HC Deb 17 May 2000 vol 350 cc419-30

Not amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 6, in page 2, line 4, leave out clauses 4 and 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

I remind the House that with this we are considering amendments Nos. 28, 22 to 25, 7 and new schedule 2.

9.10 pm
Mr. Maclean

You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, as you were taking the Chair, I was beginning my introduction to the amendments. We have dealt with important private Bills in the past two hours, but, as I said earlier, if we had not had the Government statement today, I am sure that we could have polished off the important business of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill before the private business commenced at 7 o'clock.

Amendment No. 6 would delete clauses 4 and 5. I stressed that I did not intend to press that amendment to a Division because I suspect that, as the Bill is constructed, those two clauses may be essential to the panoply of penalties that the Minister wants. Nevertheless, in order to explore whether the seizure of property was necessary, and some of the rules incorporated in clause 5 on retention and disposal, the best parliamentary device available is to suggest deletion of the clauses, and to let the Minister persuade the House that it is essential to retain them.

Clause 4 allows a park constable who reasonably suspects that a person has committed one of the park trading offences to seize property of a non-perishable nature. There are a couple of points on which the Minister must comment.

The first point is the nature of these park trading offences. The Minister was expansive in his earlier replies to the amendments proposed by my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and myself, but he did not say what he envisaged would be the park trading offences in future. It may be more appropriate, and I hope entirely in order, if, in discussing the deletion of clause 4, I pressed the Minister to explain to the House which offences he envisages will be designated as park trading offences in future.

I quoted to the House from regulation 4 of the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, which listed a series of offences that may take place in the royal parks. Those offences include stepping on the shrubbery, stepping on the flower beds and playing music. One offence, specified in paragraph (6), is trading in a royal park and selling goods and services. When the Minister makes regulations on park trading offences and designates certain offences, I anticipate that regulation 4(6) of the 1997 regulations will be lifted entirely or redrafted.

I mentioned that the 1997 regulations specified other offences, such as taking photographs for commercial purposes. If that were designated as a park trading offence, there is a possibility that colleagues who go across to the royal park opposite Millbank studios and have their photographs taken by the BBC and other august organs of the state—or even less august organs of the state than the BBC—may be committing an offence and subject to a £1,000 penalty.

Other activities in royal parks, such as displaying posters, advertising the millennium dome, displaying billboards, or putting on reviews, shows or theatrical events, could be a trading offence if done for commercial purposes.

We understand from what the Minister said earlier and from what we read in the London local rag that the main thrust of the Bill is to deal with the hamburger and hot-dog sellers. I well understand that 99 per cent. of the action is directed against those who are selling those foods in parks. That seems to be where the bulk of the offence is committed and what the bulk of the trade is. However, it would be helpful if the Minister would say whether other items that are listed in the regulations are being sold, illegally and without a licence, in the royal parks. In what other commercial activities do people indulge without a licence, under the third of the 1997 regulations? Will the Minister list what he envisages will be the future park trading offences that he wishes to create under the Bill?

My second point has to do with the seizure of non-perishable items. Hamburgers, hot dogs and chestnuts are all sold in our royal parks. One cold December day, I enjoyed some hot chestnuts that I had purchased in Westminster gardens on my way to the House. I had no idea that I was aiding and abetting a serious criminal offence, or that I was buying the local Mafia's nuts. I can understand why park constables should be empowered to confiscate the carts or barrows of the people who sell such commodities, and that those constables would not want to have to deal with a great many hot dogs, hamburgers and fried onions.

However, the little wheeled carts or barrows used by food sellers in parks are often red hot, thanks to the fire that burns inside them. They also contain red-hot fat in which to cook the items, and any park constable who tries to seize such a cart clearly risks injury—to himself and to others. However, clause 4 makes it clear that the Government do not want park constables to take the edible material—cooked chestnuts, half-cooked hamburgers and hot dogs, fried onions and fat—when they seize the barrow and the rest of the equipment.

In those circumstances, what are the park constables to do? I do not want to be facetious, but to make a genuine little point.

Mr. Forth

I think that my right hon. Friend makes a genuinely big point. In Standing Committee, the Minister was asked a similar question, to which he replied: The Royal Parks Constabulary will follow the same procedures as City of Westminster council officials, who offer the unlicensed trader the opportunity to take the perishable goods away. Almost all traders accept that invitation—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 March 2000; c. 9.] In other words, there is no answer to the question, according to the Minister's response in Standing Committee. Thank goodness, therefore, that we can do the job properly on Report today. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the Minister hard for a satisfactory answer now.

Mr. Maclean

I have been stirred up by my right hon. Friend on a point that I may, negligently, have glossed over as minor. The mind boggles when one tries to imagine how traders take their goods away. This morning, I tried to purchase—for academic and scientific reasons—a hot dog and/or a hamburger from the two chaps at the House of Lords end of Westminster gardens.

Mr. Forth

Without onions?

Mr. Maclean

No; they smelt rather good. The two men were selling their goods when I passed at 10 o'clock this morning. It would be out of order to comment on the quality—we have already discussed the smell and whether the stink may be objectionable to local people. Clause 4 gives park constables the right to take the equipment: the barrow, or sort of stainless steel and aluminium cart that the chap at the House of Lords end had this morning. He looked as if he was in his 90s—I cannot imagine that he was a Mafia person. I am not trying to make an ageist remark—I hope that, if the Government set up a commission for age equality, it will not prosecute me.

The old boy who was selling hamburgers and hot dogs at the House of Lords end this morning had a large bag of unpeeled onions and a large bag of sesame seed rolls. As I passed, he had a fry-up on the go. It smelt rather good at 10 o'clock. The hot dogs, the hamburgers and the onions were on the griddle. If the park constable had arrived and used his powers under clause 4 to seize anything of a non-perishable nature, he would have taken the aluminium cart and barrow, but he would not have been empowered legally to take the bag of unpeeled onions or the bag of sesame seed rolls. Doubtless, the seller could return those. What on earth would the constable do with the food that was sizzling away on the griddle, ready for the tourists to eat?

Mr. Forth

Perhaps the answer is to include a grandfather clause in the Bill.

Mr. Maclean

I am one of the few hon. Members who, many years ago, passed their articulated truck driving qualification. I believe it was called the national certificate of competence in road traffic management—those are the correct words, but they are not necessarily in the correct order. Doubtless those in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions could advise. Having done the qualification, I should be better able to advise my right hon. Friend. However, I had better not go down that route.

It may appear that I have been slightly facetious, but there is a genuine problem, which the Bill does not address. I hope that the Minister will deal with it in his reply. Parks police will have to devise extra legal measures to deal with the problem. The Government have given them no help in the Bill. I shall not vote against the clause, but the Government will give the police powers to seize non-perishable goods but no powers to deal with perishable goods, which constitute 99 per cent. of the problem, given that the food sellers cause the main difficulty. What will happen to them?

Clause 5 states: The Secretary of State may retain anything which has been seized under section 4 until the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the seizure. Subsection (3) applies where before the end of that period an information for a park trading offence is laid. Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to "retain the thing"—or things—until the court case is over. If an award is made, the Secretary of State can hang on to "the thing seized" until the costs have been paid.

The clause uses standard forfeiture terms that may appear in other legislation. The fact that the parks constables have seized the items and the Secretary of State has hung on to them means that their value instantly diminishes. If the person buys the goods new, they become second hand as soon as he uses them. By the time that they have been confiscated by the parks police, they are third hand. The value declines immeasurably. The retention and disposal provisions make it impossible for the Secretary of State to get a fair price for the goods.

Perhaps that is part of the penalty. If the Government say that it is, I have no qualms about it. Part of the penalty that we parliamentarians are building into the legislation is that a parks constable may seize the cart, the barrow, the brazier, and all the rest of the stuff, which are perhaps worth £500. However, the second that they are seized by an organ of the state and are sold off at a warrant sale or a disposal of surplus Government junk and property, they are worth only a tenner—that seems to be standard practice. Are we saying that we are happy with that and that it is another penalty that the person has to suffer when his goods are confiscated? He has not a hope in Hades of getting anything like the real value or a fair market value. With Government sales of surplus property and surplus equipment, or at sales at Waterloo station of all the equipment that people leave on trains, including umbrellas and wooden legs, one gets a fantastic bargain. People do not like going to such a sale because things have been handed in or they may have been stolen and, although they are dirt cheap, it is all awful and tacky.

If the Government confiscate the property, when it is sold on behalf of the people who have committed the offence, the Government will get nothing like its real value—the people from whom it has been confiscated will get nothing like its value.

