Manchester City Council Bill [Lords](By Order)

The people involved were itinerant. The fact that they came from somewhere else, constantly moved around and did not give clear identities made it almost impossible for Brent council to prosecute. The council said the law as it stood was completely unworkable, but it is confident that the new provisions will enable it to deal with people in a different way. For example, people who trade in one place—in this case, outside Wembley stadium—are classed as street traders, and that makes it much easier for the council to take the action that local people want it to take. The aim is not to criminalise all pedlars. The ones who operate effectively as street traders are being brought under the street trading legislation, and that is what most hon. Members present this afternoon are asking for. No one wants to criminalise people who sell from house to house: the aim is to bring those who do not conduct their business in that way under existing street trading law. I support the Bills before us, but I have a couple of detailed concerns about the way they are drafted. As with similar pieces of private legislation, they allow councils to hold seized goods for up to 56 days before proceedings must be instituted. That contrasts with the legislation that applies to London, where local authorities are allowed to hold seized goods for only 28 days. They can hold vehicles for only two days, unless a repeat offence is involved. If goods are held for eight weeks without proceedings being instituted, or even an undertaking that they will be, there is a danger that the procedure is the punishment. That is not good legislation, so we need to iron out those details. Perhaps the wording can be changed to ensure that authorities have a duty to release goods as soon as there is a decision not to proceed. There are many ways of dealing with the situation—it is just a matter of detail—but it is of concern to me. The Bill has no provisions in respect of an appeals procedure. Normally, fixed penalty notices allow a person to discharge their liability for conviction for an offence by paying money to an authority. There are examples in many pieces of legislation, such as the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which provided for penalty notices for graffiti and fly-posting. In all those cases, individuals can discharge their liability for conviction by payment, and if they want to appeal they can do so through the criminal courts. Parking offences are a different matter as they are, in effect, decriminalised and a civil offence: there is an appeals procedure through local councils, and enforcement action can be taken through civil courts if people do not pay their fine. There is a tribunal system and ultimately people can take their case to an independent parking adjudicator. There are different ways to proceed. I think the right way would be an appeals procedure through the criminal courts, because we are considering criminal rather than civil offences, yet there is no provision in the Bill for an appeals procedure. We need to consider that. We shall be debating similar things in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill, where I have similar concerns about the lack of enforcement procedures. The measures are analogous in respect of the way we deal with fixed penalty notices. With those few objections, I express my support for the passage of the Bills.