HL Deb 21 June 2000 vol 614 cc348-56

8.28 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The activities of illegal traders are a blight on the face of our magnificent Royal Parks and detract from their enjoyment by thousands of visitors. The purpose of this short Bill is to give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport the powers to deal effectively with the problem.

The peace and beauty of our Royal Parks are well known to and appreciated by Londoners and visitors. The Royal Parks Agency maintains them to a high standard. They are kept clean and are well presented. They are a showpiece of excellence in the heart of our capital city. The activities of illegal traders detract from that.

Anyone who sells goods in a Royal Park must have the permission of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The Government ensure that what is on sale is of a high quality and at a reasonable price. Recognised catering firms are authorised to sell refreshments in all the royal parks. In addition to providing a quality service to the public, part of the income goes to the Royal Parks Agency for the upkeep of the parks.

The activities of illegal traders undermine every aspect of this arrangement. Many noble Lords will be only too well aware of the present position. Between spring and autumn the Central Royal parks, and St James's Park in particular, are dotted at every turn with individuals operating carts from which they sell hot dogs or ice-creams at exorbitant prices and with little, if any, regard for health and hygiene. It is difficult to pollute the fresh air in the Royal Parks but these traders more than achieve it with the unpleasant odours which waft from their carts. The image of the Royal Parks is tarnished both at home and abroad. More importantly, the products offered by the illegal traders are a threat to the health of visitors, exorbitant prices take advantage of the unwary and authorised traders and the Royal Parks are deprived of income. This is the problem which the Government are determined to deal with. We have been unable to do that effectively so far because current powers have proved to be inadequate.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 require that anyone wishing to trade in one of the parks must obtain the written permission of the Secretary of State. If a person acts in contravention of the regulations, including that for trading within the parks, he or she commits an offence under the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926. At present the courts may impose a fine of up to £200 after conviction for such an offence. Fines, however frequently imposed by the courts, have failed to act as a deterrent compared with the money which can be made from unlicensed trading.

The Bill seeks to combat the current abuses by introducing the new concepts of "park trading regulations" and "park trading offences". These labels will apply to parts of the existing regulations, which will then attract the enhanced powers of seizure, forfeiture and level of fine in the Bill. Breach of a regulation that has not been designated as a "park trading regulation" will remain an offence but the authorities will not be able to use the powers in the Bill in that respect.

The problem of unlicensed trading in the parks has got worse in recent years. Until recently the City of Westminster faced the same problems of illegal trading on the streets of the city, where fines were failing to be a deterrent. Parliament provided the City of Westminster with more effective powers in the City of Westminster Act 1999. These allow the City of Westminster to seize property used in the commission of unlicensed trading. This puts an immediate stop to the illegal act. The courts also have greater powers; on conviction, the court may impose a fine up to level 3, which is currently £1,000, and may determine whether any property relating to the offence is to be forfeited.

The City of Westminster Act is working very effectively, so effectively that as a consequence the level of illegal trading in the Royal Parks has increased, as illegal traders have moved increasingly into the Royal Parks, where the sanctions are less effective. It is important that Parliament now provides similarly effective powers for the Royal Parks.

I turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill. It creates various powers to regulate illegal trading in the Royal Parks and other open spaces covered by the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926. The powers in the Bill are broadly comparable to the powers provided to deal with unlicensed traders in the City of Westminster.

Clause 1 of the Bill, as I indicated earlier, allows the Secretary of State to designate particular provisions of any regulations made under the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926, as "park trading regulations". This designation will be achieved by regulations made under the 1926 Act. Any failure to comply with a park trading regulation will, from then on, be a "park trading offence".

Clause 2 provides a penalty not exceeding level 3 (currently £1,000) on the standard scale for failure to comply with or contravention of regulations made under Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 4 provides a power of seizure by a constable of non-perishable items used in connection with illegal trading. Clause 5 allows the Secretary of State, in specific circumstances, to retain and dispose of things seized. Clause 6 provides a power to order forfeiture of things seized, exercisable by a magistrates' court in the event of conviction.

The Government are grateful for the support they received for the Bill in another place from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches.

The principles and purposes of the Bill are straightforward. We seek to deal with a criminal activity which has increased considerably in recent years, to the detriment of the Royal Parks and the health, the pocket and the comfort of visitors. The additional powers we seek are reasonable and have been shown to work fairly and effectively in the City of Westminster. The gap left by the illegal traders will be filled by additional catering kiosks provided by the authorised concessionaire. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

8.35 p.m.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for introducing this long overdue Bill so clearly this evening. I said "long overdue" as someone who lives in London and who is a regular user of our wonderful parks, with all the lovely gardens, the wildlife and other amenities. I have to congratulate here the Royal Parks Agency on the wonderful job that it does. I am regularly sickened to the stomach by the most revolting smell from the unlicensed street traders selling the most unattractive looking hotdogs that one could ever wish to see.

The problem has become much more serious since Westminster City Council, as the Minister said, acquired the power to confiscate and destroy trolleys and stocks of unlicensed street traders. Many of them have moved into the parks, and I am told that in St James's Park alone up to 40 illegal traders are regularly operating. There is no control over prices or, what is even more important, over standards of hygiene; and the activities of these illegal traders damage the business of the approved concessionaires.

The Royal Parks Police have no powers. They can move these traders on but cannot prevent them from returning almost immediately. Most of these people are of foreign origin and speak very little, if any, English. The other day I saw a tourist ask for directions from one of these people and the reply that they got was a shrug of the shoulders.

Some months ago there was a fly-on-the-wall TV programme about these traders. It showed some unpleasant shots: in one of them the food fell on to the footpath and was picked up to be cooked and sold to the next unsuspecting customer. A few years ago some people took my dog for a walk and, having purchased a hotdog in one of the parks, they gave some of it to the dog, who was very ill for the next few days. I hate to think how many tourists have suffered the same fate.

This Bill, I am told, is the same as that which was introduced in another place by my right honourable friend Mr Peter Brooke last year. Regrettably, the Bill was blocked by Mr Eric Forth, as were other Bills, and he had another go at Third Reading a few weeks ago.

Ibis Bill has my 100 per cent support. I am told by the Royal Parks Agency and the Royal Parks Police that they also fully support it as it is and do not wish to see it amended. All the powers that they need are in it.

I have a few points for the Minister, of which I have already given him notice. I should like to repeat these points so that they are on the official record. I should like to ask, first, whether the Bill can achieve its Third Reading and Royal Assent before 24th July, which, I am told, is the day earmarked for the Bill. Secondly, I hope that the Victoria Tower Gardens are covered by this Bill. My last problem or concern is: where will the traders go once this Bill becomes law? My worry is that they will go to the east side of the river by the London Eye. Anyone who walks there, as I do, can see for themselves a number of illegal vendors selling their wares or performing to raise money. Some days there seem to be more traders than tourists, and it is all becoming very unattractive. Could the Minister ask the local authority to look into this, as it is a popular tourist area and does not give a good impression to visitors?

My last question is: when is the commencement date? In other words, when can the police start to clamp down? Is it the date of Royal Assent or do orders have to lie for 40 days after Royal Assent before the police can get to work? The sooner we get Royal Assent and the orders are laid, the better. I urge the House to support this Bill and not even to try to amend it. I can but quote from a letter from the Deputy Chief Officer, whose permission I have to quote it. The letter says: The past four years have been difficult in policing terms, for the Royal Parks Constabulary have been unable to deal effectively with unlicensed Street traders, and the powers enshrined in the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill are the only practical means of addressing the problems. I ask you to support the Bill and would urge you to generate support among their Lordships". I concur with these statements, and I wish the Bill well.

8.39 p.m.

Viscount Falkland

My Lords, we on these Benches absolutely support the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on the tribute he made to the Royal Parks which are a pride to London. They are known world-wide for the recreation, peace and quiet, and beauty that they provide. As has been said by the Minister, and indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, the smell and offence given by the cooking, if one can call it such, which is done by illegal traders, creates a disturbance which does nothing for the parks.

Indeed, the authorised traders contribute by paying for the authority which they hold to trade. That is approved by the Secretary of State. Unauthorised traders contribute nothing. They leave rubbish, which has to be cleaned up. There are many traders and many who want to trade. It must, therefore, be a profitable business. We have all seen the queues of people standing behind the contraptions, which steam away and create offensive odours. One wonders how people can be in such dire need of refreshment that they need to give such people their custom. However, they do so. My only wish is that the Bill passes into law quickly and without delay. If it does not, all kinds of sinister things may happen. As we have seen in the past, once this is seen by unlawful traders as a lucrative source of income, rivalries between traders ensue, with undesirable social consequences.

There is nothing further to say; everything has been said. I hope that the dates mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, can be met and that we shall have that assurance from the Minister.

8.41 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

My Lords, perhaps the only note of dissent tonight will be from me. I do not think that quite everything has been said on the Bill, as was stated by the noble Viscount. I have one or two new points to make. I shall, therefore, detain the House a little longer.

I have to remark also that in a spirit of co-operation, we agreed to have, most unusually, a Second Reading of a Bill during the dinner hour. At that stage I was not aware that the business which preceded this—that is, the orders—would be as lengthy as it was. In saying that, I make absolutely no criticism of anybody who spoke, Ministers or otherwise. The orders were important. The questions that were put and the answers given by the Ministers were absolutely vital. However, one only has to look at the clock to realise that an important Bill has been left with short shrift.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. This debate is not time limited. The only decision the House has taken is not to resume before 8.55 p.m. If the noble Baroness wishes to speak for 20 minutes, she is at perfect liberty to do so.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

My Lords, tempting though the offer is, I have never spoken for 20 minutes, and I do not intend to start tonight. My point is simply that the agreement was that this business be taken during the dinner hour and that it would be completed within that period. That was the basis upon which I agreed to take it. It is a matter which I shall bear carefully in mind when I am approached with regard to other such business.

I turn to the Bill. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the terms of the Bill. It addresses an issue which has recently caused much public concern; that is, the problem of illegal trading in the Royal Parks. This was a matter which was discussed by the House last year during debates on the Greater London Authority Bill and on an Unstarred Question on the future of the Royal Parks. That debate was initiated by my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley, who is disappointed that he is unable to contribute his expertise tonight. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a special occasion at Windsor Castle and will not be surprised that his presence is required there.

I made it clear on each occasion that we on these Benches would support measures to clamp down on illegal trading in the Royal Parks, provided, of course, that such legislation addressed the problem in an appropriate, effective and fair manner. We believe that the Bill attempts to do just that. We therefore support it.

We hope that the Bill will have the effect of bringing powers in relation to Royal Parks and other open spaces broadly into line with those possessed by local authorities when they deal with illegal trading activities in the surrounding streets. As the Minister stated, the Royal Parks are a precious resource for Londoners and tourists alike. They form a ribbon of green across London and are, indeed, the lungs of the city, giving us all somewhere we can take shelter from the pressures of city life. We all pay tribute to the Royal Parks Agency for its work in keeping the parks as places of excellence for all of us to enjoy.

Other noble Lords referred in detail to the problem as it exists. I do not intend to repeat those points. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for giving such a clear description of the problem from his own expert view as a resident who has suffered the smells and has viewed what can happen. We are aware of the dangers for tourists and Londoners alike who buy food that may well not be proper to eat and may be contaminated.

The Minister referred to one issue that has caused the problem to become worse in recent years. I refer to the action rightly taken by Westminster City Council to deal effectively with unlicensed vendors on its streets. As the Minister pointed out, the result of that has simply been that the unlicensed vendors have plied their trade elsewhere; in other words, in the Royal Parks.

The second issue and new point to which I wish to refer is a matter which occurred last year which made the problem even worse than expected; namely, the decision of a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in May in the case of Kol Curri v. Westminster City Council. Mr Justice Ognall, sitting with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, decided that when an unlicensed vendor sells goods on Crown land, only the owner of the trolley can be prosecuted under food safety laws, not the person selling the food.

In giving judgment to the Court, Mr Justice Ognall said: I reach these conclusions with a degree of regret, and certainly of reluctance. I am mindful that this analysis may make it easy for peripatetic entrepreneurs to assert in this sort of situation that they are no more than salesmen, and thus to escape prosecution or conviction". I quote from the transcript of the case. He was absolutely right in his forecast. The decision meant that unlicensed hotdog sellers—or sellers of any food or other items—are virtually immune from prosecution because the proprietors can rarely, if ever, be found. If one reads the transcript of that judgment, one obtains a clear picture of the nature and scale of the problem in the Royal Parks.

When Mr Kol Curri was stopped on 3rd July 1997 in St James's Park, he was trading in hotdog sausages from his mobile trolley. It is said that the trolley itself, the food being sold and the appellant's clothing, appeared to fall below hygiene standards as set out in food safety legislation. That seems an understatement.

The importance of this is that Mr Kol Curri, an Albanian with limited command of English, was being organised by others. He was their agent. The owners of the trolleys, who were not from Albania, were called Bill and Dave. One therefore assumes they might be from closer to home. They were paying Mr Kol Curri between £20 and £50 per week depending on sales. He worked only part time. They were taking about £1,000 per day profit per trolley. They were the ones making the killing, perhaps.

It is against the background of that kind of trade that we believe the Bill tries to tackle the problem in the right way. It is important that a solution is to be found in having recourse not just to heavy fines but to other methods. It is important to have a deterrent.

The Minister referred to Clause 4 which gives park constables the right to seize all non-perishable goods used as part of the illegal trading activity. That provision is important.

There are other matters and questions one could justifiably ask about the provisions in the Bill. I refer, for example, to what happens to the perishable goods. None of us, I am sure, enjoys the thought of large piles of half-cooked burgers and onions being dumped in the Royal Parks. However, I shall not put those questions to the Minister tonight simply because, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Bill and wish it a fair wind. Like others, I do not do so because I am a killjoy. Like many, I believe that one can enjoy a very good hotdog or beefburger. However, I recognise that it is important to protect tourists and Londoners alike from being exploited by unlicensed traders in the Royal Parks. I wish the Bill speedy progress through the House.

8.50 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for the unreserved enthusiasm they expressed for this Bill.

When I say "short debate", let me repeat to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that I am grateful to her for agreeing to take the Second Reading in the dinner hour; as she said, it is unusual. I am sorry that she was approached without being told that orders were being taken at the same time. However, I want to assure her again that the fact that the orders were taken did not limit the amount of time available for the Second Reading of this Bill. It simply meant that this business began that much later in the evening. If that was inconvenient, I apologise to her.

It is true that the provisions of this Bill were debated in the context of the Greater London Authority Bill, and that last year the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I took part in those debates. This matter was debated also in an Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, and we are sorry that he is not in his place today.

First, I want to deal with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. He asked when the Bill will come into effect. The answer is, immediately on Royal Assent. But orders have to be laid after that under the 1926 Act and cannot come into effect for 40 sitting days. Clearly, the earlier the Bill receives Royal Assent, the better, and the earlier we can conclude Committee stage, the better. If the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, that there should be no amendments in Committee, is followed by the Opposition Front Benches, the order of commitment can be discharged and the Third Reading can be held very shortly thereafter. That will certainly advance the time by which the Bill will come into effect. I hope that the noble Lord will seek to persuade his Front Bench that that is the right way to proceed.

The noble Lord asked whether the Bill applies to Victoria Tower gardens. It does, and there is a particularly offensive hotdog seller right next to the Victoria Tower. The noble Lord asked also where the traders will go and what is to be done at the London Eye. I too have observed that illegal traders have found the London Eye a place of attraction. It is covered by the London Local Authorities Act 1990, which provides powers of seizure and forfeiture for unlicensed trading. I hope that the authority, which I assume to be Southwark council, will take action under that Act to deal with the problem there if indeed it shifts from the Royal Parks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made a valid point in relation to who is guilty of an offence. As she will know, Clause 3 of the Bill ensures not only that the individual trader can be charged with an offence, but also a corporate body; and the officers of that corporate body, who are defined in the Bill, will be prosecuted under the Act.

The noble Baroness asked what happened to perishable goods that were not seized, although she did not want an answer. Traders are invited to take their perishable goods away. I believe that they take away the ice cream cones and probably the hotdogs and rolls. But if they do not, the goods are destroyed at the place to which the carts are taken. I am glad to say that there is good co-operation between Westminster and the Royal Parks. The carts will be taken to Westminster yard.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for everything they have said about the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.