| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholls: The formula to be used on these occasions is to say that my hon. Friend will make his own speech in his own way. I shall come on to the COSHH regulations, because they are relevant under paragraph (c) of amendment No. 28. Before I get there, however, it is important to consider the dilemma that will face an officer who is about to seize goods of a non-perishable nature.
There is no requirement in the legislation for an officer to do that. It merely says that he "may": it does not say that he shall. It does not require him to seek the assistance of the person to whom this equipment belongs. There is a right at common law for any officer making an arrest in the execution of his duty to require a passing member of the public to help him in that seizure. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is a barrister, so he can confirm that. It seems inconceivable that a policeman could require some passer-by to help him to seize an errant hot-dog van with a view to getting rid of the fat, so that he is left with equipment of a non-perishable nature.
I say that not in a misplaced attempt at levity, but to make the following point. I did not always have to come here to earn a living. I used to have an honest day job: I was a lawyer. I was a humble country lawyer--well, a country lawyer. One of the things that I had to do was deal with legislation passed by the House which simply had not been thought through. This legislation has not been thought through in any shape or form. The idea that the legislation enables a policeman practically or safely to go around arresting and seizing equipment owned by hot-dog vendors is nonsense.
Mr. Maclean: I had a feeling that my hon. Friend was about to pass on. Before he does so, has he an answer to the question that was posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when we debated the matter the last time? What advice does he give to the policeman, or to the chestnut seller who finds that his hot brazier has been confiscated and then must find somewhere to put his hot nuts?
Mr. Nicholls: I know that the formula on this occasion is not to follow my right hon. Friend, but it is a fair point. The legislation is for all practical purposes unworkable. If any hot-dog vendor was concerned that his equipment would be seized, he could ensure that the perishable and non-perishable elements were so intermingled as to make it impossible.
To be fair to my right hon. Friend, he has in his amendments anticipated the problems that the measure would cause. I draw the House's attention to amendment No. 28:
- Where a park constable exercises his powers--
- under subsection (1) above he shall--
(a) ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of any perishable material by the person having possession or control.
The amendment says that the park constable shall
- give to the person having possession or control a document, in an appropriate language.
If I made such a remark outside the House, or even inside it, I would be accused of being racist, but my right hon. Friend has had to draft legislation to deal with the Minister's preconception and, indeed, obsession with the idea that anyone who is trying to earn a modest living as a hot-dog vendor in a royal park is likely to be able to understand only eastern European languages. I find that remarkable. The only criticism that I have of my right hon. Friend is that it seems that he has not considered that the various languages that he has listed in new schedule 2 may not be sufficient, but it is a fair point all the same.
The next point is perhaps the most important in relation to amendment No. 28. It says that the park constable shall
- (c) not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create a hazard for his or others' health and safety.
12.30 am
Those who are not familiar with the COSHH regulations might think that they cover not so much vats of fat as vats of sulphuric acid. However, that is not true. As many small business men know, any substance on their premises that might be hazardous to health--even vats of stored water--have to be assessed under the COSHH regulations. That issue has not been addressed in the Bill. Are we really in the business of requiring our brave police officers to have to arrest hot-dog vendors without performing the type of assessment under the COSHH regulations that people in other situations are required to make? I think not. The issue should have been addressed in the Bill, but it has not.
I am not sure that the drafting of amendment No. 28 is exactly right. However--to be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border--what is one to do with a Bill that is so woefully drafted that one has to bolt on provisions that should have been thought through in its very philosophy?
Mr. Bercow: May I direct my hon. Friend's attention to amendment No. 25, one of the possible merits of which is that, in seeking to limit the period in which the non-perishable goods remain confiscated from the vendor, the vendor will thereby at least have the chance to make his own legitimate living--whereas if clause 5 were not to be amended, the likelihood is that, for a very significant and possibly unlimited time, while the vendor was struggling to pay the costs due to the Secretary of State, he would be prevented from making a living? That cannot, on the face of it, be justified or in accordance with the Government's protestations of supporting the underdog.
Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend is exactly right, and he takes me on to the next amendments in this group. His mistake, however, is to impute to the Government a desire to help small business men to stand on their own two feet. He says that he is not sure that the clause will enable them to do that, but I think that he is being misled by his own good intentions. I do not find anything in the Bill--in its structure or its ethos--that indicates for one moment that the Government are trying to help small business men. What they are trying to do is to suppress small business men. That is what the Bill is all about.
A moment or two ago, I said that I had been trying to work out what it was about the thinking behind the Bill that was so defective that the Government would propose the legislation, but overlook considerations of practical points such as COSHH regulations and the appropriate language for the warning document. I think that it comes down to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said a little earlier about the danger of consensus. The Bill was never meant to be scrutinised. The mind behind the Bill--if one can talk about such a thing in relation to this Bill--never considered the legislation's practical consequences, such as the dangers inherent in requiring police to go round confiscating such equipment and the effects of such action on small traders. The Bill was not drafted for that purpose.
The Bill was drafted to be passed on the nod. It was drafted on the assumption that the Government had only to propose mild-sounding legislation--the type that enables some hon. Members to make cheap remarks about
people who have to earn a living in a far harder way than hon. Members have to--that could be passed not so much on the nod as on the sneer. That is the way in which this legislation was designed. What my right. hon. and hon. Friends and I have tried to do is to show that that is simply not acceptable, and that we are right to perform our duty of scrutiny.
Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend has mentioned the suppression of small business men. He will be aware that the Bill's supporters have alleged that the vendors who will be affected by it are, far from being small business men, the representatives of organised crime--the mafia has been mentioned. Does not that in itself constitute a hazard of which the arresting officer would do well to be aware?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |