Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill (By Order)

§ Mr. Speaker

I have selected for debate with the Second Reading instruction No. 1— That it he an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a clause preserving any pre-existing rights of succession vested in street traders and that, subject to such rights, any vacancies for street trading licences be advertised— and instruction No. 4— That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Part V. Clause 54 and Schedule 2.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It falls to me to move the Second Reading of the Bill, which is not a task I undertake with great relish. Perhaps I can make a few points by way of preamble. First, it should be noted that I am the first chairman of the GLC to move such a Bill in the House, and I trust that I shall not be the last.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)

You will.

§ Mr. Banks

Although the Greater London council is officially the promoter of the Bill, it is acting only as an agent, so hon. Members should direct their barbs not at me, but through me to the boroughs which introduced the Bill. The GLC has a direct link only with clauses 3 and 4. All other clauses have been inserted at the request of the London boroughs by the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association.

Under the terms of the Local Government Bill being discussed in another place, this could be the last Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. If it is, the London boroughs will lose an efficient and convenient method of promoting legislation. Indeed, clause 85 of the Local Government Bill removes the effective realisation of Londonwide legislation. If that Bill becomes law, it is likely that the House will be presented with a hotch-potch of legislation promoted by anyone or any combination of 33 London boroughs. Clearly, the Government are no more interested in the efficient promotion of private Bills than they are in the efficient local government of London.

Most of the Bill is non-contentious. Hon. Members will have received a letter from the head of the GLC's administrative, law and parliamentary branch setting out in clear detail its provisions. Therefore, I shall mention those clauses only briefly. Clause 3 seeks powers to make a charge for dealing with applications for varying the terms, conditions or restrictions to existing entertainment licences. Clause 4 seeks new powers to serve a notice on each property owner and occupier on whose land adopted flood defences are situated to incorporate the adopted features into the flood defences of London so that alterations may be controlled. There are rights of appeal under the clause, and payment of compensation where appropriate. The GLC and its predecessor authority, the London county council, have done excellent work in flood prevention in London, and the Thames barrier is a unique technological tribute to both authorities.

Clauses 5 to 9 were inserted at the request of the LBA, supported by the ALA, and are designed to help to prevent footway collapse in London's streets, which include many vaults and cellars. Unfortunately, this is happening too often now as heavier and heavier lorries use our streets.

1210 Clause 10 seeks to exempt from the licensing codes that control massage establishments premises which are run —[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must stand somewhere else, because it is a little difficult to concentrate in view of what appear to be interesting conversations being held just below the Gangway. Clause 10 seeks to exempt from the licensing codes that control massage establishments premises that are run by persons registered under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 or by registered medical practitioners. Since the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984, the LBA arid the ALA have accepted that premises used by members of bodies which specify qualifications and require their members to observe professional standards for the practice of chiropractic, osteopathy, naturopathy or acupuncture should also be exempted, and clause 10 provides that.

As for clause 11, the London Boroughs Association, primarily at the prompting of Westminster council, seeks to make amendments to schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which relates to the licensing of sex establishments. I understand that the Home Office has objected. Rather belatedly, the London boroughs have submitted evidence to the Home Office to justify the provisions contained in the clause. I believe that that evidence will convince the Ministers. If not, they will make their feelings known in Committee.

The Greater London council is not involved in this part of the Bill and has no evidence to offer in support of the boroughs. Clause 11 seeks to establish control over the sex-related use of premises—for example, sex encounter establishments. These are establishments with which I am sure neither you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nor I am acquainted. Clause 11 brings them within the provisions of schedule 3 to the 1982 Act. I shall leave hon. Members to read in the Bill the definitions of a sex encounter establishment. Because of my sheltered upbringing 1 could not bring myself to read them.

Secondly, the 1982 Act referred to premises which were involved "to a significant degree" in the selling or hiring of sex articles. The definition of "to a significant degree" has led to a considerable amount of argument, mostly between lawyers, at great expense to the ratepayers. One thinks of bookshops and video shops which sell some sex articles but which at the moment are able to avoid control under schedule 3 to the 1982 Act. The London boroughs wish to delete "to a significant degree" and substitute "includes the" in order to provide for the control of shops selling some sex articles.

Thirdly, the London boroughs want, quite rightly, to charge licensing fees in order to cover the reasonable cost of inspecting sex premises. Fourthly, the boroughs wish to have the same powers of forfeiture and seizure of apparatus and equipment — the mind boggles at that point — under schedule 3 to the 1982 Act as are currently provided under the Cinematograph Acts. Fifthly, the boroughs seek to allow a sex establishment to continue only until a licence determination has been made but not until an appeal has been completed. Hon. Members will be delighted to know that part IV will be withdrawn. If the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, the necessary amendments will be included in the filled-up Bill to be placed before the Committee. A working party has been set up to examine the nature of part IV. I hope that it will produce an agreed report at a later stage.

1211 I now turn to part V, about which hon. Members have made representations to me. It deals with the regulation of street trading. I spent a little time upon describing the earlier parts of the Bill in order to demonstrate that it contains much that is worthy and commendable. However, part V has led to controversy. Market traders have expressed considerable opposition to it. I congratulate their organisations upon their assiduous campaigning. The London boroughs have made a very good case for the rationalisation of the street trading laws. If one looks at schedule 2 to the Bill, one sees there is a widely different pattern of street trading regulations throughout London. Therefore, some conformity in the regulations is necessary.

§ Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared at a later stage, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, to make amendments in order to cover the arguments and representations which have been made? This would help hon. Members to know what the prospects at a later stage might be.

§ Mr. Banks

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope to be able to answer on behalf of the sponsors most of the objections that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members. This is a matter upon which the House will wish to express a view. I shall listen very carefully to hon. Members. I have full authority to give assurances before Committee. This is one of those rare opportunities when the House can influence legislation in a real way, perhaps by means of the strength of the arguments advanced by hon. Members.

As I have already pointed out, part V is highly contentious and a number of representations have been made. As a result of the detailed discussions I have had with my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), for Peckham (Ms. Harman), for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) and with traders in my own borough, Newham, I can signify on behalf of the sponsors their acceptance of the first instruction relating to the rights of inheritance and advertising. It seems to us to be perfectly reasonable that there should be a right of inheritance over market trading. The necessary amendments will be tabled in Committee. The first instruction is therefore acceptable.

§ Mr. John Wheeler (Westminster, North)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that it is very important for him to set out, for the convenience of the House, the extent of the inheritance provisions.

§ Mr. Banks

I am accepting on behalf of the sponsors the first instruction on the Order Paper. There will be further discussions between the representatives of the market traders and the boroughs to secure an acceptable form of wording before Committee and they will take place in the light of the first instruction. It is not for me to set out the extent of those provisions. It is for the representatives of the boroughs and the market traders to reach agreement. We accept that it is the principle of inheritance which has most exercised the market traders.

§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

Following the earlier interventions, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I press this point a little further, because it causes immense anxiety among those who are most directly 1212 concerned. The proposals involve a break in tradition. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's assurance needs to be couched in more precise language. Just to say that acceptance of the principle is hereby acknowledged is not sufficient at this stage. The hon. Gentleman understands that this issue crosses party lines and that anxiety is felt on both sides of the House. Therefore, I am sure that he wishes to help the House with a much more concrete assurance which specifically states that the rights of direct inheritance and succession will be restored.

§ Mr. Banks

I thought that I had already said that. I can only accept what appears on the Order Paper in terms of the wording of the first instruction. There is nothing else for me to accept, apart from the first instruction and the principle that there will be the ability to pass on through the families of the traders the market licence for the market stalls. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable assurance.

§ Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich)

I know only too well that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to be helpful on this issue. However, as I read the first instruction it puts the situation back to what it was before the Bill was introduced. It refers to the pre-existing rights of succession. If that is the case, many hon. Members will be satisfied. However, the hon. Gentleman muddied the waters more than a little by going on to say that these matters will be discussed between the promoters of the Bill and the market traders. If the law is not to be changed, is there any need for discussion?

§ Mr. Banks

The need for further discussion seems to be that hon. Members have not fully understood what I have said. I have said that we accept instruction No. 1. That must be comprehensible to all hon. Members as I assume that the words in the instruction mean the same to everyone. It means that we can go back to the pre-existing position. What else do hon. Members want?

§ Mr. Vivian Bendall (Ilford, North)

I am a little confused. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me. Why, then, is further discussion needed?

§ Mr. Banks

Because it is in the Bill and I am introducing the Second Reading debate. I have said that we accept instruction No. 1. I do not know what more the hon. Gentleman wants. I want to get on, but I am being delayed by all these interruptions. If we are accepting instruction No. 1, someone will have to produce the necessary amendments for the Committee stage. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman could understand that.

§ Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)

I understand that my hon. Friend has accepted the instruction in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and others to the effect that the pre-existing rights to succession vested in street traders will be preserved. That is the principle that we want but it is not in the clause. Discussions will therefore have to take place to ensure that provisions are drafted to meet that principle. I think that we should be satisfied with that.

§ Mr. Banks

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling this out so that everyone can understand. The Bill is silent on the subject of inheritance. Amendments will be needed in Committee because we have said that we are 1213 restoring and preserving inheritance. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind but that the boroughs have entirely conceded the market traders' case in this respect.

I cannot accept instruction No. 4 in the same unqualified way, but I hope to satisfy the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) that it is unnecessary. Personally, I do not believe that the boroughs consulted the market traders adequately. From the evidence that I have, there seems to have been scant consultation with the London-based Federation of Street Traders Unions and little, if any, consultation with the National Market Traders Federation. [Interruption.] I do not wish to break up any cross-Chamber discussions, but I should like to continue.

Representatives of the London boroughs have told me that they sought consultation on the London Boroughs Association working party report in June 1983 but received no response and that they also received no response when they produced the draft Bill. I do not know exactly where the breakdown in communications occurred or whose fault it was, but there has been considerable muddying of the waters and possibly some misunderstanding. The market traders seem to have been left in the dark for rather a long time, which no doubt exacerbated certain unnecessary fears on their part. I am sure that most of them, as honest, hard-working traders, accept the need for some regulation for the benefit of both traders and shoppers.

The GLC has tried to act as an honest broker to bring the various parties together and I believe that we have made considerable progress. With a little more time, I know that we can reach an overall agreement, so I hope that the House will give the Bill a fair wind today.

Many of the clauses in part V of the Bill are unexceptionable but necessary and, I believe, could be accepted by boroughs and market traders alike with certain amendments. It would be a great shame to lose perhaps the last chance to achieve some rationalisation of street trading in London by throwing out the whole of part V. Clause 37 deals with definitions, clause 38 excludes the City of London and clause 39 concerns offences for trading without a licence. All those provisions have been agreed, so there seems to be no problem there.

Clause 40 deals with the designation of streets. At present, in inner London there is a right of appeal to the Home Secretary. If the clause is passed as it stands that right of appeal will be removed. We have a Minister from the Home Office with us today and we understand that the Home Office does not wish to be the appeals authority for the whole of London. In fact, appeals are rarely made, but market traders in inner London see the right of appeal as an insurance policy. I am sure that no one wants the Bill to go through without making provision for an appeals authority. Speaking from years of experience of local government, I would not wish to leave it at local council level, but I believe that there must be a right of appeal. This will be a matter for discussion between the traders and the boroughs, but I have the authority to say that the clause will be amended in Committee to preserve the right of appeal.

The Home Office, of course, may object. It would help, therefore, if the Minister of State will tell us today whether the Home Office is prepared to accept a responsibility which has not proved particularly onerous in relation to inner London.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the hon. Gentleman be more explicit and make it clear that the Bill will not go through unless there is a right of appeal? If the Home Office will not accept responsibility, who will do so if the GLC no longer exists? Unless the hon. Gentleman can give those assurances, my hon. Friends and I will not be satisfied.

§ Mr. Banks

I should very much like to answer that directly, but it is not in my power to do so at present. I have invited the Minister to comment and I hope that he will do so. The Home Office would not be taking on a great deal of responsibility. I am sure that the Minister does not wish to jeopardise the Bill, in view of what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has said.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw)

In general, the Government's view is that an appellate power devolved on the Home Secretary is a rather unnecessary way to handle an appeals procedure which should be dealt with at a much more local level. That there should be an appeals procedure in the Bill, however, will no doubt be hotly debated in Committee.

§ Mr. Banks

The appeal could be through the Greater London Council. It would delight me no end if the Minister could tell us that the Government intend to drop their proposal to abolish the GLC. There would then be ample machinery for appeals. I hope that that deals with the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Apparently he is not satisfied, so the Government are now jeopardising the Bill.

§ Ms. Harman

If the Home Office will not accept the responsibilities that it ought to accept and refuses to allow the right of appeal to the Home Office, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the clause will not go through unless an appeals procedure can be achieved with the designation of a body agreed by the street traders associations and the sponsors of the Bill. It must be an independent procedure which commands the support of the street traders. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the right of appeal will not fall if the Home Office reneges on its responsibilities?

§ Mr. Banks

Yes, I am empowered to give such an assurance, which will undoubtedly meet the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I believe, however, that the appeals procedure would be better exercised through the Home Office. If the Home Office refuses to extend its present appeals function in inner London to cover greater London, that will be a great pity—but if that happens we shall certainly table the necessary amendments in Committee to satisfy traders that there will be some form of independent appeal.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes

It is important to get this point clear. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that unless that can be agreed between the sponsors and the traders clause 40 will go?

§ Mr. Banks

The hon. Gentleman has a funny idea of what negotiation is all about. He seems to be saying that, if we do not entirely accept what the market traders are likely to put to us, the whole clause should go. I believe that we should find a mutually acceptable appeals procedure. It is a very strange appeals procedure which does not satisfy all those likely to appeal to it. The hon. Gentleman is pushing us rather hard, especially as it is not 1215 for me to negotiate the fine print while on my feet. I should have thought that my acceptance of the principle would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Bendall

For many years there has been a problem in the licensed taxi trade about not having a right of appeal. The Transport Bill has just dealt with the matter, and the clause involved an appeal to the magistrates court. Could the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance perhaps in that direction?

§ Mr. Banks

On the surface of it, having just had that idea bounced at me, a form of legal appeal would seem to be acceptable. However, I ask hon. Members to be reasonable. Such things would need to be considered. I am not trying to be evasive and I am not trying to duck the issue. I am trying hard to concede the principle without crossing the "t's" and dotting the "i's" here. Clearly one is not in a very good position to do that now.

§ Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

Does the hon. Gentleman have in mind an appeal to the courts, or a judicial form of appeal?

§ Mr. Banks

In the final analysis, an appeal that ends up in the courts is better than an appeal that stops short of them. That must be true for all appeals. We all have our own opinions about the independence of the judiciary, but by and large it seems to be more independent than most other institutions that I can think of immediately unless there is to be an appeal to the GLC. However, we might not be around to hear it. But of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

Clause 41 relates to applications for licences. With regard to subsection (3), the boroughs concede the case against the countersigning of photographs. They consider that to be unnecessary, so that also will be removed from the Bill. Subsection (4) (a) refers to a licence being granted only to someone aged 18 or over. The market traders want to see a reduction to the age of 17. There is, of course, a problem, because the age of legal majority is 18. However, I understand that in miscellaneous provisions the Government seem to concede the age of 17, so it seems only reasonable to accept that age. After all, market trading is an arduous business and if someone can pass the business on to a son or daughter at an earlier age he or she can no doubt then enjoy some well-deserved retirement. Therefore, that, too, will be conceded. With regard to subsection (6) (e), the boroughs have conceded the point about on-storage facilities.

Clause 42 relates to the duration and terms of licences. Unfortunately, this is another sticky one. At present, those conditions are covered by byelaws. I understand that under the Bill it is proposed that the boroughs should specify the conditions. I hope that hon. Members have noticed that licences in general will be extended from the present one year to three years. That is clearly welcomed by the market traders. But, of course, the market traders want to retain terms and conditions that are determined by byelaws. The boroughs have not yet conceded that point, but in my discussions with them I have been assured that if more time is given for consultation there will be an amicable outcome. It is a generalised statement, but I am convinced that there is good will here to meet the point. If hon. Members want my personal opinion, it is that I have 1216 sympathy with those who want to see the conditions retained through byelaws, as that seems to be a much neater and more precise way of dealing with this aspect of the Bill.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the difference between the byelaw procedure and the regulations procedure is that the byelaw procedure has an appeal system built into it. I should like him to say that by the time the Bill leaves Committee the clause will have settled for the byelaw rather than the regulation procedure. We need to know that there is an appeals system under this clause, just as we have been told that there will be one in the other clause.

§ Mr. Banks

I can gladly help the hon. Gentleman. In everything that we do, there must be an adequate and acceptable appeals procedure, so I accept that. However, I ask hon. Members to give the boroughs and market traders a little more time in which to come up with something that is mutually satisfactory. But in principle I should like to see appeals procedures written into the Bill throughout. That is the only way that hon. Members can be satisfied that the Bill has a fail-safe mechanism.

Clause 43 deals with the revocation of licences. It is generally acceptable—this goes back to instruction No. 1 — with the exception of the silence on inheritance. I have said that we have accepted instruction No. 1, so it has been restored. In those circumstances, I hope that we shall not have to go over the ground again.

§ Mr. Bendall

What sort of convictions does the hon. Gentleman anticipate under paragraph (e) ? The words used leave it very wide, and could mean that for drunken driving the trader would lose not only his driving licence but his licence to trade.

§ Mr. Banks

I cannot be as precise as the hon. Gentleman would like me to be. However, I should have thought that in principle we would want those trading commercially to be of a fit and proper character in all respects. We know that there are certain criminal offences that preclude applicants from securing other licences. However, I cannot be more precise than that. We should not want invidious requirements to be written into this part of the Bill that are not normal in other areas of licensing where there are certain disqualifications.

§ Mr. Bendall

Perhaps the phrase "serious criminal offence" might be better.

§ Mr. Banks

It is a very interesting point. Some would take issue with the phrase "serious criminal offence". There would be instant divisions in the House if hon. Members started talking about what constituted a serious offence during the miners' dispute. This is a difficult area. The hon. Gentleman is reaching out towards a solution, but we have not yet reached it.

§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bow and Popular)

I was involved in a campaign to ask a local authority not to renew the licence of a trader who had been committing the offence of selling racist literature and of inciting racial hatred. I should not want a situation in which such a refusal to renew the licence was impossible.

§ Ms. Harman

rose —

§ Mr. Banks

I give way to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. Hon. Members must not intervene in the interventions of hon. Members.

§ Mr. Banks

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I gave way immediately. However, if you wish me to preface my giving way with a few sentences, I shall do so.

§ Ms. Harman

Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Banks

I give way to my hon. Friend.

§ Ms. Harman

My hon. Friend started by saying that in general he thought that clause 43 was acceptable. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) deal with revoking licences if there is not enough space, if the trader is trading in a class of articles that is not approved, or if a licence holder has persistently failed to trade for the number of days specified in every week. But clause 45(1) (c) (ii) seems to say that it is impossible to appeal against those three grounds of revocation. That is a genuine query. If there is not the same right of appeal, there should be.

§ Mr. Banks

I am being asked some very detailed questions. While hon. Members make their speeches, I shall seek advice and answer the points raised when I reply to the debate. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that I shall reply to their points later.

§ Ms. Harman

Does my hon. Friend accept that a provision to revoke a licence on the ground of a person having committed an offence that makes him unsuitable is rather vague? It is always best to have a schedule that will lay down which offences render someone unsuitable. Everything that is not scheduled would not render someone unsuitable. That would be better than having subjective definitions of such words as "serious".

§ Mr. Banks

I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's suggestion. Perhaps we could start with the Ten Commandments and then work our way through the various other crimes enshrined in the criminal code. However, I accept that we cannot leave the matter open by using a word like "serious". These are matters of detail that can be settled in Committee. My hon. Friend's suggestion of a schedule that specifies every offence would mean a rather large Bill.

§ Mr. Colin Moynihan (Lewisham, East)

A more general but important point that has worried street traders is that clause 43 (1) (e) contains the words or for any other reason. Surely with that phrase in the Bill, there is no point traders in appealing to a court.

§ Mr. Banks

rose —

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The debate seems to be turning into a prolonged Committee stage. It might be better if we were to proceed in our usual fashion, which is for hon. Members to have the opportunity to make their own speeches and for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to have the opportunity at the end of the debate to reply to the points raised.

§ Mr. Banks

For that relief, much thanks Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to be as reasonable and as accommodating as possible so that the House can give the Bill a Second Reading.

I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) that all legislation should be as precise as possible and not open to wide interpretation. Although a 1218 Minister might say, "This is in my mind," unless it is enshrined in legislation someone else will come along with a different interpretation that was not in the Minister's mind. Therefore, we want the Bill to be as precise as possible and not contain the vague generalities contained in this clause.

Further discussions are being held on clause 44, which relates to the grant, renewal or revocation of licences. The differences of opinion are not great and I am confident that the discussions will prove satisfactory.

§ Mr. Dykes

I hope that you will accept my apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for rising when you have suggested that we follow the normal procedure. However, an important point arises on this clause. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for tolerating such a large number of interventions.

There is anxiety among street traders that, although clause 45 sets out the appeal's procedure — I am not grumbling about that — it nevertheless contains a provision that the borough councils would not be obliged to conduct a hearing at the request of the aggrieved party. It may be going too far to reverse that completely, but will the hon. Gentleman give a partial undertaking that that wording will be reconsidered following discussions with the agencies concerned so that the hearing can be rendered permissive at the request of the aggrieved party?

§ Mr. Banks

I shall come back to that point when I reply to the debate. The principle appears to be a good one After all, we are dealing with people's livelihoods. They should have ample opportunity to put their case to, and to be satisfied that their case has been heard by, an independent body.

Clause 46, dealing with temporary licences, is acceptable to the traders — unless hon. Members have information that has not been given to me.

On clause 47, the market traders rightly thought that the use of waiting lists offered the possibility of corruption. The boroughs have agreed to withdraw that. It is tied in with instruction No. 1, which allows for inheritance and advertising. Therefore, in a way, clause 47 is now redundant.

Clause 48 deals with fees and charges. The boroughs expressed a wish to vary fees, but the market traders believed that that would lead to an administrative nightmare and they strongly objected to it. I understand that the boroughs have offered to drop the differential charges based on goods sold. That should meet the traders' objections. However, it will be subject to further discussion under clause 48(1) (c).

We come now to the exciting bit—clause 49, which deals with receptacles and containers. The boroughs are willing to concede the traders' request that they do not have to use only the receptacles provided by the boroughs. The boroughs have realised that this is unreasonable.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the provision in clause 48 for differential charges to be based on goods has been dropped?

§ Mr. Banks

I have dealt with that, but I think the hon. Gentleman was talking at the time, or being talked to or at. He missed what I said, which was that my latest information is that the boroughs have offered to drop differential charging based on goods sold.

Clause 50, dealing with offences, provides new powers to deal with unlicensed trading. That is as much in the 1219 interests of the market traders as it is in the interests of the local authority. There have been some objections to subsection (1) (e), which requires traders to produce their licences, duly signed and bearing a photograph, if requested by an authorised council officer or a constable. But, of course, that subsection provides for a reasonable excuse for not being able to comply with subsection (1) (e). Again, "reasonable" is the word that lawyers love to hear because it means fat fees. Indeed, the lawyers tell me that that is true. The Bill is designed to help local authorities and market traders, not lawyers. The boroughs have offered to amend clause 50 so that market traders are required to produce their licence only when they are trading. There was some thought that they might get knocked up at 3 am by a police officer or an inquisitive council officer and be asked to produce their licence. The clause also allows a reasonable excuse to be offered.

Clause 51 concerns the power to remove receptacles and I understand that there is no problem with it. Clause 52 concerns the employment of assistants. Clause 52(1) provides for licence holders to employ an assistant provided that the licence holder is in attendance. On the face of it, that seems unreasonable, as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) told me elsewhere. The clause is designed to prevent traders from holding several market licences in different London markets and therefore trading at different times and places. That is all the more likely if we are restoring inheritance.

Traders who trade at different times and at different markets deprive local consumers of a service and deny access to others who might wish to trade but cannot because the local authority tells them that all the pitches are notionally full. The stalls at Stratford market in my constituency are always present on Friday and Saturday, but they are not on other days when they might be. The traders might be trading elsewhere. That is to the disbenefit of local consumers. There is a danger here because we have agreed on instruction No. 1. The boroughs have a strong case, but they are making it badly. However, what they are trying to achieve is reasonable.

§ Mr. Cartwright

I am grateful for the reasonable way in which the hon. Gentleman has presented clause 52, but I am worried about it, as are street traders. It gives the local authority a sweeping power, as does clause 43(1) (d) which provides that a trader might lose his licence if he has without reasonable excuse failed personally to attend at the fixed position to which his licence refers at all reasonable times". What is a "reasonable excuse"? What are "reasonable times"? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these are sweeping powers and that there might be better ways in which to deal with the problem?

§ Mr. Banks

I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have said all along that the use of such words leads to insecurity and doubt. Perhaps I may return to that matter later. If the House concedes that the boroughs have a good case, it must be possible to produce acceptable wording in Committee. The boroughs have a case, but it is not well put in the Bill. I am not responsible for the Bill's wording, and I am grateful for that.

Clause 53 concerns savings and clause 54 deals with the repeal of local enactments relating to street trading. I understand that traders are worried about the transitional period and that the boroughs are more than ready to extend 1220 it. That is a matter for discussion. Schedule 2 demonstrates far better than I can the patchwork of current street trading regulations in London. We should not allow that to continue. If the GLC is abolished, this is perhaps the last opportunity that we shall have to get some form of regulation.

Street trading is an essential and colourful feature of commercial life in London. Part V introduces a more coherent pattern of trading. I hope that the answers that I have given on the hoof satisfy hon. Members that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, although I shall endeavour to answer hon. Members' questions. I have mixed pleasure in moving the Bill's Second Reading, but I can say one thing with great confidence — that the GLC still remains the finest and most progressive local authority in the land.

§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

I cannot go along with the latter comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but I congratulate him on being elected the final chairman of the GLC and on his distinction in moving the Bill's Second Reading in that capacity. I understand that Winston Churchill said that a majority of one is enough.

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that one of the great benefits of the Bill is that it will standardise street trading in London. East London is different from south-east London, which is quite different from west London. To impose a common approach is a great mistake and characteristic of the present GLC.

Instruction No. 1 should not have been necessary. We are all suspicious of the Bill. It should not have been allowed to be presented in its present form. There were no consultations between the GLC, national bodies and street traders until the Bill was produced.

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Greenway

No.

§ Ms. Harman

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

§ Mr. Greenway

I shall give way on no point. It is difficult for the hon. Member for Newham North-West to negotiate on his feet, but I must congratulate him. He did awfully well. He was put in a most difficult position by the GLC. The GLC must take responsibility. The Bill has been before Parliament for a long time—I have had a blocking motion on it for well over six months.

§ Mr. Spearing

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his earlier decision?

§ Mr. Greenway

No.

Even on Tuesday, the GLC told the street traders that it was prepared to make concessions, but it was not prepared to give them anything in writing. That is what has upset street traders so much, and rightly. It is quite wrong that this Second Reading debate should be turned into a Committee stage, as it would have been but for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, simply because preparation for the Bill has been so bad.

§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Greenway

I shall not give way to anybody.

§ Mr. Mikardo

The hon. Gentleman is being churlish.

§ Mr. Greenway

I have undertaken not to speak for too long because many others wish to get in. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has known me long enough to know that I am not churlish. I am trying to make a fairly rapid speech so that others can speak.

My attitude to the Bill is mixed. The measure has some good points, but I am strongly opposed to parts V and VI in relation to street trading. Unless the promoters are prepared to withdraw those parts, I shall divide the House against the Bill, and I warn them to watch out.

I am concerned at the failure of the Bill to tackle other areas which could have been dealt with, including parking problems in London, in particular residents' parking, and the harassment of shopkeepers who are not street traders. Both those issues could have been dealt with.

I welcome the provisions dealing with sex shops and therefore I do not oppose those provisions. I have explained that I oppose parts V and VI, and it is not respectable for the GLC or the promoters to seek to lever the House into accepting what is not acceptable by including provisions such as those dealing with sex shops.

§ Mr. Soley

The hon. Gentleman is getting into a muddle. He cannot oppose what he claims to oppose without at this stage opposing the whole of the Bill. He may wish to oppose bits of the Bill in Committee, and that will be different. He should be aware that any lack of communication has not been the fault of the GLC. That is the concern of the LBA and Westminster.

§ Mr. Greenway

I was referring to correspondence with the GLC. I understand that there is nothing to prevent the hon. Member for Newham, North-West from agreeing to delete parts V and VI and allowing the rest of the Bill to stand. Then the important provisions relating to sex shops would remain and we would not oppose the Bill. The responsibility is that of the promoters.

Soho is highlighted, and rightly so, in the provisions dealing with sex shops. St. James' and St. Ann's school in Soho has been known to me for 28 years; it was formerly St. James' and St. Peter's school. In the days of the Windmill and other local theatres, the atmosphere was calmer and more suitable for the schoolchildren than is the case today. It is a disgrace that children must run the gauntlet of three or four sex shops to get to school. We must tighten the law in that respect. The Bill, without parts V and VI, would do that.

Other sex shops exist outside Soho. Indeed, there is one quite near the House. They have proved to be totally offensive to people, who see massive notices announcing, for example, "Explicit sex" and advertising videos and so on. Small children walk past, and there are heavy bouncers on the doors. That is not acceptable in our society and something must be done about it.

I have received a letter from the headmaster of Soho parish school. He has to live with that situation and try to give the children in his care a proper education. He writes: My school, with 110 children aged between three and eleven is in a short street with three sex establishments and a fourth in process of construction. One is next to our main entrance. These unregulated activities are a constant offence to families bringing children to and from school. Men touting for customers constantly harass parents and staff. Children hear offensive language and must walk past displays for topless bars and suggestive pictures. Our visitors are propositioned by the prostitutes who operate from these premises. Perhaps the worst aspect of the street is the fact that a high proportion of unbalanced characters are attracted to it. Groups of men stand about the narrow pavements which we must use whenever we take children 1222 out on visits. Noisy crowds of football supporters and young tourists regularly gather here, and from time to time I have to call the police before children can leave the building to go home. Regulation of this is desperately needed. As I am sure you are aware behind all of this lies a wide range of criminal activity, from pick-pocketing to traffic in hard drugs. It is a matter of considerable anxiety to us that all this happens outside the school gates. It would be a shame if the attack on street traders in parts V and VI were allowed to put the other excellent legislation in the Bill in jeopardy. I hope that those parts of the Bill can be withdrawn so that the rest can stand and sex shops brought under control.

The Bill will do nothing about parking, especially the massive double parking that is occurring all over London. The system of residents' parking has largely broken down in Westminster and elsewhere, and the system as it operates in Westminster and some other boroughs would be useless in boroughs such as Ealing.

People are paying perhaps £45 a year to park their cars, though one house may be issued with a number of parking permits. That is cluttering up the streets, but the Bill does not attempt to deal with that. I know of one three-storey house the occupants of which have six cars, each with a permit to park. Perhaps a provision could be added to the Bill at a later stage to deal with the parking problem. Issuing parking permits only to ratepayers, and not to fly-by-night residents, would probably get to the nub of the problem.

Perhaps the Bill could be made to apply to matters affecting shopkeepers as well as street traders. In Ealing and other boroughs some shopkeepers have suddenly become harassed for putting wares outside their shop, although they have been doing so for some years. I accept that wares should not be placed outside shops if the pavements are narrow, but there should be no objection where pavements are wide. I measured the pavement at one location where a complaint had been made and found it to be 30ft wide. Perhaps we should leave well alone, and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West might wish to comment on that when he replies to the debate.

I will explain why I feel so strongly about parts V and VI relating to street traders. Costermongers, street traders and so on are represented by, and run in, families in London and elsewhere in Britain, and that has been the situation for many generations. That is well known and well established. The public like that state of affairs. They know the families on the local pitch and respond to them.

I have had the honour of teaching many a barrow boy from King's Cross, east London, south-east London and elsewhere, and I assure the House that they and their families are the purest gold. They are often what might be called the cement of the local community. To damage them in the way that the Bill seeks to do is not a process with which I could live.

Having been in discussions with street traders, I know that there are at least four points on which they would not budge, and I support them in their view. I will make those four points. First, the nominated relatives clause is, they say, far too restrictive because it would remove rights gained in previous legislation. It is normal for the next of kin to take over. That has been the case for generations, and to seek to disturb that pattern is a big miscalculation.

The second point concerns the loss of right to appeal to the Home Secretary against a London borough's decision on street designation or de-designation. It would mean that the street traders could be thrown out with no 1223 appeal. I wonder whether the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) was finally accepted—that an appeal to a magistrates court would be the right way forward.

Thirdly, there is the provision whereby a trader has to be in attendance personally at all reasonable times at his designated stall or pitch. That has not been mentioned. It will mean that the licence holder cannot leave anyone else in charge. I do not believe that any playing about with words will alter that situation. Street traders are honourable people. They would feel vulnerable if that provision were allowed to become law. Who is to say what "all reasonable times" means? At some point the matter will come before a court of law, implying that there would have been a prosecution and serious damage to someone. I cannot stand by and see that go through without my opposition.

Under the fourth provision, which has been touched on only too lightly, a trader is prevented from holding more than one licence, thus preventing him or her from expanding the business. According to my researches—I have talked to people out on the pitches—that means that they would be allowed only one 9ft by 3ft barrow, and all wares and scales would have to be on that barrow, by law. That must be severely restrictive. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West did not refer to that. It is completely unacceptable. On those grounds alone, parts V and VI are complete nonsense.

With respect, I did not think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West made an adequate case for people being prevented from having a second, or another, licence in another market or even another borough. I could not go along with what he said on that. It is sad that there has not been adequate discussion.

§ Mr. Tony Banks

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that there has not been adequate discussion. I do not think that I have been so long on my feet in the House since I was elected in 1983. I thought that I was going on for far too long.

I cannot accept that the problems that he is referring to are the responsibility of the GLC. I think that I have understood the mood of the House quite quickly. Hon. Members are scurrying backwards and forwards across the Chamber. I think that it might be of some assistance to the House if I say that I accept instruction 4, or words to that effect, to leave out part V altogether—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] Hon. Members should not cheer too loudly. I shall submit better drafted new clauses in Committee. I feel that there are some clear inadequacies in the Bill. I do not want to take responsibility for them here. Therefore, all the matters relating to street traders will be taken out of the Bill and resubmitted in Committee. I refer to parts V and VI—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Greenway

The people in the Gallery—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech must not extend beyond the Bar of the House.

§ Mr. Greenway

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for responding to the pressure that was put upon him, and for sound reasons. He has responded in a handsome way. It is sad that the Bill ever 1224 came to the House in this form and that one of the finest groups of people in London and beyond — the street traders—has been so disturbed and distressed. It need not and should not have happened. But the House of Commons has spoken; democracy has spoken. I am glad to have had some part—

§ Mr. John Wheeler (Westminster, North)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the solution that has been presented to the House enables the Bill to proceed with other clauses that are essential to the good of London, particularly the sex establishment clauses, which Westminster city council in particular is promoting?

§ Mr. Greenway

I believe that the Bill should proceed. As I always said, parts I to IV are thoroughly sound. I accept that.

§ Mr. Spearing

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that those parts of the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has now withdrawn for the time being and subject to further discussion and consultation were initially the responsibility of the London Boroughs Association and its leading authority, Westminster city council? Had the consultation that has taken place almost around the Floor of the House occurred properly at that stage, we would not have been placed in the position in which we found ourselves tonight.

§ Mr. Greenway

Let me be clear about what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has agreed. If I heard him aright, he has agreed to withdraw parts V and VI totally. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] As that is so, I thank the hon. Gentleman and the House.

§ Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham)

I have been very concerned about the Bill because in my constituency there is a thriving market —East Street market—which has been there for many years. It is important not only for the street traders and their families who depend on the market, but for the people who live in my constituency who use that market. That has not been mentioned in the debate. It is not only about the rights of street traders, although that is of paramount importance, but about the rights of people who want to use the market and the services that the street traders provide.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), upon whom it fell to promote the Bill, knows of my concerns because I mentioned them to him before the debate. I am grateful to him for taking those concerns on board. It is important to note at this stage that it is vital that we have a Greater London council that can put forward Londonwide legislation on behalf of all the different boroughs. However, the villian of the piece that produced the unacceptable parts V and VI of the Bill was the London Boroughs Association, particularly Westminster city council, which has waged a war on its own street traders. That council is the villain of the piece, but through the procedures of the House it fell to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West to introduce the Bill, including those parts.

Therefore, I absolutely deplore the cheap statements made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who sought to mislead the House and imply that somehow it was the GLC that had responsibility for the Bill, in its substance and conception, which is not the case. The letter that the hon. Gentleman is holding up will 1225 show, on page 3 — if he has read it—that the GLC promoted the Bill only on behalf of the London Boroughs Association.

I have spoken about the importance of the rights of street traders and the rights of those who use the markets. During the negotiations on the Bill, I have been grateful for the briefings that I received from the street traders association. I share the concern of members of the association. It is to their credit that they have managed to bring their case to the House, despite the complexities of the Private Member's Bill procedure — an extremely mysterious procedure involving Opposed Private Bill Committees and Instructions—and despite the attempts by the London Boroughs Association and Westminster city council to mystify the procedure to prevent the traders from putting their case. They have understandably felt insecure about the suggestion that these clauses should be included. Rights of succession which they have enjoyed for 20 or more years were threatened suddenly, without proper consultation or argument. That is why they are here in such numbers and should be welcomed by the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and I tabled an instruction about the right of succession. That is one of the main reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has agreed to withdraw the clauses. When seeking to argue its case on why my hon. Friend and I should withdraw our instruction, the only point which the London Boroughs Association placed before us as argument was that it was a unique provision in inner London and in licensing legislation. The association must do better than that. If it is going to ask the House to take away a long-standing right, it has to argue its case. The association has failed to do that. If the lack of arguments in the letter from the London Boroughs Association reflects the way in which it consulted the street traders, I am not surprised that we have ended up with such a misplaced piece of legislation.

I was concerned about the lack of a right of appeal against a de-designation of a whole street market. We are talking about taking away many people's livelihoods and an important amenity, without any right of appeal.

I was concerned also about the revocation of the licence of street traders under clause 43. There seemed to be no right of appeal for those whose licences were revoked under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The cases covered by paragraphs (g), (e), (f) and (i) are so wide that they can be subject to any interpretation. Hon. Members have already referred to paragraph (e) which allows revocation where the licence holder is unsuitable to hold the licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence or for any other reason". That is not good law. We should not allow it. If we say that a person's livelihood will be taken away, we should say why and give that person a proper right of appeal.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Ms. Harman

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just appeared in the House.

§ Mr. Bruinvels

In Leicester, one of the striking miners' groups came into the market and was pelted with rotten fruit by various market stall owners, who were informed by Leicester city council that, because they were acting in that way, they could lose their licences. Presumably, under the terms "for any other reason" those people would have lost their licence. That is wrong. I am delighted that the hon. Lady agrees.

§ Ms. Harman

I said that if people's livelihoods were to be taken away, the grounds on which that was done should be specified in a schedule and they should have a right of appeal. However, an assault on other people who were lawfully using a market might well constitute a ground on which licences could be suspended or revoked. We are not dealing with that. We are going to agree that the grounds should be specified by and agreed between the market traders and the GLC.

I shall not go through all the objections to the measures, because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, on behalf of the GLC, has made concessions. I congratulate the street traders on their campaign. It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, had to introduce the Bill with such objectionable provisions when, in fact, those measures came from the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association, and in particular Westminster city council.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)

I declare an interest as the. unpaid parliamentary consultant to the National Federation of Market Traders and, obviously the representative of the city of Leicester market, which has the largest covered market in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has discussed various points in part V which have concerned me. I have been lobbied substantially by people from all over the country because various stall holders felt that they would lose their livelihood under these measures. This worried me especially because I have had the experience not only of regularly going to the Leicester city market but of working in the market and meeting many of the people who were concerned that their futures would be at risk.

§ Mr. Christopher Murphy (Welwyn Hatfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of us who represent constituencies close to London feel strongly about this issue, because many of our constituents have the benefit of shopping in London markets and a number of them are street traders? We are grateful for the concession that has been made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

§ Mr. Bruinvels

This is a major point. The Conservative party is the party of small businesses. Many of our market traders are small business men fighting bureaucracy and trying to achieve a decent living, but they have had great difficulties with this Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be delighted at the news that we have heard tonight. I am a little worried as to whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) can formally withdraw the parts. We shall hear more on that as we proceed.

I wish to place on the record the objections that came from the Leicester branch of the National Market Traders Federation. The chairman, Graham Chambers, itemised the points of concern and said that in no way did the federation want the Bill to proceed. He referred first to the Abolition of currently enjoyed appeal rights. Those rights are limited anyway, but they would have been further eroded by these measures. Secondly, Mr. Chambers referred to The requirement to carry an identity card with photograph at all times. We are not yet in a police state, thank goodness. The requirement to carry a photograph is a strange way of 1227 running one's business. The name of the business has to be put on the side of the stall, but the federation felt that it was wrong to require a photograph.

§ Mr. Mikardo

rose —

§ Mr. Bruinvels

Thirdly, Mr. Chambers objected to The local Council's right to know where equipment is stored when not in use. The federation wanted me to object forcefully to that measure. The fourth point stated: The requirement for a licence holder to be in attendance in person at his stall at all reasonable times. Many hon. Members accept that there are occasions when the main stallholder cannot be at his place of work. Great family businesses are involved, and a family may run two or three stalls in the same market. Unfortunately, as luck has it, those stalls may not be together and the operators may have to move all over the market. It would have been wrong to insert that provision.

Fifthly, the federation objected to Fines of up to £400.00 for street trading offences such as failing to clear up trade refuse. That is an incredibly high sum. Why do market traders pay for their licences in the first place if they must pay as well a fine for not clearing up refuse? Street traders are honourable people, and they do their best to clear up. Of course, there will always be rubbish at the end of the day in all street markets. Street traders pay rates for the rubbish to be taken away. They become indignant when told they will be fined up to £400 for not clearing up the refuse. This measure would have been unacceptable to them.

The proposal about the compulsory purchase of market stalls by the council was another worry. The stallholder would have lived in fear, not knowing whether his licence was to be renewed from week to week or whether he was to have real tenure in the market. Market stallholders and their families have carried on a great tradition in this country for many years. It would be shocking if suddenly, for no apparent reason, they could face a compulsory purchase order.

I have referred to the unpleasant incident in Leicester when a number of striking miners entered the market trying to collect for other striking miners—of whom, thank goodness, there were only 30 in the Leicester area. Some of the stallholders had had enough. They wanted to carry on with their business, and the striking miners effectively prevented business from being conducted. I do not blame those stallholders who threw tomatoes and rotten fruit at the miners. The miners were preventing people from doing their shopping.

§ Mr. Soley

rose —

§ Mr. Bruinvels

Another point of concern was the loss of licenses for any other offence, whether connected with the market or not. That was very wrong. It might be that the stallholder had not paid his rates—

§ Mr.