---

Most of all, I am surprised that the council should have brought this Bill before us with such a level of disagreement from the National Market Traders Federation. I do not see why that body, which cannot be well funded—certainly not as well funded as the City of Westminster—should have to argue this out in a public forum rather than being properly consulted

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1451

and properly engaged in the preparation of the Bill. It is not an inimical organisation; it is quite capable of reaching a proper compromise. The Bill should have reached us with only a few matters outstanding and not the wholesale objection raised by the National Market Traders Federation.

Perhaps I should say something nice about Westminster. I am quite happy with its provision for crunching hot-dog trolleys. They seem to be a nuisance but, again, perhaps I may express my disappointment: these trolleys exist because people want access to refreshment on the street. There are many other cities in Europe where it is easy to find refreshment on the street of great variety and great quality. Westminster is saying, “No, you can’t have anything”, and is clamping down on what is available. I agree that what is available is pretty disgusting, but why not, instead, let a contract to Heston Blumenthal or someone similar? If he can take on Little Chef, surely he would take on hot-dog trolleys. Westminster should get some decent catering out there on the streets in the way that people who use the area want. As I said, Westminster as a city should not be free of smells; it should be full of wonderful smells, and I hope that we would encourage Westminster to take a positive, constructive and inventive attitude towards improving the city, rather than thinking of it as something on the front of the proverbial chocolate box and not to be disturbed by human activity.

I hope that the Committee will take a gentle attitude towards the petition by the pedlars. These days, when people who are not well organised or well represented approach this House asking to be heard, we should treat that approach as generously as possible and not try to default them on a technicality. If their arguments do not apply, we can disregard them but we should hear them.

2.55 pm

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I follow what the previous two speakers said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in declaring an interest as a joint president of London Councils.

We hear that Westminster is a very particular borough. It occurs to me that it may not be quite as particular as it used to be. London is growing and not just on the fringes; the characteristics of the centre are now more widely spread. Other boroughs suffer the stresses and have the interests that, in recent history, were more confined to Westminster: parts of Kensington and Chelsea, the southern part of Islington now and Hackney, over longer history, and, of course, the City of London where there must have been issues relating to market traders and pedlars. I, for one, am very happy to see the shopping magnets dispersed around London and the shopping opportunities more widely spread. The same issue applies to commercial areas; we are used to thinking of the City of London and the City of Westminster as the major commercial areas. That is relevant to news vendors. It is not the same now. You only have to look at the number of people pouring out of London Bridge station and not crossing London Bridge to realise that the south bank of London is a very vibrant and important commercial area.

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1452

Like other speakers, I view markets as complementary to other types of retail. I do not think this is the right time to make market trading harder, either for the public or for the traders, unless it is to achieve an investment, not to prettify, but to make more comfortable and update some of the facilities available to those who work in markets and who shop in them. One has only to think of experiences on mainland Europe, where markets fulfil a different and more important role in people's lives than they do here. It should not be a matter of personal aesthetics, such as look or smell, but I agree that the smell of hot dogs is pretty revolting. That does not apply to all food. Last summer, I was in Edinburgh when there was a French—perhaps that word should be in inverted commas—market and the smells from it were irresistible. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, did not quite say that he was talking about the control of goods, but markets, like other things, respond to the market.

The news vendors’ situation is changing because of free papers. Five years ago, they were not accosted by people trying to get rid of their supply of papers. This gives rise to issues of litter, recycling facilities and so on.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a very important point about pedlars. We are about to deal on Report with the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which has clauses about petitions. The point has been made, quite rightly, by the Government and very much by the Opposition that a petition to a local authority can take pretty much any form. It does not have to be formal. This House, this Parliament, should be as open to representations as local authorities are and should not require them to be made in a particular form in order for them to be considered seriously.

The Opposed Bill Committee will be the right place for the detail of the Bill to be considered. One is accustomed at the end of a Second Reading debate on a Bill such as this to wish the Bill a fair wind. I have some reservations on this occasion, and I hope that we see the right result at the end of the proceedings.

