| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [HL]
5.05 pm
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Both this and the Manchester City Council Bill were deemed to have been read a second time. However, petitions were lodged against them, as a result of which they were referred to a Select Committee of this House chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. He and his colleagues on the Select Committee did a really thorough job of examining both the terms of the Bill and the views of the petitioners. We all owe them a debt of gratitude for that. As noble Lords will know, their conclusions have been published in a special report.
I have an interest to declare in that, for nearly 30 years, I was MP for the constituency of Bournemouth West. It is 24 years since I ceased to be a Member of Parliament for it, and I am proud of the fact that I am an honorary freeman of the borough of Bournemouth.
The Bill deals with street trading, which has generally been subject to statutory control by local authorities. Schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 enables local authorities to control street trading by designating streets in their area as prohibited streets, where it is not permitted, or as consent or licensed streets, where it is permitted subject to the grant of the licence. The 1982 Act enabled councils to control the sale of goods, but not the sale of services. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes to give powers to the council to enable it to control services. Examples of services are, as I have been given them, hair braiding, tooth whitening and henna tattooing.
Bournemouth is a premier holiday destination. In the last year, more than 5 million visitors came either as day visitors or to stay one night or more, so noble Lords will understand that tourism is of key significance to the borough’s economy. The council must be constantly vigilant in a highly competitive environment to ensure that the appeal, attractions and overall image of Bournemouth remain to the fore, both nationally and
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1388
Illegal street trading covers not only services but the sale of goods. Examples are the vendors of sunglasses, kites and items such as rattlesnake eggs, which are a combination of two magnets which, if moved around or thrown up in the air, rattle together resembling the sound of a rattlesnake. Because they contain magnets, noble Lords will readily appreciate that if they are used by or in the vicinity of someone who has a pacemaker they could cause serious mischief.
Many of the goods are of dubious quality and are certainly below the minimum standards for health and safety purposes. They are often sold by people who describe themselves as pedlars. Trading by a person acting as an authorised pedlar is exempt from the street-trading regime under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. To be a legitimate pedlar, the person must have a certificate issued by the police and must keep on the move in the pursuit of the trade. A pedlar’s licence costs only £12.50 per annum. Once issued, the activity can be carried on anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, except where an Act in terms similar to this Bill exists.
The right to be a licensed pedlar is derived from the Pedlars Act 1871. The Act defines, in words delightfully resonant of an age long gone, what a pedlar is:
“The term pedlar means any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, castor of metals, mender of chairs, or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men’s houses carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares or merchandise or procuring orders for goods, wares or merchandise immediately to be delivered, or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft”.
I am sure noble Lords can imagine the great difficulties of bringing before a court a case where an attempt was being made to prosecute a so-called pedlar for not being an authorised pedlar. What happens in practice is that the pedlars sometimes wait to be challenged, and they can stay at the end of a street for something like 20 minutes. As like as not, they will move to the other end of the street, where they will stay for another 20 minutes, and so it goes on. If a prosecution is successful, the fine is extremely limited, probably less than £100, but the legal fees for the council could be in excess of £1,000, so it hardly recoups even its basic costs from the exercise on which it has embarked. The production of evidence is extremely difficult to secure and involves time-consuming work by officials and police. Last year in the borough of Bournemouth it is estimated that it cost the council about £12,000 in enforcement and prosecution of illegal traders. All of this is extremely unfair for legitimate market traders and shopkeepers. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will give some expression to that view, because he is knowledgeable on the subject and has wide experience of the marketplace.
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1389
Pedlars should not be street traders. They are required to move from place to place. Clause 5 amends the appropriate schedule to the 1982 Act to make it clear that a pedlar will not be able to trade in a prohibited street unless trading from place to place, and will not be able to trade in a consent street unless he has first obtained consent from the council, which involves both parties in thorough research and investigation. However, in any street that is neither a consent street nor a prohibited street, the pedlar will be able to carry on trading as before.
Clauses 6 to 9 set out a regime by which council officers and police are able to seize items which they believe are being used in the course of unlawful street- trading, and the courts are given power to forfeit such items if a successful prosecution is secured. Clauses 10 to 14 set out a fixed penalty regime for street trading offences. The provisions enable the recipient of a fixed penalty notice to discharge any criminal liability by the payment of a fixed penalty.
The Select Committee made a strong recommendation that the time is surely long since past when individual councils should be put to the heavy cost of bringing forward private legislation to deal with this nuisance. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, will speak to that point and I may safely leave it to the Minister to answer it, but there is a great deal of strength in the case that the committee put forward in the recommendation in its special report.
There is no doubt that this Bill is urgently needed. Many improvements are under way further to enhance the reputation and prestige of Bournemouth. It would be a grave error if these were allowed to be damaged by illicit street trading. To underpin the planned work to ensure that Bournemouth remains a first-class destination resort, I hope that this Bill will find its way quickly to the statute book.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Eden of Winton.)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I hope that it might be helpful to the House if I intervene briefly, because opposed private Bills do not come before your Lordships as frequently as they used to and not all noble Lords may be familiar with our proceedings on them. Although we are debating the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, the debate should include the Manchester City Council Bill. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, the sponsor of the Manchester Bill, speaks next, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, who chaired the Opposed Bill Committee which considered both Bills. Other noble Lords may then speak and I think that the Minister will wind up the debate, before the noble Lord, Lord Eden, winds up and the Motion that the Bill do now pass is decided on. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, will then move formally the Third Reading and passing of the Manchester Bill.
As these are Private Bills, the question of their principle has not been decided at Second Reading and, in those circumstances, speeches on the Motion are permitted, although the usual rules of debate apply. If there are any questions on Private Bill procedure, I shall be happy to try to answer them during the debate.
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1390
Lord Bradley: My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the Manchester City Council Bill and I declare an interest as a former Member of Parliament and councillor in that city. I start by associating myself fully with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eden, in relation to the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and I shall not rehearse the arguments which are very similar to those concerning Manchester.
Manchester has an efficient street-trading system which allows it to grant licences and consents, and there are a number of prohibited streets, particularly in the city centre and notably around the newly refurbished Exchange Square area of the city. A licensed pitch in the areas where street trading is allowed is, as we have heard, a valuable asset, and a street-trading licence within the city currently costs about £625 annually. It is worth repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Eden, said—that the cost of a pedlar’s certificate is only £12.50 per year.
Manchester imposes conditions on its licences in relation to the hours of trading and the type of goods that can be sold at those street-trading pitches. That sort of control is unavailable in respect of pedlars and is a crucial issue addressed by the Bill. One thing that most concerns the legitimate street traders is the fact that all the enforcement activity which street-trading officers have to carry out against pedlars ends up being paid for to a great extent by the increase in charges against the street-trading licences. This is because the city council is able to cover the costs of enforcement across the piece and therefore enforcement against pedlars is put against the cost of street-trading licences.
It is worth noting that the services provided in Manchester which cannot be controlled—a situation similar to that in Bournemouth council—include activities such as windscreen washing at traffic lights, henna tattooing, hair braiding, face painting and, as one photograph that was presented to the Select Committee showed, even teeth whitening. Market Street in the city centre is a particularly popular location for pedlars and on any one day we can expect up to 24 pedlars working in just that one street, selling a range of goods such as sunglasses, toys and various other items. Therefore, we can see that the problems associated with Manchester, Bournemouth and many other cities in the country are similar but they have to be dealt with by single pieces of legislation.
In evidence, city council officers said that, if the pedlars are left alone, they tend not to move and they trade from a stationary position, which is not what they are meant to do. If they are challenged, clearly they move on, but often they move just a short distance in a street such as Market Street in the centre of the city and continue to trade from a new location. The problem is that the city council, through its enforcement officers, simply does not have the resources to keep policing this activity by the pedlars on the streets.
We have a similar and particular problem in the area around the Manchester Evening News Arena, where one finds unlawful traders selling counterfeit goods related to concerts that are regularly held at that venue. The Select Committee was told in evidence that in some cases the traders tended to congregate in the
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1391
Finally in this brief contribution I highlight the fact that Greater Manchester Police are fully supportive of the Manchester Bill. Indeed, a senior police officer attended the Select Committee to give evidence. I shall not dwell on the point about national legislation, which may well be dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, but Manchester certainly takes the view that it would be preferable to address these issues by national legislation rather than have to go to the trouble and expense of promoting private legislation in every case. On behalf of Manchester City Council, I thank members of the Select Committee who sat through two full days of evidence in July and gave both promoters and petitioners a full and fair hearing. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, as chairman of the Opposed Bill Committee I start by thanking my four colleagues who sat with me for two days and all the officers who so ably helped us. I also thank the two sponsors of the Bills, who have explained the problems so well from their own experience of their towns. I am pleased to see the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Turner, who will no doubt tell us that as members of the All-Party Group on the Markets Industry they have wide knowledge on this issue.
I also thank the opponents of the Bill and the agents, Mr McGerr and Mr Robert Campbell-Lloyd, for sending information on the Bill even at this late hour. We listened to them carefully, but neither I nor my committee was persuaded by their opposition. One minor recommendation we made was that local authorities should be minded in implementing the legislation to ensure that the officers are well and properly trained in how to advise street traders and in particular pedlars who wish to ply their trade.
The problem, which has been put before us so well, is the consequence of outdated legislation and concerns the distinction between a pedlar and a street trader. The pedlars’ legislation is ancient, dating from 1871 and 1881, and addresses the simple idea of someone plying their trade from door to door, hence carrying their wares; whereas a street trader has a pitch with a licence and typically has a stall from which he or she offers goods or services. The definition is now being abused. Street traders are using the cheaper pedlars’ licences. These licences are not only cheaper but can be issued in one town and used, in a portable way, across the length and breadth of Britain. Genuine street traders, who pay a lot more for their licences, are restricted in where they can obtain a licence and can set up their pitch only in that one town or city.
