HC Deb 13 December 1977 vol 941 cc455-66

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

11.50 p.m.

Sir Timothy Kitson (Richmond, Yorks)

I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment the problems of the stationing of mobile canteens on trunk roads. Two weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions under Section 124 of the Highways Act, 1959 his Department had ordered the removal of roadside canteens which had established themselves without planning permission on trunk roads, and whether he was satisfied with the present arrangements for allowing the setting up of canteens and snack bars on trunk roads and laybys. In his reply, the right hon. Gentleman said that there had been no such occasion in recent years. He followed that by saying that roadside canteens provided a service for road users and that he did not seek their removal unless they caused danger. Compliance with planning legislation is a matter for the local authorities.

I do not think anyone would dispute that mobile canteens provide a service for road users, but the problem that we are experiencing in the Hambledon District Council's area is not, I regret to say, helped by the Minister's reply. As I shall explain, the planning legislation, while it is a matter for the local planning authority, cannot control mobile canteens without the assistance of the regional controller, who is responsible to the Secretary of State.

The problem seems to have arisen following the passing of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which granted greater general control on roadside sales specifically excluding mobile canteens from such control, and this exclusion has been wrongly interpreted in some quarters as superseding the powers under Sections 124 or 127 of the Highways Act 1959. Indeed, both the North Yorkshire police and the District Councils Association would appear to be in some confusion in regard to this matter. I should add, while I am dealing with the mobile canteens in the Hambledon District area, that this week, since I raised the matter in the House, the District Councils Association has been in touch with me saying that this problem is arising in other parts of the country.

The enforcement of Section 124 of the Highways Act 1959 is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, and the Department is refusing to take action as it feels that the canteens provide a valuable service for lorry drivers. I think that it would be understandable if the operators who initiated the dispute were on sections of the trunk roads inadequately provided with permanent facilities. That, however, is certainly not the case with the three canteens in the Hambledon district area. Indeed, there are close to all of these operators adequate facilities provided for road users. Recently two applications for service centres within the areas of the mobile canteens were refused planning consent on the direction of the regional controller, and subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Secretary of State because he felt that adequate services were already provided.

I think it can therefore be said that dual standards are being applied by the Department of the Environment, and, indeed, that leaves canteen operators in an invidious position. Their continued existence rests on the decision of the regional controller, which can hardly be conducive to the high standards of hygiene or service required by district councils under the eyes of the environmental health officer, who carefully administers standards that are required under the food hygiene regulations but who appears to be unable to control the required standards of mobile canteens.

Planning legislation is not capable of dealing with the problem, and even if the local authorities were to take enforcement action the canteens would have only to move a few yards up or down a layby to render the whole process completely abortive. Indeed, because of the lengthy procedure of planning applications and appeals, if the proprietor of a mobile canteen were to lose his appeal, which would certainly take six to eight weeks, by his moving a few yards up or down the layby the whole process would have to be repeated, or, indeed, in our area he could simply exchange with a mobile canteen operator in another lay-by and the whole process would have to be started again. Nor is it possible effectively to rate these establishments, because the district council would not wish to give any suggestion of authorisation to facilities which it opposes.

Mobile canteens are covered by the Food Hygiene (Market Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations, but those regulations are not as stringent as those which apply to permanent facilities. I have been in touch with the chief environmental health officer, from whom I have learnt that it is not possible to insist upon the standards which cover permanent service areas. Whilst it is possible to prevent health hazards relating to food poisoning, the regulations are not designed to prevent pollution. There are not requirements in the regulations to provide toilets for food handlers or customers. Therefore, the conditions of lay-bys served by mobile canteens are deteriorating into a most unsatisfactory and disgusting state.

