Previous Section Index Home Page

I do not wish to repeat the arguments made in the earlier debates, but I wish to address one particular matter. There are two differences between the Canterbury Bill and the Nottingham Bill, about which we will hear shortly. The more important of those relates to the issue
14 Jan 2010 : Column 898
of touting, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) devoted a great deal of some of his earlier speeches. I made it clear then that I was sympathetic to his points about touting. The provisions are designed to address a difficult and unpleasant, but extremely narrow, point. However, as drafted, they would have potentially far-reaching consequences, and I would be very worried about what a future non-Conservative Administration, should we have the misfortunate to have one in Canterbury, could do with them. I therefore obtained an absolute assurance from the promoters of the Bill, Canterbury city council, that it will strike out the touting clause in another place.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that concession public. As he rightly says, we had an exchange on the Floor of the House about this matter-I believe it was on 29 October 2008-during which he offered me the opportunity to visit Canterbury to discuss it with the officers of his local council. That visit has not materialised, but may I ask him why the opportunity was not taken to make this concession, and thereby allow this amendment, when this Bill was before the Unopposed Bill Committee, because we would thus have been able to deal with the matter in this House?

Mr. Brazier: I take full responsibility for that matter; the Bill went through rather speedily and I missed it at the Committee stage.

Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give way briefly on that point?

Mr. Brazier: Yes, but it is the last time I shall give way, because I have almost finished what I wish to say.

Mr. Bone: This is an important point. As the transcript of the Unopposed Bill Committee proceedings shows, this question was brought up then and the representatives of Canterbury city council argued specifically against such an amendment. Have they changed their mind?

Mr. Brazier: I have no idea whether they have changed their mind, but they have given me an absolute assurance, in writing, that this provision will be struck out in another place.

Over the past two and a bit years, a great deal of time and energy has been expended in this Chamber on debating these two parallel Bills and, indeed, the other four that are further back in the pipeline. I do not think that further words from me will add anything to the debate. My local community in Canterbury is very anxious for this measure, which is supported by all parties on Canterbury city council, and I would be most grateful for the support of the House.

2.48 pm

The Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs (Kevin Brennan): I should point out to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that if the Whip is nodding, it is not necessarily in assent to what he is saying. I say that because the Whip cannot get up to defend himself.

Mr. Brazier: Let me make it clear that no discourtesy was intended and that I was just alluding to the fact.


14 Jan 2010 : Column 899

Kevin Brennan: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is always courteous.

The Government understand the desire of these local authorities to bolster their enforcement powers when faced with traders who seek to hide behind a pedlar's certificate as a means of frustrating the gathering of evidence on street trading offences. The House is aware that, prompted by a number of local authorities that seek the additional powers that these Bills include, the Government, as he mentioned, undertook research into the perceptions of, and application of, the current national and local regimes. We are now in the process of consulting on possible proposals for changes to the national regime.

The ideas explored in the consultation included: whether there is a national need to extend enforcement powers for local authorities so that they can better tackle illegal street traders without unduly restricting legitimate pedlary; how more clarity can be achieved between the legitimate activities of certified pedlars and practices that seek to frustrate the enforcement of street-trading rules; how the pedlars regime might usefully be modernised to achieve a clearer fit with street-trading laws and to make the certification process more comprehensive, to provide better access to records of certificates and to help pedlars to go about their legitimate business where they are entitled to do so; the subject of guidance on the application of the current regime, which research found all parties would find useful as there is widespread misunderstanding of what constitutes legitimate pedlar activity and what constitutes illegal street trading; and how we can maintain the national nature of a genuine pedlar's permission to trade while meeting the valid concerns of some local authorities about being able to control the level of trading activity in relation to special events or, in particular, to areas where too much trading has an adverse effect. The consultation period ends on 12 February and we will publish the Government's response in due course.

2.51 pm

Mr. Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): The Minister's speech was most helpful. He talked about what I believe should happen: we should have a national policy. The Government are moving speedily and correctly in that direction, and it is for this House to decide on a national policy. My objection in principle to these Bills is that to provide a private Bill for each council that wants one is a ridiculous way to proceed in this day and age.

I am grateful to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) who, quite rightly, feels passionately about the issue involved. I am aware of the important feelings that he has about that, and it is right that when we have private business people of the same political party should have differences of opinion on it. I have had representations from city councils, although I have not actually had them from Canterbury, so let me show their side of the coin. They say:

I am sure that that is entirely the case in Canterbury, but my argument would be that this is a matter for Parliament
14 Jan 2010 : Column 900
as a whole to decide. We should have a national policy and then delegate down to local authorities the decision on whether they enact the provisions or not. I welcome the Government's position on this matter.

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): Following on from that, does my hon. Friend not agree that across the total of six Bills, these two-the Canterbury City Council Bill and Nottingham City Council Bill-are probably the two most restrictive? Without the result of the Government's consultation, which we are still awaiting, and without their response to it, it is difficult to judge at this stage whether these Bills strike the balance that it would appear that everybody wants to see.

Mr. Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is quite correct. There would be a legitimate case for delaying this a little longer-until February-so that we can see where we are as regards the Government report. My issue is with the specific Bills and the procedure that has been used to bring them to Third Reading.

This is the first time that I have spoken in a Third Reading debate on private business, and I have been doing some research. This information has been provided by the House of Commons and, in particular, the House of Commons Information Office's document on private Bills. I also looked at column 989 of the Official Report on 29 October 2008, which was the Second Reading of the Canterbury City Council Bill. I spoke in that debate. Given that we are talking about this group of Bills, I also looked at the Second Reading debate for the other councils involved, which can be found in the Official Report for 3 June 2009, from column 329.

I also referred to the transcript of the Unopposed Bill Committee that took place on 8 July 2009. Rather bizarrely, the Committee is said to have been chaired by Sir Michael Lord, with Mr. Adrian Bailey, Gordon Banks, Peter Bottomley and Sir Robert Smith. That is how the transcript has been produced, I assume by Hansard.

I have concerns about how this Third Reading has been presented and dealt with. What should happen with a private Bill is that the initial, formal First Reading stage is the same as with-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me try to be of assistance to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). Whether he likes it or not, we are on Third Reading of this particular Bill. As in any Third Reading, he may speak about what is in the Bill, but not about the procedure affecting what happens before this stage or what happens to private Bills in general. We are where we are: there is a Bill before the House, and speeches on Third Reading must be confined to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Bone: I am very grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. I was somewhat misguided by the House of Commons briefing, which says that

I am apologising-


14 Jan 2010 : Column 901

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Exactly, and therefore my ruling is valid.

Mr. Bone: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

There is a particular issue that one of my constituents has asked me to speak about in this Third Reading debate. People may ask why the Bill was not petitioned against. If that had happened, the procedure that I am not allowed to talk about would have been different. The Bill would have gone to an Opposed Bill Committee, and the scrutiny would have been somewhat different. In any case, however, it would have been impossible for me to be on either type of Committee, as their memberships are not selected as happens with normal Bills.

I want to talk about the relationship that the economic situation and unemployment have with removing the right of pedlars to carry out their work in a particular city. Since the Second Reading debate, unemployment in both Nottingham and Canterbury-and, for that matter, in my town-has increased by more than 50 per cent. It seems to me that people who wish to leave the unemployment register and acquire gainful employment could do so by getting a pedlar's licence. They would have to go through certain checks, as such a licence is issued by the police.

Such people would then be entitled to go and peddle across the country. In fact, that is the whole point of the pedlar's licence-it is not static. Licensed pedlars do not work from a shop on which they pay rates or rent; instead, they can go round the country-perhaps from door to door-or they may work in a city such as Canterbury, but it is a way for someone to get on the entrepreneurial ladder.

As I have said many times in this House, unemployment in my area is now more than double what it was in 1997. In particular, it is 50 per cent. up since this Bill was last discussed, and that is the same for the other councils that we are looking at. It seems to me that restrictions placed on particular towns and cities will affect not only those citizens, but pedlars from all across the UK. Such restrictions affect any pedlar who applies for a certificate in Wellingborough, and might work his way round the country to Nottingham or Canterbury. I take the point that there is illegal rogue trading, but I contend that pedlars are not illegal or rogue. They go through the process of police certification. I am convinced that the vast majority act legally, do not sell counterfeit goods and do not remain in one place, which would break their licence as a pedlar. I accept that there are people who do that, but they are not pedlars.

The unemployment levels are so high that we would be silly to choke off legitimate ways in which people can earn their living. In one constituency in Nottinghamshire, adult male unemployment is now 15.4 per cent., and in another it is 14.2 per cent. So choking off an opportunity for people to work seems wrong. That clearly was not considered on Second Reading because the facts of the economic situation were not known then. It certainly was not considered in the Unopposed Bill Committee. I have read the debate that took place in that Committee and, although the members worked hard and asked a lot of questions, they did not have the benefit of the knowledge that the petitioners would have had if they had had early enough notice that this private Bill was being introduced. That is why I believe that the other place will listen to the petitioners and have a better view of the matter.


14 Jan 2010 : Column 902

My main contention is that the Bill affects the economic situation of not only people in Nottingham and Canterbury but people across the country, including in my constituency. I know that several hon. Members wish to speak. I do not dispute the correct analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury; I think he is absolutely right. The way forward is as the Minister suggests. He made a helpful and clear statement.

What is good about today's debate is that we have a chance to discuss business that, if approved, will become the law of the land. It seems to me very strange that private business tends to be nodded through without debate. I really wonder whether this procedure-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to have to repeat myself, as I suspect the hon. Member is starting to do in certain respects, but I must be clear. We are not debating the procedure for private Bills. That may be something that the House would be fascinated to discuss on a separate occasion or to refer to the Procedure Committee. This debate is on the content of the Bill.

Mr. Bone: I probably made the mistake of not raising a point of order at the beginning of the debate because I do not think that this Third Reading debate is in order. That was a mistake, and it shows my lack of experience in this place.

Mr. Chope: People are in the mood for making abject apologies. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has just made one, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is making one. Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the problems is that we are having this Third Reading debate without having had the benefit of a proper Committee stage; and that we would have had a Report stage if our hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had moved his amendment in the Unopposed Bill Committee? That would have resulted in a Report stage and a more orderly process towards Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is entirely a procedural matter, and the hon. Gentleman leads me into the risk that I may have to make an abject apology to the House for having to repeat the guidance that I am trying to give. I therefore counsel the hon. Member for Wellingborough not to pursue that line.

Mr. Bone: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I certainly would not do that.

I have been asked by a constituent to come to the House and make that point about entrepreneurship and the level of unemployment, and that is the crux of my argument. He would certainly have liked to have petitioned Parliament on the issue, but he was not aware of the fact that the private business had been introduced.

3.6 pm

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I rise to support the Bill that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has sponsored and the Nottingham City Council Bill. Owing to the pressures of high office, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who is sitting beside me, is not in a position to put forward the case for the Nottingham Bill. However, I must begin not by making an abject
14 Jan 2010 : Column 903
apology. Instead, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that-please believe me-the nod from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East was a nod of approval towards the remarks of the hon. Member for Canterbury. There should be no ambiguity about that. My hon. Friend may not speak, but he can nod in approval.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better be careful otherwise he might get his hon. Friend into even greater trouble.

Tony Lloyd: I had best adhere carefully to the strictures that you place upon me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and allow my hon. Friend if not to rest in peace at least to sit in peace.

I shall make a few brief points. It is unnecessary to rehearse the arguments that were made on Second Reading, precisely because the Bills have not been amended since Second Reading. The House clearly established with very large majorities the principle of its support for the Canterbury City Council and Nottingham City Council Bills on that occasion, and it has done so on every occasion since. In that context, may I say gently to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) that the idea that the House has not examined the matter and not given its approval is fallacious? The House voted in considerable strength. These private Bills did not slide through with marginal support unnoticed one afternoon; they were given very strong support in the House.

Mr. Bone: My point was that when the Bills were debated and divided on, significantly fewer than half of all Members voted.

Tony Lloyd: This may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, but even on occasions of Government business significantly fewer than half of all Members vote. We should not weigh the votes, except to say that on all occasions there have been significant votes clearly in favour of the Bills, and a small but lengthy measure of opposition to them. The Bills have had 16.5 hours of debate already, and that should establish the fact that they have had a good airing. Proponents and opponents have had a good opportunity to put their cases.

Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Lloyd: I am cautious, but I shall not be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why other city of Nottingham representatives, who might have been freer than his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) to express an opinion, are not present for the debate?

Tony Lloyd: It is because they have an amazing and accurate strength of belief in my capacity to advocate their case. That is what the answer amounts to. My powers of rhetoric are clearly well received by my Nottingham colleagues. As a former student at the university of Nottingham, perhaps I have some interest in that city.


Next Section Index Home Page