| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Minister also invokes the Rogers review, which supposedly looked at these matters. I suggest, however, that the review deals with enforcement, not with the real problem—the defunct definition of pedlars and street traders in modern market conditions. I am also surprised that the Rogers review says that the problem, if it is one—this is what it implies—has only a low impact on the community. That is wholly understandable, because until there is a calamity of the shambles-in-the-Shambles sort, where things begin to go wrong and there is public disorder, there is not going to be anything else. The case of those consumers who bought something one week at the market and returned the following week to find the bird has flown comes to the attention of the local authority, but all consumers see are market traders of one description or another. It falls to the police, the local authorities and TSOs to ensure that the market is operating properly. The invocation of the Rogers review therefore does not work.
We are now told that the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill will help with this problem. I ask the Minister to demonstrate how the Bill will change out-of-date legislation. It seeks only to sweeten the pill that, through the ages, has become a placebo. Mr Ian McCartney, a previous Minister for the DTI, was clearly sympathetic to the cause of having national legislation. He wrote to Pat McFadden MP in the Cabinet Office, who replied that there was a lack of parliamentary time. We are taking two weeks off in addition to our usual work next year. Perhaps we can deal with this legislation in April. That would be successful.
Finally, I make a plea to the Minister. Next week, on 6 December, Dr Brian Iddon will repeat a presentation Bill, as I understand it is called, which follows up the 10-Minute Rule Bill that he offered to the House on a previous occasion. The Minister has argued the case well in the past, and doubtless he will bring fresh information and fresh arguments to the debate in your
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1395
5.45 pm
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I had the pleasure of serving under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on these two Bills. It is the second time that I have served on such a committee. Last year, I served on the Select Committee which looked at the Leicester, Maidstone and Liverpool Bills. In all details, these five Bills were the same. I understand from the Private Bill Office, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that 10 or 11 more of these Bills are in the pipeline. I totally agree that it is high time to have national legislation to deal with this problem. We have heard the arguments from the objectors, who in fact have been more bona fide traders than the fly-by-nights who cause all the problems. There should be a regime to enable them to operate sensibly in parallel with the proper market traders whom we all respect. I heartily back everything that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has said and I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord Bilston: My Lords, I congratulate Bournemouth and Manchester on obtaining Third Readings of their Private Bills. I commend the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, who has done a very powerful job tonight for the many local authorities up and down this land. They are crying out for national legislation to deal with many problems, some of which have been enumerated by the noble Lord. I speak as the joint chairman of the All-Party Group on the Markets Industry. I am privileged to share that chairmanship with the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
I assure noble Lords that we have toiled endlessly for several years under the great tutelage of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who was our worthy secretary for several years and the founder of the group. Both Houses have worked together to assemble the evidence, which was produced by the National Association of British Market Authorities, the National Market Traders Federation, the Association of Private Market Operators and others. We have had endless meetings with Ministers. All the issues debated today were raised with Ministers. As has been said, the previous Minister for the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr Ian McCartney, was made well aware of the situation. He was very sympathetic, but he has moved on. Now we have to deal with the new Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I hope that the message from this House, given by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, will assist us in bringing this matter forward. The honourable Brian Iddon will bring forward his Private Member’s Bill again.
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1396
I appeal to the Minister to take from this House the message that we need a national plan and that we need to repeal the Pedlars Act. We need to bring forward legislation that will give the support and protection so desperately needed by all local authorities, which is being achieved tonight in these two Bills for Bournemouth and Manchester. There are many Bills in the pipeline, and if we have to go through an endless process of dealing with them in this way, it will be a very long time before towns and cities up and down the country get the support and protection they need from Parliament. So I beg the Minister to take our message back to his department and the other departments of state that are involved. Their representatives have come to our meetings, and we have discussed the issues and produced the blueprint; in fact, we produced a Bill that will allow them to give us the response that is so desperately needed. I therefore ask the Minister to bring forward national legislation.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, when the noble Lord who spoke for Manchester talked about the persecution of face painters and hair braiders, I recalled that for many years London Transport persecuted buskers and thus deprived us of the pleasure of their company. It reminded me why my heart opposes this kind of legislation so deeply, but that is not the issue for today. Local authorities are entitled to make their towns and cities duller places if that is what they wish to do, although as someone who visits Bournemouth for the occasional conference, I think that would take some talent. But here the Government are making a real mess.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said, we have a plethora of these Bills. They are not all quite the same; there are minor differences between them so that we are putting together a patchwork of law around the country. Each little Bill contains its own innovations. We now have services coming in. How does that affect prostitution? Does it mesh with the law on prostitution, which quite clearly it covers? We are getting all sorts of inconsistencies and things which have not been thought through. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said that this will create great expense for local authorities. It is difficult for those who want to set up in a trade to find out what the regulations are from one place to another. We are being inefficient and expensive and we are doing things wrong.
