| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Unlike the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I live in Nottingham and I pass the streets where the problem occurs at least once a week. I can point to a place less than 100 yd from my office where illegal street pedlars are operating. They cause a fair amount of disruption in a pedestrianised area for shoppers passing through. Also, they are, in effect, competition—I consider it illegal competition—for those people who go through the proper procedures and
get themselves licensed as street traders. The legislation is needed and it is needed now. We are not in search of a problem; the problem exists.
I recognise— [ Interruption. ] There is plenty of evidence. I can show the hon. Member for Shipley photographs and information from the police. I accept that it is a minor problem and that it is not big crime, but to deal with it requires that we spend an awful lot of resources, time and ratepayers’ money on trying to take people to court. There are so few prosecutions because the existing legislation does not allow us to take them to court. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman cannot get that through his head.
Philip Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heppell: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has had a year to ask us to give way.
I know that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I started talking about amendments that were not on the Order Paper, so I shall discuss the Bill as it exists. However, I do not see a need to compromise with the hon. Member for Christchurch or the hon. Member for Shipley and go against the wishes of the people of Nottingham and, I suspect, the majority of the House. I find it strange that people who, for a year, have tried to wreck the Bill—there is no other way to put it—should now have some benevolent amendments to suggest. I have a suspicion that the amendments are intended to give them the opportunity to think of other ways of wrecking the Bill in the future, so I and the city and people of Nottingham are not willing to compromise with people from outside Nottingham. It is not their problem. The Bill is for local people and local representatives, who should know far better than anyone down here, and probably even far better than I do, what is required for Nottingham.
When the time comes, I shall move the Bill, and I hope that the House supports it. We have had a year’s delay, which has been a great disadvantage to the people of Nottingham and it has created a great deal of expense. I hope that that is over now.
4.27 pm
Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): I am extremely grateful for the opportunity finally to contribute to the Reading Borough Council Bill debate. Before I do that, I shall comment briefly on the Leeds City Council Bill, because my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is unable to attend today’s debate, as others have said, and I join them in wishing him a speedy recovery.
My hon. Friend has been extremely assiduous in his attendance at these debates and central to ensuring that the Bills have not gone through on the nod. He has spoken at length, demonstrating a great knowledge and understanding of the issue, and he has supported the underdog, as the pedlar can be assumed to be in this case. Although my hon. Friend’s presence is missed today, at least by some of us, I hope to be able to further his hard work and to put on the record the current position regarding Leeds city council, before I move on to Reading.
My hon. Friend has led the opposition to an array of Bills that would otherwise seemingly have gone through without proper scrutiny. One of his main concerns has been the impact of the legislation on legitimate entrepreneurial pedlars going about their genuine business, and he has engaged with local authorities to try to reach agreements and ensure that the livelihoods of those pedlars are not curtailed unnecessarily. I can report that he, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, has negotiated for some time and with some success with Leeds city council and Reading borough council on the narrow issue of pedlars. Both councils are to be highly commended for their sensible and extremely conciliatory approach towards finding common ground and an acceptable solution for all sides. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, that is very much at odds with the attitude of Nottingham city council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was recently provided with an amended version of clause 5, which Leeds city council and Reading borough council have proposed for consideration in Committee in relation to pedlars. The amendment is testament to my hon. Friend’s ongoing and unwavering support for that small but nevertheless very important group of entrepreneurs.
On behalf of my hon. Friend, and for the purposes of this debate, I should like to read into the record the clause, as amended, which would form the new clause 5. Its sub-paragraph 2A states:
“Trading is carried on in accordance with this sub-paragraph if—
(a) It is carried out only by means of visits from house to house; or
(b) the following applies—
(i) all items used for any purpose connected with the trading are carried, without any other means of support, by the holder of the certificate during the time in which the trading takes place; and
(ii) the trading is not carried out in a prohibited street; and
(iii) the trading does not include the trading of tickets.”
In the light of that major concession, my hon. Friend has asked me to express his gratitude to Leeds city council and Reading borough council for working towards a satisfactory solution. He was, however, of the understanding that sub-paragraph 2A(b)(ii), relating to trading in a prohibited street, would not be included in the amendment. I am sure that that will require explanation, or removal, in Committee. However, in the spirit of the negotiations, I should say that the inclusion of that provision should not hold up matters today; it would be a great shame if we held up the Reading Borough Council Bill or the Leeds City Council Bill today or later in the process.
It is worth mentioning, however, that the Nottingham City Council Bill could be opposed today, as has been said. That is mainly due to the council’s failure to engage in negotiation and proper debate. It is a great shame that Nottingham should be singled out in this way, but I hope that the council will learn lessons from how Leeds city council and Reading borough council have behaved.