If that is the case, let us be honest with the House. Then we will know that we are passing yet another sanction. We dealt with the fines in clause 2. Another part of the penalty will be the fact that the goods will be sold for a song and people will have to suffer that penalty as well.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

My right hon. Friend will doubtless have seen recent press reports that suggest that bailiffs should no longer sell off the goods and chattels of people who have committed some offence. The argument is that the goods and chattels have so little value nowadays that it is not worth the effort of seizing them. Does he agree that, if the equipment that is be seized under the Bill is re-sold—as he said, it will have a low value—it is likely to be sold back to the same sort of people who are committing the offences in the first place?

Mr. Maclean

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was concluding my remarks on the amendment and I was about to mention bailiffs and warrant sales. It is a fact that, if one is unfortunate enough not to have paid one's bills and bailiffs seize one's property, one never gets anything like its real value. That is a good allusion to what may happen under this clause. One may purchase a new television for £300 today, but the second that one takes it out of the shop, it is second-hand. If the bailiffs seize it tomorrow, they may get £50 for it, if they are lucky.

The same is true of the hamburger stalls, although they may be of greater value to the sort of people who are in the business than to my hon. Friend and me, who do not want to purchase a hamburger stall, or to the general public. The specialists who trade in the business may pay slightly more for them. I do not think that the Government would want to sell them back to the sort of people from whom they confiscated them, unless those people had got a licence in the meantime.

The main amendment in the group is No. 28, which would provide that the constable ensured that there were facilities for the safe removal from the park of perishable material by the person in possession or control. I will not again discuss the problem of the burgers, the sausage rolls and what one does when someone takes the trolley that they are on but not them.

Amendment No. 28 suggests a solution to the Government. If they are going to give the park constables the powers under clause 4 to seize the fellow's cart and barrow, under my amendment they must stipulate that the park constables and police must have facilities for the safe removal of the perishable materials. If the hamburger seller usually takes away his stuff when the police tell him to move on, he will want to take it with him. For example, the sack of unpeeled onions that I saw this morning must have been worth a few pounds. The seller would want to take it with him—no problem. He would want to take his buns with him, but I bet that he would not take his semi-cooked hot dogs and half-fried onions with him. That would not make sense. So what will happen to them?

The royal parks are meticulously kept. It was a tragedy to see the damage in the park at Millbank after the millennium celebrations. The garbage left behind was appalling. I felt sorry for the park staff as they tried for days to clear up. Nevertheless, Mr. Haselhurst—I mean, Sir Alan—Mr. Deputy Speaker—there have been so many occupants of the Chair tonight—

9.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is one of the quickest promotions that I have ever received.

Mr. Maclean

It is well deserved, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I will not discuss further the problem of garbage in the park after the millennium celebrations. However, such problems could be increased, if the park constable exercised his powers under subsection (1) of the clause and had to dispose of the material. He cannot take it with him, because he is not empowered to remove non-perishables. He would probably not want to touch them; they could be dangerous or a health hazard—discuss that matter later. The person from whom he has removed the property would not want it. Those apparent Mafia types are hardly likely to want to put their semi-fried onions into a poly bag to take them away—they will just chuck them into the bushes. They will dispose of them in the easiest possible way. If their non-perishable equipment has been confiscated, they will dump the semi-cooked burgers and hot dogs.

We need to ensure that, when a constable exercises such powers, he brings with him a bucket or a dustbin or insists that there is some facility for getting rid of the perishable material that the person conducting the illegal or criminal activities is ready to dump in the park. My amendment states that the constable shall give to the person having possession or control— of the thing or things to be seized— a document, in an appropriate language, setting out the reasons for the seizure, itemising the things seized and informing the person of his rights and liabilities under section 5. My rough attempt at a model schedule sets out what the person whose property has been confiscated should be told. Some colleagues may have found some parts of that schedule amusing, because I listed the languages that are used by many of those sellers—or so I am informed. It has been pointed out that many people engaged in such activities were of eastern European origin—some were asylum seekers. Under normal police rules and PACE, when people are taken to police stations and charged, the normal procedure is for interpreters to be employed and for people to be informed in their own language of their rights, duties and obligations and of the reasons for the charge.

That is a fundamental principle; it would be a breach of the convention on human rights to take people who are not English to a police station and charge them in English when they do not have a clue about what is going on. The police are under an obligation to make sure that such people understand.

The Minister, with all his excellent advisers, may tell me that my schedule is not perfect or inappropriate—it may contain too many languages. I may have the wrong languages; it might be condensed or improved. However, it is a rough attempt to say that a person arrested in a park who has his property seized should be told what is happening in a language that he understands. I have included English, French and Spanish and many eastern European languages, which the Library of the House of Commons kindly provided for me. I shall not go through them.

Mr. Forth

Why not?

Mr. Maclean

The new schedule speaks for itself. I offer it merely as guidance for the Minister and hope that he will accept the concept in principle and tidy up the details later. The other place, which is, of course, much closer to the illegal hamburger sellers than we are, may wish to concentrate on refining the schedule.

The new schedule also provides that the person should be given the reasons for seizure, which is common practice, for example, when a health and safety at work notice is issued warning someone of a prohibition, or when an inspector sets out reasons in an improvement notice. In this case, the reasons for seizure should be set out so that the person involved may take them to his lawyer, or whoever.

There should also be a list of the items seized. There is nothing fancy or posh about that; it is a simple form of receipt, which will protect the park constable. If the people involved have criminal links with organised crime, the next new racket will be suing the parks constables for the equipment that they have confiscated. It is a source of distress and annoyance to me that one of the best rackets going is suing the Metropolitan police for no good reason. People who trip over pavements sue the Met. I can see people getting into the same racket with claims that the police have confiscated equipment worth tens of thousands of pounds. The parks police will have to spend a fortune defending the allegation and proving that they were right. A receipt would provide protection for the constabulary.

Finally, my model new schedule, to which the Minister or other hon. Members may wish to add, suggests that the person should be told his rights and liabilities. The Minister may say that they are set out in the Bill and that the person could read clause 5 or clause 6. However, when police officers stop and search someone, they tell the person that he has been stopped and will be searched and they give him his rights and liabilities under the PACE rules.

I have tried to replicate that so that a person will be told all his rights—I hope that I have listed all of them, but I may not have. The person will be told that the Secretary of State may hang on to his barrow and trolley until court proceedings are finished. He will be told that the Secretary of State can sell them off and keep the proceeds until costs are paid, and will then return the remainder, if there is one. He will be told that the court may hang on to his goods and that they may be forfeited or destroyed if he is found guilty. He will be told that he has the right to make representations to the court before the court decides how to dispose of his goods.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

My right hon. Friend has taken advice from the Library on the relevant languages. Why did he miss out German and Italian? There are significant German minorities in eastern Europe, and many poorer people from the Mezzogiorno in southern Italy try to come to the UK.

Mr. Maclean

That is a good point. I deliberately missed out languages that I thought were not used by those involved. Perhaps not many English people are involved, but it is a common language, and a parks constable must serve a notice in English when he arrests anyone. I included the languages of people who, I had heard or read or been instructed, might be involved in the activity. I was not aware of many Italians or Germans being involved. It may be best simply to have a schedule of the main United Nations languages: English, French, Spanish, German—American is not a United Nations language, is it?—and some of the main Indian or eastern European languages.

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

Esperanto?

Mr. Maclean

I respect those who participate in Esperanto and recently attended a national conference on it in my constituency, but I did not think it appropriate to the new schedule.

I was speaking about the part of amendment No. 28 that deals with the proposed new schedule. I consider amendment No. 28 to be terribly important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that he will accept some of it in spirit or in context.

The final part of amendment No. 28 relates to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. Under proposed subsection (4)(c), the constable should not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create hazard for his or others' health and safety. This is a slightly different point from disposing of obnoxious hamburgers. Disposal of the hamburgers into the bushes may cause an environmental hazard. If the constable grabbed the red-hot chestnuts and the burning brazier, he would injure himself. I refer not to the burning Brazier from Canterbury—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—but the burning brazier containing charcoal and chestnuts.

Park constables will be expected to take such articles. Apart from obvious things such as hot fat and burning charcoal, there will be heavy trolleys which may be of an odd construction. Some of the barrows may be built of steel and various contraptions on them may be dangerous to the health of someone who does not know how the barrow is constructed. If the constable takes possession of a mobile cart, which has a steel frame and is covered by a parasol, and he does not know how to collapse that parasol, fold the barrow, load it on to his parks' department vehicle, he could suffer a serious back injury or other injury.

The amendment suggests that, in those circumstances, before the park constable and the police take possession of these contraptions, they perform a quick assessment that doing so will not injure their health and safety or the health and safety of others who may have to do so. The amendment refers to performing an assessment, but I think that in reality it would be a checklist—a simple page of A4, with a list of items that the park constable can run through and tick off. If he is then satisfied that he can confiscate the red-hot chestnut trolley with the burning charcoal brazier with no risk to his health or that of others, he can carry on.

The Minister may pooh-pooh this idea, or say that it is not necessary to include it in the law. I am not a betting man, and one should not, in any case, lay a bet on the Floor of the House of Commons. However, I am willing to bet that, when the Bill becomes an Act and the police have to operate its provisions, they will perform a COSHH assessment before carrying out any of the requirements specified. The requirement to perform health and safety assessments before making any police decisions bogs down the rest of the civil constabulary. It will take only one bobby or one park constable to be injured for a claim for £500,000 to be made, and then the Department will have to ensure that these actions are carried out safely.

Amendment No. 28 is my main area of concern. I will not speak to amendment No. 7. It makes sense to me, but it would make sense to others only if various other amendments were grouped with it. As those other amendments have not been selected for debate, I do not wish to speak to it.

I hope that the Minister can reassure me that clauses 4 and 5 are essential, tell us more about what park trading offences he envisages being designated, deal with the problem of perishable goods, mention COSHH and say what facilities there will be for the safe removal of perishable materials. I hope that he will also be able to reassure me that there will be procedures for telling these people—who apparently include many asylum seekers and foreign nationals—in their own language, whatever that may be, about their rights, obligations and duties.

9.45 pm
Mr. Forth

I want to reinforce some of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and then cover some other points. I share my right hon. Friend's anxiety about a lacuna in the Bill as drafted. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said: It would be helpful if the Minister could give a more graphic account of what will happen to perishable goods. That is the thrust of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has said. I confess that I posed a trick question to my right hon. Friend earlier, because I quoted the first part of the Minister's reply. The Minister said: The Royal Parks Constabulary will follow the same procedures as City of Westminster council officials, who offer the unlicensed trader the opportunity to take the perishable goods away. That concerns the man with the hot nuts who is running off in the opposite direction. In fairness to the Minister, he went on to say: The trader is asked to sign a form acknowledging that he is either taking or refusing to take the perishables, whichever applies. We now have some documentation entering the scene, although none of that is in the Bill. He went on: If he refuses to take them, it is on the understanding that they will be destroyed by the enforcing authority to protect environmental health and the general amenity of the surroundings.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 March 2000; c. 8–9.] That raises more questions and, at best, is a partial answer to the problem. Never mind that the trader is being offered options, or that documents are being filled in, seemingly on the spot; it raises the question as to how or when the goods will be destroyed by the enforcing authority. So we have a Mafia man with his cart in the middle of a royal park, peddling hot dogs and hamburgers. His collar is felt by the constable, and documents are then filled out in the middle of the park. Then, the enforcing authority appears mysteriously to take away the offending items. That does not sound right to me, and we will have to hear more from the Minister. That is not a credible sequence of events, but it is all we have on record from the Minister in the 35 minutes of the Committee.

I am not happy with the proposal, which is why I am attracted by amendment No. 28. The amendment proposes that when the park constable is exercising his powers, he must ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of the perishable materials. That is an explicit requirement, which, at the moment, I cannot find in the Bill, and which we are being asked to take on trust.

Mr. Swayne

I am concerned by the use of the word "safe". What are the hazards consequent upon hot nuts, either environmental or otherwise?

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend knows about the hazards because my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border explained them. We are talking about the definition of heated items. We are talking about heated hamburgers, heated hot dogs and hot fat. Those are all perishable and potentially dangerous. They are a hazard to health and a danger to whoever handles them. That is where the COSHH regulations arise, which were correctly mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border under amendment No. 28.

I recall dealing with this in the past when I had certain responsibilities for the Health and Safety Executive. There is an attempt under the regulations to try to ensure that in the workplace—ironically, this is a workplace of sorts—we do whatever we can to ensure that unnecessary hazards are not met. There could be a hazard for the Mafia man, with whom we are becoming familiar—or even fond—the officer and any members of the public in the vicinity. Let us not forget that this is a public area. We have a responsibility to ensure that, as far as possible, all those people are protected. That is why I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. Enough of that.

