---

We do not have time to have a Select Committee on the Bill that would take evidence but, when the Law Commission has taken evidence and when we have taken evidence, the Government have no evidence whatever for the assertions that they have made today about how the Bill would increase litigation and be very expensive. That is not evidence-based but simply an assumption being put forward as an argument. On that sort of argument, when I was doing the Sex Discrimination Bill I remember the Lord Chancellor’s Department telling me that, if we extended it to schools, 5,000 cases a year would be brought by dissatisfied schoolchildren and their parents and that under no circumstances should it apply to education at all. There has been less than one case per year over the past 30 years—not 5,000 a year. It is very easy for Ministers to exaggerate grossly what they think might follow from a Bill.

I have not done justice to all the speeches, but I thank everyone. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, will forgive me if I do not seek to persuade her, after 30 years, that she might just be mistaken in some of what she said. I do not think that I could ever achieve that. For all those reasons, I think that the right thing to do is to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

City of Westminster Bill [HL]

Second Reading

2.23 pm

Moved By Baroness Gardner of Parkes

That the Bill be read a second time.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the main purpose of this Private Bill is to deal with the regulation of street trading in the City of Westminster. Westminster is in a unique position among local authorities in this country, given its status as an international and national tourism, shopping and business centre. As a result, the

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1444

streets of the city are thronged with shoppers; I do not need to tell your Lordships that certain parts of the West End, including Oxford Street, Regent Street, Soho and Covent Garden, have some of the highest pedestrian footfalls in the country. Because of that, the streets of the city are a very attractive place for street traders to be. That in turn presents the city council with a range of issues that other local authorities may not have. That is why in the 1990s the city council promoted its own Private Bill to deal with street trading. That Bill became the City of Westminster Act 1999. The Act has generally worked well, but a number of deficiencies have been highlighted over the course of the past 10 years. The council believes that a case for revising the Act has been made. Therefore, last year the council chose to promote this Bill which, if enacted, would repeal the 1999 Act and re-enact it with some important changes.

Street trading in Westminster has of course been going on for hundreds of years. The city council recognises that it can add to the vibrancy and colour of the street scene and can provide a convenient shopping alternative, but it needs to be controlled. Under the existing legislation and the Bill, the council is entitled to designate areas where licensed street trading can take place. Street trading outside such areas is an offence. A licence is needed to trade in designated areas. The council is able to control the trading by the imposition of conditions, and it is able to specify what type of goods can be sold at any street trading pitch. There are a number of reasons for the need to control street trading; and at the foremost of the council’s mind will be the safety and convenience of pedestrians.

The council has, thanks to the 1999 Act and earlier London Acts, had a good deal of success in controlling unlicensed street trading that was becoming a major problem in Westminster. In the late 1980s and the 1990s, the council reached the view that the relatively small fines the magistrates were handing out for unlicensed street trading were becoming nothing more than an inconvenient business expense for illegal street traders; that is if they could be identified and prosecuted at all.

Therefore, one of the additional strings that the council added to its bow was the power to seize items used for illegal street trading. This power has been key to reducing particularly the amount of trading by mobile hot-dog vendors in the West End. An illustration of how effective Westminster is at street trading enforcement can be seen a stone’s throw from this place. The boundary between Westminster and Lambeth runs across the centre of Westminster Bridge. If one crosses the bridge, one will often find unlawful street traders trading tatty tourist merchandise right up to the boundary of the Lambeth side, safe in the knowledge that the Westminster’s enforcement officers cannot touch them. A number of your Lordships have commented to me on how difficult it is to even to walk across Westminster Bridge. After you hit the halfway mark, with all the tourists and other people, and this proliferation of street traders, it is a real problem.

The Bill alters—the council would say improves—the 1999 Act in a number of ways, of which these are examples. It provides more flexibility to the council in

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1445

terms of how it designates licensable areas within which street trading can be licensed; it gives the council more flexibility in varying existing street trading licences; it provides the councils with more discretion in deciding whether to allow an application for a licence; and it broadens the range of conditions that can be imposed on a licence; it sets out new general grounds on which the council can refuse to grant a street trading licence, including the safety or convenience of people using the street, the prevention of crime or disorder, the amenity of the area, and the suitability of the applicant.

