FOOD AND DRUGS (CONTROL OF FOOD PREMISES) BILL (Hansard, 13 July 1976)

Earl FERRERS
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Lord JANNER
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this late stage, and I am sure it must be my own fault, but I wonder whether the Bill actually covers one point raised here some considerable time ago. That is the protection against the sale of ice-cream and similar commodities from barrows or some kind of vehicle on the public highway. And does the Bill go sufficiently far to be able to call upon anyone who manufactures that kind of ice-cream, in whatever premises it may be, to be supervised in the manner in which this excellent Bill provides in other respects? I am sure that it must be my fault, but I have not been able to follow that point or see whether it has been covered. I should be obliged if it could be clarified.

§ Lord LEATHERLAND
My Lords, although I raised this question at an earlier stage of the Bill, I should still like to be assured that the term "premises or stalls" mentioned in the Bill—they are to come under close supervision—includes an ice-cream van which is propelling itself along the road on wheels and which would be rather difficult to describe either as premises or as a stall. Of course if we can have a legal ruling to the effect that an ice-cream van propelled by a motor on the road comes under the category of premises or of stalls I am content, but I wonder what will happen if a case comes before a bench of magistrates, who may not be particularly learned people (I was one of them myself), and they are confronted with a prosecution against a mobile ice-cream van of that kind. They will have to ask themselves whether that van is premises or whether it is a stall, and they may have difficulty in resolving the question.

Earl FERRERS
My Lords, I appreciate the apprehension with which the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, have approached this 160 matter. I thought that I would be let off the hook when Lord Leatherland asked for a legal ruling, for I was about to turn to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because I thought that he would be a more suitable person than Ito give such an indication. Lord Leatherland mentioned this issue on Report, when I told him that it was my opinion that these premises were covered. I have since taken advice on the matter and in fact the reply which I gave to him was, I am told, entirely correct in that the Bill covers all premises, be they cafes, restaurants, kitchens, stores or barrows.
Barrows are on wheels, as indeed are mobile ice-cream vans. Lord Leatherland wondered whether a mobile ice-cream van could be prosecuted when it was going down the road. When it is in propulsion, I do not know whether it would be described as a premise, but, then, it would not be selling ice-cream at that moment. However, when it is selling ice-cream it is stationary and is a premise, and subject to the ruling which the courts are bound to give should this come up, I am advised that mobile ice-cream vans are covered by the Bill. It is a very real point because I appreciate that often it is these that can be sordid. Thus, short of putting the matter to the test and taking before a court of law, I can only give both noble Lords opposite the fullest assurance I can that their concerns are covered by the Bill.

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I regret that I cannot assist the House in this matter, as I have not had an opportunity to study the Bill. However, if it is any comfort to noble Lords, I remember once dealing with a Bill which provided that "for the purposes of this Schedule to the Bill, a church is a railway". Accordingly, it would not surprise me at all if an ice-cream barrow was a premise, but I do not think I can add to what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said.