In North Yorkshire we have two national parks. One mobile canteen has been stationed where it can clearly be seen from one of the most popular walks in one national park, the Lyke Wake Walk. A few years ago there was an application for a small caravan park, but the operator was told by the Department of the Environment that it was unacceptable. He promised to provide adequate screening, but it was felt that the caravans could be seen from the national park. Yet a mobile canteen has now been set up only a short distance from the proposed caravan park, with no screening. It must be contravening the decision of the Department of the Enviroment of anly a short time ago. One of the Minister's predecessors came up to look at the situation from the Lyke Wake Walk only five years ago to see whether it was acceptable.

Not only have we the problem of effectively controlling the hygiene standards of the mobile canteens, but in one case on the Al, close to the village of Burnestone, the North Riding police have expressed extreme concern about the siting of one of these vehicles. The traffic man- agement inspector of the North Riding Constabulary wrote to the planning officer on 12th September stating: The location at Burneston on the Al has no deceleration lane and entry is direct from the main carriageway. This is not satisfactory from a road safety point of view as drivers have to decelerate in the carriageway. There is no record of an accident at the site as yet, but it is probably only a matter of time before one occurs.

The regional controller, on the direction of the Department of Transport, would never entertain such a development to a fixed service area, and I cannot see why he is prepared to allow these double standards to operate.

The situation as I see it is further complicated by the advice given to the local authorities by their legal advisers. Regulation 5(2) of the 1966 regulations provides that where any stall—which, of course, includes a mobile canteen—is used for the sale of food any person who permits the use of the stall shall take account of the nature and packing of the food which is to be handled, and shall not permit the stall to be used for any of those purposes if it is in such a condition as to expose the food to the risk of contamination or to prevent observance of clean practices in the handling of the food. The regulation also requires the person who permits the use of the stall to ensure that the stall is kept clean and in proper repair.

As the Secretary of State has not used his powers under the Highways Act to move the canteens, he is the person, on behalf of the Crown, who has permitted the use of the mobile canteen. The general rule is that the Crown is not bound by the provisions of a statute unless it is expressly or by necessary implication named therein. Section 122 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, the Act under which the 1966 regulations were made, provides for the application of the Act and the regulations made under it to the Crown by means of an Order in Council. However, it would appear that an Order in Council has never been made. Regulation 5, here-fore, does not apply in the present case.

I agree that any notice under Section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Act 1976 would have to specify the place. It would be reasonable to define the whole of a particular layby as "a place", as the definition of his term refers to the sale of food or drink to members of the public for consumption at the place. Presumably, most people who have bought food at a mobile canteen return to their vehicles to consume it. However, as the environmental health officer says, if a mobile canteen is moved to another layby a fresh notice would have to be served.

There is no doubt that there are overlapping powers between the planning authority and the highway authority. It can be said that laybys are in fact Crown land, which means that there is a Crown interest where the land concerned has been purchased at some time by the Crown. Therefore, the district council has to ask the Secretary of State for his consent before taking enforcement action and, therefore, if the Secretary of State maintains his existing policy in relation to these canteens, it is clearly unlikely that his consent will be forthcoming.

I really believe that the Under-Secretary will have to have another look at the whole situation. Unless a way can be found to control and administer mobile canteens from the point of view of hygiene and road safety, clearly the confusion that has been created by the alteration to the law through the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 will have to be remedied.

In my area the local authorities are not prepared to go through the whole rigmarole of planning permission recognising that by canteens moving to another layby or, indeed, moving their position by a few hundred yards the whole cumbersome process would have to start again.

The Department must instruct its regional controllers to look at the road safety aspect of this situation, and the Minister should bear in mind that there are many people who provide the necessary services, paying their rates and complying with the food hygiene Acts, who are most disturbed about the way their business is being undercut.

In my area Mr. Daly, the planning officer, and Mr. Woodcock, his senior assistant, have been extremely helpful in presenting the facts to me. I really hope that the Minister will agree, having heard this case, to go to the Secretary of State and say that the present situation is totally unsatisfactory and that he will have to have a careful look at it not only, I repeat, from the point of view of food hygiene but also from the point of view of road safety.

12.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) has presented the case against roadside canteens eloquently and very thoroughly. Let me acknowledge at the outset that there is very considerable force in what he has had to say. Some mobile canteens—not all, but certainly some—produce or encourage the depositing of litter in laybys and on verges. The hygienic standards of some of them are very doubtful. Some—or their customers—damage the laybys and grass verges. Some may compete with transport cafes, or, at least, the proprietors of those cafes may think that there is competition and may contend that the competition is unfair because the canteen operator does not have to pay rates or rent.

Residents on or near trunk roads may also object to the presence of a canteen near their houses. That is one side of the picture which the hon. Gentleman has painted. To be fair, however—and the hon. Gentleman was fair—there is another side. Mobile canteens provide a service for the road user, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. If there were no need for such a service, there would be no canteens. I do not know how many hon. Members at some time or another may have paused at a roadside canteen to have a quick cup of tea and a sandwich before continuing their journey. In addition, of course, certain drivers take advantage of facilities of this sort and they are particularly useful to lorry drivers, who would be very bitter about any proposal to outlaw them in general.

Clearly, different people take different views about the utility of the roadside canteen. I suspect that some people from time to time take different views at different times and in different places. The staunch opponent of the mobile canteen within sight of his house may not be averse to patronising one for a cheap snack when travelling many miles away from home.

This leaves us in the desperate but not unusual position of knowing that what we do or do not do will displease someone to some degree. I fear that I may displease the hon. Gentleman.

As the hon. Gentleman himself said, there are a number of conflicting responsibilities in this area between the planning authorities in the shape of the Department of the Environment and the highway authority in the shape of the Department of Transport. There is also the question of the conflict between local authorities, district councils and central Government. This is a complex area which we have to look at, but I can only answer this evening for the Department of Transport. Other authorities have responsibility which bears directly on some of the complaints about canteens, and we cannot interfere with their responsibilities.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of hygienic standards. It is contended that there is a lack of proper washing-up facilities in canteens or that conditions are unhygienic in some other way. This is a matter for consideration under the Public Health Act powers. It is for the environmental health officer of the district council concerned to investigate and take such action as is necessary. I recognise, however, that the powers which exist with regard to hygiene are in some respects unsatisfactory. If that is the case, I shall draw it to the attention of the Department concerned. I am not entirely sure of the exact Department because it is not within the remit of the Department of Transport, but if there is cause for concern I shall pass it on to the proper Department for consideration.

If a canteen is operating without the planning permission which the law requires it to have, that is a matter for the local planning authority—again, the district council. It is for the planning authority to decide whether planning legislation is being infringed and whether an enforcement notice should be served upon the canteen operator.

Another complaint against mobile canteens is that no rates are paid on them. I understand that this is a difficult topic for the rating authority because, as the hon. Gentleman said, the authority does not necessarily want to encourage something by giving it the sanctity or the per- manence of being rated when the authority disapproves of in this case the roadside canteen. There is also the problem that rates are a form of tax on fixed property and there would be difficulties about levying them on something moveable, particularly if it were moved from time to time.

Operators of mobile canteens pay no rent for the use of the land on which the canteens stand. Here we move into the area of matters for which my right hon. Friend is responsible as the highway authority for trunk roads. There is no power under which we can possibly approve of the stationing of a canteen on a trunk road and charge rent. The hon. Member may be interested to hear that the basis on which canteens are allowed to stand on trunk road land is known in the Department as "non-disapproval". That is not a very elegant phrase but it states, in the shape of a double negative, the complicated legal situation we face.

To enable my right hon. Friend to make charges, there would have to be legislation under which some form of licensing system operated. That would have some difficulties and probably is not what the hon. Gentleman is seeking, although I appreciate that he seeks a more satisfactory system of control than that which we have.