I stop to focus on amenity for a second, as this is a novel ingredient in street trading legislation. Under the Bill, not only would it be a factor for the council to consider when dealing with an application for a licence, but also when deciding whether to designate an area as a place in which licences should be capable of being granted at all. A significant proportion of the city falls within statutorily designated conservation areas. There are also significant numbers of listed buildings in the city. In turn, it follows that planning controls over development, particularly new buildings, are generally more stringent than in other areas. This is not currently reflected in the control of street trading. While the council does have some control over the appearance of stores and the goods on display, the control is limited and no specific reference is made in the existing legislation to amenity. Those at the council responsible for planning are particularly keen to ensure that street trading does not take place in areas where it would have a deleterious effect on the setting of valuable streetscapes.

Having emphasised the amenity aspect, I stress that other factors are also of great importance in deciding whether to designate a place as a licensable area, or grant a licence—perhaps none more so than the safety and convenience of other highway users. The Bill makes new and special provision about markets in the city. There are no charter markets in the city, although there are a few street markets, consisting of a conglomeration of a number of traders holding individual street-trading licences. The council is keen to ensure the preservation and vitality of the markets in the city. The Bill is intended to achieve this by giving the councils greater controls, particularly over the location of traders within a particular market area.

New powers to suspend licences immediately would be introduced in cases where the licence holder has used dangerous, abusive or violent behaviour. Limited new powers are given to enable licensed street trading to be carried out by a company rather than an individual. By the same token, the Bill also limits the existing right of a licence holder to nominate a family member or successor to succeed him or her as a holder of the licence. This right of succession, which currently applies only to street traders in London, will be allowed for one more generation in Westminster.

I have already mentioned seizure and hot-dog trolleys. The Bill would enhance the council’s powers in relation to seizure of hot-dog trolleys and other food receptacles, enabling it to dispose of them more efficiently. The council seizes enormous numbers of these trolleys in the West End under its existing powers. The people from whom they are seized rarely, if ever, claim them back. That means that the council wastes a great deal

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1446

of money storing them unnecessarily and obtaining a court order before disposing of them. The Bill would allow disposal in cases where the item is seized and notice given to the person in charge, informing him of his right to require the council to obtain a disposal order, and that right is not exercised. The council’s experience is that offenders are reluctant to identify themselves, because they know that they will be successfully prosecuted, so it is likely that notices will not be returned and the trolleys can be disposed of more readily, saving the council tax payers of the city considerable amounts of money.

It must be stressed that, with all the new powers, there are checks and balances in the Bill. The schedules to the Bill set out in detail the processes, including consultation, and the ability for those affected to make representations that the council must go through when making decisions that are likely to affect street traders.

The Bill contains provision for appeals against decisions of the council, including decisions to refuse to grant a licence or to revoke a licence. The Bill would ensure that trading could continue in appropriate cases until appeals are disposed of. There are provisions to enable compensation to be paid in cases where items are seized unlawfully by the council. Although the Bill has engendered opposition from a representative street traders’ organisation, which I will come to in a minute, I stress that there is plenty in the Bill to ensure the protection of existing street traders and their licences.

Before moving on to the petitions, I should mention the one clause that is not concerned with street trading; namely, Clause 52, which deals with touting. Similar provisions exist in private legislation elsewhere in the country, to prohibit touting for certain types of leisure-related businesses on the street. In some ways, it is rather odd that the council does not have similar powers, given the huge number of attractions, particularly in the West End. I stress that the clause does not deal with ticket touting. In fact, the sale of tickets in the street is actually street trading, and is regulated by the other clauses in the Bill.

I now turn to the three petitions that have been deposited against the Bill. As a general point, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading today, it will of course be for the Select Committee to which the Bill is referred to investigate the cases of the petitioners and the council with the customary fine-toothed comb, but it behoves me to say a few words about each petition.

First, a petition has been lodged by a number of individuals who hold pedlars’ certificates. Under the 1999 Act, holders of pedlars’ certificates are exempt from the street-trading licensing regime if they are carrying out their trading by means of house-to-house visits. The Bill does not change this position, and for that reason the council is challenging the locus standi of the petitioners.

Perhaps at this point it would be appropriate to raise the issue of human rights. The Minister for Trade, Investment and Consumer Affairs, Gareth Thomas, has, in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House, reported on compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. He says that, save in respect of the restriction on pedlars, he believes that

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1447

the promoters have undertaken a full assessment of the compatibility of the Bill’s proposals with the convention, and he sees no need to dispute their conclusions. He says that he has not seen the evidence that the promoters rely on to justify restrictions as being in the general interest. I have no doubt that the promoters will produce that evidence in Committee.

