I am sorry to have to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to stay here a little longer tonight, but I desire to raise a problem which is of considerable importance to a number of householders and those responsible for buildings old and new. As some special consumer interests are involved I wanted to draw the attention of the Board of Trade to them in the hope that it will be able to protect their interests.

I want to begin by reminding the House that timber diseases are by no means a new phenomenon, although, reading some of the more misleading advertisements, one might think that they were. Indeed, I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will know that if he looks at the Fourteenth Chapter of the Book of Leviticus he will find an obvious description of fungal decay and, what is even more important, a very good practical way of dealing with it.

In much more recent times, though still in historical times—in 1684—Samuel Pepys, when inspecting the Navy, found that the greater part of about 30 ships were in danger of sinking at their moorings before any of them had been put to sea. That was another obvious reference to decay.

It is true that the recent widespread use of softwoods, which have replaced the traditional oak in the structural woodwork for buildings, and certainly low quality sapwood, may have encouraged some forms of beetle.

I do not desire to give the House a lecture on the subject, even if I were qualified to do so, but for the purpose of the grievances that I want to raise tonight these diseases can be divided into two groups. There are those which are due to fungal decay and those which are due to beetles or insects. In the fungal decay category the chief are the dry rots and the wet rots. Some dry rots are extremely persistent and can even grow their way through brickwork and masonry to find damp wood on which to batten. They are very persistent indeed.

The chief remedial measures in these cases are, first, to get rid of excessive moisture and to see that there is adequate ventilation, and then to take out wood which is obviously infected and decayed. It is clear that the mere application of chemical liquids to decayed woodwork will be quite useless, although it is often recommended and sometimes carried out.

Turning to the categories of beetle, I think that I can best deal with the matter, without troubling the House unduly, if I mention some specimens as I proceed, with the irrelevant treatments sometimes commercially recommended. I want to start with one type of infestation, ernobius mollis, which is an insect that breeds in the bark of the timber. The easiest way to get rid of it is to remove the bark. It may be surprising, but one does find that in some roof structures and floors there are timbers with bark attached to them.

It is obvious that expensive chemical treatment on the timber itself will be completely ineffective. I have an example of a house in Warlingham suffering from this type of infestation, and in this case three firms, widely known, recommended immediate chemical treatment. The lowest estimate in this case for quite a small house was £80, and had that £80 been spent it would have been completely valueless.

I have meditated whether it would be proper for me to name these and other firms on the Floor of the House. From time to time this is a very salutary practice in the public interest and must be done. On the other hand, one has always a feeling that the firm is at a considerable disadvantage in that if there is a defence, it cannot be given, at any rate at the same time as the accusation is made. I should, however, like the Minister to understand that I have precise details of every one of the cases which I mention to support my argument and that I shall be only too happy to provide him with details if he so desires.

In connection with the infestation of ernobius mollis, there is another case which occurred at Worthing, where a man knocked at a door of a small house —I gather that he has done this on more than one occasion—and asked to see the roof. The tenants were old people. There was a little of this type of infestation and he offered to treat it for £40, not by removing the bark and the pest, which was the proper way to do it, but by chemical treatment. That is scandalous and quite wrong, and any publicity which can be given to that sort of abuse will help the householders concerned. I am glad to note that rather more than a year ago two men were prosecuted at Bournemouth for action of this kind.

Perhaps in my next example I can discuss the death watch beetle, which is nearly always found in association with fungal decay. Often the best and only remedy is to remove the decay, thus bringing the beetle attack under control. I do not need to say too much about this perhaps, because we have had our own problems with it in the Palace of Westminster, but it is clear that chemical treatment applied to the outside of these timbers will generally be quite valueless. It will never reach the beetle. The beetle can live inside big beams, six inches or eight inches from the surface.

I believe that the kind of advertisement which appears from time to time in The Times, to the effect that such and such a chemical "will kill all timber borers and prevent further attack" is a misleading advertisement, because unless we can be certain that the liquid gets into the timber to the beetle it has no effect on the beetle whatever. The proper way is to make a number of test borings, to see how bad the infestation is and then decide to take the complete beam out, or to see whether treatment can be given. Merely to spray the liquid on the outside would be quite valueless, yet it is often done.

Another example of alleged death watch beetle was diagnosed in furniture and in skirting hoards. I am glad to say that an expert timber consultant was called in and that he found that there was no death watch beetle. There were pin holes in the furniture due to pin worm, which must have been dead very shortly after the tree from which the furniture was made was cut, because that insect cannot live long after the wood has dried out. Clearly, this is another instance of the racket which goes on.