If the Government do not support these Bills, they should not allow them to pass. If they do, they should be doing something nationally. I suggest that the Minister should have a quiet word in the ear of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and point out to him the precedents of such as the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which started as a Private Bill in the House of Lords and ended up as legislation without a great deal of trouble. It works very well that way round because it is hard for an MP to do this. But it is actually quite easy for us, so long as the Government give the proposal a fair wind.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eden,
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1397
I was grateful to see the noble Lord on his feet as the joint chairman. We had another joint chairman called Brian Iddon, and you can see the genesis of the agitation. It shows what authorities have been driven to do when faced with the insidious spread of malpractice by pedlars. The Pedlars Act is all very well, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Eden, said that it comes from a bygone age. That is right, but the situation has changed and something needs to be done about it.
I have had some influence in those organisations and I am still very concerned with them. More than once the Minister’s ministerial colleagues have addressed us and been very warm. I remember that when Gerry Sutcliffe was the Minister he was very warm and friendly towards us. Eventually civil servants came to address us on the practicalities, but they were less than lukewarm on doing something about it. We were told that this matter was not strictly for the Department of Trade and Industry but also concerned local government and the Home Office. If we believe that we are the party of joined-up government, why cannot we join up the government departments and do this kind of thing?
It was with dismay that I found that Newcastle, my home town, was driven into spending a great deal of ratepayers’ money. I was told earlier in the debate that 10 towns are queueing up with private Bills, including Leeds, Canterbury, Nottingham and Reading, but why should local authorities be put to this great expense and aggravation? They do not want to do it; they are driven to do it. A council—and I was once a leader of a council—would not easily or idly incur the enormous expense of legislation unless it was driven to do so. My noble friend the Minister should take this away, without commitment, and recognise that my good friend in the other place, Brian Iddon, is persistent and keeping well up on this.
I dearly miss my good friend Joe Dean—Lord Dean of Beswick—who was Manchester through and through. More than once he stood up in this Chamber and said that he was proud to represent the city of Manchester because it had the two finest football teams in the land—Manchester City and Manchester City reserves. He meant it. He was fiercely Manchester, the leader of the council, and he knew the area. I simply say, in the memory of my good friend Joe Dean, that I am grateful for what has been said about the needs of Manchester, which is a fine city.
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1398
The point was made that when the itinerant pedlar is driven out of a large city by Bills of this kind, he will go somewhere else and eventually the Government’s hand will be forced. I know about legislative restraint and time but pegs sometimes appear. The first decision we made was to say to the Government, “The action required is to abolish the Pedlars Act but to recognise that simply abolishing that Act will not solve the problem. You will need to do far more than that”.
Legitimate traders, who pay rent, rates, insurance, lighting, heating and congestion charges, and who pay for safety at work, holidays, sick pay and pensions, are carrying the burden and, unfairly, pedlars are riding on the back of the services provided. When we had meetings with representatives of the Local Government Associations, London Councils, trading standards officers and the police, they all said that there is a need for this legislation. So I say to my very good friend the Minister—I understand that he will be able to say very little positively today—will he make sure when Hansard is printed that his colleagues in other government departments are aware that there is a move and a mood that should not be ignored?
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the committee so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. I concur with everything that the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Methuen said. I hope the Government can do something about it—even hand out the Bill in another place.
6 pm
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government are grateful to the Opposed Bill Committee, particularly its chairman, my noble friend Lord Harrison, for producing a special report concerning the Bournemouth Borough Council and Manchester City Council Private Bills. I understand that the House has relatively few occasions to debate in this way following a committee report. I am pleased, therefore, to have the opportunity to speak to the issues raised regarding both Bills.
I make it clear right from the start that as per normal the Government do not take any view on the Private Bills—they are a matter for Parliament to decide—so my remarks will be addressed to the powerful arguments that have been put forward from all sides of the House by experienced parliamentarians, some of whom originally came here from the other place while others have spent their distinguished careers in this House. I accept that the arguments have been put in a powerful and proper way by noble Lords. We have carefully considered the committee’s recommendation, based on general street trading policy concerns, that a national review should be undertaken of street trading with a view to introducing legislation. It may not come as a complete surprise to the House that the Government cannot support that particular recommendation. I shall explain why we have taken that decision.
We recognise that a number of interested parties strongly believe that there should be national street- trading legislation. We understand the concern about the proliferation of Private Bills to regulate street trading, and the legislation on pedlars is certainly
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1399
We should not forget that local authorities, including those that face particular difficulties with street trading or pedlars, are already able to tackle illegal street trading and to tackle street traders selling counterfeit or dangerous goods. By way of example only, enforcement officers might conduct an initial advisory discussion or chat with an unlicensed trader on their first interaction with him. The enforcement officer might counsel the trader to obtain the necessary licence to trade or pedlar’s certificate and tell him the consequences of continuing to trade outside the law. A trader would immediately be subject to the attention of other enforcement partners such as the police or the Federation Against Copyright Theft if he was selling illegal, dangerous or counterfeit merchandise such as DVDs. In those circumstances, his goods may be seized, since seizure is within the scope of the legislation that applies there. Enforcement action against a persistent unlicensed trader who had already been subject to verbal or written warnings might ultimately result in a level 3 fine of up to £1,000. Where further powers are needed in particular locations, as we see by the Bills before us today, a local authority can make the case and obtain the requisite powers via a Private Bill.
Noble Lords should note that the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill received its Second Reading in this House yesterday. That legislation will, where appropriate, allow local authorities and other regulators to impose a range of administrative sanctions as an alternative to criminal prosecution when enforcing existing legislation, thereby reducing the need for local authorities to promote individual Private Bills.
We accept that there have been some complaints about this position from some local authorities, but the vast majority of local authorities have not complained. It may just be that the majority of authorities are able to enforce street-trading controls in their area efficiently and effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned, in what I agree was a powerful speech, the Rogers review. Peter Rogers is the chief executive of Westminster City Council and his review was published in March. The Government’s decision not to carry out a full review of this area was influenced by the Rogers review of the national enforcement priorities for local authorities. The review used an evidence-based approach to prioritise more than 60 policy areas enforced by local regulatory services. It evaluated the risk that the policy area aimed to control, the effectiveness of actions
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1400
The review of Mr Rogers does not provide a basis for thinking that new national powers are needed for all local authorities. Naturally, to carry out the full and detailed investigation that would be needed if we were to accept the recommendation of this House’s committee, we would need first a convincing case that all or at least the vast majority of local authorities face considerable enforcement difficulties in respect of street trading. In our view, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Government now to undertake a review of an issue so recently subject to informed consideration.
A review by government would be needed before we could move in this field. I agree with my noble friend Lord Graham, who said that it would involve far more than just abolishing the Pedlars Act, which would not nearly be sufficient. To do a proper job, we would need to establish the views of all local authorities, consult other interested government departments—principally, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office—and commission research into the views of businesses, street traders, the police and pedlars. Expenditure on research could be considerable, because street-trading stakeholders are a diverse community and unlikely to be easy to engage in discussion, particularly given their status as small, even micro- businesses. All the stakeholder views that we have heard so far have been from one side.
Having considered the matter carefully, we think that a review resourced in this way would take about a year to produce conclusions. It would not be a small undertaking, and we doubt that it would be proportionate to the scale of the problems and the Government’s priorities in this area.
I know that what I have said will be a disappointment to all noble Lords who have spoken and no doubt others who have listened to the debate or read its content in Hansard. However, there are 410 local authorities and only a few have so far seen a need for more powers. The new Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill to which I referred, which received its Second Reading yesterday, will allow local authorities a range of new powers that will enable enforcement to be carried out more quickly and easily. These include fixed penalty and stop notices.
Having given the House the bad news, I shall say two things that I have been invited by noble Lords to say. Of course, I shall ensure that the report of this important debate will be shown to the relevant Minister in my department and in other departments that have an interest in this matter. I also guarantee to talk to the Minister in my department about what attitude the Government should take to Dr Iddon’s Bill when it comes before another place. Those are the comments that I make on behalf of the Government.
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1401
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will have listened with great care to what the Minister had to say. I hope that they will appreciate that it is not for me to comment in any way or detail on his observations. My concern is with the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which is most urgently needed. The Bill was presented in January. Will the Minister do all that he can with his colleagues and authorities in the other place to ensure that it reaches the statute book very quickly and does not suffer any further delay?
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Manchester City Council Bill [HL]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Statistics Board
6.11 pm
Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements will be made for parliamentary scrutiny of the operation of the new Statistics Board.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity, albeit at a somewhat later hour than I had anticipated, to return to an issue debated in both Houses during the passage of the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, as it then was; it is now an Act. As part of the Government’s expressed aim to restore public trust in the statistics system by distancing Ministers from influencing the production and distribution of official statistics, the Act establishes a new Statistics Board, with enhanced powers to promote and safeguard the production and publication of official statistics that serve the public good.
Ministers have also made plain from the start their wish that the board should, instead of reporting to Ministers, be directly subject to monitoring and scrutiny by Parliament. The Act therefore lays a duty on the board to produce each year an annual report on its activities and plans and to lay that report before the UK Parliament and the devolved elected bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However—and I say this quite properly—the Act is silent on the arrangements that each Parliament or Assembly may wish to make. The setting up of committees has traditionally been a matter for each House to decide for itself after discussion between the usual channels.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |