Orders of the Day — Royal Parks (Trading) Bill

House of Commons, 17 May 2000.

MAXIMUM PENALTY

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 13, leave out "level" and insert— for the first offence level 2 on the standard scale, and for any subsequent offence level".

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 13, leave out "3" and insert "2".

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The amendment relates to the important question of fines to be imposed on those who commit offences of the nature described in the Bill. I seek to introduce the time-honoured system of imposing different levels of penalty for first and for subsequent offences. I was at least partly inspired by what the Minister said in the Second Reading Committee—the rather unusual device that is deployed when a Bill has not yet been debated on the Floor of the House. I welcome this first opportunity to air the important issues that it raises here, on the Floor, as hitherto it has been dealt with only in Committee—a perfectly proper procedure, I hasten to add, but one that means, regrettably, that Members who were not on the Second Reading Committee or involved in the Committee stage have not yet had an opportunity to address themselves to the Bill. On 7 March 2000, in that Second Reading Committee, the Minister said: fines, however frequently imposed by the courts, do not, as things are, act as an effective deterrent when compared with the income that can be gained from illegal trading.—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 7 March 2000; c. 4.] In a moment, I should like to return to the subject of income, but first it might help the House if I were to remind hon. Members of the origins of the matter. The section of the Bill to which the amendment applies makes reference to the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926, in which the matter was dealt with, although not originally. In a moment, I shall refer back to the Parks Regulation Act 1872, in which the concept of fines made its first appearance. Suffice it to say that section 2(1) of the 1926 Act stated: if any person fails to comply with, or acts in contravention of, any regulations so made— which are regulations relating to the parks— he shall be guilty of an offence against the principal Act and shall be liable on conviction thereof by a court of summary jurisdiction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds. We therefore know that the level of penalty that was fixed in 1926 was five pounds. Subsequently, when I looked at the 1872 Act—which was updated in the 1926 Act—rather to my surprise I found in section 4 the provision: If any person does any act in contravention of any regulation contained in the first schedule annexed hereto, he shall, on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction, be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds. That is an interesting illustration of the fact that between 1872 and 1926 there was so little inflation that it was not deemed necessary to increase the level of penalty.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

In fact, in the late 1870s and early 1880s there was significant deflation.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is helpful—it explains what otherwise, to me, seemed to be a bit of a mystery.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

Of course, an alternative explanation is that there was not the same scale of offences, and that the original fine had proved to be a sufficient deterrent. However, it might be for the convenience of the House—so that we might be better informed—if my right hon. Friend were able, looking at the same Act, to tell us the approximate value, in current terms, of £5 in 1872.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I had rather hoped that my hon. Friend would not ask me that question because I should have to guess, and I do not want to have to get involved in guessing. However, I suspect that if any hon. Member were to nip into the Library while I am speaking, he or she could probably find a pretty good answer and come back to inform us.

Robert Sheldon (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

May I help the right hon. Gentleman? The general ratio—it varies with the various circumstances that one makes use of—for pre-war to current prices is about 40:1.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is very helpful indeed. It neatly places a £5 fine in 1872 at level 1 on the current scale. That gives us a very good basis on which to consider—as I shall in a moment—the proposals that I am making in amendment No. 17 on levels 2 and 3. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose intervention has been extraordinarily—but not unusually—helpful.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I agree that what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has just told the House is helpful. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to establish whether the fact of no change in the level of fine in that 54-year period was due to no inflation, or whether it was due principally to there being no substantial increase in the annual level of offending?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is indeed a perfectly possible explanation. I think that we shall come on later—perhaps not in this debate, but on a subsequent group, and certainly on Third Reading—to consider the nature of the trade, which has given rise to the Bill, and of those who are alleged to be carrying out that trade. That will be quite an important consideration when we come to that stage.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Bearing in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the general level of offending, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of all the Home Office research, done under various Governments, showing that since 1945 the average annual increase in criminal offending has ranged between about 4.5 to 5 per cent. It is therefore not the case that there has not been an increase in offending: since 1945, there has been a general average increase of 5 per cent. per annum.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Unusually, that intervention was not as helpful as I have come to expect from my right hon. Friend. We were considering the period between 1872 and 1926, and he has suddenly tried to rush me forward to 1945. I shall forgive him, but on this occasion I shall discount what he has said. Lest it has escaped the attention of the House, I wanted to remark in passing that section (5) of the 1872 Act makes an interesting reference: Any park keeper in uniform, and any persons whom he may call to his assistance, may take into custody, without a warrant, any offender who in the park where such a keeper has jurisdiction, and within the view of such keeper, acts in contravention of any of the said regulations. As early as 1872, the provisions were widely drawn. One can easily trace the genesis of the Bill from 1872 through 1926 and, I think, 1997. We will not necessarily debate the powers available, although we may want to reflect on them. I am sure that the Minister will help us later, but I remain to be satisfied that the police and the park employees use to the full all the powers available to them. We should be satisfied of that before we leap to bring in the draconian provisions in the Bill.

Robert Sheldon (Labour, Ashton-under-Lyne)

I walk across a royal park most days and there is a horrible smell of stale fat. That is disgraceful in a royal park and outside Buckingham palace. The police say that they have acted again and again, but that they are wasting their time because they keep having to go to court. They have given up. Anybody who respects our royal parks and our main palaces and places of interest, which people come from all over the country and the world to visit, should want us to maintain the highest standards that we have been able to provide.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is an elegant statement of the aspirations behind the Bill and it is typical of the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not fully explain why we need the Bill. Just this morning, I took myself down to the London Eye on the embankment south of the river. We have been told again and again that the aim of the Bill is to replicate within the royal parks the excellent powers already available to the police outside them. I gather that that is one of the main arguments, although I have not yet heard it because the Bill has not yet been considered on the Floor of the House. To my astonishment, I counted four hot-dog purveyors within 200 yd of the London Eye. That gave me pause for thought. If the existing powers are so wonderful and effective that we are seeking to replicate them in the royal parks, why did I find four hamburger purveyors, with customers crowding round them? I saw them making purchases and munching happily. I did not see anyone falling to the ground. I hope that that point will be answered, because we have to tease out these issues before the House rushes to pass such draconian legislation.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Probably, there were not enough police officers on duty to use the powers available to them to deal with the hot-dog stands to which my right hon. Friend referred.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am aware that the number of police officers in the Metropolitan area—I think that we shall have to call it something different from July—has fallen dramatically. That partly explains the phenomenon I have described, but it gives rise to another question. Were we to grant the powers in the Bill, would there be sufficient police officers to implement and enforce them effectively in the royal parks? If it cannot be done around the London Eye, why should we be satisfied that it could be done in the royal parks? As well as asking about the powers, we should ask whether the enforcement will match them. The Minister may have to answer that question subsequently.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am grateful to my right hon. and erudite Friend for giving way, as is his custom. Was he not rather concerned by the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who seemed to suggest that one of the main reasons for the Bill was the disgusting smell of fast food pervading some of the finer parts of London? The logic of that would suggest that one would need huge draconian legislation, applying not just to royal parks but to all the other establishments from which the smell of fast food—or not so fast food—may emanate into public thoroughfares and cause distress to foreign tourists. That is what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Indeed. We may have to consider the implications of slow food at some point, but I shall leave that to others as I do not want to prevail on the patience of the House.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is it on slow food?

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I have never found the smell of fast or slow food unappealing, but I would not wish to tempt my right hon. Friend further down that road. I simply suggest that the issue potentially negates the very reason for his amendment, because it matters not where one is on the scale of offences if the provisions are not enforced.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That is a helpful point to which we shall return; however, I do not want to be deflected from the main thrust of my argument. Before turning to the level of penalties, which is the substance of my amendment, let me add one final point about the 1872 Act, which is germane to the discussion. Section 8 states: Every police constable belonging to the police force of the district in which any park, garden or possession to which this Act applies is situated shall have the powers, privileges, and immunities of a park-keeper within such park, garden or possession. I add those thoughts to set the scene for the debate that we may have subsequently about the relative powers that the police enjoy inside and outside the parks, which have been so important to the argument that we have not yet had on the Floor of the House because the Bill was hidden away in Committee. We should therefore have the opportunity of exploring it—briefly, perhaps—in the context of subsequent groups of amendments. Returning to the substance of the amendment, I hope to persuade the House and the Minister that instead of having one single penalty level, we should have what I think has become much more widespread practice—although my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) may be able to help me on this—and introduce one penalty for a first offence and a higher penalty for subsequent offences. I understand the feelings about the Bill, as just this morning I spoke to a councillor on Westminster city council who left me in no doubt of the anxiety of that council to ensure that the problem in the royal parks was addressed. I reassured her that I did not want to stand in the way of the Bill, but insisted that it had to be properly examined, and that is exactly what we are doing now.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

