Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (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

That is absolutely right, and in common language we would call that harassment. Pedlars would be in such a vulnerable position that unreasonable officers would be able to harass them out of town—which, after all, is the motive of many local authorities in promoting their prejudice against lawful pedlars. There is another difference between the Nottingham and Canterbury Bills and some of the other Bills: the provisions relating to the seizure of perishable items. It has already been said that these two Bills are the most restrictive of any of the so-called pedlars' Bills. Clause 7 highlights the extent of those restrictions. Food cannot be sold under the auspices of a pedlar's licence, but other perishable items such as fresh flowers can be. If flowers were seized, they would be worthless and unsellable shortly afterwards. Although I am no expert on the length of survival of florists' flowers, I believe it is only a matter of a few days, and even then only if they are kept in the right conditions. Although the clause states:""The council or the police shall store any perishable item…at an appropriate temperature"," it will not be as simple as that.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c914 
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