Proceeding contribution from Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 28 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Leeds City Council Bill.
Leeds City Council Bill
My hon. Friend speaks clearly for himself, but I do not think he would demur from the second part of my comment, which was that there is still a lot of work to be done in the other place. In "allowing" his support for these Third Readings today, I hope that he will provide every possible assistance to the other place to ensure that these Bills get on to the statute book. I say that because, as the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) said, his local authority and other authorities have spent a great deal of time and resources in trying to achieve that aim. It is incumbent on both Houses to try to make progress and get the Bills on to the statute book. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has managed to secure some useful amendments, which I shall discuss briefly: the provision in clause 5 about pedlars having goods about their person does mean that they cannot have vast great floats, which take up space and cause a nuisance; the Minister has made it clear how the interactivity between the services directive and the provision of services by pedlars is supposed to work; we have had a great deal of debate about clause 6 and about the issue of seizure, particularly the seizure of perishable goods, as set out in clauses 7 and 8; and our long debates seem to have produced eminently sensible amendments to clause 10(1)(ii) in respect of goods held on acquittal. They are proportionate and reasonable, they are not oppressive and my hon. Friend has done the promoters of the Bill a favour in securing such amendments. I also agree with him about the apparent inconsistencies in the Bills about the fixed penalties, and it would have been much more sensible to have specified a maximum level of fine in clauses 11 to 14, even if local authorities could then set a level below that. It would be up to them to use their discretion, according to the severity of the problem that they face in their local area, to determine what level of fine to set. I was initially opposed to the appointment of community support officers—when they were proposed by this Government I thought that they were about getting policing on the cheap—but I must say that this is one of the very few examples of when the Government have introduced something and I have completely changed my mind about it. These officers do a great job of work in their localities and they provide a lot of reassurance for the public by their visibility. The amendments of their powers that my hon. Friend has managed to secure in the Bill in respect of requiring information from those who might have committed an offence is also of benefit. With those few words, I hope that the House will proceed to support the Third Reading of these two Bills and that we can move on to the other Bills that we have to discuss. I also hope that the other place will give a fair wind to the Bills, so that we can get them on the statute book.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 504 c995-6
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Licensing Leeds Reading Borough Council Reading (Berkshire) Touting Street trading Leeds City Council
- Legislation
- Leeds City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Reading Borough Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-11 09:58:30 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_615995
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_615995
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_615995