In proposing to the House that the penalty should increase with the number of offences, has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the fact that the policy might be characterised as "Three fries and you're out"?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It would be unwise of me to attempt to compete with that. We are not just talking about the relationship between the level of the penalties for a first offence and for subsequent offence, but are linking that with the words that the Minister used on Second Reading, when he said that fines, however frequently imposed by the courts, do not, as things are, act as an effective deterrent when compared with the income that can be gained from illegal trading.—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 7 March 2000; c. 4.] The mystery is that nowhere in the very brief proceedings on Second Reading, which lasted 43 minutes in total, or those in Standing Committee, which lasted 35 minutes in total, could I find any discussion about the income levels that it is believed these traders enjoy, if that is the right word. In most legislation, one attempts to relate the levels of penalties to the nature of the offence—the House will have to decide whether an offensive odour from a hamburger is a serious offence or a less serious one—and to the spoils arising from the activity. Until we know much more about the income—to which the Minister referred in passing, but never in detail—that the traders accrue from their activity, it will be difficult for us to come to a conclusion about the penalties. I assume that there must be some relativity or proportionality between income and penalties, unless the House temporarily takes leave of its senses, gets carried away on a tide of emotion—understandable, perhaps—and determines that the offences are so heinous, so ghastly and so unacceptable that they must be dealt with in a peremptory and draconian way. I am tempted, although I am probably not the person to do it—perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border will help us later—to consider the penalties for other crimes such as violence, theft and the like, and set them in context against the penalties proposed for the generation of offensive odours. We could then see whether there was some proportionality. Not enough has yet been said. In a total of 43 minutes of Second Reading and 35 minutes of Committee proceedings, how could the House have had an opportunity properly to examine the relationship and the proportionality between the proposed penalties and the offences that are being committed? I say "committed", although I could have said "alleged". I believe that we have considerable evidence of the offences, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has just told us that in his daily perambulations in the royal park he experiences odours which he finds overwhelmingly offensive. The matter must be dealt with. My amendment No. 17 is not quite the same as my right hon. Friend's amendment No. 1, but in both cases we want to focus the attention of the House on the matter of penalties. I should like to hear more from the Minister about what he knows about the vendors' takings or earnings, to see whether a relationship can be established between the proposed fines and what they are earning from the hapless tourists, who apparently are all too happy to avail themselves of the service provided by these people. Let us not forget that those traders would not continue to do what they are doing if there was no market for their product.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

It would appear that not only do we lack perfect information of the kind that Kant would have thought necessary for a successful debate, but we lack much information. Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the supporters of the Bill has declared that hot-dog sellers are a nuisance? Does my right hon. Gentleman agree that if it turned out that those traders were doing substantial business—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the amendment.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I shall try to refer elliptically to my hon. Friend's remarks. The four hot-dog purveyors whom I saw this morning in the area of the London Eye—a very successful and attractive item—appeared to be trading successfully with customers, and had apparently not yet been subject to any fines, at least not sufficient fines or penalties to deter them.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

But are the activities of the four vendors whom my right hon. Friend saw illegal?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am told, and the Minister may be able to help—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is doing very well with his amendment and has kept in good order, but whether or not people outside were acting illegally is not a matter for us to consider. We must concentrate on the amendment before us and the changes that it would make to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the vendors, in passing. We know that there are four of them out there, and we know what they sell and what people buy from them, so we do not need any more detail on that matter.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends are keen to interrogate me, but I need your protection, vulnerable as I am. I hope that they will accept your guidance. I am coming to the conclusion of my brief remarks.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I will, but I hope that my hon. Friend's point is relevant.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I believe that it is. I follow my right hon. Friend's logic, and he is making a powerful case, but I have a difficulty in principle with the amendment. Reducing the punishment for the first offence sends a powerful signal, but dealing effectively with first offences will mean that there will be no subsequent offences. That is known currently as zero tolerance. Is not the amendment offensive to the public desire for zero tolerance?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend hits me on a vulnerable spot. That is why I said a moment ago that I was grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I still believe in capital punishment, although I did not seek to include such a provision in the Bill. I believe that harsh penalties are desirable, but my argument in this case is different. I am sure that the Minister is a modernist to his fingertips, and the more modern approach is to introduce an escalation in the penalties available. The penalty for the first offence would therefore be relatively low, but the penalties would escalate for subsequent offences. I understand that my hon. Friend may want to argue differently, as may my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, but I hope that I have at least set the scene and posed the important questions. I hope also that the Minister will tell the House how he sees the relationships between the trade, the income accruing to traders, and the penalties that he believes will be effective. A further matter is crucial to the question of penalties. If the Minister cannot satisfy us that the police will be able to apprehend traders under the provisions of the Bill, there is little point in a discussion of appropriate penalties, as no penalties will be imposed if wrongdoers are not caught. The Bill wants to apply the legal framework that obtains outside royal parks to people who trade within such parks. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell the House how it is that people outside royal parks will be able to trade freely, while those inside the parks will not. A series of interconnected questions are implied by this apparently innocent amendment. They must be answered before we move on.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I approach the question of the fine level from an angle that is slightly different from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I appreciate the argument that a lower fine might be acceptable for a first offence than for subsequent offences. My right hon. Friend advanced a powerful case for that principle, but because we do not know what the consequences of any fine will be, it is difficult to know whether the fine should be set at level 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

