City of London (Various Powers) Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Lord Myners
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, my long association with the City of London has resulted in close involvement with many legislative issues of concern to the City, but this is the first occasion on which I have sponsored a City Private Bill in your Lordships' House. It is not, however, the first occasion on which I have sponsored such a Bill, since, as the Member for the City in the other place, I introduced the City’s last private measure, the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, some 11 years ago. That Bill, to revise and extend the City’s franchise, excited a good deal of debate. When I came to this House in 2001, it still had some six months to run in the lower House. My past did not, however, catch up with me, as it were, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had kindly agreed to take the measure through the upper House while I was still engaged with it in the other place, such was the elongation of the proceedings. The vagaries of the parliamentary timetable can have unexpected, even serendipitous, results.
By way of contrast—I think that my noble friend Lord Lucas will confirm this—this Bill is not likely to generate a similar profile. Its main aim is to deal with some deregulatory changes to local street trading legislation, balanced by more effective enforcement where this is needed. It might reasonably be described as a modest measure.
Before describing the provisions specifically, I should perhaps say a few words about the context. The character of the City in recent times—and by that I mean the past 100 years or so—has been that of a location where business flourishes but where few people reside. The figures speak for themselves. Some 300,000 people commute daily to work in the offices of the City but only some 9,000 live there, of whom around 6,500 are resident voters.
For the past century, there has been no street trading in the City, other than in a small area in the extreme east on Sundays. This is governed by the only existing City trading legislation, currently contained in the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1987. I shall address this exception to the general position slightly later in my speech. The ban reflects the City’s nature as a business district and the significant pressure created during the day by the working needs of the business community. As buildings are redeveloped and replaced by the high-rise structures that we are seeing today to meet current demands, the pressure on the highways at the busy times of day is increasing rather than reducing. That is why the changes proposed in the Bill to enable the City to issue licences to facilitate the holding of events and to increase the availability of on-street ice-cream selling are designed to address an established need in a way that will not create additional pressure or conflicts in the use of limited space.
There have been occasional events—normally at weekends, when the City is much quieter—where the City’s current blanket prohibition on street trading has presented a problem. One example was a celebration of the 800th anniversary of the first London Bridge in 2009 organised by City livery companies. I should perhaps in parentheses acknowledge the precise anniversary date to be a slightly moveable feast, as there is also evidence that the original bridge was opened by Peter de Colechurch in 1206. In any event, in 2009 the bridge was closed to facilitate the celebrations, but only those livery companies able to obtain stalls at the Southwark end of the bridge were able to sell examples of their craft to members of the public; no trading could be permitted at the City end. There is now also an increased retail presence in One New Change next to St Paul’s. Those responsible for this retail offering aim to attract shoppers to visit the City at weekends and, to do so, may wish to seek to hold special events of a promotional nature.
So far as concerns the detail of the Bill, Clauses 1 and 2 are technical and deal with citation and interpretation. Clause 3 relaxes the existing street trading prohibition currently contained in the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1987 to allow street trading for limited periods. The clause will allow the City of London Corporation to issue temporary licences, typically to enable the sort of event I have described on London Bridge. A licence may be issued to an organisation which will arrange for others to carry out the street trading under the terms of the licence. Clause 4 makes consequential amendments to the existing street trading code, and Clause 5 makes non-compliance with the terms of a temporary licence an offence. Clause 6 sets the maximum penalty for street trading offences, including non-compliance with temporary licences introduced by Clause 3, at level 3, which is currently £1,000. The penalty set under the 1987 Act is at level 2, but level 3 is now the penalty set for street trading offences in London generally.
Enforcement is also the prompt for Clause 7, which responds to the fact that the current regime has not been an effective deterrent to illegal activity. In particular, there have been recurring instances of the persistent deployment of ice-cream vans trading illegally in the City. These vans have been the source of numerous complaints from members of the public, local businesses, local schools and St Paul’s Cathedral. In 2010, acting in response to such complaints, the City brought 247 cases of illegal trading before the courts. The fines imposed on the individual traders were insufficient to deter the activity.
Clause 7 proposes two changes which would obviate the need repeatedly to bring the same person before the courts. The first is, as I have already mentioned, to increase the level of fine for illegal street trading from £500 to the level applicable elsewhere in London of £1,000. Secondly, the new enforcement powers in the clause enable the ice-cream van to be seized, a deterrent already used by the City of Westminster. The detailed provisions to introduce that second change ensure that the legitimate interests of any trader subject to such a procedure are properly taken into account. They require a court order if the vehicle is to be forfeited or disposed of and empower the court to order that the City corporation pay compensation to the trader if proceedings have not been properly brought.
I mentioned earlier the exemption to the prohibition on street trading in the City. It relates to a small part of Petticoat Lane Market. In the early 1960s, a new road scheme to Aldgate on the eastern edge of the City led to the loss of certain pitches occupied by some of the Petticoat Lane street traders in the part of Middlesex Street in Tower Hamlets. Responding to representations by the displaced traders, the City corporation agreed to accommodate them within the City. This was achieved by allowing a specific exception for a small part of Middlesex Street within the City to the general City restriction on street trading.
I can claim first-hand knowledge of that provision. In May 1983, the constituency boundaries of the Cities of London and Westminster South were due to break out for the first time from the ancient, original boundaries of the ancient cities of London and Westminster at the next election, whenever it should come. As an act of pietas, together with the chairman of the highways committee of Westminster City Council, on Rogation Sunday I walked the ancient boundaries of the two cities, which of course involved visiting Middlesex Street. I have always liked to feel that it was because news of our walk reached No. 10 that the 1983 general election was announced the next day.
The City of London (Various Powers) Act 1965, which established the exemption to which I just alluded, gave traders permission to trade for their life only, and restricted trading to a few hours on Sunday. When street trading in the City was considered again in 1987, although the code then enacted remained as generally and geographically restricted as that contained in the 1965 Act, the City was given a power to grant street trading licences in Middlesex Street to new applicants, thus ensuring that the Sunday market there would continue to thrive. The 1987 Act lays down the costs that the City may recover from market traders through charges; however, it requires the maximum figure to be set by by-law. The consequence of that somewhat outdated approach is that the weekly figure recoverable from each trader has remained unchanged since 1989 at £15. Meanwhile, those Petticoat Lane traders whose stalls are in Tower Hamlets face a weekly charge of £32. For the City to recover its allowable costs would require a £25.40 weekly fee. Clause 8 changes the arrangements for fixing the fee to bring them more in line with arrangements elsewhere in London, where a fee reflecting the cost that may be recovered is fixed following consultation with the traders.
The Bill then returns to matters relating to ice cream in Clause 9. The provision is designed to facilitate easy access to iced confectionaries, when they are in demand, by enabling such products to be sold by retailers on the highway outside their premises, provided that the appropriate consents are obtained, which require neighbouring frontagers to be consulted.
Lord Myners
My Lords, in speaking to Clause 9, can the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, explain why the distance of the ice-cream receptacle is limited to 11 metres rather than 10 or 12 metres? Eleven seems an odd figure for him to have chosen in promoting the Bill?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I am profoundly impressed by the attention which the noble Lord, Lord Myners, has paid to the detail of the Bill. The corporation has been anxious to provide as much space as it can, given the likelihood that people who have chairs and tables outside their shops will take advantage of it. It is very good of the noble Lord to have attributed to me the decision about 11 metres, but in fact it is contained in a Bill which was formulated elsewhere.
Lord Myners
I wonder whether the noble Lord might consider this. If we extended this to a slightly longer distance, we could actually allow the distribution of ice creams on the trading floors of investment banks rather than the large bonuses that so many of us find so unpalatable.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I am again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, for lending colour to the debate, but I do think that his latest suggestion is actually outside the immediate terms.
Before leaving street trading, I should refer briefly to other local legislation on street trading before the House and the Government’s recent response to the consultation on modernising street trading and pedlar legislation. I know that this is of particular interest to my noble friend Lord Lucas. The conclusion reported in the response that the services directive applies to the retail sale of goods, including pedlary and street trading, will undoubtedly impact on the other private promotions relating to street trading which seek to impose or tighten existing regimes. However, the issues considered in the response do not impact on this Bill, which is moving in the opposite direction and seeking to facilitate trading that is currently prohibited.
I have come to my final remarks. The Bill also addresses two small deficiencies in the statutory regime governing the City’s walkways, which are paved areas dedicated by developers for public access. The first change enables the City to recover its costs from developers for resolutions relating to walkways as it can when dealing with other applications to vary rights of passage. The second would facilitate the civil enforcement of parking offences on walkways, bringing them into line with arrangements on the highway.
This is a modest Bill containing a number of small but important provisions relating to the specific circumstances of the City. I therefore ask noble Lords to give the Bill a Second Reading.