The second petition is from Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Evening Standard. They have detailed concerns about the news vendor provisions, which are altered under the Bill. Under the 1999 Act, news vendors have an exemption from the street trading regime if certain conditions are met. The Bill alters some of those conditions, particularly as regards the type of booth which can be used, and also gives the council power to designate areas—for example, where inconvenience or danger may be caused to other road users—where the exemption should not apply. London Transport is concerned that people entering major Underground stations may be hampered by the presence of an unsuitably sized or positioned paper-seller’s booth. The council will meet with the petitioners soon to discuss their concerns further and I hope that an amicable solution will be achieved.

Finally, the National Market Traders Federation has petitioned. Obviously, the council takes this petition seriously as the federation represents a good number of the existing licensed street traders in the city. The promoters met the federation on more than one occasion in the lead-up to the Bill, consulted it and, having heard its concerns, made changes to the draft Bill before it was deposited. Clearly, there is not yet a meeting of minds because the federation’s petition extends to 86 paragraphs, all of which are being carefully studied by the council. Over the coming weeks in the lead-up to the Select Committee hearing, there will be no doubt be discussions between the parties in an attempt to reach an amicable solution. The council would, ideally, want to have the support of the traders for its proposals, if at all possible.

The council does not wish to leave your Lordships with the impression that the Bill is all about strengthening the council’s controls against the interests of street traders. On the contrary, the council works with them on many fronts. For example, it works with them to find alternative sites when they have concerns about their existing location, or when building works affect them. A study has been undertaken of street trading practices in Westminster and a number of recommendations have been made. The council will be working closely with the traders to pilot some of the recommendations.

I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow this well intentioned measure to pass today so that it can be scrutinised fully in Select Committee, where the evidence of witnesses both for and against the Bill will no doubt be given careful attention. I beg to move.

2.40 pm

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, given my knowledge of the procedures of this House, I realise that the Bill will be very closely scrutinised in the appropriate Committee. However, this Second Reading

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1448

provides us with an opportunity to canter over the course. I declare interests: some years ago I was the parliamentary consultant to the National Market Traders Federation. Like other joint presidents of London Councils, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I am interested in London affairs. Besides that, of course, I represented Edmonton, which has a fine market, and nearby Enfield has a charter market. Modestly, I say simply that I have an interest in this Bill. The size of the Bill is 50 pages and, frankly and sincerely, it is full of good stuff; it is what a local council ought to be doing to ensure a marriage of the interests it seeks to serve.

The electorate put the council in place, but my caveat is that, although the noble Baroness was fair to point out the range of matters included, she referred to the National Market Traders Federation. When I saw the Bill I asked the federation, “Let me have a general note”. The note I received stated:

“It is feared that the trade and interests that the NMTF represents and the property rights and interest of its members would be injuriously affected by the provisions of the bill. There are concerns over almost all the aspects of the bill but in particular the provisions relating to rescission and variation of designating resolutions and designating alternative sites”.

Undoubtedly, the members of the committee will have their hands full when trying to reconcile these issues.

My main point, which I hope bears fruit with Westminster City Council, is that we live in a unique age at a unique stage of development. I have no objection to a council periodically, especially this council—which as the noble Baroness pointed out has within its environment a number of fine and heavily trafficated areas—protecting major matters of interest. However, it should be very careful regarding people’s livelihoods and, in fact, their lives. Throughout the country many people are losing their jobs and livelihoods, and no market trader has a prescriptive right to remain on the same spot as where his father or grandfather stood for many years to continue the same trade in the same circumstances. However, the council should think twice before taking any action that would deprive an existing market trader of his opportunity to continue.

I looked at the Bill quickly and at the clause that deals with succession. One of the vexed issues that I discovered during my time was passing on the licence from a father or mother to a son. The licence is very precious—it is their licence to live, as well as to trade. A lot of stuff in the Bill will come back to us.

Reference was made to the activities of pedlars, who need to be more strictly controlled here and elsewhere than they have been. There have been attempts to bring up to date the Pedlars Act, but some authorities have been forced to take their own action. In my view, this is an issue of national interest.

I was delighted when I saw that on Thursday 26 March, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, has a Question,

“to ask Her Majesty's Government what advice they are giving to local authorities to promote the development of markets as an alternative to high street shopping”.