There is a complicated legal situation, to which the hon. Member has referred. He is right to say that this matter has been gone over before. In Committee, during what was to become the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the then hon. Member for Ash-field, Mr. Marquand, put forward a new clause to prohibit roadside trading on trunk and principal roads. After discussion the clause was withdrawn, and the Government subsequently introduced in another place another clause which became Section 7 of the Act. That provides for the making by highway authorities of control orders to restrict trading alongside highways specified in those orders. But subsection (5)(f) specifically exempts from a control order the provision in a layby of facilities for the supply of refreshments to travellers.

Section 124 of the Highways Act 1959 enables a highway authority to serve notice on the person having control or possession of a structure, in this case a mobile canteen, to remove the obstruction within the time specified in the notice. The highway authority can remove the structure and recover the cost of doing so after the expiration of one month from the date of the serving of the notice. That is the point the hon. Gentleman referred to when he put the Question to my right hon. Friend about the number of times this power had been used recently.

If a mobile canteen owner applies for planning permission in respect of a canteen on a trunk road layby, the planning authority notifies the Secretary of State, as the highway authority, under Article 11 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order and it is open to him to give a direction under Article 10 restricting the grant of permission. It has been the policy until now that no direction is given unless there is a danger to other road users. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this has, on the whole, been the broad direction of policy until now. In the absence of a direction, the local planning authority decides the application itself and the applicant has the usual right of appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment in the event of a refusal or a conditional consent.

Sir T. Kitson

The question of danger is important. I mentioned that the North Riding police had objected strongly to the siting of a mobile canteen. There is no way in which—even in terms of private property—on a trunk road such as the A1 traffic is allowed to leave without a deceleration lane. With a mobile canteen servicing 100-plus lorries a day, these vehicles are pulling off without such a deceleration lane. The regional controller ought to make certain recommendations to the Department, because this would be totally unacceptable in other circumstances. When the police are objecting on road safety grounds, careful consideration should be given to the point and in such circumstances an objection should be made by the Department.

Mr. Horam

This point about danger is important. My right hon. Friend's attitude on the subject of mobile canteens on trunk roads is that they provide a useful service and ought to be tolerated, provided that they do not cause danger.

The hon. Member has put forward three further points. The first concerned the village of Burneston. There is evidence of a road safety problem there. Certainly the police have said that they believe this to be the case. If that is so, I shall certainly look at it in the light of the general criteria that we have for considering whether we should move against mobile canteens.

Earlier in his remarks the hon. Gentleman made the point that there appeared to be a dual standard in that the Department was not granting planning permission for service facilities of a general static kind while continuing to allow mobile canteens to exist. I should like to look into that matter as it affects the area to which he referred.

Sir T. Kitson

The hon. Gentlemen seemed to imply that I accepted the existence of mobile canteens. If they do not have the necessary lavatories and washing facilities, they cannot meet the hygiene requirements of the Public Health Act. I should not like the impression to go out that I accept mobile canteens as such.

Mr. Horam

No. I understand precisely the hon. Gentleman's position. I was saying that he accepts that the Department has allowed mobile canteens to exist, unless they clearly cause a road safety problem. In the instance referred to by the hon. Gentleman, I undertake to look at the evidence.

If there is any question of dual standards between not granting planning permission for service facilities and allowing mobile canteens to remain nearby, again I undertake to look into that matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to mobile canteens being moved on rapidly when they were tackled by authorities. That is another matter into which we should perhaps look.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to the general legal complexities of the present situation following from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Again, I shall certainly consider whether there are any gaps in the law which leave either the local authorities or the Department—in this instance possibly the Department of the Environment—in an unsatisfactory situation as regards what they can do. I undertake to look at the road safety problems at Burneston. In addition, I shall look at the general legal position to see whether it is as unsatisfactory as the hon. Gentleman maintained in his speech. Obviously, the complexity of the matter is such that it cannot be resolved in a short time. I should like time to look at it, and I undertake to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.