HC Deb 14 May 1976 vol 911 cc856-9
Mr. Adley

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 24, after 'practicable', insert: 'and in not more than fourteen days'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we shall take Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 24, after 'practicable', insert: 'and in not more than fourteen days'.

Mr. Adley

I must first declare an interest in the hotel and catering industry as European marketing director of Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada and as a member—unpaid—of the National Council of the British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association.

We discussed this matter in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said that he would look at the point before Report. As his own amendment, No. 4, is identical in wording to my amendment, I am having the temerity to assume that he has done just that, albeit that his amendment relates to another part of the Bill.

The point is simple. In the event of an environmental health officer having inspected premises, we want to ensure that the work he may order to be done is done at the earliest opportunity so that the owner can reopen as soon as possible. My hon. Friend said that the intention, aim and objective of the environmental health officers and the local authorities would be to have the work done as quickly as possible, and I think that the amendment would ensure that it was.

Mr. David Weitzman (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)

The difficulty about an amendment of this kind, which in my view is quite unnecessary, is that if one tells a local authority to do something in not more than 14 days, such a time limit is apt to become the normal time for the procedure. The result of the amendment would be to limit local authorities in the sense of allowing them to take 14 days, whereas, by simply leaving in the words "as soon as practicable" it might be done in a much shorter time. I think that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that it will not be insisted upon.

Mr. Adley

We discussed this matter in Committee. I take the point that for 99 per cent. of the cases the stipulation in the amendment would be unnecessary, but I want to ensure against the possibility of an environmental health officer or a local authority perhaps conducting a vendetta. That rarely happens, but it can happen.

Mr. Weitzman

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that when there is a maximum fine the tendency in the courts is to go towards that rather than impose a lower amount. The danger in stipulating a 14-day period in this provision is that the local authority might not bother to get on with the process when in fact it might otherwise do it in one, two, or three days.

Mr. Adley

I understand the point. It is a matter of judgment as to whether it is worth having the amendment. I make no apology for it. I think that it would be a safety valve.

Mr. Deakins

I take the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). We debated this matter in Committee when the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) moved a similar amendment, which would have deleted the words "as soon as practicable" and substituted "within 14 days". But the effect of that amendment would have been to produce the effect which my hon. and learned Friend fears.

It was pointed out in that debate that, far from strengthening the Bill, it would weaken it, because it would allow a local authority an unnecessarily long period for service. If that amendment had been adopted, my hon. and learned Friend's argument would have been stronger, but this amendment has the benefit of providing the local authority with a maximum period within which notice must be served.

1.0 p.m.

We are confident in the Department that the notice will have been served well within the 14 days, but the words "as soon as practicable" carry a certain import to environmental health officers and local authorities. I do not think the amendment will make a great deal of difference, but I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington that we need a long-stop. For that reason, if no other, it is worth approving the amendment.

Mr. Bowden

I fully appreciate the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). His case would have been overwhelming if it had been applied to the amendment we considered in Committee. However, the amendment has now been reworded and I believe it will give us the best of both worlds.

I hope that it will be taken to heart by environmental health officers that they must not look at this problem in the context of having 14 days to act, but rather that they need to act very quickly. Only in the most exceptional circumstances should it be necessary for there to be a delay of more than three working days before action is taken.

We must remember that a man's livelihood is at stake. One could argue that the man should never have allowed his place to get into a disgusting state, but I hope that in 99.9 per cent. of cases the environmental health officers will act quickly.

I hesitate to disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington on a subject in which he is an expert, but I dispute his claim that our courts are tending to get nearer maximum than minimum fines. One of the most frequent criticisms of our legal system is that people are being fined pitifully small amounts. Rather than getting nearer maximum fines, the courts are often fining offenders only one-half or one-third of the maximum.

Mr. Weitzman

I was trying to explain that when a maximum fine is included in a Bill, we are indicating to the courts what should be the standard of punishment. In the same way, the inclusion of the 14-day period in this Bill will give a criterion to local authorities on the time they should take.

Mr. Bowden

What the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is not true in practice. I do not agree that our courts are getting anywhere near maximum fines—on the contrary.

I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument even though I do not agree with it. It has been useful to have this debate to clear up the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Back to
Forward to