The regulation of these two different kinds of trader is enormously difficult not only for local authorities but for the police. I might add that responsibility for licensing pedlars falls to the police but for street traders to the local authorities. That also causes confusion. Alex Chadd, a member of South
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1392
5.30 pm
The law is in confusion. I could give your Lordships many of the examples that are so well set out in Street Traders and Pedlars Legislation—The Case for Reform, which was published by the All-Party Group on the Markets Industry. I am sure that colleagues from the group will speak tellingly of that report. However, I shall give one example in which street traders observed a pedlar essentially setting up as a street trader and called in the police. The policeman concerned was so confused by the law he had to enforce that he said to the pedlar, “Don’t move! You stay on that pitch so that when I come back in an hour I can check that you’re still there and not doing anything unlawful”. At a stroke of the law he changed him from a pedlar into a street trader, much to the chagrin of the genuine street traders.
There are in this unhappy situation numerous associated problems which have been partly described by the noble Lords sponsoring the legislation. These problems include the issue of faulty or illegal goods and how to acquire a refund. A street trader who has the same pitch from week to week can respond to a dissatisfied consumer or trading standards officer whereas the pedlar is gone the next week and there is no recourse for the consumer seeking fair play. We have countless examples of local authorities such as Portsmouth saying that anything that is done to repeal the 1871 Act will be well received. Attempts to move pedlars on can be labour intensive, and that is an important point. The current system of dealing with pedlars in Birkenhead is so long-winded that it is ineffective. In Southampton, because of the outdated Pedlars Act, a considerable amount of the time of police and city centre staff is occupied in bringing offenders to court. In Winchester, pedlars contribute nothing to the local economy but often pass on shabby inferior goods to the unsuspecting public.
The law is ineffective because, as a result of these ancient laws, the fines are too small to inhibit pedlars trading as street traders. There is seldom an opportunity to confiscate goods, a practice which could otherwise be a route to salvation. It is interesting to note that the London Local Authorities Act 2004, which sought to remedy the problem, included provision for confiscation and higher fines, which have largely solved the problem.
Danger is also an issue because of the potential for public disorder concerns. Many noble Lords will be acquainted with the lovely town of York and the narrow street called the Shambles, which boasts properly licensed street traders. But it occasionally is a shambles because other pedlars come along to fill the street and make it much more difficult to pass. We sometimes have to be concerned about overloading such streets where markets ought to be operating vibrantly.
As for the current position, there has been a series of Private Bills from local authorities. I chaired the committee considering the eighth and ninth—so that
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1393
The letters that I have received from the Government imply that this is not a matter of great moment. However, on 16 May, our colleague from the other end of the Palace of Westminster, Dr Brian Iddon MP, attended a meeting specifically called to deal with the pedlar problem in London. Some 40 local authorities attended. I shall furnish the Minister with a list of them if he has not already got one. People do not come down to London for a single-item agenda if they are not already sensitised to a problem which needs to be dealt with. So far we have had piecemeal legislation. One fact that was borne in upon the committee is that it is absurd for committees to sit and deal with this type of legislation again and again only to arrive at the same conclusion.
There is a further problem on which the House might like to reflect. The four cities I mentioned are large ones, but when the legislation goes through the pedlars will have to move on as they will be prevented from imitating street traders. The effect will be to displace them to smaller market towns. My wife and I rejoice in the market town of Garstang, in Lancashire, and we love to go there on Thursdays. It is only a small town of some 8,000 people, but I can see that the pedlar problem will arise there too. It will have consequences for the police, for instance, who will not necessarily have the opportunities and facilities to reconnoitre the markets, and consequences for trading standards officers. That is why it is imperative that we get on and do something about this.
The committee I chaired recognised not only that the law is in confusion but that costs are involved. We understood that the cost of obtaining an Act for Newcastle upon Tyne, one of the first local authorities to institute legislation, was £200,000. That legislation has been successful in that the pedlars in Newcastle upon Tyne have moved over to Gateshead—what a waste of public money. The additional costs for the police and the local authority have been well explained by my noble friend Lord Bradley and by the noble Lord, Lord Eden. There are also costs in bureaucracy and as a result of filling the courts that must, with great difficulty, deal with these matters. There is also the cost of Opposed Bill Committees in your Lordships’ House. Quite frankly we have better things to do than spend two days summoning QCs to address these issues, especially when we always come out with the same result.
The committee had a reply to its decision from Gareth Thomas MP, on behalf of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The Government allow that there is a problem particularly with pedlars. It is good that we have that understanding. They say that “some” authorities are concerned about this matter. However, I contend that the list I read out, and the growing list of those who wish to seek Private Bill legislation, shows that this is not about “some” authorities but is a nationwide problem. We are told
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1394
Astonishingly, the Government tell us that the department needs evidence of these matters on which to base concerns and to bring forward legislation. Surely the series of Bills that comes streaming into the House is evidence enough. The fact that an all-party group is producing well researched papers on street trading also demonstrates the need, as does the fact that the street traders and the associations that represent them—NABMA, the NMTF and APMO; I will translate those acronyms for the Minister if he wishes—have spoken on this, as have ACPO and the ATCM, the Association of Town Centre Management, and the LGA itself. When the Minister says in his letter that there is an absence of evidence and that the case has not been properly made, I contest that all the way.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |