HL Deb 26 November 1996 vol 576 cc194-7

7.34 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these regulations are being made under Section 37 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which allows the removal without replacement of certain health and safety statutory provisions which have been shown to be outdated and to have no practical effect. They will remove 16 pieces of redundant legislation which relate specifically to the textile and agricultural industries.

First, the textiles provisions: some of these have reached their 90th birthday and are long overdue for retirement, if not burial. They cover three subjects: artificial humidification; kiers; and cotton shuttles. It is an historical fact of life that, in the early part of the century, textile workers were exposed to some pretty unpleasant—and sometimes dangerous—working conditions which were caused by a combination of high temperatures and humidity.

Steam injection systems were used to humidify workrooms, and were controlled by hand. Steam is no longer used as a means of humidification and modern monitoring and control systems are automated. The related legislation is, therefore, simply redundant.

Then we have the provisions relating to kiers. Some of your Lordships may think that "kier" is a delectable drink which should not be made redundant. But in this case a kier is a big vat, possibly one which might be suitable for boiling Members of the Opposition, but which is more usually used for boiling textiles and which allows water to percolate through the textiles. The regulations apply to kiers in print works, bleaching and dyeing works, or works where cotton or cotton waste is bleached. There are few, if any, kiers still in use. Even if some still survive, the specific requirements, which are set out in the Kiers Regulations, are now superseded by up-to-date health and safety legislation.

Then we have the regulations on cotton shuttles. They prohibit the use of shuttles which are threaded by mouth suction in cotton cloth factories—not a very delicate method of threading shuttles. The regulations were necessary because of the risk of contracting a serious disease like tuberculosis. Fortunately, technology has advanced a little by now, and shuttles are not threaded by mouth. This means that these regulations are obsolete.

The agricultural provisions cover four subjects: field machinery (which includes stationary threshing machines and balers); ladders; workplaces; and poisonous substances. From 1st January 1997, the regulations on field machinery and on stationary threshing machines and balers will be duplicated by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 and the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992. They are, therefore, simply not needed.

The regulations on ladders place a specific obligation on agricultural employers to ensure that their ladders are properly constructed and that they are safe to be used. The construction and use of ladders in all sectors of business is now covered by up-to-date legislation and modern manufacturing standards. So these regulations are redundant.

In a similar way, the requirements in the regulations which cover the safety of agricultural workplaces are now superseded by the regulations which cover all places of work. Those regulations are the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

Most of the Agriculture (Poisonous Substances) Act 1952 has already been repealed. Only those sections remain which refer to the taking of samples of those substances to which the Act still applies. These powers in relation to sampling procedures are no longer used by health and safety inspectors because they have ether powers to take samples under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

The Health and Safety Commission has consulted widely with industry on all these proposals. The responses have shown that there was no objection either from those organisations which represent employers or from those which represent employees to the repeal and revocation of these Acts and regulations. I hope that your Lordships will be of the same opinion.

The Health and Safety Commission has therefore recommended that the legislation which is referred to in the draft regulations can be removed without replacement and without endangering health and safety standards.

The removal will have the advantage of simplifying the present legislation, and of making it easier to understand. And in the words of 1066 and All That, that must be a Good Thing. I commend the regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of what is at stake in these regulations. It is right to get rid of obsolete and redundant legislation, and obviously we welcome these regulations. However, I wonder how many more pieces of redundant legislation remain on the statute book and whether these particular regulations are the tip of the iceberg. Are there many more to come or are these just about it for the time being?

I was puzzled by the title of the regulations, which refers to repeals and revocations. I had to discover the difference between repeals and revocations. I am sure that all noble Lords are aware of it but I was not. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicates that his understanding is not clear. Although he should not tempt me, for the record I understand that repeals get rid of legislation and revocations get rid of regulations. I learnt something in the course of doing my homework for the purpose of this short debate.

I note that there has been a cut in the number of inspectors who carry out inspections on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive. There has also been a reduction in the total number of inspections. I hope that that is not because all available staff are so busy scouring the statute book for obsolete and redundant measures that they do not have time to get on with that work. I should like an assurance that that is not so. It must take a good deal of time to go through the statute book to discover what is no longer needed.

I have looked through these matters in detail. I raise only one specific point, other than the noble Earl's reference to boiling the Opposition in oil. Of course, that would be an interesting point to debate following June of next year. We should not allow ourselves to be provoked by the Minister, who usually rises to make such points only if we start something. Tonight, he got his retaliation in first, as it were. My question relates to ladders. I raise this matter possibly because ladders are the only items that I understand, or the only items in the regulations with which I have had something to do in a personal sense. No doubt many of your Lordships have similar experience.

Having listened carefully to what the Minister said, I understand that there is an obligation on agricultural employers to ensure that ladders which are provided for use by their employees are properly constructed and used in a safe manner. I understand that that matter is covered by across-the-board legislation and manufacturing standards. But what about the thousands of old ladders that are still in use? Is there a need to protect agricultural workers who may be asked to use them? I understand that the way in which ladders are used—the angle at which they are leant against walls and so forth—is covered by the new measures, but do agricultural workers who may be using old ladders have proper protection?

Having said that, I welcome the fact that we are getting rid of obsolete measures, particularly in view of the assurance that there has been adequate consultation and all those concerned are in favour of these repeals and revocations.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for welcoming this measure and the intention of the Government to introduce measures to remove obsolete legislation. He asked whether this was the tip of the iceberg. Of course, we are looking at all legislation right across the board. It is a considerable programme of work and we are about half way through it. I cannot guarantee that there will be no further regulations of this nature coming before the House. Indeed, I would have hoped that he would be glad if more such regulations came along because it would mean that we were doing what we were supposed to be doing and making life easier for everyone.

The noble Lord referred to the decline in the number of inspections. There is a decline in the number of planned inspections due to the changing nature of the enforcement strategy of the Health and Safety Executive. It is not because its staff are sitting at home crawling over the papers to see whether there are any bits and pieces that can be removed from the legislation, although that activity also takes place. Enforcement action is targeted at activities which present the greatest risk. There are fewer planned inspections this year but they are better targeted and are conducted in greater depth. There are about 364 inspections per staff year. The noble Lord was worried about ladders. Existing ladders, even if they are very old, are covered by the new legislation. I do not believe that he needs to be concerned about that.

If the noble Lord believes that I baited him I apologise. I could not resist the idea of baiting him. I assure the noble Lord that I did not intend to say that the Opposition would be boiled in oil. I merely thought that the vats would be suitable for that purpose, if there were a wish so to do. I can assure the noble Lord that I do not wish to do anything of the kind.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his courteous acceptance of the regulations, and I hope the House will approve them.

On Question, Motion agreed to.