Perhaps I may refer to lyctus. This attacks sapwood in certain types of hardwood, but I am advised that there is no known case of initial infestation in houses It is nearly always brought by some other article—a box or a case or furniture—and a chemical spray is generally quite ineffective. There are methods of treatment, but I do not want to weary the House with them now. I have an example where a half-inch floor was treated for lyctus infestation, but within a year the beetle reappeared. In this instance there was a so-called guarantee: the firm was prepared to return and treat the floor again without charge. This may kill some of the beetles, but unless we are certain that we are dealing with the larvae feeding inside the wood, this treatment will be quite useless.

Perhaps I may also mention the house longhorn, because one or two examples of treatment border on the scandalous. The infestation caused by this insect does seem to be endemic to the pine woods of Surrey, although there are occasional examples of attacks elsewhere. Yet a well-known firm wrote not very long ago to an inquirer that there had been a number of attacks in London recently and that this infestation seemed to be increasing. I am told that there is no warrant whatever for that statement, and I hope that the publicity which I give to it tonight will make this firm more cautious in future.

Some years ago, in connection with longhorn, a firm inspected the roof timbers of the Kew Parish Church. They recommended immediate treatment at a cost of £600. Fortunately, a proper timber consultant was called in, and it was found that the longhorn had been dead for many years, possibly for more than a hundred years. Had the treatment been used it would have been valueless. The Minister may have these details if he is interested. It was a shocking case.

There are a number of cases of expensive treatments in connection with longhorn. To treat the roof of a house in Surrey an insecticide firm gave an estimate of £120. The work was done under competent guidance by a builder for £31. This is often the measure of the unnecessary cost. I know of a Government contract where the firm put in a tender for £1,859 and a few shillings. I do not know how it could estimate so exactly. The work had to be done again and the adviser to the Ministry said that the total cost to the firm could not have been more than £600. Yet here a bill was put in for three times that amount. These are scandalous examples and something should be done.

I should like to refer to the high cost of the preparations. The basis of some of these preparations is a 5 per cent. solution of pentachlorophenol. That was confirmed in evidence which was given in a Chancery case not long ago, the case of Shaw v. Taylor, and it is generally accepted. One firm can make a 15 per cent. solution which sells for about 12s. a gallon. If that was diluted with two gallons of water, at negligible cost, one reaches the conclusion that the 5 per cent. solution ought not to cost more than 4s. or 5s. Yet some of the proprietary brands retail for at least 25s.—four times that figure. If one has pentachlorophenol in oil the cost can range from 9s. 3d. to 28s., and there is no evidence that the 28s. product is better. I should have thought that there was a case for investigation into this matter.

May I mention one other important matter in connection with these preparations? The liquids have a very low flash point—round about 100. If people are working in confined spaces, as they often are in dealing with roof timbers, the most stringent fire precautions ought to be insisted upon. There is one such case which is subject to proceedings, so I will not refer to it. If old cables or old electric fittings are in use, or if there is carelessness in using naked lights, serious consequences may arise. I hope that this point will be referred to the Home Office.

What can be done? I have already suggested an inquiry into prices. Secondly, I hope that this debate will give some publicity which will put householders on their guard. This is perhaps the most important aspect. Thirdly, I wonder whether anything can be done to emphasise the desirability of separating diagnosis which ought to be done by a skilled and independent authority, from the people who are to carry out the work. It seems to me that there is a great temptation if the people who are actually diagnosing the work are also the sales representatives for the firms who manufacture the proprietary liquids.

I wonder whether anything can be done to deal with the vast variety of people who call themselves surveyors, who pretend to have some knowledge of the subject but have no qualifications whatever and belong to none of the learned professions. Perhaps there could be a register of people who are competent to advise.

Fourthly, I should like to see bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Institute of British Architects, with Government help—for these bodies cannot do it alone—preparing a simple booklet which would set out more precisely than I have done timber diseases and their treatment, and where to get proper advice. These bodies have no vested interest in these proprietary chemicals and such information would be of great use to all people concerned with looking after houses, churches and buildings generally.

Fifthly, I should like to think that there might be organised by the Ministry of Works or some other appropriate body courses for builders and qualified surveyors so that there would be more people with real knowledge of the subject. I am certain that the main types of disease are not difficult to identify, and that those with proper knowledge of treatments could save many people a great deal of money.

Although this is not specifically within the province of the Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps he will pass on some of these points to his colleagues. I hope that the policy of hiving off the outside work of some of the Government research units will be discontinued. Much of this work cannot be left to trade associations because, with the best will in the world, they must hold a point of view which is not necessarily that of the consumer. These are real problems for householders, and consumers need protection. There are many cases of gross exploitation, and some firms are preying upon the ignorance and fears of people. I hope that the Minister will co-operate in providing publicity and any other help which may be possible.

I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary has already replied to an Adjournment debate. If he has not, I should like to wish him well, and, in any case, I offer him my congratulations upon his appointment.