HL Deb 05 April 1982 vol 429 cc10-9

3.5 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 125:

After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:

("Control of self-operated laundries

.—(1) A council may resolve that this section is to apply to their area; and if a council do so resolve this section shall come into force in their area on the day specified in that behalf in the resolution (which must not be before the expiration of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the resolution is passed).

(2) A council shall publish notice that they have passed a resolution under this section in two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in their area.

(3) The first publication shall not be later than 28 days before the specified day.

(4) For the purposes of this section premises shall be deemed to be used as a self-operated laundry when facilities are provided to the public on those premises on payment for washing or dry cleaning clothes or other articles by machines operated primarily by the customer.

(5)(a) In an area in which this section is in force, the occupier of premises used either partly or wholly as a self-operated laundry shall, in order to ensure that the plant and machinery installed in the premises for the purpose of the business are so fitted and maintained as to avoid risk of explosion, leakage of fluids or vapour and danger to the persons operating or in the vicinity of the plant and machinery, cause such plant and machinery to he inspected at least once in every fourteen months after the specified day by a competent engineer appointed or approved by an insurance company or agreed between the occupier and the council and the occupier of the premises shall send to the council a certificate (hereinafter called" a certificate of inspection") by an insurance company or by such an engineer certifying the result of the inspection.

(b) If:—

  1. (i) before the expiration of fourteen months and fourteen days from:—
    1. (a) the specified day, or
    2. (b) in the case of premises which are not used as a self-operated laundry before specified day the date on which the premises are first used as a self-operated laundry, or
    3. (c) (except in the case of the first certificate of inspection to be made in respect of premises) the date on which the last certificate of inspection was sent by the occupier of the premises to the council; the occupier of the premises fails to send a certificate of inspection to the council, or
  2. (ii) a certificate of inspection sent to the council fails to show that the plant and machinery upon the premises are so fitted and maintained as aforesaid;

the council may make application by way of complaint to a magistrates' court who may order the closing of the premises to the public until a certificate of inspection is received by the council showing that the plant and machinery are so fitted and maintained as aforesaid.

(c) Any person who contravenes an order made by a court under paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds and to a daily fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(6)(a) As from the specified day if in the opinion of the council any substance is used on the premises in connection with any dry-cleaning process which is likely to be dangerous the occupier shall, if so required by the council, display such precautionary notices as may be agreed between the council and such bodies as appear to them to represent the trade or business of self-operated laundries or as failing such agreement may be reasonably required for the purpose of warning the public.

(b) Any person who contravenes any provisions of this subsection shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds and to a daily fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(7) In this section— council" means the council of a district or of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London; specified day" means the day specified for the purpose of subsection (1) above").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 125. The suggested new clause is designed to achieve a measure of control over self-operated laundries or laundrettes for the protection of the public. It has been drafted on an adoptive basis so that only those local authorities who choose to exercise the powers will do so. This is a control which was formerly held by the cities of Manchester and Salford and I have received representations from the AMA, from the city of Manchester and from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers who are anxious for this control to be restored.

I think that the first thing that must be recognised when deciding whether this control is necessary is what are the ingredients of a self-operated laundry or laundrette. Some noble Lords may not be familiar with what the inside of a laundry or laundrette looks like, so that perhaps I should remind the Committee that inside a self-operated laundry or laundrette one finds a lot of high-powered machinery, a lot of children and no supervision. The machinery consists of units which can provide all or any of the hazards of electrical power, revolving components, steam-raising equipment and noxious fumes. Many laundrettes have been in operation for several years with the consequential deterioration of the equipment and many may have changed hands at regular intervals.

I recently visited my own local laundrette which I no longer use regularly, to find out what hazards the owner of this laundrette thought there were. Besides those I have mentioned, he described the hazard of a magnetic catch of a spin dryer which was defective and which would allow the door of the spin dryer to open while the machine was in operation, with the resultant danger of a child's limb or that of an unsuspecting grown-up being sucked in with consequent serious injury.

What he said was corroborated by evidence provided by the local authority associations in the form of a list of horrific injuries incurred by children over recent years. These were always due to an arm being caught by spin dryers and with faces damaged seriously. To understand why children particularly are at risk, it must be realised that the laundrettes represent something of a social centre. Mothers of small children who have a lot of washing and who lead rather solitary lives, go to the laundrette and take with them their small children. When they get there they find their friends and begin to talk, and during this time they momentarily leave the children to their own devices. Then, at a later stage, when the children have become bigger and the mothers may have gone back to work, the older children will go with the family wash to operate the machines and do the washing.

It must be remembered that there will be children always in laundrettes, and this is an overwhelming reason for doing everything possible to ensure that such machinery is kept at the highest possible level of safety. Bearing in mind that it is essentially children's safety at risk and bearing in mind that such certificates of inspection for which we are asking would be merely comparable to those already required from owners of office and shop premises containing self-operated passenger lifts—which, after all, do not present anything like so great a risk as machinery in the laundrettes—I feel strongly that it seems reasonable to afford this measure of control to local authorities, drafted as it is on a purely adoptive basis in order to try to ensure that the premises and plant of self-operated laundries and laundrettes are maintained at the highest possible level of safety.

Lord Belstead

The noble Baroness has made a strong case in self-operated laundries and the Government agree with the case that the noble Baroness has made. But local authorities have sufficient powers, I think, under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1977 (No. 746) to ensure that self-operated laundries are safe and without risk to the health of members of the public who go to them and to any staff who may be visiting the premises and, pursuant to the speech of the noble Baroness, to any children who may be on the premises.

The regulations enable local authorities to enforce the 1974 Act in self-operated laundries and in respect of coin operated dry cleaning units in lauderettes and similar premises. Among other things, lauderette operators have a duty under the 1974 Act to maintain the plant, machinery and installation in a safe condition, and local authorities have more appropriate and effective powers in the form of improvement and prohibition notices under Sections 21 and 22 of the Health and Safety at Work Act to deal with problems than an application to a magistrates' court for a closure order, which is the road down which the noble Baroness has gone in drafting her amendment.

I therefore would not want, on behalf of the Government, to agree that we should simply duplicate one public Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, together with the regulations by putting a major provision in another public Bill—namely, this one. I would question, on the merits of the case, whether any thought has been given to weighing the costs and benefits to be derived from provisions such as those in this clause. There could be a quite significant cost to a local authority in operating a certification scheme which could more profitably be used elsewhere.

For all those reasons, although I do not agree with one word of what the noble Baroness said about the desirability for seeing that safety is adhered to meticulously in laundries and self-operated launderettes, I think that the powers are to be found in the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act and also the 1977 regulations.

Lord Hawke

Could the Minister or the proposer of the amendment say whether they have any statistics as to the number of explosions or other harmful occurrences that have taken place in these laundrettes?

Baroness David

I wish to support the amendment. If I could reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, the extent of the problem can be demonstrated by the following actions under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in the city of Manchester. There, there are 101 premises in operation; prohibition notices had to be issued in 26 cases and improvement notices in 66. About three-quarters of the number of premises had to have action taken about them.

The benefit of our amendment is that it puts the onus on the launderettes to see that they have the certificates. I do not understand what the Minister meant about putting costs on the local authorities. I should have thought that, if anything, it might have reduced costs. If it is the launderettes which have to get certificates and produce them, that is their job. The local authority would have to act only if they failed to produce those certificates every 14 months or so. In the event of them not being able to do so, then there might be a court case.

I should have thought that there were a great many benefits in this. We know from the lists of mishaps with which we have been supplied that there have been a great number of accidents. I was told by my daughter recently that she had a great shock one day when she opened her washing machine and the cat jumped out. This was not in a public laundrette. So, strange things can happen. Coin operated laundrettes function very often without anybody being in charge. Also, a number of authorities have felt that they needed these powers. As recently as last year, East Sussex achieved these powers. That matter was presumably debated at some length. So I ask the Minister to think again about this amendment, and maybe take it back and reconsider his answer.

Lord Belstead

May I add one word before the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, decides what is best to do about this amendment? I am certainly very ready to look at the cost point which the noble Baroness, Lady David, made. I feel I have not made the case as well as I should have done on that aspect. If the noble Baroness decides that she is prepared to withdraw the amendment, I certainly would be very happy to look at that. So far as the illustration of the noble Baroness, Lady David, is concerned, I remember many years ago on a foreign holiday turning on a tap in a hotel bedroom and a frog came out of the tap. It is true that unusual things can occur when you either open doors or turn on taps.

But the advantage of the existing powers under the Health and Safety at Work Act legislation over the line taken in this amendment would be that there is greater speed. An inspector appointed at the moment by an enforcing authority—meaning the local authority in a case of this kind—has power under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to issue a prohibition notice if he considers that there is a risk of serious personal injury from the way in which a self-operated laundry is being carried on; and he also is empowered to issue an improvement notice if he considers that relevant statutory provisions are being contravened. To enact provisions to deal with similar situations through a magistrates' court, when immediate corrective action can be taken by a local authority under existing legislative powers, would be doubtful as to advantage.

Lord Davies of Leek

The social significance of launderettes is probably lost to many people. They are of paramount importance to women who have to work. After the end of a day's work, they use these places. Sometimes my housekeeper has had to take laundry to a launderette. She has found vandalism and machinery which is tattered and torn. May I ask whether the local authority has what the noble Baroness has built into this amendment?

Let me read what I consider is relevant. This is on page 2. The Committee can follow me and correct me if my argument is incorrect. I am paraphrasing. It says that if, before the expiration of 14 months and 14 days, in the case of premises used as a self-operated laundry before the specified date, the occupier of the premises—and I am referring to paragraph (c), and these are the relevant words—fails to send a certificate of inspection to the council, or a certificate of inspection that is sent to the council fails to show that the plant and machinery upon the premises are so fitted and maintained—and now here comes the relevant part about the council—then the council may make application by way of complaint to a magistrates' court which may order the closing of the premises or a fine not exceeding £200 and a daily fine not exceeding £20.

My point is: How much power has a local authority to close premises that are vandalised, unhygienic and neglected and looked upon from a money-making point of view? I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at the cost, because of the social significance to working mothers and single men, widowers, and others, of the modern launderette. It is important that these necessary domestic machines are available hygienically, are not vandalised and are safeguarded by local authorities.

Lord Hawke

If I was in the unfortunate position of having to use these places, I would far sooner have the existing system than the one proposed by the noble Baronesses. In the existing system, the inspector from the council can visit at frequent or infrequent intervals, just as often as he likes. Apparently in Manchester he has been round quite often and declared closed quite a number of premises which seemed to be working all right. But to leave it to the proprietor to get a certificate so that when anybody complains he will wave a certificate at them and say that it is valid since it is 13 months and 29 days since its last inspection, is really not good enough. The person who has to inspect this equipment is a service engineer employed by the owner, and so long as he is going round there it will be kept in reasonable order; but to leave it to a certificate from some insurance inspector at 14-monthly intervals is I think quite frankly a hit of a nonsense.

Lord Swinfen

I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us why she has chosen the period of 14 months rather than one year? It seems to me that the latter would he rather more sensible.

Baroness David

I must be quite honest and say that this was an amendment put down in the other place which we have put down again. I did rather wonder about 14 months myself; but I suppose it is a regular period and that is really what matters. I am very grateful for what the Minister has said about this so far as the cost is concerned. I wonder whether he is also able to make an offer to meet the Health and Safety Executive to discuss the merits of the proposed amendment. I understand there was a meeting with them about the ultra-violet tanning amendment which we put down earlier. The meeting about that had a quite satisfactory outcome, so I wonder whether he might consider a meeting on this aspect as well as considering the cost. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that Manchester had within its Bill the amendment we have put down.

Lord Belstead

Certainly I will take into account anything that the Health and Safety Executive have to say on the subject.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the assurances he has given both as regards looking at the cost and as to arranging for a meeting between his department and the Health and Safety Executive. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Belstead

I said that I would take into account what they have to say. That means I should be very ready to get in touch with them to see what their views were. I think it is a matter for the local authorities to get in touch with the Health and Safety Executive if, on their side, they want to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.23 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 125A: After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:

("Hackney carriages

. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Part II of Schedule 14 to the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the applying of section 171(4) of the Public Health Act 1875 to their area, a local authority may licence hackney carriages to ply for hire only in specified parts of their area and to stand and ply for hire only on specified hackney carriage stands within their area as may be stated in the licence.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. The Local Government Act 1972, referred to in this amendment, included provision for the new district councils set up then to deal with the licensing of hackney carriages. Local authorities have always had the option of whether or not to license hackney carriages, and the 1972 Act retained that option. But one problem was what transitional arrangements there should be to cope with the enlarged local authority boundaries, and one aspect concerned the licensing of hackney carriages.

Schedule 14, Part II provided the new district councils that had been set up with three alternatives. Option 1 was to establish the whole of the new district as a single lincensing district and hackney carriages would be able to ply for hire in any part of the district. Option 2 was that they could disapply licensing provisions, thus discontinuing any licensing of hackney carriages within the new district. Option 3 was that they could retain the status quo inherited from the former constituent councils. This would mean that hackney carriages would continue to be licensed within the former constitutent boundaries where the provisions had been adopted by the former councils, but in that case they could ply for hire only within those former boundaries—that is, in separate parts of the new district.

Option 1 could be exercised at any time after 1st April 1974, and still can be; but Option 2 had to be exercised before 1st April 1975. In both cases there had to be the approval of the Secretary of State. Generally, I understand that authorities inheriting licensing functions looked either at Option 1 or Option 3. Option I would dezone the inherited licence zones or districts. Option 3 would mean the retention of the former licensing districts, thus retaining the existing zones.

There are arguments on both sides. Those in favour of de-zoning would argue that in the district councils the old boundaries were defunct and all hackney carriages should be able to ply for hire in any part of the new district. It is claimed that that would provide greater flexibility and the councils' administrative arrangements would be made much easier. On the other hand, those who were against dezoning argue that hackney carriages are licensed to provide a public service. This is important in small townships as in larger towns, but if there was de-zoning hackney carriages would tend to converge on the larger towns where opportunities are better, and services in the smaller towns would be lost.

The dilemma facing local authorities is that the process of de-zoning is statutorily irreversible. Once done it cannot be undone: nor can it be done in part only. It would appear that local authorities have not rushed into de-zoning but that, where they have de-zoned, problems have occurred, and these are greater in those districts where there are one or more larger townships with several smaller towns which are geographically distinct. I am informed that, in the large districts of Leeds and Bradford, hackney carriages from the smaller townships are deserting their former ranks in the city centres. This means that service to the public in the smaller towns is being seriously diminished.

Smaller towns should be enabled to achieve a balance suitable to the needs of their areas. This amendment does not argue for or against de-zoning but seeks to provide a new option to be made available to the local authorities. The amendment will give local authorities which de-zone or are considering de-zoning the opportunity of reviewing the needs of the hackney carriage service throughout their districts. Some councils may be very happy at the way de-zoning operates; others by means of this amendment will be able to control the operation of hackney carriages to limited areas or to specified ranks where a need is established.

I emphasise that each district would be free to determine the best balance within its area to suit the needs of the public and also the needs of those in the hackney carriage trade. The amendment provides a formula for a practical solution to give an additional option to deal with the problem which the 1972 Act failed to anticipate. It is so common sensible that I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is seeking to present this amendment as a choice which will enable local authorities to think again about their rules and regulations on the zoning of where taxis may operate in their local authority districts. I know the noble Lord would agree with me that we must think about the consumer in this. If I may say so, I do not think that this amendment will benefit the consumer. This is a proposal to empower additional restrictions on the taxi trade which would limit its ability to respond to public demand and to provide the service that the public wants. We are being asked to accept a really quite far-reaching change to the general law on the basis of difficulties that, I understand from the noble Lord's speech, have arisen in Bradford; and with that I agree. The noble Lord also mentioned Leeds. I have certainly heard that mentioned in preparing for this afternoon's debate, but I am not aware that the Home Office has received any direct notification that Leeds takes that view as well.

I shall not go over the basis for the difficulty, as the noble Lord sees it, because he explained that very clearly. But I should like to refer to the situation in Bradford, and say that Bradford City Council passed its resolution to enable taxis to ply for hire throughout the whole of the Bradford metropolitan district in August 1980. This was confirmed, as it had to be under the law, by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in October of that year, after he had considered objections.

The main argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is that taxis from outlying parts of the district are tending to gravitate to the centre of Bradford, if I may use that as an example, and are less easy to obtain in the outlying districts. They are presumably doing that because they are doing better business by acting in that way. The amendment would have us over-ride the principles of supply and demand, and would allow the district council to confine certain taxis to areas where there is less demand.

I appreciate the concern which the noble Lord has expressed. Nevertheless, I do not think that this is the way to go about solving the problem. If the real problem is that there are too many taxis in central Bradford, for instance, and not enough elsewhere, this should be resolved by market forces and not by restrictions imposed by the local authority. If, on the other hand, the problem is a shortage of taxis, then surely the answer is for the local authority to increase the number of licences. The Government are committed to doing everything we can to remove unnecessary controls and restrictions, especially over small businessmen and transport undertakings, and, with respect, this amendment would have the contrary effect.

There are just two more points which weigh against this amendment. First, although I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to allow a local authority to divide its district into separate zones, it would, in fact, empower councils to attach whatever geographical restrictions they chose to individual licences. Local authorities could restrict vehicles to very small areas or even to individual taxi ranks. They could even create a two-class trade—half restricted and half unrestricted. I would almost go so far as to say that I do not think that that is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. To that extent, I think that, in a way, this amendment is defective, because I do not think that it is carrying out the intention of the noble Lord.

The second point which weighs is that, even although the amendment would make it possible to limit the area in which taxis might ply for hire, they would be compelled to accept hirings to any part of the district at a controlled fare. Therefore, having completed such a hiring, a taxi would have to return to its own limited area before it could seek another hiring. I do not think that that would be particularly popular with either the taxi drivers or the general public, because nothing is more irritating—and it occasionally happens at railway stations in the metropolis—than to find a taxi coming in, depositing a passenger, and then, for some reason which is probably a valid and necessary one to the driver, going off without picking up another fare.

Finally, may I just add this: The Home Office has been conducting a review of taxi law. It has not been entirely easy—there are difficulties of detail and some difficulties of principle—and I would ask that the outcome of that review should be awaited. I ask that in the context that, as I have said, so far as my right honourable friend's department is concerned, we have not heard of any problem in a district other than Bradford, and that is with over three-quarters of the 300 or so district councils which license taxis now having decided that what they want is a single system of control applying throughout their districts. It is on those grounds that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to agree to reconsider this amendment.

Lord Underhill

I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I must clear up one point, because in his opening remarks the noble Lord said that we must think of the consumers. In case that implies that I am speaking on behalf of the taxi trade, let me make it absolutely clear that on this occasion I have had no contact at all with the Taxi Drivers Association. I have not been asked by them to raise the matter and I have not checked it. I was asked to raise this matter by one of the local authorities concerned who are very troubled about the situation.

The noble Lord said that this would not give consideration to the consumer. But that is the situation now, because under the 1972 Act a district council can have the option of de-zoning or of continuing the previous zoning. Therefore, it is there already. So I am not proposing to introduce anything at all new. I am not even suggesting that there should be de-zoning or that there should be zoning. What this amendment is endeavouring to remove is the situation where, once you have made the decision, you cannot alter it. That is what the law provides. The noble Lord has not dealt with that position. Surely, it is a ridiculous position that, if the 1972 Act gives you an option, the decision is irreversible. That seems to be nonsensical from all practical standpoints, particularly the standpoint of local government. In this amendment we are endeavouring not to favour zoning or de-zoning, but to give authorities the option of reconsidering what they may already have decided. That seems to be most sensible.

I hoped that if my amendment was defective the Minister might have taken a look at it and introduced one on behalf of the Government. But I repeat that, from a local government standpoint, it seems absolutely nonsensical that once you have taken a decision you cannot change it. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, I shall read very carefully the report of what he has suggested and see what might be done at Report stage. But I will consult. I mentioned Leeds, because Leeds was mentioned to me, and this morning, before I came here, I checked with a councillor at Bradford who assured me that Leeds is also having problems. But I will make further inquiries about Leeds, if I decide to do anything at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Minor amendments];

Lord Bestead moved Amendment No. 128A:

Page 82, line 40, at end insert—

(".In section 48(2)(b)(iii) of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (which requires a copy of a certificate to be sent in certain cases to the proper officer of the relevant port health authority constituted in pursuance of section 2 of the Public Health Act 1936) the words "constituted in pursuance of section 2 of the Public Health Act 1936" shall be omitted.").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 129:

Page 83, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert— ("Schedule 4, paragraph 12(2), 15A(3), 15A(6)").

The noble Lord said: This, too, is a drafting amendment revising an item in the schedule. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 129A: Page 83, line 31, leave out paragraph 7.

The noble Lord said: This is also a drafting amendment going with Amendment No. 128A. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Denham

This is probably the appropriate moment to resume for the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.