For those of us who are not familiar with criminal activity and who therefore have not memorised the scale of fines, will my right hon. Friend spell out what the levels of fine would mean to the ordinary vendor?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I was going to set out the consequences in cash terms of the various standard fine levels, but I hope that I will not be out of order if I challenge my hon. Friend's statement that he has not come into contact with the criminal law. I seem to remember hearing him tell the House one Friday that he had once been thrown out of a public house and arrested because it had been alleged that he looked too young. Apparently, he was cleared because although he looked excessively young, he was old enough to be there. Nevertheless I trust that that was his only experience of the criminal law. Amendment No. 1 would substitute for level 3, which carries a fine of £1,000, level 2 which carries a fine of £500. The Bill would delete level 1, which carries a fine of £200—it would replace a fine of £200 with one of £1,000. That increase is a little excessive and I recommend a maximum fine of £500 as an alternative. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would increase the fine from £200 to £500 for a first offence and up to £1,000 for a subsequent offence. I have outlined the main point that we have to consider when we examine the amendments. At least, it is the main point until we consider the fundamental question whether the penalties are at appropriate levels, bearing in mind the income of the perpetrators of the offences. My right hon. Friend reminded the House of that. It is alleged that beggars on the streets of London—we will not discuss their nationality; we went down that route a few years ago—can make £200 or £300 a day if they are in the right spot and bring the right sort of children or dogs with them. Current penalties for beggars or vagrants are inadequate because those people's income is infinitely greater than the penalties they incur if they face court and the rigours of the law.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Has my right hon. Friend any information about the number of occasions on which the maximum permissible fine is imposed by magistrates under the current system?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

That is a valid question. It is highly unusual for the maximum penalty to be imposed in any circumstances—for first, second or even subsequent offences. Before a magistrates court imposes a maximum sentence, it has to be satisfied about the financial worth of the relevant individual and the gravity of the offence. For the benefit of the House, I have brought a copy of Anthony and Berryman' s "Magistrates' Court Guide 2000". The section that refers to sentencing principles for the magistrates court, especially the paragraph that relates to determining the amount of a fine, is relevant. However, it would be premature to pursue that in my opening remarks. My hon. Friend has led me further ahead than I wish to be at this stage. Before we can determine the maximum penalties, we must have some idea of the level of the criminality and the nature and extent of the profit that the alleged criminals make. We did not have the benefit of Second Reading because the Government played the trick of convening a Second Reading Committee. It would have been a simple matter to arrange a debate of two or three hours on the Floor of the House—a proper Second Reading, which Bills normally receive. That would have saved us exploring the issues now in the amendments that we had to table. We need to know roughly the income of the offenders and to ascertain the inadequacy of the current criminal law. We have read in newspapers general allegations that parks police do not find it worth while to prosecute offenders because when offenders are taken to court the penalty is apparently inadequate and they are back on the street the same afternoon or the next day, carrying on their trade and making more money. I have heard that said and I have read it. I have not received any briefing notes from the parks police or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to confirm that it is a problem; but if it is and if people are going through the courts on a revolving door basis—paying an inadequate fine and trading again the next day—the House is right to deal with it and the Minister is right to build that provision into the Bill so that we can determine the appropriate level of fine and the confiscation provisions. We will debate those provisions later. We are determining what are the appropriate sanctions to be imposed on individuals. The Bill has a twin-track approach: there is a fine or penalty in court and there is confiscation of equipment or non-perishable assets.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My right hon. Friend is seeking to establish a link between the scale of the fines and the gravity of the offence—this is intellectually relevant. I wonder whether he can clarify for the benefit of the House whether he thinks that the principle determinant of the gravity of the offence is the extent of the profits or the potency, on a third offence, of the smell.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

It is difficult for me to answer that question. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has said that one of the principal purposes of the Bill is to deal with offensive smells coming from hamburger or hot-dog stalls, and that view has been confirmed in some of the things that I have read or that have been said about the legislation. If that is the case, one can deal with the bad odour. If, on the other hand, the real problem is that these people are making an awful lot of money unscrupulously, illegally or without a licence, we may have to look at a different range of penalties and offences. I suggest, Mr. Martin, that if odour is the problem and we do not want people to commit the offence again, the confiscation provisions become slightly more relevant. On the other hand, if the problem is the fact that people are making excessive profits—however the Government may determine that—or illegal profits by trading in one of the royal parks without a proper licence, and you will be aware, Mr. Martin, that there is nothing to stop one trading in a royal park—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that it is normal to address the Chair as Mr. Deputy Speaker.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am rightly chided, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For some reason, I assumed that we were in Committee—a totally wrong assumption. Of course you are Mr. Deputy Speaker and, if I may say so without sounding sycophantic, a good one at that. We always enjoy your presence in the Chair, in particular on Fridays when you show remarkable patience and tolerance.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that because the Committee stage lasted only 35 minutes, he may well have missed it altogether and thought that this was it?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

That is a probable and plausible explanation for my getting your designation inappropriately wrong on this occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will have to do a suitable penance.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way as I fear that he is becoming too sycophantic towards you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I wish to protect him from that fate. In dealing with the level of fines, my right hon. Friend posed the question, "What is the income of these traders?" Will he deal with this matter? I understand that this measure has been brought before us in part because, under the City of Westminster Act 1999, the fine was increased, which drove traders from that part of the metropolis into the royal parks where the fine was rather less. Perhaps the income of these people is such that they cannot sustain a £1,000 fine but they can sustain one of £200.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My hon. Friend makes a good point; he may be right. I assume that the Minister will argue that one of the reasons for the legislation and why the proposed fines are appropriate is that they match other legislation on areas other than the royal parks, so as to ensure that traders or vendors do not find an easy loophole in the law. For example, they might be fined £1,000 if they were trading on Millbank pavement, but only £200 if they nip into one of the royal parks. [Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of my hon. Friends suggested that my penalty for getting your designation wrong should be at level 3 on the standard scale, or that I should be compulsorily fed a hot dog or a hamburger. Some might allege that that was the greater penalty. The point that I was making before my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) intervened was that we must determine which provisions are to apply—whether the fines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst or by me or those proposed in the Bill are the most appropriate to deal with the alleged mischief. There are already two theories, but they are only theories. The Minister can no doubt expatiate and explain exactly what the mischief is—is it the offensive smell, or the fact that people are ripping off tourists or trading illegally in the parks and making a profit? The discussion so far has been about hot dogs, hamburgers and food stalls. However, that is not the only form of trading in the parks on which DETR wants to crack down. I have read that other sales take place. One is told about Rolex watches at £1.50 or Chanel No. 5 perfume at 50p a bottle—the smell of that perfume may be even more offensive than that of hot dogs or hamburgers. Such goods are regularly sold from suitcases on Regent street or Oxford street. If people are selling goods that are not food or perishables and are not in themselves creating an unpleasant odour—offending the sensitive nostrils of the residents of Kensington and Chelsea and residents near other royal parks, whose nostrils the House should wisely defend on all occasions—we need to know about it. In those circumstances, the financial penalties may need to be greater than the Minister suggested. The profits of those traders may be even greater. On the other hand, we may not need the confiscation provisions—to which I merely allude in passing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they occur in another part of the Bill. Those provisions would certainly deal with the smell problem. The items would be taken away and the traders could not use them again. However, we do not need to confiscate goods—the fake Rolex watches, or other cheap or counterfeit products—to deal with the problem of smell, so a financial penalty might be appropriate in such cases. On the determination of the amount of any fine and the principles behind it, the House is asked to accept three options. The Minister's option is to delete the £200 fine and to hit everyone with a maximum penalty of £1,000. My right hon. Friend's suggestion is to delete the £200 and hit everyone with a £500 fine on the first offence, jacking it up to £1,000. My suggestion is that a maximum of £500 would be appropriate. Anthony and Berryman advise that, in accordance with the sentencing principles of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the court must ensure that the penalty is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence for which it is imposed. Anthony and Berryman note that the court must assess carefully the gravity of the offence, having regard to the circumstances and to any mitigation. The court's assessment of the seriousness of the offence should then be reflected in the fine imposed. That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I do not have the magistrates courts sentencing guidelines with me, but no doubt the Minister will confirm that, under those guidelines, a fine is regarded as the least desirable option on many occasions. I think that the guidelines suggest searching for other options, including community sentences, rather than slapping fines on offenders who will not be able to pay. If an offender has difficulty paying, the easiest course is to ignore the fine and not pay it. The bad debt accumulates, the Lord Chancellor's office does not get the money and the law sinks further into disrepute. That is why the previous Government, this Government and earlier Labour Governments considered community sentences. I think that many Governments have spent considerable time trying to find alternatives to fines and imprisonment. These options have included community sentences, which impose penalties that are likely to be put into effect.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I do not want to prevent my right hon. Friend from proceeding with his argument, but there is still some uncertainty about the nature of the trade to which the graduated fines would apply. Is it the intention that they would apply to the sale of hamburgers and hot dogs and, for example, umbrellas, chestnuts, tee-shirts and baseball caps?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My hon. Friend is right. The Bill's main provisions gives Ministers power to designate certain specified provisions of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926 as park trading regulations. The Bill is all about creating a new and specific trading offence from existing trading regulations. For the benefit of the House, I have a copy of the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, which are the most recent. Regulation 4 lists the acts in a park for which written permission is required. Although they would assist in the presentation of my argument, I shall not go through them because I think that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, activities prohibited in parks include cycling, noise, interfering with plants and fungus and treading on flowerbeds and shrubberies, for example. I assume that the Minister will say that those examples are not trading offences. When the Minister introduces regulations after the Bill is enacted, I assume that he will have referred to regulation 4 and have selected specific references to trading offences. Regulation 4(6) refers to the carrying on of any trade or business in a Park. Regulation 4(3) refers to the operation of a metal or mineral detector. There is reference also to the organisation of or taking part in an assembly, display or performance. That may be a theatrical or artistic performance, which in a way may be trading. We are considering a wide range of activities that is not confined to selling goods. I suspect that when DETR is producing a list of so-called trading offences to which the Bill will apply, it will not select only references to carrying on a trade or business. Instead, it will select some of the ancillary items that can also be regarded as trading offences that will be subject to a £1,000 penalty, including taking photographs of "still or moving subjects" as part of a professional activity by a body "corporate or unincorporate" or taking part in any assembly, display, performance, representation…review or theatrical event. These, too, could be park trading offences. The House should ask itself whether these activities, including taking part in producing photographs for The House Magazine, should incur a £1,000 penalty. The House will be aware that many of us—well, some of us are less often involved now, thank goodness, since we are no longer in positions of any importance—including Ministers, are often invited by the media not only to College Green but into the royal park that is opposite 4 Millbank to participate in photographic experiences, shall we say, and to be interviewed. That, according to my reading of the regulations, is illegal. If being interviewed by the BBC on a royal park is regarded as participation in a trade and is contrary to clause 1, a penalty of £1,000 could be imposed.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My right hon. Friend could, if he had wished, have used the Royal Parks and Gardens Act 1872 to build on his argument, although I do not press him to do so. As far as I know, it has not been repealed, and it states: No person shall drive or wheel into a park any vehicle, barrow, truck or machine not admitted therein by the rules of the park. As long ago as 1872, many, if not most, of the activities that we are discussing would have been covered by the first schedule to that Act.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My right hon. Friend is, as usual, correct. The only difference is that the penalty specified in the 1872 Act and in the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926—extremely good reading, which I am sure you will wish to peruse once you have vacated the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker—was £5. We have just heard from a distinguished parliamentarian, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, whom, as a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, we can expect to be able to do his sums, that the ratio to allow for inflation between pre-war legislation and that of today should be 40:1. The pre-war penalty of £5 should therefore be upgraded to £200, which, it so happens, it already is. Yet the Minister proposes to increase that penalty fivefold to £1,000. That may be the right amount to deal with the evil or mischief—whatever it may be—of offensive odour or offensive profit-making by person or persons unknown.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I apologise for not having heard the opening speeches. I was involved in a Greater London Authority statutory instrument Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). May I correct a misapprehension that these matters stem back to the 1872 Act? In fact, they go back to the Crown Lands Act 1702. With regard to photography, is Parliament square considered to be a royal park? Recently, there was a dispute between the Metropolitan police and the parks police over those of us who visited Winnie the pig in her valiant fight for British pig farming. Was I committing an offence by going there?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Those matters are not before us. Where parks are located has nothing to do with the narrow amendment before us.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I was attempting to confine myself narrowly to the amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was not going to be led slightly astray by my hon. Friend. I am slightly surprised that he has not studied the second schedule to the Royal Parks and Gardens Act 1872, which lists the royal parks. If he cares to reach behind him, I shall allow him to study it briefly in order to educate him in that regard. I can assure him that Parliament square is not, in fact, included.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

It may be for the convenience of my right hon. Friend if he notes that the second schedule to the 1872 Act, and indeed the first schedule, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred, were, sadly, repealed by the 1926 Act.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I must keep the House to the amendments before us. The matters being raised may have something to do with the Bill, but we are currently debating the amendments tabled by the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am grateful, as ever, for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to bring my remarks to a conclusion.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am not clear whether I have sufficient information about what my right hon. Friend proposes. He is proposing a fine of £500. He talked about the income of rogue traders. Is there any evidence, from prosecutions under the City of Westminster Act 1999, about what level of fines was imposed? We know that there is a maximum fine of £1,000. Perhaps the Bill should provide for variable fines, depending on which park was concerned. After all, those who trade in Richmond park will not be able to command the same fees for their burgers or ice creams as people trading in St. James's park, who have the whole Japanese and American tourist market available?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It brings me nicely back to sentencing principles, the point on which I wanted to conclude. If a person is found guilty before the court and the court is trying to assess, as the sentencing principles suggest, the gravity of the offence, having regard to the circumstances and to any mitigation, it will have to take into account where the offence was committed. Was it way out in Richmond park or was it in Hyde park or St. James's? There is also a sentencing principle that states that the court must inquire into the offender's financial circumstances and ability to pay before setting the fine. That brings us back, fair and square, to the point before us. Should the fine be £200, £500 or £1,000 maximum? In some ways, it does not matter what the maximum is because the court cannot slap a maximum fine on anyone before it, willy-nilly. The court is under a duty; indeed, magistrates would be appealed immediately to a higher court if they attempted to impose a maximum fine without inquiring into the offender's financial circumstances and ability to pay.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

In proposing the graduated series of fines, has my right hon. Friend taken account of the fact that the Bill treats differently, or appears to treat differently, the vendors of different types of goods, given that there is a power to confiscate non-perishable goods but not perishable goods?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a reasonable time now. He must know that we are talking not about the Bill in its entirety but about an amendment to it. The amendment deals not with confiscation but with fines, so any intervention needs to be about a fine.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I hear my hon. Friend's point, and no doubt it is something that we will address when we debate the third group of amendments, which we will reach shortly. Under the sentencing guidelines, the court will be able to take into account, when deciding the level of the fine, the fact that one person may have had all his equipment confiscated while another may have been sent home with bags of loose hamburgers and fried onions and therefore still has some assets. I am certain that his defence solicitors—if he has defence solicitors—will plead all those arguments. The main one will be, "You cannot impose this level of fine; it is far too high. My client does not have that sort of money. " Also, if there is an order before the court to confiscate equipment, which may be worth £1,000, £5,000 or tens of thousands of pounds, defence lawyers are bound to argue that if the court is to exercise its confiscation powers, it should impose a very low level of fine because anything else would be far too much for their poor client.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My right hon. Friend is very generous in giving way to me for a second time. In my earlier intervention I mentioned Parliament square, and he asked me to look at the Royal Parks and Gardens Act 1872. Apparently, Parliament square garden is considered to be a royal park. Therefore, would the proposals contained in amendment No. 17 apply to Parliament square?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I assume that they would. I assume that when the Bill is enacted, the Government will produce regulations creating the trading offences. I have studied all the possible offences that could be designated as park trading offences. In addition to selling hamburgers or hot dogs, a whole range of other activities could be regarded as trading activities, including posing for photographs in the park if companies make money out of it, as the BBC and other organisations may do. A range of activities under regulation 4 of the 1997 regulations could be regarded as trading activities, in the widest possible sense. To ensure that the measure contains a catch-all for all trading offences, I suspect that parliamentary draftsmen will designate every one possible, and the penalty of £1,000—or £500, as I suggest—will apply. In conclusion, unless the Minister convinces me otherwise, I think that jumping from a fine of £200 to one of £1,000, plus introducing, for the first time, the right to confiscate all equipment, is very draconian. A penalty of £500 would still be twice the rate of inflation. The much-respected right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested that the fine should be only £200 if it were to keep pace with inflation since before the war. I am proposing a much higher penalty than the level of inflation would suggest, but the Government are demanding a very high one indeed. We need to know why the Minister has reached that determination, how it has worked outside the parks in Westminster and what is the level of trading activity. Are we talking just about food and perishables, or is a whole range of odd, assorted goods—perhaps of good quality—being sold as well as counterfeit ones? How does the Minister envisage confiscation working with regard to fines and penalties, and what will the effect be on the court? Only if we know the income that these people make from their activities and the extent of the mischief can we come to a proper, sensible determination about which of the amendments we should vote on today, or whether we should accept the Government's proposals.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to state that the official Opposition support the Bill, which began as a private Member's Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I remind right hon. and hon. Members that I have personal experience in these matters. As a police officer at West End Central, policing Soho and Mayfair in the 1960s, it was my privilege and duty to arrest many a hot-dog seller. I assure my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), who have tabled these amendments, that even in the 1960s it was not unusual for hot-dog sellers to have £100 or more in cash in their pockets when arrested. There has been much discussion about inflation since the 1920s. The result of inflation since the 1960s would mean that £100 then would be worth considerably in excess of £1,000 now. I cannot agree that the level of fines in a Bill dealing with offences in the royal parks should be different from those in the legislation that deals with offences in the City of Westminster. Whether the level of fines is correct is a separate matter, and I have some sympathy with some of the comments that have been made on that subject. Reference has been made to enforcement, and I pointed out earlier that the reason why several vendors were selling hot dogs within the vicinity of the London Eye this morning may have been that the police on duty had other things to do. However, inadequate policing is surely not a reason for failing to provide proper levels of penalty and sentence when offenders are caught and successfully prosecuted. On the contrary, if the scale of offending is such that only a crackdown or blitz by police officers forsaking all their other duties would make any meaningful difference to the level of illegal trading, surely we should ensure that the courts have adequate powers to impose stiff penalties, to make that crackdown worth while. That must mean a combination of heavy fines and confiscation.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will my hon. Friend deal with the argument about displacement? The London Eye is situated in the London borough of Lambeth. Does he agree that there may be so much activity there because fines there are lower than in the City of Westminster? How will that disparity be addressed by the Bill? Will not the Bill exacerbate it?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has anticipated my next point. One of the difficulties created by the provisions in the City of Westminster is that they have displaced illegal trading from the streets into the royal parks. He rightly states that the south bank of the River Thames is in a different London borough. That in no way suggests that the House should not pass the Bill and send it to the other House for consideration, but my hon. Friend's argument about the rest of London needs to be addressed by Ministers. Perhaps the matter could be drawn to the attention of the new mayor of London, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), and the newly elected Greater London Assembly. The reason why the Minister and I are in the Chamber this afternoon is that the royal parks are under the jurisdiction, or departmental responsibility, of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Normally we would expect such issues to be considered by Home Office Ministers, or Ministers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I am sure that the Minister will draw the attention of his colleagues in those Departments to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). We require the Bill to deal with the displacement into the royal parks of illegal trading that was previously carried on within the city of Westminster. I suggest to right hon. and hon. Friends that the very fact that illegal trading appears now to have been displaced to the south bank adds fuel to our argument that we need to provide adequate protection for the royal parks.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend has referred to the scale of allegedly objectionable activity in the royal parks. Can he tell the House how much less he would expect to accrue to public funds from the fines proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) than from those proposed by the Government?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