I shall now set out directly my points about Reading. Some of my hon. Friends have been extremely exercised by the Bills, and with good reason. I have listened carefully to all the arguments about the other Bills; I
think that I have attended all the debates apart from the revival debate, so I feel that I have a good grasp of what has gone on. It is a relief finally to get to the Reading Borough Council Bill after all those hours of discussion.
I was not consulted by Reading borough council in advance of its developing the Bill. The first that I knew of it was when I was lobbied by a council officer, not long before the matter arrived in this House. That is a little worrying and slightly strange; I suppose that it is partly due to Reading’s consultation process not being as good as it should be.
Martin Salter: I do not wish to break this wonderful spirit of harmony that we are developing across the Floor of the House. However, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that he is talking utter hogwash? I hope that that is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman had not pulled out of the joint liaison meetings that he and I used to hold regularly with Reading borough council, he would have been as consulted, as I was.
Mr. Wilson: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is talking about; as and when a matter comes up, I meet Reading borough council officers regularly. It is a little disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to break the consensus of the afternoon just because I choose to handle my local constituency matters in a way that is appropriate for me. That does not stop him from handling his constituency matters through joint liaison meetings with the council if he wishes.
Neither side has made a completely open-and-shut case for or against the proposed changes, so I would like to take a little time to go through a few of the issues about Reading. In that way, at least they will be on the record and have what I would regard as a decent airing. From the previous debates on Bournemouth, Canterbury, Leeds, Manchester, Nottingham and so forth, we know that the control of street trading—mainly in relation to pedlars—comes under schedule 4 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.
Like the other Bills, although bearing in mind the fact that they are not all exactly the same, the Reading Borough Council Bill would change the existing legislation that gives licences to pedlars to trade legally using a licence paid for by a £12.50 fee. Councils currently receive no business rates or licence fees from pedlars. In most local authority areas, the annual street trading fee is between £500 and £800, whereas pedlars continue to pay the much smaller fee of £12.50. It has been argued strongly, and with reasonable justification, that that represents an undercutting of other traders and is therefore unfair competition.
During one of my many walkabouts in Reading town centre last year, I had the opportunity to speak to several local traders. One of them, Salim, expressed his annoyance that pedlars were able to sell their merchandise without paying the same fees that he paid, and also could bypass the local authority bureaucracy. Pedlars, by the nature of their occupation, are transient salespeople, and it is fair to argue that they contribute very little to the ongoing success of the local economy, unlike their registered street trader counterparts. Salim argued to me that this amounted to unfair competition. He told me that he was paying several thousand pounds a year for his pitch in the town centre as against the £12.50 per
year paid by a pedlar. One can therefore understand his concern about competition. His family are providing local jobs and income for Reading, and they also run a local shop, while the pedlars clearly do not do that.
The main purpose of the Bill is to extend the scope of the council in regulating the provision of services on the street, as well as touting. However, extending the council’s powers to regulate almost automatically makes me feel uneasy. I have always been of the view that less is more. The natural inclination of Governments local and national is to do more, to interfere more, and to involve themselves to a greater degree. That involvement usually makes matters worse rather than better, so it is rarely the right solution.
It is fair to say that in the past touting has been an important issue in Reading owing to the enormous numbers of young people arriving every year for the Reading festival, which takes place over the August bank holiday. I would thoroughly recommend it to hon. Members if they wish to visit Reading at that time. I believe that we have previously hosted the former Prime Minister’s favourite group, the Foo Fighters, and the current Prime Minister’s favourite group, the Arctic Monkeys. I use the word “favourite” in inverted commas, of course, because that information was briefed by Damian McBride, so one cannot tell what is true and what is not.
Mr. Wilson: If you are going to say something sensible, I will let you get up—go on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of his language. He certainly should not be addressing the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) in those terms, let alone the Chair.
Martin Salter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly do not guarantee to say anything sensible, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the House that in the dark and dismal days of 1983 and 1984, it was a Conservative council in Reading that axed the Reading rock festival? It ill behoves him to be praying it in aid now.
Mr. Wilson: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman wishes to go back into ancient history. I am sure we could talk about lots of things from those times. As the current leadership of the borough council is about to become ancient history, perhaps in a few years we will revisit that as well.
Philip Davies: My hon. Friend talks about the problem that Reading has with ticket touting. I do not know whether he has read the reports by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Office of Fair Trading on ticket touting, which show that it is beneficial to the consumer. Is he saying that there is an objection to ticket touting, which could benefit Reading’s residents by giving them an opportunity to go to something that they could not have gone to otherwise or to sell a ticket at a profit? Why is ticket touting a problem for residents in Reading? Is it not a benefit to them?
Mr. Wilson: I have not read the whole report, but I have read parts of it. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and if he bears with me I shall go through the points about ticket touting, and in particular the problems that the police say it causes.
I have been told that the activity of touts is of significant concern to the local authority, the local police and the Reading festival organisers alike. Richard Bennett, my local basic command unit commander, informed me during my consultation process on the Bill that the police have greatly limited powers in respect of illegal touting, but that the removal of such activity would reduce the risk to Reading festival-goers of buying forgeries, and also reduce the trade in stolen tickets. He said the following—it is a fairly lengthy quotation, but I wish to put it on the record:
“The individuals involved in touting include both legitimate traders and others who are involved in various forms of criminality. The police have very limited powers in respect of touting per se, but the removal of this type of activity would reduce the risk to Festival goers of buying forgeries and would reduce the trade in stolen tickets and wrist bands. There is Police activity in respect of both of these and we respond to the reports of thefts and forgeries accordingly but the existence of widespread touting provides a cover for the actions of criminals and we are responding to offences that have been committed rather than preventing them from happening in the first place.”
The principle of good, proactive, preventive policing is something that we should all support.
Philip Davies: That is all very well, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend is making a far better case for Reading than anyone has even tried to make for Nottingham, but does he not accept that selling stolen or forged tickets is a criminal offence in itself and does not need any additional legislation? It is fraud, and it is theft. That is completely different from the selling on of legitimate tickets.
Mr. Wilson: Yes, I accept that there is a difference between those two things, but I wish to lay out my broad case, after which I shall be happy to give way again, if my hon. Friend wishes to intervene.
There is an absurdity in Reading borough council’s position. As I understand it, it means that touting could be an offence in a designated part of Reading in my constituency, but not in Woodley or Earley, which are in my constituency but which fall within the borough boundaries of Wokingham borough council. I would be extremely interested to know where the demarcation would be for a touting offence to be committed, and how it would be policed. It is not clear from the Bill how the offence is intended to work or be used, so it is somewhat equivalent to a blank cheque. What offence would the laws be used for? Would they just be for the Reading festival, or would they be for sporting events such as London Irish rugby matches, or concerts at the Hexagon in Reading town centre? Ticket touting is not illegal elsewhere in the country, apart from, I think—
Mr. Wilson:
Apart from football matches. I thank my hon. Friend for confirming that. Where will the limits on the power be? It strikes me that the Bill would create
an anomaly, which needs further explanation and probably further consultation and consideration before the Bill completes its passage.
To return to pedlars, Reading borough council argues that the small annual licence fee that they pay is not a reasonable sum in comparison with the sizeable annual rates paid by shopkeepers and permanent street traders. As I have said, that is a fair argument. A pedlar’s licence can be obtained virtually anywhere in the country by anyone claiming to have a good character. Given the outdated nature of the original legislation, there seems to be significant room for people who are less than genuine to obtain a certificate from the police. The police have argued to me that they do not have the time or inclination to check a person’s good character thoroughly, and that they can check only their criminal record. The system therefore has its limitations.
When I talked to a local pedlar, she had no idea that traditional street traders paid so much more than she did to trade on Broad street in Reading town centre. She suggested a change in the system whereby pedlars should be made to contribute more and street traders made to pay less for their licences so that a sort of equilibrium was reached. Although that is an honourable response, we were filming her at the time for a YouTube video on my website. I am not sure whether all the pedlars in the town centre agree with that point of view.
It is important not to vilify pedlars as glorified Del Boys, as some have done. Anyetta, the pedlar whom I met, was pleasant and helpful. She explained that she was simply trying to find ways in which to pay off her student loan, and peddling was only one of several jobs in which she was involved. It is an age-old, honourable business for those who choose to take it up. It is far from easy, but it is easy to criticise and castigate those who do it.
I also had the opportunity to speak to a shopper in Reading town centre, who had returned for the second week running to buy the same item from a local pedlar. When asked whether Broad street would be better off without such traders, he simply answered, “If you’re walking down the high street and you see something you like, you make a choice.” He implied that if the pedlars’ merchandise is not of sufficient quality, discerning shoppers will vote with their feet and not come back. When I asked whether it bothered him that he might not be able to return the product the following week, his simple response was, “Woolworths might not be here next week.” As it happened, Woolworths was not there the next week, so his example was fitting.
The local police force also has an important part to play. I met town centre police officer Rob Murray, who explained that, although illegal peddling is not a priority for the police, it is one of the main issues that the local neighbourhood action group consistently raises. Astonishingly, the group raises the matter as often as more serious problems, such as antisocial behaviour, rough sleeping in the town centre, which is increasing, and problems relating to the night-time economy, such as drinking and prostitution. Police enforcement exercises and prosecutions using CCTV have had limited effect. Sergeant Murray said that only seven prosecutions had been brought in recent years, which suggests that the existing legislation has not been thoroughly used.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |