City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am not going to accuse the hon. Gentleman of despising the City of London. If he wants to put on record his support for the City, I am sure that he will have an opportunity to do so in the debate. But I am sure he recognises that quite a lot of Opposition Members make statements that give the impression that they are hostile to the City.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the ice cream van is waiting for you to deliver a fresh flake rather than take us somewhere we do not want to be. It is not like Mr Chope to wander away and be tempted in other directions. Let us get back to where we should be.

[Mr Chope]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are quite right to have a go at the victim, which is me. I was led astray by that intervention, and I accept full responsibility.

If a product is perishable, the consequences of having it seized may be that it loses all its value. That is important. I am not sure that the provisions relating to perishable items in clause 16E are sufficient. The clause says:

“No article or thing which is of a perishable nature … shall be seized under the provisions of section 16A … unless the Corporation gives a notice in writing under subsection (2) to the person from whom the article or thing is seized.”

I would have thought it best to say that nothing perishable should be seized. Ice-cream could be removed and, if necessary, the van seized. The seizure of perishable articles is quite an oppressive power.

Proposed new section 16E(2) states:

“Where a perishable article or thing is seized…the person from whom it is seized shall be given a notice in writing…giving the address from which the article or thing may be collected; and…stating that if that person is not the owner of the article or thing, then that person should give the owner the information referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).”

On the face of it, one would think that that would ensure that perishable articles were not seized, but when one looks at the small print one sees that they will be seized, and that is unfair and unjust. Indeed, such provisions have been removed from similar Bills because Members on the Government Benches—I cannot speak for Opposition Members—thought that they were disproportionately heavy in their application to ordinary people.

I have some grave concerns about the powers of seizure, especially when dealing with items of greater value than the maximum penalties under the Bill. A specific provision provides that it is open to the authorities to seize equipment, including motor vehicles, of a value higher than the maximum fine that could be imposed under any circumstances. That, in effect, deprives people of their assets, perhaps temporarily, in a disproportionately heavy manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I have already done so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Chope has rightly pointed out that he has already congratulated the Minister on that speech, and I am sure that he was coming to the end of where he needs to be—on the Bill, rather than on the ability of someone speaking last night in the library.

[Mr Chope]

I think it was a question not of whether congratulations had been offered, but of whether they had been communicated and whether my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench had received the notice.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will not waste the time of the House on that matter.

[Mr Chope]

I will not do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to cross you on this or any other matter.

I am delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), is on the Front Bench to listen to the next part of the debate, as this is the issue that concerns his own Department—clause 9 on trading outside business premises. For reasons that I can understand, the City of London says that in order to bring a little more vibrancy to life in the City of London, particularly at weekends and particularly for tourists, why not allow people to sell ice creams off the street, rather than just from fixed locations in shops and cafes? It says that people should be able to sell ice creams from a receptacle, which could include an ice cream van, located within 15 metres of business premises.

Listening to the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I was not sure whether the definition of business premises included St Paul’s cathedral chapter or not, and whether St Paul’s cathedral itself would be covered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to catch my eye, would I be correct in saying that he was not here at the beginning for the opening speeches?

[Philip Davies]

I was in the House. As I had been on such a long haul in the previous debate, I popped out for a quick drink.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It must have been quite a long drink. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not quite the normal thing and I am sure that he would like to apologise before I call him to speak.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do apologise for the discourtesy to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). As I said, I popped out for a drink after the previous debate, where I had been on duty for quite some time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend made that point very well during his speech and I do not want to reiterate his point, but he is absolutely right.

Remaining on the subject of the return of seized items, I have some minor worries about this section. Proposed new section 16B(8)(a) refers to circumstances in which:

“if no proceedings have been instituted before the expiry of 28 days beginning with the date of seizure”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made clear, 28 days can be an awfully long time to go without goods if one’s livelihood depends on them. It would be a bit of a kick in the teeth if one were not allowed to have one’s goods when no offence had been committed or was being pursued, and it could have a big impact on one’s livelihood for that month.

Proposed new section 16B(8) goes on to state that an article shall be returned:

“unless it has not proved possible, after diligent enquiry, to identify that person or ascertain the person’s address.”

I am not entirely sure what the definition of a “diligent enquiry” is, or how diligent a “diligent enquiry” needs to be. I fear that some of the provisions will be used to give an excuse for not returning goods to their proper lawful owner. We should be minimising the opportunities for that.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch did not mention this point, it is worth noting that proposed new section 16C(4) states that the court may order forfeiture of goods even if the value exceeds the maximum penalty for the offence that has been committed. We are in the strange situation where we are levying a maximum penalty, but if the goods exceed that maximum penalty they can still be forfeited. I am not sure on what basis that can be either right or fair. If there is a maximum penalty, surely that should be the maximum penalty. The provision flies in the face of natural justice, and it would be interesting to have some clarification on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch made the point that proposed new section 16D(1)(b)(ii) states that people might have to wait six months before compensation, which is a lengthy period of time. The court will only be able to make an order for compensation if it is satisfied that the seizure was lawful under proposed new section 16A. I hope my hon. Friend will come back to section 16A and whether we can strengthen

“reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has committed an offence”.

Otherwise, the corporation would never have to pay compensation, irrespective of how it acted, but that cannot be the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Surely, it should be forced to pay compensation if it has acted in a way that is not becoming. We would all like to see that, I am sure, yet we are in danger of giving it a get-out-of-jail card and letting it get out of paying compensation.

I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about perishable items. I thought he made them very well, so I will not repeat them—[Interruption.]—despite the encouragement from Opposition Members to extol the virtues of his argument a bit more. Perhaps I will, under their provocation, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Or perhaps you won’t.

[Philip Davies]

But for now I shall resist the temptation.

Instead of repeating my hon. Friend’s points, I will try to pick out those that he might have missed out. Safe to say, subsection (5) to proposed new subsection 16E provides that

“the Corporation shall have a duty to secure the best possible price”

for these perishable goods. How on earth will it go about obtaining the best possible price for these perishable goods? Will it be setting up its own market stall? I do not think so. I wonder why that provision is in the Bill, given that it obviously is not going to happen.

Subsection (4) provides that the goods will be disposed of, if the person from whom it was seized

“fails to collect it within 48 hours of the seizure”,

but just because something is perishable, it does not mean it will go off in 48 hours. It might have a much longer date. I am not sure, therefore, why we have only got 48 hours for all perishable goods, irrespective of how long they could be used for. It seems that we are just presuming that everything being sold will go off within 48 hours, but that clearly does not apply to all perishable goods. I hope that some thought will be given to whether that provision is appropriate, too draconian or just totally inflexible. As we all know, perishable goods go off at various different times.

On the seizure of motor vehicles—or ice cream vans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch pointed out—I wonder how this is going to work. As far as I can see—I could be wrong, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster can help me—the Bill does not make it clear who would pay for the seizure, transportation, storage and return of the vehicle concerned. When the police seize or confiscate a vehicle—for example, when people are driving around without any insurance—they bring in a transport company to take it away and lock it up, and people must pay a release charge to get the car back again. Presumably, the corporation would have to go through the same kind of operation. It would not just leave the vehicle where it was, because presumably that is the whole point—it was causing an obstruction or should not have been there, and so the corporation would want to move it.

If the corporation uses the provisions to bring in a garage to tow away and store a vehicle, a cost will be incurred, but it is not clear from the Bill who would be liable for meeting the cost. Would the cost fall on the trader or the corporation? If the cost was incurred by the trader, but it was later shown that no offence had been committed, would the corporation reimburse the trader? As far as I can see—I stand to be corrected—the Bill does not make any of those things clear. It would be particularly helpful, therefore, if we could have some clarity. It is bad enough someone having their vehicle seized, if no offence has been committed, but if they then have to pay to have it returned and cannot claim back the money, it would be a further kick in the teeth. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider those points, on which I am seeking clarification. Clause 9, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, seems a sensible provision. It will allow businesses more freedom to trade outside their own premises, and I heartily endorse it.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will accept the spirit in which the scrutiny of the Bill has been carried out today. It is our intention to improve it, and I do not think there has been any attempt to wreck it or to stop it. We in this House take seriously our job of protecting people’s freedoms, and of protecting people from unnecessary or over-zealous regulation and legislation. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), who is in his place, has a good track record of trying to stop unnecessary regulation, legislation and bureaucracy.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I are simply trying to prevent any unintended consequences that the legislation might have so that it will achieve what he wants it to achieve and does not do what my hon. Friend and I fear it might well do if it goes through unchecked.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was not in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, and I am sure that he will mention that to the House. I am also sure that he will speak only briefly.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. I said in an intervention that I had been watching the debate from my office, and I apologised to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) for missing his speech. I congratulate him on bringing the Bill to the House. I will speak briefly, because I am in the Chamber principally to lead for the Opposition on the Humber Bridge Bill, which is next on the Order Paper, and which a number of colleagues are keen to get on to.

I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) described the attitude of Opposition Members towards the City of London as “hostile”. There is no doubt that some Opposition Members are hostile to the City, but they are not here tonight and I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the Front Bench as he is in favour of the Bill. I do so for several reasons. I acknowledge the contribution that the City makes to the UK economy. I am a constituency MP in the neighbouring borough of Tower Hamlets, and we benefit greatly from the generosity and support of the City. We appreciate the partnership with the Corporation of London. On a personal basis, as a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, I have had the honour of participating in a ceremony at which I was granted the freedom of the City, although it was pointed out that I do not have the right to drive my sheep across London bridge, were I to have any.

I am a great admirer of the traditions, history and heritage of the Corporation of London. I am pleased to support the Bill, which will now go into Committee. I am also pleased to correct the record in relation to what was said about Opposition Members earlier. I also hope that we will be able to deal with—

[Mr Chope]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not going to be tempted either way any more, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse has now come to the end of his speech. I am going to bring in Mark Field.