HL Deb 22 November 1954 vol 189 cc1698-709

After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—

Catering premises

(".—(1) Where a person is proceeded against by a local authority for an offence against regulations made under section six of this Act in respect of any premises used as catering premises or of any business carried on at such premises, the following provisions of this section shall have effect.

(2) If the person is convicted of the offence, the court may if it thinks it expedient so to do having regard to the gravity of the offence or (in the case of an offence committed in respect of premises) to the unsatisfactory nature of the premises, or to any offences against regulations made under section six of this Act of which the person has previously been convicted, on the application of the local authority make an order disqualifying that person from using those premises as catering premises for such period not exceeding two years as may be specified in the order:

Provided that an order under this section shall not he made against any person unless the local authority have, not less than fourteen days before the date of the hearing, given that person written notice of their intention to apply for an order to be made against him.

(3) A person subject to an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence if, while the order is in force—

  1. (a) he uses the premises to which the order relates as catering premises, or
    2. 1699
  2. (b) he participates in the management of any business in the course of which the premises are so used by another person.

(4) A person so subject may, at any time after the expiration of six months from the date on which the order came into force and from time to time thereafter, apply to the court before which he was convicted or by which the order was made to revoke the order, and on any such application the court may, if it thinks proper having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular the person's conduct subsequent to the conviction and any improvement in the state of the premises to which the order relates, grant the application.

(5) If an application under the last foregoing subsection is refused by the court to which it is made, a further application thereunder shall not be entertained if made within three months after the date of the refusal.

(6) The court to which an application under the said subsection is made shall have power to order the applicant to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the application.")

3.12 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, this is a rather long and complicated series of Amendments. With this Amendment we should take also the Amendments to Clause 7, page 8, line 26, Clause 8, page 8, line 45, Clause 8, page 9, line 6, and the Second Schedule, page 35, line 24. The effect of all these Amendments, read together, is to substitute for a registration procedure a disqualification procedure. As the Bill stood when it left your Lordships' House, it could have been made obligatory on anyone opening a catering business to register his premises with the local authority. It was felt in another place, however, that, in view of the wide variety of catering premises which, as your Lordships will realise, range from small country teashops and large hotels to boarding houses and lodging houses, it would be a considerable task to register all of them. Indeed, catering establishments differ from manufacturing premises in that they are bound to make themselves known to the public and to the local authority by the very nature of their business and, if they are unsatisfactory, the public can complain either to the management or to the local authority.

There will, however, be stringent regulations with which catering premises will have to comply. There will also be a detailed code of practice. Nevertheless, in spite of those two things, it seemed right to my right honourable friend the Minister of Food that the ultimate penalty of putting a really bad caterer out of business should be retained. This is done by the disqualification clause. The main distinction between this procedure and the one in the Bill as it left this House is that the final penalty of disqualification can be applied only after there has been a conviction for some breach of the regulations. Whilst this acts as a safeguard to the caterer, it also carries with it—I think one should not underestimate this—the element of publicity which caterers, much more than manufacturers, will wish to avoid. Accordingly, the local authority will be in a strong position to use persuasive measures to bring about compliance with the regulations.

I see that in another place this series of Amendments was described by one Opposition Member as a "sell out" to the catering industry. As your Lordships will see, this is really complete nonsense, since the local authority may apply to the court for disqualification in the rare cases when it may be necessary. I think we should remember, too, that registration of itself does not produce clean food or clean premises, and, since that is the object of this Bill, the new procedure will be just as fair and fairer, I think, to all sections of the catering trade. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)

3.16 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, it will not surprise the noble Lord who moved this Amendment to hear that there will be some opposition to this Amendment. The noble Lord said that this had been determined in another place, but he did not say that the Amendment had been carried in the face of considerable opposition, on both the Committee stage and Report stages, although he did say that it was described by one honourable Member in another place as a "sell out." The Amendment was, in fact, strongly objected to. The noble Viscount will remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill and subsequently in Committee, he was pressed strongly to say whether or not it was the Government's intention, as it appeared to be from the way in which the Bill had been drawn, to register catering establishments. His answer was most definite; he gave a definite answer to me, and my question was reinforced by the question of the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, who received the same answer. There was no doubt, he said, that it was the Government's intention that catering establishments should be registered. In fact, he went further on the Committee stage, because he said then—I am merely giving the purport of what he said; I hope I am not misinterpreting it—

VISCOUNT WOOLTON

Of course not.