My amendment No. 22 seeks to strengthen the Bill. I thought that there was a risk that the drafting of clause 5(2)(b) may be unduly restrictive. Subsection (2) says: Subsection (3) applies where before the end of that period an information for a park trading offence is laid—

  1. (a) against the person from whom the thing was seized, and
  2. (b) in respect of his activities at the time of the seizure.
It occurred to me that the words, at the time of the seizure may be unnecessarily and unfortunately restrictive.

My amendment seeks to insert the words "or before". It occurred to me that a narrow interpretation of the current drafting could unnecessarily restrict the powers available to the precise moment of seizure. To be more effective, the subsection needs to be broadened to encompass activities that may have occurred before or just before the time of seizure. I am trying to be helpful. I have identified what I believe is unduly restrictive wording and I hope that the Minister can reassure us or, who knows, accept this modest but helpful amendment.

Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 touch on what I believe is an important area. Throughout the Bill we are talking, necessarily, about a tension or conflict between the understandable desire of the authorities and the House to deal with what everybody perceives to be antisocial, unpleasant and unfortunate while also dealing with individuals who have rights, who are attempting to run a business and who own property in the form of perishable or non-perishable materials.

The Bill introduces some draconian powers. Indeed, clause 4 is entitled "Seizure of property" and clause 5 is entitled "Retention and disposal". One of the main arguments in favour of the Bill—it is argued by the Minister—is that, in addition to mere fines, which were discussed earlier, the ability to seize or confiscate property will be one of the most potent new weapons available to the authorities.

Given all that, and accepting the thrust and the principle of the Bill, what bothers me is that we must make sure that we strike the appropriate balance between our desire to do all the necessary seizing, confiscating, punishing and stopping of illegal trading while considering the proper rights of the individual. We live in an age where we are sensitive, perhaps overly so, about the powers of the police and the possibility of giving them more.

I bet that, in a different context, the Chamber would be full of people frothing at the mouth at the suggestion that we should give the police any more powers, yet the Bill gives the police considerable extra powers and there is little frothing. I am puzzled as to why such powers should be given almost casually in this case, when in other circumstances there would be widespread concerns.

My modest amendments are an attempt to strike a proper balance between the increase in powers and the rights of individuals, by putting reasonable time limits on the process, so that if someone is deprived of his livelihood and it turns out, after rapid due process, to have been an injustice, he will at least be deprived of it for only a minimum, reasonable time. We all know that the wheels of justice tend to grind somewhat slowly. If such draconian powers are introduced, some innocent individuals may be deprived of their livelihood almost indefinitely, or at least for too long.

Mr. Swayne

Under some of the amendments, including No. 28, for which I know my right hon. Friend is not personally responsible, the police may actually lack powers. I am not persuaded of the hazardous nature of many of these comestibles—they are for consumption—but if we accept the force of the amendment, that they are hazards, under proposed new subsection (4)(c) they are not to be removed; they are to stay in the park. What agency is to remove them thereafter?

Mr. Forth

That thought is even less palatable—if I may use that word—than what we had before. My hon. Friend illustrates the alarming element of doubt in everyone's mind about what is to happen to these hot, unpleasant perishables when the cart has been seized. Are they left in the park? Are they taken away, and by whom? Where are they put as a matter of safety? The Minister may have satisfied the Committee—it went so quickly that nobody would have noticed whether he did—but he has not yet satisfied us. We are now properly fulfilling our role on Report, and he will have the time carefully and comprehensively to answer our questions.

I tabled my amendments to raise those questions and to probe. I hope that we will get full answers, because I am very attracted by amendment No. 28, which contains much that is valuable and would strengthen the Bill. We will listen very carefully to the Minister's response before deciding how far to proceed. If necessary—if we are not satisfied—my right hon. Friend may want to press amendment No. 28 to a vote.

Mr. Chope

I support amendment No. 6. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that it was designed to probe. My worry is that clauses 4 and 5, which it would delete, might have unintended consequences—not an unusual effect for the legislation that we discuss.

The rationale for the Bill is succinctly expressed by a source at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 4 February. He said: The Royal Parks should be a showcase for Britain. They should not be ruined by a dodgy geezer selling a burger on a dirty old trolley. Clauses 4 and 5 could mean that there are more people selling burgers on dirty old trolleys than on clean new ones. Those who sell such goods should, in the interests of public hygiene, have equipment to refrigerate the uncooked goods, separate cooked and uncooked meats and ensure that the cooking is done to an adequate temperature to kill the vile bugs that the Food Standards Agency—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.