3.01 pm

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, we are becoming used to these borough and city council Bills, having seen several of them in the past few years, including the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill. We support the right of councils to bring forward measures to regulate street trading. Nevertheless, the Select Committee on the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill expressed concern about,

“the use of piecemeal private legislation to remedy perceived problems in national legislation”.

It recommended that,

“the Government should undertake an urgent review of the law on trading in the streets and selling from door to door with a view to producing national legislation which reflects current conditions”.

I quite understand that I cannot necessarily expect the Minister to answer questions today on this Private Bill, but it would be helpful to know whether the Government have given any more thought to the Select Committee’s recommendations on those earlier Bills, and whether any action has been taken in this regard.

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1453

The Select Committee also proposed that the promoters of those Bills undertake to give particular attention to the training of the officers charged with the enforcement of the legislation so that genuine pedlars operating under it are not prevented from carrying on their trade. Once again, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what progress has been made in that area.

As I have said, we support the right of local councils to amend street trading controls as appropriate. At the same time, however, we are concerned that street traders and pedlars—as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, they are two rather different groups, and it would be wrong to confuse them—who operate lawfully and are appreciated and valued by members of their communities and the public generally should not be unduly restricted, stigmatised or criminalised. During the debate in another place on the Manchester City Council Bill, my honourable friend Mr Christopher Chope argued that,

“the Bills seek to penalise the lawful pedlar and take away the rights that he has had since legislation was introduced in 1871”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/08; col. 960.]

The Explanatory Note to the City of Westminster Bill says that Clause 19 gives,

“general discretionary grounds for refusal of an application for a licence”.

These include,

“the convenience or safety of people using the street ... the applicant’s suitability to hold a licence”,

and,

“the diversity of items on sale and services provided by street traders and other retailers in the area”.

These provisions present the flexibility which my noble friend Lady Gardner has helpfully described. We support her desire to reduce illegal street trading, particularly if it could be construed as a public nuisance or even a public danger. We are, however, concerned to ensure that lawful traders and pedlars are protected, so while I, like other noble Lords, look forward to seeing the results of the Select Committee’s deliberations, I wonder whether in the mean time my noble friend could reassure your Lordships about the safeguards in the Bill to ensure that these lawful activities are protected.

I conclude by thank my noble friend for putting this Bill forward and for her eloquent use of words.

3.05 pm

Lord Brett: My Lords, we recognise that the City of Westminster is a local authority which holds a unique place not only in the life of the capital, but in the life of the nation. The noble Baroness will perhaps agree with that view, given her distinguished service as a former member of the council and, indeed, as lady mayoress. The contributions from other speakers in the debate have also added to our appreciation of the contents of the Bill. The Government aim to continually develop our wider thinking on how best to regulate the areas of street trading and pedlary in Great Britain. I should of course make it clear right from the start that the Government, as per normal, do not take any view on the content of private Bills; they are a matter for Parliament to decide.

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1454

I will address my remarks to the wider considerations raised by Westminster’s Bill and the extent to which they reflect our thinking about street trading today. I noted in the contributions of both my noble friend Lord Graham and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, from the Official Opposition’s Front Bench, the question of why local and not national action is taken. The truth is that the scale of the problem that these private Acts attempt to address remains unclear nationally. Under 5 per cent of local authorities have sought to introduce legislation in this area, but the Government have conducted and recently published research into street trading and pedlary in the UK in order better to establish the evidence for whether national action is required. The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will be consulting widely over the summer on the findings of that research and on possible regulatory options—for example, an updating of the Pedlars Act 1871, and the need for a flexible regime of enforcement in respect of the current regime under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

In that context, I should like first to make reference to the research project begun on the Government’s behalf by Durham University last June and concluded last November. That project gathered the views of hundreds of stakeholders from local authority, police, town centre management and pedlary backgrounds, all with views to offer on the current legislative position. More information on the project’s outcomes is available in the consumers’ area of BERR’s website, and copies of the research are available in the Library. Further contact with individuals and organisations with a contribution to make to that dialogue is vital, and I shall say more about how we will take this forward shortly.

