Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Julian Brazier (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Canterbury City Council Bill.


Canterbury City Council Bill

In a word, no. The promoters of the Bill do not believe that we are close to Government legislation in this area. [Interruption.] It appears to me that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), is nodding. Also, although I know that the Opposition Front-Bench team is sympathetic on this issue, I do not believe that it would be a high priority for an incoming Conservative Government. This is a specific problem for a few localities. As it is not a general problem around the country, it is inevitable that no central Government will give it a particularly high priority. The sad fact is that in a congested and popular city centre such as Canterbury's, which has narrow cobbled streets, the activities of people using peddling licences are playing a significant role in contributing to congestion. More importantly, their activities are undermining the position of the 13 traders who pay a great deal of money each year for their legitimate street licences and that of the many shops on our high street that are close to the economic edge in this recession. I do not wish to repeat the arguments made in the earlier debates, but I wish to address one particular matter. There are two differences between the Canterbury Bill and the Nottingham Bill, about which we will hear shortly. The more important of those relates to the issue of touting, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) devoted a great deal of some of his earlier speeches. I made it clear then that I was sympathetic to his points about touting. The provisions are designed to address a difficult and unpleasant, but extremely narrow, point. However, as drafted, they would have potentially far-reaching consequences, and I would be very worried about what a future non-Conservative Administration, should we have the misfortunate to have one in Canterbury, could do with them. I therefore obtained an absolute assurance from the promoter of the Bill, Canterbury city council, that it will strike out the touting clause in another place.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c897-8 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Direct selling Canterbury City Council Licensing Local government Nottingham Nottingham City Council Touting Street trading Canterbury
Legislation
Canterbury City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
Nottingham City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk