Mr. Humphrey Errington (Hansard, 25 March 1996)

The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I have arranged for copies of both Sheriff Allan's judgments on the application by the Clydesdale District Council against Mr. Humphrey Errington to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the second judgment is still on the missing list? It is not yet in the Library. I am sure that the noble Earl has read the judgments. Has he noted in particular the reference made by the sheriff to the litigious pugnacity demonstrated by the council and the fact that the council had not been able to adduce any evidence whatever of a related illness? Is my noble friend aware that, as a result of this bullying, Mr. Errington has been obliged to spend £150,000 in his own defence and that despite those two cogent and devastating judgments he has not yet received a penny piece from the council?

The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for letting me know that he visited the Library just before lunch and that the second judgment was not available. I had arranged for it to be in the Library last week; perhaps it has gone missing. My noble friend commented on certain aspects of the judgment. To say the least, it makes interesting reading. However, we must be clear on one point. Sheriff Allan concluded in his judgment that it was reasonable for the applicants to take the initial steps with a view to bringing the matter before the justice of the peace, or the sheriff, essentially as regards safety, and to obtain appropriate advice. I understand what the noble Lord added. As regards payment of fees, I understand that at present the final figure is being negotiated between the two parties—the legal adviser to Clydesdale District Council and Mr. Humphrey Errington's legal 1466 adviser. If they cannot come to an agreement on those figures, I believe that the auditor of court will make a decision.

§ Lord Bancroft
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree, to quote an elegant variation of the sheriff's judgment from that cited by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that this litigiously pugnacious approach by the district council shows that its zeal for a conviction outran its zeal to establish the facts? Does he further agree that it is faintly reprehensible for a district council to let it be known on the wireless that it is determined to continue to pour out public money in order to secure a conviction against Mr. Errington?

The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, many questions need to be asked concerning the judgment. The issue will be taken into account when we consider the statutory codes of practice which are being reviewed at present.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, will the Minister clarify the circumstances of the case? Not all Members of your Lordships' House will understand what is being talked about. Can he confirm that it is right in the present circumstances for a district council to pursue the subject of food hygiene and safety with the utmost zeal?

The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting second point. It is quite right that environmental health departments have best views in mind for their council tax payers when they consider such problems. We would need a considerable time to go through all the facts of the case. When the judgments are available in the Library—as I hope they now are—I suggest that the noble Lord reads them.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for his efforts to explain. Perhaps my noble friend will advise the noble Lord to take the opportunity to read the judgments before he enters into the matter further. Does my noble friend appreciate that I completely follow the sheriff's judgment in saying that it was perfectly reasonable for the council to bring this matter before the court? What was grossly improper—I hope that my noble friend will agree—was to exhibit the litigious pugnacity which the sheriff attributed to the council.

The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, as I said, I have read the judgment. It is quite graphic in its description in various areas. I believe I suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, might read the judgment. However, one other point has not been made. In his supplementary question, my noble friend Lord Peyton asked why the accounts between the legal advisers had not yet been settled. He stated that Mr. Errington was out of pocket by whatever the amount of his costs. I do not believe that that is true. The accounts will be settled 1467 direct between the local authority, its legal adviser and the legal adviser acting for Mr. Errington. Mr. Errington will not have to be out of pocket on his legal fees.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, if Clydesdale District Council is shown to have acted improperly, will the people who acted improperly be liable to surcharge?

The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I read the noble Lord's supplementary question when the matter last came before the House. I am by no means an expert on the subject but I understand that to be liable for surcharge someone must have acted ultra vires. I believe that nothing has been said in the judgments to suggest that anyone is outside the law.

§ Lady Saltoun of Abernethy
My Lords, can the noble Earl say how much the local authority has spent of council tax payers' money in prosecuting Mr. Errington?

The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the figures have not been finalised.