As I indicated a moment ago, where Westminster leads, other authorities follow, hence the 1999 Act; that is certainly the case where street-trading legislation is concerned. The 1999 Act was to some extent the template followed by a number of local authorities seeking to augment their powers via private Bills on street trading in recent years. Reference has been made to Bournemouth, but Canterbury, Leeds, Manchester City, Nottingham and Reading are awaiting their day in court, as one might say, before the Committee in the other place. Differing views about these Bills were aired during the debates in the other place about nine months ago. I commend the Hansard record of 12 June to those noble Lords interested in learning more about the objections to and support for what might be called the bigger picture. We have heard that this Bill has attracted petitions against it from interested parties. A group representing pedlar interests has commented on the perpetuation of the restriction on certified pedlars’ activities. We heard also that concerns have been expressed by the National Market Traders Federation about adjustments to the licensing and appeals processes, as well as by Associated Newspapers Ltd, commenting on new powers in respect of the location of news vendors.

In furtherance of the objectives, noble Lords may also be interested to know that officials from BERR will be involving those authorities who have proposed new legislation, some six or seven of them, in further

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1455

discussions about their Bills later this month, and of course Westminster will have a seat at the table. That ongoing dialogue will continue into the summer as future changes which may affect street trading and pedlary legislation are consulted upon nationally in the light of the aforementioned research. I should emphasise to the House that effective consultation is particularly important to pedlars, as our research reveals that they are apprehensive about their relationship with some local authorities. They may lack a dedicated organisation to make their case, but none the less they have made their voices heard clearly—as they should be—through BERR’s research, and will be able to do so in the forthcoming consultation dialogue. It is against this background of possible longer term change to national legislation that the City of Westminster has proposed a Bill to address the particular problems it is experiencing now. Some of these problems may remind other authorities of their situation, so the points I make may have a wider audience than just those in the Chamber today. I also imagine close attention may be paid to developments concerning this Bill and the others currently in the other place via the parliamentary website.

As I have said, the Government do not have a view on the Bill. However, we are aware of the issues it raises. Perhaps I should say—in a sense, this is the dog that does not bark—that there are protections in existing legislation that go towards meeting the problems that crop up in the Bill and elsewhere. Therefore, in order to respond, particularly to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who generously offered me the opportunity to write to him in detail, I will take up that invitation so that I do not detain the House too long.

That concludes my response, except to say that I note there are other technical points concerning the Bill that officials in departments other than BERR have raised. Those points, and others, may receive consideration in the Select Committee. I thank the noble Baroness again for her introduction of the Bill. She made it possible for me to present to the House a brief overview of the wider points involved in any consideration of street trading legislation and the Government’s immediate plans in respect of street trading activity. I suspect that many local authorities, pedlars and others who have an interest in this policy area will follow developments with interest. I confirm that I will write to the Minister in BERR responsible for this matter and his opposite numbers in other departments to draw their attention to the Hansard record of this debate, which will be helpful to them.

3.10 pm

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Many points have been raised that are of great interest. The Select Committee will certainly want to go into them very thoroughly. Pedlars were mentioned by all noble Lords, except the Minister, and even he might have mentioned them, but not in the same detail. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, is right that a licence is a licence to live. I thought that was a very important point. However, there is no thought of attempting to take

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1456

away anyone’s livelihood. I slightly regret the loss of the hereditary system—I was disappointed when we lost the hereditary system here—but one has to appreciate that there is an equality issue, and it may be something that the council does not control and is obliged by other legislation to take away that right. If the Select Committee could come up with some way whereby the council could keep that as a continuing right, I would be only too pleased because I think it is a pity.

As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and other noble Lords said, markets are a very important part of the shopping scene. The scene is changing in markets. When I first came to London, I lived very close to Portobello Market and went every week for all my fruit and vegetables. If you go to Portobello Market now, you are lucky to find more than one or two fruit and vegetables stalls. The place has become an antique market. My local market in Bicester and other markets in London are becoming all clothes. That is a shame because we are all looking for the farmers’ markets that are starting up. They are a new thing, and perhaps they are replacing the food. Food purchases have always been a big thing in markets and are very important.

