That is absolutely right, and in common language we would call that harassment. Pedlars would be in such a vulnerable position that unreasonable officers would be able to harass them out of town—which, after all, is the motive of many local authorities in promoting their prejudice against lawful pedlars.
There is another difference between the Nottingham and Canterbury Bills and some of the other Bills: the provisions relating to the seizure of perishable items. It has already been said that these two Bills are the most restrictive of any of the so-called pedlars' Bills. Clause 7 highlights the extent of those restrictions. Food cannot be sold under the auspices of a pedlar's licence, but other perishable items such as fresh flowers can be. If flowers were seized, they would be worthless and unsellable shortly afterwards. Although I am no expert on the length of survival of florists' flowers, I believe it is only a matter of a few days, and even then only if they are kept in the right conditions. Although the clause states:""The council or the police shall store any perishable item…at an appropriate temperature","
it will not be as simple as that.
Canterbury City Council Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Christopher Chope
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Canterbury City Council Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c914 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 10:05:00 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609398
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609398
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609398