Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords]

Effectively, it would. My hon. Friend is an experienced practitioner of the law, and he knows that if a pedlar had a horse or a beast with him, he could not possibly comply with the terms of amendment 74. However, that is—as lawyers would say—an academic point, rather than one of practical substance. However, that comment might sound rather more critical than I intended to be of my hon. Friend. Amendment 74 is essentially a new clause, replacing clause 5. Importantly, proposed new sub-paragraph (2B) states:""For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2A)(b), above 'trading' includes the display or offer of items for sale."" Clause 5 currently does not make that clear, but it is vital that that provision of the pedlars legislation is retained intact. Many of my other amendments in this group remove the worst inaccuracies or ambiguities from the interpretations that the Bill's promoters have put on the words of the Opposed Private Bill Committee. They are, therefore, alternative amendments to amendment 74. That amendment effectively completely redrafts clause 5, but each of these other amendments tweaks a part of the clause that gives the wrong impression and would make bad law if unamended. Amendment 7 would delete the word "only" from clause 5(1)(a). By inserting that word there, for the purposes of the Bill, its promoters narrow the definition of "pedlar" from the existing definition as restated in the 1982 Act, and I do not think that that can be accidental. Amendment 7 would delete the word "only" in respect of trading that is carried out""by means of visits from house to house"" and so forth. Amendment 24 seeks clarity. I received strong representations on this matter from pedlars. They think "location" is far too broad a term. The Opposed Private Bill Committee used the word "place" in its recommendations, rather than "location", but I think the word "position" conveys a much better and more precise definition. A pedlar would then be in a particular position—standing on a square space of a few paving stones, perhaps—rather than in a "location", which might be regarded as a particular street or a much wider area. I hope that this amendment will find favour with the promoters of the Bill, because it more accurately conveys the intentions of the Opposed Bill Committee and will avoid a lot of argument about what is meant by "location".