I see markets not as an alternative to high-street shopping, but as part of the shopping scene. There ought to be a strategy locally, especially where they exist, to make sure that markets, which have been with

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1449

us for hundreds if not thousands of years, are not driven underground. There is a fear among members of the National Market Traders Federation about the way in which the supermarkets and the new forms of trading are being advanced. I happen to know that, because I am on Edmonton Green market quite regularly. It is a changing scene, with different traders and different composition on the green. There is a massive supermarket there, and I say good luck to it, because competition is the spice of life.

The only word that I shall say to Westminster Council and its advisers in the Committee is that they should bear in mind that this is not just a question of a piece of legislation. I was the leader of a London council many years ago. One needs to have regard to the fact that the vibrancy of a community is very often enhanced by the ability of its market to survive and trade. I wish the Bill well in its progress into Committee. In Committee, the National Market Traders Federation will have an opportunity to put its points across, and I wish it well.

2.46 pm

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for advancing the Bill, and I am doubly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for what he has just said. I agree with almost everything he said about sending a message that the House feels that the Bill is important. Although in essence it deals with a matter that may be seen as local to Westminster, it actually deals with something that is part of the heart of our experience of London and therefore, one way or another, is part of the life of tens of millions of people in this country when they visit London or come to Westminster from the other parts of London in which they live.

It seems to me enormously important that markets should be allowed to flourish, particularly at times like these, and that they should be expanded. We have seen over the past 20 or 30 years the process of high streets becoming more and more boring, with just another edition of large chains, with every high street identical to every other. The difficulties of setting up a small shop, with the demands that landlords have been making and the requirements for rates and other regulations, have made it very difficult and often financially fatal for people to try to start small businesses in that way. Providing people with an opportunity to start trades off a barrow, as I think the original Sainsbury did, and then to grow from there, seems to me to be absolutely the right thing to be doing at this time. It is the right thing to do for the health of our high streets and for all our enjoyment and experience of shopping in the streets of London and elsewhere.

It is a very important Bill and I hope that the Committee on the Bill will be brave in its defence of our enjoyment of London. There are times when Westminster City Council seems intent on prettifying and cleaning up London, rather than leaving it enjoyable, messy in corners, rumbustious, vital and alive. That is something to which we should feel able to raise objection.

I have particular concerns about some aspects of this Bill, which gives very broad powers to the council, often with no clear reason. Doubts have been raised

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1450

by the National Market Traders Federation and others about what these powers are required for, what the intention of the council is and whether it wants to clear away these inconvenient stalls into covered markets in recently redundant Woolworth premises or other properties. The council needs to justify why it wants powers of the breadth that it is applying for.

There also seems to be in the Bill a lack of rights of appeal against council decisions. I find it immensely disturbing that a Conservative council should seek to go down that road. It seems to me fundamental that, where a Bill is capable of taking away people’s livelihoods, there should be a proper right of appeal, but the legislation does not seem to provide for compensation when someone’s livelihood is taken away. That is a fundamental part of the balance between the council and the market traders. If the council suffers nothing when it does damage to a market trader, it has no disincentive to act in that way. It can sweep away markets without any fear that it will suffer a result and therefore does not have an incentive to balance the arguments. If it has to pay proper compensation for doing something capriciously or out of turn, or for no good or compelling reason, it will think carefully before it does and will balance the arguments. At any rate, compensation is something that, again, should be in this sort of legislation.

The Bill removes the familic right of succession, which I think is a terrible thing to do. A lot of these pitches have run in families for a long time. It is true that markets should be open to new entrants but perhaps the council should accommodate that by increasing the number of pitches. If there is a demand for people to trade in that way and a demand from the users of the City of Westminster to buy in that way, perhaps the council should look at opening additional pitches. It should not deprive families of a right and an interest that they have had for generations. The noble Lord’s party legislated—I suspect against the opposition of these Benches—to give that right to farm tenants, although I do not think that anyone on these Benches would take that away from them. I very much hope that this Government will set their mind against depriving market traders of similar intergenerational interest and will recognise that it is part of our national life.

The Bill also seeks to control the types of goods sold. What makes Westminster the best judge of what kind of goods should be sold in a market or of how many stalls in a market should sell particular types of goods? It does not particularly control that on a high street; it certainly does not tell Tesco what it should sell. On what basis does the council want those powers? I can understand that there might be some such control by some landlords exercising this power in a mall, but the level of control sought by the council seems to be excessive.

---