London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

I entirely agree. The quality of the legislation that passes through this House would be enormously improved if it was subjected to the sort of Report stage that this Bill is enjoying, when we have the time to examine each clause and, to be fair, the promoters listen to the argument and, where necessary, make amendments, accepting amendments that they find agreeable in this place rather than in the other place. Such amendments improve the quality of the legislation, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green for his patience in this matter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on his comprehensive and detailed analysis of the merits of the various amendments in this third debate. He built on and developed the excellent critique offered by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who continued where he left off on 25 January, with his customary erudite evaluation and critical assessment of street trading. It is a matter of regret that on this occasion we are not able to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who always speaks with such common sense on these matters. We hope that even in his absence our deliberations will not leave any stone unturned. I agreed with all the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for North East Somerset, but one or two further areas of concern and perhaps unease need additional examination this evening. As you will have seen, Madam Deputy Speaker, this group is very large, comprising no fewer than 53 amendments, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset managed to deal with each one in slightly more than a minute, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch dealt with each of them in less than one minute. I shall try to be as quick. The lead amendment relates to clause 9. My concern is not primarily on my own account. My principal concern is that the provisions may have an effect on my constituents living in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington. When many people hear the word ““London””, particularly those living outside the capital, they concentrate their minds on the centre of London, where the principal tourist attractions are located. Of course it is much more than that; it is home to millions of people. I know from the example of many of my friends that many of my constituents will, for one reason or another, at some time live in one of the 32 London boroughs or perhaps even in the City of London. That might be because they are studying at one of the universities in London or because they have moved to the capital for work. Either way, they would be affected by the provisions in the Bill. We should knock on the head at the outset the idea that the Bill, simply because it is called the London Local Authorities Bill, is of no consequence to anyone outside the capital. The Bill seeks to make laws applicable only to London but I would not wish to see any of my constituents unwittingly fall foul of them. All the amendments in this group relate to the clauses that come under the general heading of part 4, ““Licensing””, and, in particular, clause 9 on street trading. The explanatory memorandum that usefully accompanies the Bill states:"““Clause 9 makes further provision about street trading, in relation to the sale of vehicles over the internet. Under the existing street trading legislation in London, 'street trading' is defined, broadly speaking, as meaning the selling or the exposure or offer for sale of any article and the supplying of or offering to supply any service in a street for gain or reward (whether or not the gain or reward accrues to the person actually carrying out the trading).””" It goes on:"““Under that definition it is unclear whether the sale of motor vehicles on the internet, where the vehicle is kept on the highway, is included and the effect of Clause 9 will be to ensure that it is.””" Clause 9 seeks to amend the London Local Authorities Act 1990 by altering the definition in section 21 to provide a new subsection (1ZA), stating:"““In this Part of this Act 'street trading' shall also include the selling or exposure or offer for sale of any motor vehicle in the course of a business if the vehicle is…exposed or offered for sale on the internet; and…kept on a street during the period when it is so exposed or offered for sale.””" Amendment 22 offers what might be called the nuclear option of taking clause 9 out completely, which would be my preferred option. Why do I say that? I have a number of reasons. First, it has been suggested that the sale of a single motor vehicle would not constitute an offence, but there is evidence, which I shall provide to the House, that that has not been the case in the past. I refer to the case of the London borough of Haringey v. Mariuz Michniewicz in 2004. The defendant, who did not hold a street trading licence, was alleged to be the owner of a car parked in the street showing a notice that it was for sale with a price and a telephone number. The justices at the magistrates court dismissed an information laid by Haringey borough council, which had alleged that unlicensed street trading had taken place, holding that no offence had been committed by the defendant under section 38 of the 1990 Act on the grounds that the offer of one car for sale did not amount to trading. However, the council appealed the decision by way of case stated and the divisional court allowed the appeal. It held that section 38 was intended to include a situation where just one vehicle was offered for sale, and that accordingly the case should be remitted to the justices to bear that in mind with a direction to continue the hearing. The ratio decidendi of Haringey borough council against Michniewicz was that the display for sale in a street of a single vehicle is capable of giving rise to an offence under section 38 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990—engaging in street trading when not the holder of a street trading licence or a temporary licence. The case raises some very worrying points indeed. I have always maintained that there is a grey area relating to the repair of cars involved in a motor vehicle accident or that are nearing the end of their useful working life by someone for whom that is a lifelong hobby. In the course of a year, they could easily repair two or three vehicles that are damaged or of an elderly nature and then offer them for sale by putting a note in the window, or perhaps nowadays by using the internet. Whether that is a business may be a grey area. Clearly, they would want to cover the cost of the repairs—their time, labour and parts. They may want to make a small extra amount that some would call a profit to cover their time and trouble. Either way, it would be difficult for a council official, whether in Westminster or any other London borough, to decide whether or not that man was engaged in a trade.