LORD SILKIN

—how hypocritical it would be for a Government to put in a clause of this kind authorising them to register catering establishments if they had no intention of doing so. So this Bill passed this House in the full belief that catering establishments were going to be registered. On the Second Reading in another place, so far as I have read the speech of the honourable Member who introduced the Bill, I can see no evidence of any change of mind. I should like to remind the House of the circumstances in which the Government had decided to register catering establishments. There had been set up by the previous Government a Catering Trade Working Party. They had deliberated for some two years and eventually they made a recommendation that catering premises should be registered. This was a unanimous recommendation, but certain members of the Working Party who were concerned in the catering industry put in a proviso in the form of a minority report that existing premises should be registered as of right. They were not objecting to registration even of existing premises but existing premises should be registered as of right. New premises should be registered by the local authority after inspection and after they were satisfied that they were hygienic and satisfactory in all respects. So we have the unanimous recommendation of the Catering Trade, Working Committee.

Before this Committee, evidence was given by the local government officials, and they strongly recommended that it was necessary that catering establishments should be registered. In the report itself there appears this sentence: Representatives of the Association of Local Authorities and of their officers who gave evidence before us, stressed the necessity for the registration of catering establishments. So that we have the local authorities themselves asking for it—stressing the necessity for it; we have the Working Party unanimously recommending it, and we have even those members of the industry who were on the Working Party accepting the principle of registration, but asking only that existing catering establishments should be registered as of right.

I want to ask the Government, through the noble Viscount who is going to reply, what is it that has induced the Government to change their mind. Certainly, up to the time of the Second Reading in another place it looked as if there was no cloud on the horizon at all; it was going through to the general satisfaction of this House and, so far as I know, of the other place. On Second Reading nobody had complained of the registration of catering establishments; I do not think any honourable Member in another place raised the point at all. From whence, then, did the initiative come? The noble Lord who introduced this Amendment spoke of somebody saying it was a "sell-out" I do not think it was a "sell-out" at all; even the industry itself is in favour of registration, though reluctantly, because they have issued a memorandum saying that they would rather have registration than what is proposed in the Amendment. So it does not come from the Working Party; it does not come on the initiative of the other place; it does not come from this House; and it certainly does not come from the noble Viscount, who has disclaimed any influence on this measure at all. Where does the change come from, and why?

In another place it was argued that it would be putting an unnecessary and intolerable burden upon the local authorities. Well, in their evidence the local authorities have asked for it—both the authorities and the officers; they all asked for registration. Is the true reason that this is a more effective way of controlling catering establishments? I cannot believe that it is. Surely it is much better to make sure that a catering establishment is satisfactory in all respects before registration, before it is allowed to open, than to have to deal with it afterwards—to inspect it and then take this cumbersome procedure of requiring it to close down or penalising it. The industry itself would much rather know where it stood by this requirement of registration before, rather than after, they open. I quite agree that there is a difficulty about the existing catering premises. I should not have been distressed if we had had a dual procedure—if existing premises were registered as of right and we had something like the procedure laid down in the Amendment, and that a new catering establishment should have to be registered. There would have been no difficulty about that. I think that that would have been a reasonable compromise. Certainly it would have satisfied the catering industry. Is it that this method is more effective? I cannot think so. It is surely more effective to satisfy oneself that the premises are satisfactory before they open than have constantly to inspect them afterwards.

I am completely at a loss. The noble Lord in introducing this Amendment has certainly not elucidated the reasons for abandoning registration; nor, having read the debate in another place, have I understood the reasons. I do not know whether it is possible at this late stage in the Bill to abandon this clause. It would certainly give great satisfaction to a number of people—in this House, in another place and outside. Certainly it is not at all a satisfactory alternative to registration. Neither is it the case that noble Lords opposite have any objection to registration of business premises, because this Bill contemplates the registration of other premises. Indeed, as I have explained, it contemplated the registration of catering establishments, too; but they have taken out catering establishments and left the others in. I should have thought that if there was a case, if the sort of case which has been given for leaving out catering establishments is justified, then certainly it would be equally reasonable to leave out other establishments.

The odd thing now is that if you want to start up in London a massage establishment or a registry for employment, you have to be registered before you can start; but anybody can set up a catering establishment. I do not know whether it is legitimate to poison the body by bad food, but not legitimate to injure people by massage carried out in the wrong way. It seems to me extraordinary that for years there has been an obligation to register employment exchanges and massage establishments, and various establishments of that kind, but catering establishments can be set up quite freely without any obligation to carry on in an hygienic way. The noble Lord said they can be discovered; they have to advertise, and so on. But it is not really satisfactory to wait until people are poisoned or seriously injured before the inspectors get round. They do not normally parade the streets in order to find out whether a new establishment has been created. These establishments may be able to do a good deal of injury. If one goes round places like Soho, one finds that establishments start up like mushrooms—they are here to-day and they are gone to-morrow, and every time you go you find a new establishment set up, and it is difficult to keep pace with them. If it were practicable, I would certainly ask the House to reject this Amendment. What would happen if the House accepted my advice I do not know; but it is certainly a bad Amendment, particularly having regard to the fact that the registration that we all thought was going to be a feature of this Bill has now been withdrawn.

VISCOUNT WOOLTON

My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that I am in some personal difficulty. The statements that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just made about the undertakings I gave when this Bill was previously before your Lordships are indisputable. I gave them, as I am sure your Lordships know, in the full belief that that was the policy that Her Majesty's Government had in view—and it most certainly was. There is, of course, another place which has its proper rights. I have been asked, where did the initiative come from in this matter? I have already explained to the House that the initiative did not come from me. There is no doubt about where it came from—from Members of Parliament who were, as they doubtless thought, looking after the interests of the people who sent them there. And, after all, what have they decided? They have decided to alter the form.

There were arguments of which I am sure noble Lords are just as much aware as I. Perhaps in courtesy to noble Lords I should deploy them a little. One of the arguments against registration is that it is a cumbersome process. I am not saying the arguments were not just as good when I advocated another course in this House. I am not for a moment going back; but registration is a cumbersome process involving a very large number of people over this extraordinarily wide range of businesses engaged in catering, from boarding houses to those places that we all know and have seen as we go through the countryside, offering teas and the like. All those would have to be registered. But in this peculiar case I would submit, with respect, that it is not for me to defend arguments that have been put forward. My duty is merely to submit them to your Lordships.

I would beg the House to consider one point here. I know noble Lords on the other side and I dare say many on this side of the House are very conscious of the fact that we came to a different conclusion before, but let us be quite clear that it was not a different conclusion on principle; it was a different conclusion on method. The issues on which we are now separated are issues as to which is the best method of arriving at the end which we all desire. I was grateful to the noble Lord—it was characteristic of him to say that this is no question of a betrayal in the interests of large firms. I notice that the last Minister of Food in another place went to some trouble to explain that on the whole it was not the big people who were in danger here; that the danger arose from the innumerable small people. There are some who feel that the procedure now suggested against the person who is selling dirty food is much stiffer than that advocated when the Bill was before this House on an earlier occasion. I must admit that the other form was probably more likely to be preventive at the beginning, while this is punitive against the person who does wrong. But the power to put a disreputable man out of business is retained, and it has never been intended to take that action except where the nature of the case demanded such action.

What am I to say to your Lordships? We have here a Bill with which, in its earlier stages, some noble Lords were associated. I remember that when we were discussing the Bill in this House en Second Reading we said it was not at all a Party measure. It is a measure which we hope will do something to protect the public. We have come to a disagreement because in another place a different view has been taken from that of your Lordships as to the best method of achieving that end. It is, of course, open to your Lordships to say you retain your privi- lege. It is open to your Lordships to reject this Bill. I have been much concerned on this matter for I feel that the Bill as a whole is good. Without any suggestion that anybody should say, "If you do not meet this, if you do not do that, you will lose the Bill," I would point out that we have to face the situation. These are the last few days of the Session. It is possible that the Bill could go back, if your Lordships so decide; but noble Lords will know that there is a great danger there. I have weighed this point very carefully in my mind and have come to the conclusion that it would be better, in he public interest, for us to have this different form of administration rather than to risk sending the Bill back to another place and, in the few days now available, standing a very good chance of not getting any further. On those grounds—and I have been very frank with your Lordships, as will no doubt be appreciated—I hope noble Lords will be good enough to accept the Commons Amendments in order to save the major parts of the Bill.

3.36 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I must confess we are in some difficulty here. This House has a duty to perform. It is charged with the duty of trying to ensure that legislation is in the most satisfactory form possible. I think we should carry through our duty and say so. The noble Viscount who has spoken, and whose frankness we all admire, has not attempted to say anything to justify what has been done. I do not think it can be justified. What do we want? We simply want, in the interests of the public, that there should be clean food. We do not want to punish people or take away their livelihood. We want clean food, and the right thing for us to do is surely to have these establishments registered. Then you can have officials going round and advising, if necessary, what is to be done in order that the rules of hygiene may be observed. In 999 cases of 1,000 people would be sensible enough to carry out the suggestions and instructions and would be glad of them.

It appears to me that Her Majesty's Government here have the thing completely the wrong way round. The idea of registration is being taken away altogether and they are relying on drastic punishments upon people. That is quite wrong. The noble Viscount has said, and I can well understand, that with regard to existing establishments you might well assume that they were all right and would not require registration; but with regard to new establishments surely those should have a registration system in order that competent people may ensure that food is served to the public under hygienic conditions. The noble Viscount, Lord Wootton, has not said a word, or put forward an argument, against that suggestion. Indeed he cannot do so, for he even supported the idea earlier, and I have no doubt he still believes it to be right as I certainly do. In those circumstances we ought to say that our original idea was the right one and that there ought to be this system of registration.

Had we had a proposal to exempt existing businesses I should have agreed. The noble Lord has said, with engaging frankness, all that he can say, but we have had no argument whatever against the desirability of a system of registration. That being so, speaking for myself, I feel we should divide and say there ought to be a system of registration and that this suggestion for eliminating registrations and simply relying on heavy punishments of people who break clean food laws is not the way to achieve our aim. One does not want to rely on punishments. One should be able to rely on advice and Guidance. Law-abiding citizens that we are, that is how we get along. I think a system of registration is best, that this House is right in its view and that another place is wrong; and, having heard no arguments to support the contrary, I consider we ought to insist on our views.

3.40 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will grant me your indulgence to say one or two words, because I am most anxious, as my noble friend is, that this Bill should go through. And I would like to inform the noble and learned Earl that I have an arrière pennsée with which I am sure he will agree, in that I think I am right in saying that some ten Defence Regulations will disappear when this Bill goes through. I believe the noble and learned Earl will agree that that is desirable. He has put a very real point here, with which I should like to deal. The fears which have crystallised in the noble and learned Earl's speech are in regard to the new entrant as opposed to the established business. The noble and learned Earl is afraid that the new entrant will come into business operation, and that his place will be the sort of place where there will be grounds for fearing bad conditions. I should like to point out to the noble and learned Earl, however, that as soon as the new entrant comes in—that is, as soon as the business is open—the premises can be inspected, and the hygiene regulations applied. Therefore, from that point onwards, the local authority will have control.

I ask your Lordships to look at the method by which we envisaged the control would be applied. It was not the intention of my noble friend to suggest for a moment that there would be a rush into prosecutions. Before there is any question of a prosecution there is a task laid on the local authority inspector, and that is to go round the premises, especially to have a look at the new premises that have been opened, and to make suggestions to the occupier on methods of improvement. Modern enforcement in this field is not a matter of threats followed by criminal sanction; it is a matter of co-operation and, I think, in the vast majority of cases, for suggestion and wise advice from the local authority inspector. It will be only when that has failed that the other matter—the question of the enforcement—will arise.

I do not say that it will not be a weapon in the background. Of course it will. It is much easier to get your wise suggestions accepted if the person to whom you are making them knows you have the power to enforce them. But the first stage will be that of advice. It is after that advice, if there is a breach of the regulations and conditions do not come up to the regulations, that the procedure can be taken and the premises disqualified—and disqualified for a considerable period, unless the court otherwise orders. So there are two points which I would ask the noble and learned Earl to consider. The first point which I have made is that once the premises are opened they become liable to inspection, and also at that time liable to the hygiene regulations. Then, after that, we all hope there will be this period when the local authority inspector will help and encourage the new entrant to go on the right lines. I hope, again, at this stage, that having had that indication of how we sincerely believe the matter will work the noble and learned.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.