My noble friend Lord Lucas queried the need for councils to control what is sold in markets. There is a need, partly because of the point I have just made, but also because powers to control what is sold by market traders exist. There is nothing new in the Bill about that. My noble friend Lord Lucas always makes interesting points on Private Bills as on most things. I liked what he said about liking London messy and rumbustious, but a lot of other people do not want it to be too messy. A lot of foreign tourists say to me that London is dirty. That is a great shame. We need a certain degree of control. I raised the issue of chestnut vendors with the people writing the Bill because, over the years, it has always been a great thing that in London you had the smell of the roasting chestnuts in season. I am told that there is no likelihood of that vanishing, so I was pleased by that.

My noble friend Lord Lucas seemed to think that the council wants to move to covered markets. Covered markets are totally different from street markets. There is no suggestion whatever of that happening. Westminster Council values its street markets; it does not have many of them, but it values them, and people who live near them and even people who live some distance away and still make a point of visiting them value them. There is no suggestion of moving people out of ordinary markets. Someone mentioned changing people's pitches. That might be a positive rather than a negative thing, because, on days when not all stalls are there, a market can become very spread out. Under the flexibility in the Bill, the council could arrange that on days when only half the stalls are there, they bunch up together. That is easier and provides more atmosphere. If you have to walk a long way, you are not likely to walk to the isolated stall in the distance because there is no one in between.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned other boroughs. It is true that London is changing and that things are spreading out, but the Bill might prove such a success that other boroughs may propose similar

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1457

Bills. It may be proved that there is a need for a variety, but we must wait to see how it works. The point that I keep making is that very little in the Bill is a change from the 1999 Act, so most of it is in operation now and has been shown to work well. Consultation must and will continue.

I must comment on pedlars, because they have been mentioned by almost everyone. One problem is that to get a pedlar’s licence, all you have to do is go to your local constabulary and pay just under £13. That is widely different in cost from a street trader’s licence. Many pedlars then attempt to operate as street traders, which is quite unfair to street traders. They are different categories. The Pedlars Act goes back a great way in history, but the problem in Westminster has been that there has been no enforcement to differentiate and stop the illegal street traders who claim to be pedlars.

The typical question is: how long do you have to be in a location before you are classified as a trader? The answer is that if you are there for up to 20 minutes, you are still a pedlar, but if you stay there after 20 minutes, you are a trader. Should enforcement officers have to stand and watch someone for 20 minutes and then move him on? The Bill makes no change whatever to the position of pedlars, but enforcement might be more possible.

There are many other points to be considered. Let me check whether there is anything desperately important that I have not commented on. I must comment on the remarks of my noble friend Lord De Mauley. The lawful activities of traders will be protected. That is the aim of the Bill. First, that is nothing to do with pedlars; secondly, the other Bills that he mentioned can be clearly distinguished from this one.

13 Mar 2009 : Column 1458

A point that no one has mentioned is that the Bill would allow the council to determine how many tables and chairs can be set out on the footpath. I remember a time when that was not allowed in London at all. I think that it adds greatly to the street scene that people can. At the moment, you can have permission to put tables and chairs out there for only six months. Under the Bill, you could have that permission for up to three years before you have to apply to renew it. It would be much easier for people running those restaurants to know that they have that degree of continuity.

So there are good things in the Bill. It is a detailed Bill; there is an awful lot in it. I could go on and on, but I will not, because I know that everyone wants to be getting home. I thank everyone who has taken part today. Every word said today will, I am sure, be carefully considered by the Select Committee, and I ask noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Select Committee.

House adjourned at 3.20 pm.

Correction

On Thursday 12 March, Lord Haworth should have been recorded as voting Not-Content in Division 1, in place of Lord Howarth of Newport. On Thursday 5 March, Lord Parekh should have been recorded as voting Not-Content in Division 1, in place of Lord Pannick.

---