Christopher Chope
Main Page: Christopher Chope (Conservative - Christchurch)(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker
When the debate was adjourned last Thursday, we were considering the second group of Lords amendments and the amendments to them. Mr Chope was speaking on Lords amendment C6 to the Canterbury City Council Bill. With this amendment, we were also considering the following:
Lords amendments C7 and C8, and C9 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Canterbury City Council Bill.
Lords amendments L3 and L4, and L5 and amendments (a) to (h) thereto to the Leeds City Council Bill.
Lords amendments N3 to N5, and N6 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Nottingham City Council Bill.
Lords amendments R4 to R7, and R8 and amendments (a) to (i) thereto to the Reading Borough Council Bill.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When we adjourned proceedings at 3.27 pm last Thursday, we were less than an hour into the debate on these amendments.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He had just said:
“I do not need to speak any longer on this group of amendments”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 1120.]
I hope that remains the case.
Mr Chope
I have no intention, Mr Deputy Speaker, of trying your patience. Given, however, that a few parliamentary colleagues are still hanging around, I thought that I would put on the record an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the deputy Chief Whip during Monday’s proceedings, when it was made clear that, although it was possible this debate might start at 4 o’clock and continue until 7 o’clock, if it ran late, it would not be of any significance, because there would be a one-line Whip and no interference in our affairs, whether from the Government or anybody else. I want to make it clear to anybody who thinks that they have to still hang around in the Chamber because this is whipped business, that it is not.
Philip Davies
To clarify that point, a message has gone out from the Whip’s Office to all colleagues saying that we are officially on a one-line Whip.
Mr Chope
I am pleased to have that confirmation. It means that our attendance is voluntary.
Since we have a new Minister, I hope that she will take the opportunity to expand on what her ministerial colleague said briefly in an intervention in the previous debate. In other words, will she explain the full implications of the Government’s consultation paper, in which the Government said they had no choice but to abolish the Pedlars Act 1871 to comply with the European services directive? I hope that she will explain how, if that is correct, the Government can support amendment C9 passed in their lordships House.
In conclusion, I hope that I will be able to move formally amendment (g) to Lords amendment C9, because it is the most telling amendment down in my name in this group of amendments. Amendment (g) would remove the provision allowing designation in order to prevent obstruction of the highway. That is such a wide provision that it effectively reintroduces by the back door the touting provisions in clause 11, which Lords amendment 15 would remove. Anybody could be thought to be able potentially to obstruct the highway; therefore, the local authorities concerned would be able to designate areas where no activity could take place whatever, which would be a total abuse. That is why I would like the opportunity in due course to test the will of the House on amendment (g).
Mr Deputy Speaker
Mr Nuttall, I was waiting, but you did not jump up as quickly as you normally do. I do not want to stop you from having at least a minute.
Mr Nuttall
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope we have a chance to hear from the Minister on the points that have been raised. I am sure she will have read what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said in opening the debate last Thursday.
I rise to speak to this group of Lords amendments and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend for debate in the House last Thursday. I thank him for the comprehensive way he set out the amendments in that debate and in his concluding remarks today. Let me also say how grateful I am for the work undertaken in the other place by the noble Lords. They have thoroughly and efficiently considered all the issues involved in these Bills. Their noble lordships were not prepared simply to nod these Bills through, as some might have feared, including—I have to say, with much regret—myself. One could well have forgiven their lordships for thinking that as these Bills had been trundling along the parliamentary legislative pathway for some time—albeit at the pace of a rather arthritic snail—there could not possibly be any purpose in subjecting them to further detailed scrutiny.
As it is, their noble lordships recognised the importance of pedlars in our society, as those of us who take an interest in these matters in this place do too. The place of pedlars in the life of our nation dates back to the time of Chaucer. Their noble lordships considered the general principles behind the introduction of these Bills and how the detail of the new proposed laws would operate in practice. Pedlars are the ultimate in micro-businesses. The ability for someone with a relatively small amount of capital to start a business travelling from place to place buying and selling goods has been the starting point for many of our great businesses, including some household names.
It would seem that the local authorities promoting the four private Bills before us today were at least partly motivated by a wish to protect the revenue they received from licensed street traders. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, it was suggested in the other place that these Bills were seeking to achieve the “total eradication of pedlars” from the streets of the cities of Canterbury, Leeds and Nottingham and the borough of Reading. As hon. Members will be aware, there is a great deal of difference between a pedlar and a street trader. It was submitted that the reason why it was thought necessary to try to remove pedlars from those three cities and one borough was to prevent the streets from being obstructed by pedlars as they stopped to sell their wares. Their lordships did not accept that it was appropriate to remove pedlars completely, but they did think it appropriate that the size of the trolley used by pedlars should be limited. Amendment C9 seeks to do just that. It is worth noting the words used by Baroness Knight of Collingtree, who chaired the Select Committee established in the other place to consider the Bills, to justify amendment C9. Referring to the fact that counsel for the local authorities promoting the Bills had produced photographs supporting their contention that the pedlars were causing unacceptable congestion, she said:
“The members of the committee asked for evidence and they produced photographs of their streets, which of course were very crowded. We scrutinised them carefully and asked questions.”
The crucial sentence follows:
“We concluded that nothing we had been shown, or told, proved the case that the local authorities were making.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 445.]
That is a most telling statement. I submit that it provides proof to the House of what my hon. Friends and I have been trying to establish from the outset—namely, that the Bills are far from straightforward. It should not be taken for granted that the case for the legislation has been proven, or that the Bills should simply be nodded through the House without detailed scrutiny. What has happened in the other place has largely justified the stance taken by my hon. Friends when the Bills were previously considered in this House.
We have already seen how, as a result of the first group of amendments, clauses 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, which deal with seizure, forfeiture and the payment of compensation, were all taken out of the Bill completely. They were not amended, or even slightly modified; they were removed in their entirety. In this group, amendment C8 deletes clause 4 completely and amendment C9 deletes clause 5 altogether and replaces it with an entirely new clause whose purpose is completely different from the original one.
It is worth noting the details of the proposed new clause. It sets out in great detail the nature of the trolley that a pedlar would be permitted to use. It gives overall dimensions for the trolley when it is being used, but it also—rather unnecessarily, in my opinion—gives details of the size of the trolley when empty. I am not sure what the relevance of that could be. Surely the overall dimensions set out in proposed new paragraph (2C) would be sufficient. Provided the trolley did not exceed a width of 0.88 metres, a depth of 0.83 metres or a height of 1.63 metres, I fail to see how it could be prejudicial to the council or to the users of the highway. I also fail to see how it would prevent an obstruction from being caused if the trolley were of a different size from that set out in proposed new paragraph (2B), which specifically states that it should not exceed a width of 0.75 metres, a depth of 0.5 metres and a height of 1.25 metres.
There is no explanation of why those precise, detailed figures have been chosen. What is the special significance of a width of 0.88 metres? Why not a width of—
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Shame it may be, but I think the time has come. I enjoy hearing the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), but I do not think there is anything new in what he says, so I will accept the closure.
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It is a point of order, and the answer is that it is up to the Member in charge whether he wishes to speak to the amendments or not, and obviously he did not. Does anybody wish to speak to them?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Can we have a little silence? As we wish to hear Mr Chope, will Members be quiet if they are leaving the Chamber?
Mr Chope
Mr Deputy Speaker, you in your wisdom accepted that these Lords amendments, which relate to touting, should be dealt with in a separate group, and that is what we are discussing. The lead amendment would remove clause 11, and the subsequent amendments deal with consequential matters relating to the touting provision. When we discussed this previously, I cannot remember how many years ago, a lot of concern was expressed.
Mr Brazier
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; he is always courteous in debate. He will recall that these amendments were promised by me in the Commons because he asked for them, and introduced in the Lords exactly as we promised, so I am very surprised that he wants to debate them again.
Mr Chope
We now have, after a bit of pressure, an admission from my hon. Friend that he has done exactly what he said he would do by ensuring that the amendments would be moved successfully in their lordships House. I and my parliamentary colleagues who have fought so valiantly to remove the most pernicious parts of these Bills can now say that, because of the work that we have been doing in this House over many years, the Bills are much improved as a result of these Lords amendments.
As my hon. Friend has said, he promised Lords amendment C15 to this House when these Bills were given their Third Reading. He has honoured that undertaking by ensuring that it was tabled in the other place. It is fair to say that we both think that the other place’s debate took a lot longer than expected. On the basis of the proposed amendments, we had expected the Bills to go through the other place relatively quickly but they did not because their lordships decided to look at them in a lot more detail. As a result, we received a series of Lords amendments, some of which we discussed earlier, that made a significant difference to the Bills—not just to the touting provision, but to the definition of pedlars. Therefore, when I seek the indulgence of the House, it is in order to ensure that my hon. and right hon. Friends and the Opposition realise that this has been a very worthwhile exercise. Although a lot of colleagues have consistently voted against the ideas that I and a number of my hon. Friends have suggested—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think it is very interesting to hear Mr Chope and I hope that other Members will take notice, because a lot of conversations are going on and we are struggling to hear.
Mr Chope
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If there is going to be a Division on any of the amendments in this group, will you give Members notice of it so that if they do not wish to participate in this debate and want to carry on their conversations outside they can do so, and that, in due course, if there is a Division the Division bell will ring in the usual way? Could you make that clear, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I just did make it clear that we do not want any more private conversations. We will stick to the business in hand. I and other Members obviously wish to hear you, so please continue.
Mr Chope
I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Sometimes during the course of discussing these pedlars Bills, we who have been on the side of the pedlars have, in a sense, been given an insight into what it must be like to be a pedlar, against whom there is a lot of prejudice among ordinary members of the public. Similarly, quite a lot of prejudice has been generated against those Members of this House who have stood up for the interests of pedlars. It is helpful for us to reflect on the real changes that we in this House, collectively, have made to the Bills.
Philip Davies
Does my hon. Friend note the irony that, previously, Members stayed behind to vote against the amendments that he and I tabled on touting, yet now they are staying behind to vote for them because the Lords tabled them? It is ironic that Members want to stay behind so late in order to vote differently from how they voted last time.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The obvious reason why this House is so full is that hon. Members wish to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who is always illuminating.
Mr Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as always, for his intervention, but on this occasion he is absolutely wrong.
This is the last group of amendments that we will debate on this Bill. In fact, the amendments relate not only to the Canterbury City Council Bill, but to all the Bills that we are discussing. It is right at this stage to pay tribute to everybody who has participated in these debates.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I have had the pleasure of listening to my hon. Friend on these subjects for a number of years. When I was the Opposition spokesman, I advocated looking at these issues on a national basis so that individual councils did not have to come forward with different Bills. Would that not be a much more sensible approach?
Mr Chope
Absolutely. We have made progress in that regard. When these Bills were first debated, the Labour Government were reluctant to do anything about it, but under the present Government we have had a new consultation paper on the whole subject. That paper makes it clear that the Government’s view is that there may be a strong case for national legislation instead of piecemeal legislation.
The Government have said that if they have to change the legislation to ensure that all the local Acts and the Bills that we are discussing today comply with the EU services directive, they will include the provisions that are put forward by each local authority before the end of the consultation period later this month in collective legislation to ensure that the provisions relating to the rights and responsibilities of pedlars are common throughout the land.
One benefit of this debate having been extended over almost a six-year period is that we have had the chance to consider the impact of the services directive, which, among other things, applies to touting for services, which is the subject of this group of Lords amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) will remember, when we raised the issue of the services directive initially, there was much scepticism among Government Members and people like my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) who have sponsored these Bills. They said that we were raising the services directive as a red herring in order to waste time.
We have now found out that the Government are taking the matter so seriously that they have realised that all the pedlars Acts may have to be repealed to facilitate compliance with the services directive. That implies that when the former Government first thought about the impact of the services directive on the United Kingdom, they and their advisers got it completely wrong. They should surely have understood the implications of the directive when it was being negotiated in Brussels. That is just another example of how we have lost control over our own affairs through the loss of sovereignty, which is being passed to the European Union.
All’s well that ends well in the sense that the Government now recognise that many of the services provisions in these Bills are wholly inappropriate. I suspect that even if my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had not offered, when the Canterbury City Council Bill was before the House on Third Reading, to withdraw the touting provisions in the other place, it would have been necessary to take them out anyway because of their lack of compliance with the services directive.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Is there not something ironic about the European Union coming to the rescue of my hon. Friend to sort this matter out?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have had a good round-up of the Bill and I know that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is now desperate to get back to discussing the amendments.
Mr Chope
I detect that all good things must come to an end, and in the light of the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has behaved, and in tribute to work done by their lordships in the other place and their thorough examination of the Bill, it would be churlish of me to say that I will vote against the amendments in this group. I must, however, have a caveat to that, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. He may persuade me that I am incorrect. Subject to anything that he says, I am—to use an expression from the other place—“content” to allow the Lords amendments to proceed.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and make it clear to the House that he knows so much more about matters than I do; his expertise spreads far and wide. I have certainly learned a lot over the years, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) is also learning a great deal from him.
Given that so many people have shown a belated interest in this Bill, it seems only right that before they vote on the Lords amendments they understand what they have been invited to vote on. In previous discussions on this matter—as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, we have been debating these Bills for around six years—we were, to be perfectly frank, talking to a small audience. We could therefore, through various nods and winks, understand each other’s arguments, and the Bill could rapidly progress and rush to a Division because we all knew what we were talking about. Tonight we are in a unique position where lots of people who want to participate in the voting do not know the Bill’s six years of history as I and my hon. Friend do. We must lay out exactly what people will be voting for in this group of amendments because I would not want anyone to vote inadvertently for something in which they do not believe.
The amendments relate to clause 11 of the Canterbury City Council Bill, and this is the right time to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier). During the passage of the Bill, he has probably felt a great deal of frustration on occasion, as have other Members who have sponsored the Bills. In all fairness to him, he did not sit there in frustration without listening to the arguments and taking on board what was said. He was good enough to listen to the force of the argument. We had a long debate on touting in relation to the Canterbury City Council Bill, and he was good enough to listen to the arguments. As he made clear in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—I did not hear all of it because of the hoo-hah going on at the time—the amendment results from the promise given by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury at previous stages. He said it would be a fair deal to get rid of clause 11.
Hon. Members know that my hon. Friend is one of the most honourable people, if not the most honourable person, in the House. As ever, he has been as good as his word. However, we cannot leave it at that—the Scrap Metal Dealers Bill is a precedent—because assurances given in the House on how legislation will be dealt with in the other place have not always been kept. We cannot therefore take it as read that their lordships decided to accept the amendment on the word of my hon. Friend, because they have decided to ignore the words of other hon. Members in the past. We must therefore presume not only that their lordships wished to keep to my hon. Friend’s word, but that they were persuaded by the case.
It is striking that, whereas the Lords have decided to delete clause 11 from the Canterbury City Council Bill—that is the amendment we are debating—they chose not to delete clause 11 from the Reading Borough Council Bill, which is virtually identical. Clause 11(1)(b) in both Bills lists the places to which the provisions will apply. However, whereas the Reading Borough Council Bill refers only to “a street”, the Canterbury City Council Bill refers to
“a street or esplanade, parade, promenade or way to which the public commonly have access, whether or not as of right.”
That is the only difference in the clauses in the two Bills.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said in his opening remarks, it is perhaps a shame that we have not had a great explanation of what their lordships were thinking when they made the amendment to delete clause 11 from the Canterbury Bill. Is the difference in the wording of the two Bills a matter of principle on touting or a matter of practicality? In essence, the measures are the same.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. It might help if I say that the Minister will come in when Mr Davies sits down. If he wants to give way now, there will be no more, but I would sooner hear a little more.
Philip Davies
I am—I think—grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) may have been becoming confused, but I am beginning to think that I am becoming confused as well. I am not aware that the extra description in subsection (1)(b) has anything to with the fact that this is a city council Bill, as opposed to a borough council Bill. My understanding was that this particular difference related only to the different natures of the places concerned. I presumed that in Reading there was no promenade, parade or esplanade to which the Bill could apply. I could be wrong but my hon. Friend seemed to be arguing that, in effect, it is the same provision but there is a local difference based on the fact that one is a city council and the other is a borough council. My understanding, however, is that it is essentially the same, but it reflects the different nature of the towns and cities concerned. Clause 11 of the Canterbury Bill mentions “parade”, however, and I find it difficult to imagine that there is not a parade in Reading. That would lead me to ask why it is so important to ban selling on a parade in Canterbury, but not on a street in Reading.
Mr Chope
Is not this whole situation complicated by the fact that we have now agreed to Lords amendment C9, the consequence of which is to have designated areas rather than streets? The area set out in clause 11 of the Canterbury City Council Bill could now be regarded as a designated area under amendment C9.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right in that some of the earlier amendments that were so enthusiastically accepted by the House might have implications for this part of clause 11, which is about the designation of where people can or cannot tout their tickets and other goods and services.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is on to a good point, however, particularly when we take into account the potential impact of the decision in Cooper v. the Metropolitan Police Commissioner of 1986, where the courts decided that somebody who was working as a tout for a Soho club was guilty of obstruction. The obstruction provisions as amended by amendment C9 could be used against touts, notwithstanding this amendment, which takes out clause 11.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point. He tried to do something about the issue of causing obstructions in the previous group of amendments. Amendment C9 has been agreed to, and we must consider clause 11 in relation to provisions already accepted. My hon. Friend may well be right that that amendment could make clause 11 redundant, as we have already got the job done. I am not entirely sure whether that is the case, but I am not a lawyer, whereas my hon. Friend has the considerable advantage over me of being a very distinguished lawyer, so I bow to his superior knowledge. These points should be taken into account when Members decide whether to agree to the Lords amendment under discussion.
The other amendments are all consequential, so we do not need to worry ourselves with them. I shall therefore conclude my brief remarks, which took us on a quick canter around the course on touting in general. My hon. Friend said at the end of his speech that he was minded to accept this Lords amendment but would reserve judgment until he had heard what I had to say. Given that the House may choose to vote on this group of amendments, Members will be pleased to know that, as far as I can see, it would be sensible for the House to accept the amendment. It is a sensible amendment and it defends people’s freedoms. I remain curious, however, as to why it applies to Canterbury alone, and not to Reading, and I would prefer it to apply to both, but we will just have to live with that on this occasion. However, I advise the House to accept this Lords amendment, as it makes the Bill much better.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that. We have reached this stage, where we are in a position to vote for an amendment that improves the Bill and protects freedoms, which for me is what this place is all about, only because of the tenacious way in which he has approached the Bill. We should all be indebted to him for the work he has carried out, because when we accept the final group of Lords amendments, as I hope we will, the Bill will be in incredibly better shape than it was when it first came to this House six years ago. So I support these Lords amendments.