Canterbury City Council Bill

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a particular issue that one of my constituents has asked me to speak about in this Third Reading debate. People may ask why the Bill was not petitioned against. If that had happened, the procedure that I am not allowed to talk about would have been different. The Bill would have gone to an Opposed Bill Committee, and the scrutiny would have been somewhat different. In any case, however, it would have been impossible for me to be on either type of Committee, as their memberships are not selected as happens with normal Bills. I want to talk about the relationship that the economic situation and unemployment have with removing the right of pedlars to carry out their work in a particular city. Since the Second Reading debate, unemployment in both Nottingham and Canterbury—and, for that matter, in my town—has increased by more than 50 per cent. It seems to me that people who wish to leave the unemployment register and acquire gainful employment could do so by getting a pedlar's licence. They would have to go through certain checks, as such a licence is issued by the police. Such people would then be entitled to go and peddle across the country. In fact, that is the whole point of the pedlar's licence—it is not static. Licensed pedlars do not work from a shop on which they pay rates or rent; instead, they can go round the country—perhaps from door to door—or they may work in a city such as Canterbury, but it is a way for someone to get on the entrepreneurial ladder. As I have said many times in this House, unemployment in my area is now more than double what it was in 1997. In particular, it is 50 per cent. up since this Bill was last discussed, and that is the same for the other councils that we are looking at. It seems to me that restrictions placed on particular towns and cities will affect not only those citizens, but pedlars from all across the UK. Such restrictions affect any pedlar who applies for a certificate in Wellingborough, and might work his way round the country to Nottingham or Canterbury. I take the point that there is illegal rogue trading, but I contend that pedlars are not illegal or rogue. They go through the process of police certification. I am convinced that the vast majority act legally, do not sell counterfeit goods and do not remain in one place, which would break their licence as a pedlar. I accept that there are people who do that, but they are not pedlars. The unemployment levels are so high that we would be silly to choke off legitimate ways in which people can earn their living. In one constituency in Nottinghamshire, adult male unemployment is now 15.4 per cent., and in another it is 14.2 per cent. So choking off an opportunity for people to work seems wrong. That clearly was not considered on Second Reading because the facts of the economic situation were not known then. It certainly was not considered in the Unopposed Bill Committee. I have read the debate that took place in that Committee and, although the members worked hard and asked a lot of questions, they did not have the benefit of the knowledge that the petitioners would have had if they had had early enough notice that this private Bill was being introduced. That is why I believe that the other place will listen to the petitioners and have a better view of the matter. My main contention is that the Bill affects the economic situation of not only people in Nottingham and Canterbury but people across the country, including in my constituency. I know that several hon. Members wish to speak. I do not dispute the correct analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury; I think he is absolutely right. The way forward is as the Minister suggests. He made a helpful and clear statement. What is good about today's debate is that we have a chance to discuss business that, if approved, will become the law of the land. It seems to me very strange that private business tends to be nodded through without debate. I really wonder whether this procedure—