HL Deb 25 January 1977 vol 379 cc327-8

2.45 p.m.

Lord AYLESTONE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government how frequently hotel and restaurant kitchens are inspected for cleanliness and food hygiene; and whether, following successful prosecutions for dirty kitchens, as in the recent case in Sutton, Surrey, the kitchens are closed down until the required standards are attained.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, responsibility for enforcing the Food Hygiene Regulations rests with the local authorities. The Regulations do not specify how frequently inspections should be carried out and this varies according to local factors, such as the previous standard of particular premises, the availability of staff and any complaints that may have been received from the public. The Food and Drugs (Control of Food Premises) Act 1976 empowers the courts, under certain conditions, to order the closure of food premises, following conviction for offences against the Regulations, where there is danger to health, and also empowers the courts to order immediate closure, pending prosecution, when there is imminent risk of danger to health.

Lord AYLESTONE

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in this particular case prosecution took place some nine months after the inspector first discovered that the kitchens were, in his own words, "filthy, infested with cockroaches, with refrigerators that do not work" et cetera? At the end of nine months he again inspected the premises and found that they were far from satisfactory. It is perfectly true that a successful prosecution was carried out; but it is extremely disturbing to those people who during that period of nine months may have been eating there.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern. It is perfectly true that from the application of a summons to the hearing of the case there is in many instances quite a prolonged period; but that does not prevent the public health officer from issuing instructions—as were issued in this particular case—for certain things to be done during the intervening period. In fact that was done. Since the convictions to which my noble friend refers, the conditions of the premises have improved quite considerably, and the public health officers are obviously watching the situation.

Lord DERWENT

My Lords, does not the Minister think that the House has done rather well today—four Questions in 11 minutes?

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

Yes, my Lords.