinary and difficult conditions.

The question therefore arises: how can this evil be avoided? I must tell the House it can be avoided, and avoided completely. A book published in 1934 by the works superintendent of the Associated Portland Cement Company, Mr. A. C. Davies, which I believe to be a standard textbook on portland cement, describes three main methods of avoiding this nuisance. It is interesting to note, with reference to the most efficient method of electrostatic precipitation, that this was first described in detail in the design of Cottrell in 1911. It is of further interest that the physics experiment which suggested the development of an electrostatic precipitator was started as long ago as 1824, the year that the Aston patent for Portland cement was filed. We had to wait over a hundred years in the course of industrial development before industry thought it worth while to develop a really efficient method of doing away with this cement dust nuisance.

The question arises why these cement monopolies have not taken adequate steps to remedy these nuisances. The answer is not far to seek. There is no doubt that the capital outlay in respect of these plants for dealing with cement dust, is fairly substantial, and the running costs are by no means insignificant. We arrive at this deduction, that the making of bigger and fatter profits, which is the be-all and end-all of the existence of the cement combines, is carried on with complete disregard for the public, and for the common law duties of the combines not to create any public nuisance. For instance, as far as my constituency is concerned, it was almost ancient history when the Thurrock urban district council came into being, in 1936, and it was one of the council's first tasks to consider this question of the public nuisance caused in Thurrock.

From then onwards, representations have been made at intervals by the inhabitants to the council, and by the council to the representatives of the cement industry. In 1938, in the case of the Tunnel Cement Works, there were certain kilns in operation, and as far as kilns 4 and 5 were concerned there was only one electrostatic precipitator between them. Kilns 1, 2 and 3 were pumping poison into the atmosphere of Thurrock with complete disregard for the health and convenience of the public. In 1948, we find, with respect to the same works, that kilns 1 to 3 are still without electrostatic precipitators.

Before the war the cement industry had no excuses about the shortage of steel; they had no excuse about difficulties of getting apparatus. Their only real excuse was that they were too stingey to spend money to safeguard the public from this nuisance. Today, under the pressure of the urban district councils on both sides of the Thames, councils which are under Labour jurisdiction, the cement companies have suddenly decided to do everything they can to remedy this nuisance. But of course, there is a snag in this apparent readiness; they put the blame on the Government and say that they cannot get the necessary steel. It is interesting to note that they should have waited until there was a Labour Government and they could make these excuses, when before the war they could have remedied the nuisance.

I know that the Minister will say that we must have regard to the shortage of steel and to the necessity of increasing production in the interest of the export drive, but I would say to him that, as far as this nuisance is concerned, I am confident, in the light of my researches and with such knowledge of the law as I possess, that the cement companies are guilty of a public nuisance. I am confident that any of the local authorities concerned could take civil proceedings in order to counteract this nuisance, and, in this connection, it is interesting to note that His Majesty's judges have ruled that it is no defence to a charge of this nature to say that the nuisance arises from the carrying on of a trade beneficial to the community, and that the nuisance is less than the advantage from the trade.

I submit that the Government ought not to say, as I fear may be said, that we are passing through a difficult period and that, on the whole, it is better that production should carry on in its present form rather than that there should be some temporary hold-up caused by the allocation of steel for the manufacture of the necessary equipment. In a sense, if the Government took up that attitude, they would be aiding and abetting the commission of a public nuisance, and I sincerely hope they will avoid that conclusion.

Just one further word on the question of exports. A tremendous amount of cement is being exported, and if the allocation of steel for this plant would necessarily remove from the sphere of exports a corresponding amount of goods, having regard to the fact that cement is one of our priority exports, this amount of steel could surely be well allowed. I ask my hon. Friend to say that he will do all he can in this matter—a matter affecting thousands of people residing on both sides of the Thames.