I am sure that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) for bringing this interesting and unusual topic before the House. As I shall explain, this is a matter very near my heart, because my own house, a seventeenth century house, has recently been afflicted by every form of timber pest. I should like also to express to the hon. Gentleman my gratitude for the courtesy he did me in giving me prior notice of the main points he proposed to make, which has enabled me to look at the brisk exchange of correspondence he has had with my predecessor at the Board of Trade.

From my own experience, I agree that anyone faced with the problem of suspected disease in the main timbers of some building for which he is responsible, be it his own home, as in my case, or, perhaps, one of the old and lovely churches of our country, is faced with a very difficult problem and that when he comes to consider the steps which he is advised to take he may well be appalled, as I was, at the cost. But I do not accept the inference that the diagnosis and treatment of timber diseases is a profession absolutely infested by rogues, quacks and vagabonds.

The hon. Gentleman himself made clear that timber diseases are of two main kinds. There is the attack by fungus, which is mainly the dry rot fungus, and there is the attack by insects, generally beetles or the so-called worm. I would not have the House think that this whole matter is just one which I have been recently briefed on by my Department, because I have had good personal experience of it. Indeed, such is my personal experience that, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to, I am prepared to match his Latin by mentioning all the diseases and beetles from the attacks of which my own house suffered.

There was Merulius lacrymans, the dry rot. There was Coniophora cerebella, which is wet rot. I have had also the four main insect timber pests—Xestobium rufovillosum, which is the death-watch beetle, Anobium punctatum, the common furniture beetle or woodworm, Lyctus, the powder post beetle, and Hylotrupes bajulus, which is the house longhorn beetle. It is clear to me that dry rot fungus is one thing which needs one kind of treatment. Generally, as the hon. Gentleman said, the thoroughgoing removal of the parts affected and flame treatment of any brickwork involved is the only effective kind of treatment. The various beetles are a different matter, and they require quite another form of treatment.

While there are, no doubt, many excellent local men who can tackle these problems effectively, diagnosis and treatment of these things, particularly when the attack is severe, is, in my experience, not as a rule a job for one's local builder Indeed, some architects even admit gaps in their own knowledge on the subject.

I have a great respect for the capacity, good faith and honest workmanship of this country's small local builders, particularly those who worked for me; but these timber diseases are, as my own experience has shown me, jobs for experts who specialise in these things. If the hon. Gentleman were to confine himself to saying that some experts are more expert than others, I would agree with him, and there would be nothing much between us. There may also, I admit, be a few bad hats at work here, as there are in other trades and professions.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that there were three principal things wrong, and he said that the Government should do something to put them right. I will deal with these criticisms which he made as sympathetically as I can, but I must be careful to keep within the bounds of order, since the kind of action which I suspect the hon. Gentleman has in mind for the Government to take would involve some legislation.

First, faulty diagnosis. The hon. Gentleman told us that he knows of many cases in which so-called experts have diagnosed non-existent timber pests and then expensively cured them. I will say at once that if he or anyone else believes that to be true and believes that a deliberate fraud has occurred or is occurring, he has a remedy now. The matter should at once be put before the authorities who are competent to prosecute in cases of fraud.

There may also be remedies at the civil law. The hon. Gentleman was in correspondence earlier this year with my predecessor at the Board of Trade about this matter. My hon. Friend said, as long ago as May last, that the law against fraud, false pretences and conspiracy exists to deal with such cases. Indeed, he himself gave one fairly recent instance in which two men who did run a racket in treating buildings for non-existent woodworm were prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud and for false pretences and were sent to prison for two years.

Nor is this the only statutory remedy. There have been suggestions that so-called experts may treat timber with preparations which are represented as being effective in killing the beetles but which are, in fact, of no value for that purpose. Here we have the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953, which may possibly afford some remedy. This Act deals with the application of what are called "false or misleading trade descriptions" to the sale of goods. A trade description includes descriptions (aa) as to the standard of quality of any goods, according to a classification commonly used or recognised in the trade, or(ab) as to the fitness for purpose, strength, performance or behaviour of any goods. "False trade description" has a corresponding meaning. I commend this legislation to the hon. Member's study.

I turn now to faulty diagnosis and inadequate treatment of pests in church timbers, of which the hon. Member spoke. He has painted an unhappy picture of shameless exploitation of unworldly parish priests. However common or uncommon that may be, there is no lack of good advice on this matter.

I have with me a copy of an admirably full and clear pamphlet, published by the Central Council for the Care of Churches at half-a-crown, called "Church Timberwork, Books and Fabrics; Damage and Repair." It was drawn up by an expert committee and describes the symptoms both of dry rot and of the various kinds of beetle and wood worm, and what may be done about them. I notice in particular that the Central Council will supply names of firms who, within the Council's experience, can be relied upon for sound advice and good workmanship.

The pamphlet bears out my own conviction that timber preservation work must be carried out under the supervision of knowledgeable people. The Council adds quite flatly: Unintelligent application by unskilled labour may well result in waste of money and effort". I do not doubt that those responsible for the buildings of other religious denominations do not hesitate to avail themselves of the expert advice that is available to them, if not locally, then through their central authorities. At any rate, it is clear that the churches with which the Central Council is concerned need not lack for sound advice.

If the sound advice in the Central Council's pamphlet were followed—and not only by those responsible for churches—the path of those people whose activities have been so eloquently described by the hon. Member would be less easy, and their careers much shorter. If the hon. Member's speech and my reply have no other result but to make these facts even better known than they are already, we shall, I feel sure, have gone a long way towards bringing to an end whatever exploitation exists in such matters.

This pamphlet is, of course, far from being the only source of sound advice. I have with me also copies of the leaflets prepared by the Forest Products Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. These leaflets, which are issued free, describe in clear language the symptoms of dry rot and of the several insect pests of timbers in buildings. Moreover, for 2s. one may get from Her Majesty's Stationery Office a comprehensive Bulletin on Dry Rot.

Other organisations are active in these matters. I have been impressed, for example, by the valuable work which has taken place in conjunction with the York Institute of Architectural Study, where courses are run for surveyors, architects, builders and the like. Advice is also obtainable from the Timber Development Association, which, I understand, deals with 20,000-30,000 inquiries a year at its six offices in London, the provinces and Scotland. Nearly all the advice is given without charge. I understand that the Association's officers will, when necessary, visit the scene of the trouble, charging no more than the cost of doing so.

The hon. Member's second complaint was about the high prices of preparations. The logical deduction would be that he wanted some form of price control. Obviously, this, again, would involve legislation and is a matter which I cannot pursue. I remind the hon. Member that the whole business of timber preparations is a competitive business. If the preparations involved are the result of long research and experiment, the intrinsic cost of their raw materials is one factor only in the cost of producing and selling them. I am neither defending nor criticising the prices charged for such preparations. I do not, however, believe in price control, even if the hon. Member does.

Next, I come to the question of standards, although I do not think that the hon. Member suggested that the British Standards Institution should do the work. He mentioned other bodies, the surveyors and like people. I would point out that the British Standards Institution has done a great deal of work on methods of, and preparations for, preventing timber from being attacked. I shall not weary the House with details of what the B.S.I. has done but it has done a lot, which I shall be happy to communicate to the hon. Member.

I do not think it is possible to impose a standard for this but my second point is that in this field a little learning can be a dangerous thing. Eradication of timber pest is often a task for which expert advice is essential together with skilled application and proper equipment.

A period of observation will be needed afterwards to ensure that the cure has been really effective. Dry rot fungus, especially. often calls for quite drastic treatment. I do not know whether the hon. Member is suggesting that the vicar, aided by his leading parishioners—I do not say this in any way offensively—ought to be able to eliminate dry rot by painting on something out a tin which carries a British Standard. The diagnosis and the treatment of the diseases of timber are not matters to be handled by amateurs. Some people may be unwilling to believe that those who advise a costly course of treatment can be doing so from proper motives. But the remedy for this is to take a second opinion, to cross-check with publications from the Stationery Office and other respectable authorities, and, if a church of the Establishment is concerned, to get in touch with the Central Council early.

I understand that the Timber Development Association Ltd., to whom the Forest Products Research Laboratory now refers inquirers, is prepared to offer advice; and the Central Council for the Care of Churches has a wide range of experience which it can put at the disposal of parish councils. I see that my predecessor invited the hon. Member to furnish to the Central Council any information that might be helpful to them but I do not know whether he has yet done so.