That is an interesting question, to which I have no answer. However, that is not the issue; the issue is whether the fines and the confiscation would be a deterrent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border asked about the scale of incomes. I have already alluded to my experience of 35 years ago, which suggested that those street traders made substantial incomes from their unlicensed sales. Obviously, they have no overheads and charge relatively high prices for relatively low-quality food or items; reference has been made to counterfeit goods being sold. For many, the fines that traders pay have traditionally been seen as being in lieu of the rent that they would have had to pay if they were trading from a recognised market or other premises. The House needs no more evidence of the scale of income being derived from this already illegal activity than the widespread reports of Mafia control of the very people who are trading illegally within the royal parks. These so-called pitches are considered to be extremely valuable. My right hon. Friends are entirely right to ask the House to consider whether the penalties are correct, but it would be wrong for us to agree to an amendment which would reduce the level of fines permitted by the Bill. The courts will have flexibility, but in my judgment, the maximum should be higher.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I am intrigued by my hon. Friend's use of the word Mafia, and I am persuaded by much of his argument. Is he suggesting that there is an element of organised crime, or is it merely individual capitalism by the vendors?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

My hon. Friend puts his point with his usual eloquence. I think that organised crime is involved; that advice has come from the Metropolitan police. There have been several incidents of violence, as the Minister has mentioned. We are not dealing simply with hot-dog sellers, but with organised crime and acts of violence that we should not tolerate within the royal parks. That is why this activity must be stamped out and brought under control by proper licensing. That is why the maximum penalties should be even higher. However, we are perfectly content to trust the Minister's judgment. Clearly, it makes sense for the magistrates courts that deal with such matters—whether they are in the royal parks, the City of Westminster or the City of London—to have the same penalties available to them. I hope that on reflection, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I shall be brief, because this is the Report stage. The House faces an unenviable choice between the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and that tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst prefers a lesser penalty for the first offence. He described that as modernisation. I would call it sociology, but let us rest on that definition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border described his amendment as a compromise. As true Conservatives, we are faced with a choice between modernisation or compromise. In reaching a decision, we should look a little more carefully at how to judge the effectiveness of the fines. I hope that my right hon. Friends will forgive me if I say that it is all very well to criticise the Minister or the Bill for the lack of evidence on which the Minister's proposed fines are based, but I did not hear any countervailing evidence from them. I wonder whether my right hon. Friends based their amendments on discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers or the Magistrates Association, or whether they took evidence from representatives of the royal parks. It is crucial that the level of fine should be evidence based. I regret that I did not hear in either of their excellent speeches any greater evidence in support of the levels that they would prefer than we have heard so far from the Government. If the House is to spend prime time fixing penalty levels, we should do so on the basis of discussions with those at the sharp end, such as chief police officers, magistrates and so on. The second criterion for judging the two interesting amendments is which is likely to be the most effective deterrent. Today's debate has been useful because it has raised the concept of displacement. Something that used to happen in the City of Westminster has been pushed into the royal parks because there is a different penalty there. It has also been pushed across the river to the south bank. If we get the level of fine right, the vendors might be driven to the millennium dome and drum up some custom for that attraction. I am not convinced by the debate that any of the suggested fines will be a deterrent—and I am far less convinced when I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that the Mafia is involved. The idea that the Mafia will be deterred because the fine has been increased from £200 to £1,000 does not bear serious examination, and would not bear serious examination on the streets of Palermo in Sicily. A mere £800 will not stop the violence of which my hon. Friend spoke. I need a lot more convincing about the right level for an effective deterrent. If we want to drive this activity—or, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) described it, this smell—out of the royal parks, we must have an effective fine. However, I am tempted to conclude that all three of the suggested levels have been arrived at by simply making up a number. My right hon. Friends seem to think that the problem can be solved by increasing the level of the fine, but they are not sure that it will be an effective deterrent.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I have always regarded my hon. Friend as a libertarian. Does he agree that if one were to argue for a much heavier fine than the Government or the Opposition are proposing, there would be a risk of arguing the doctrine that the ends justify the means and abandoning the notion of proportionality?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

I agree. I am not advocating a heavier level of fine than that already proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seems content with an increased level for the second and third offence. He may wish to return to that idea when he replies to the debate. I am not advocating any particular level of fine. I need to know why the House is debating this Bill in the middle of the afternoon when there are so many other matters for which we are told there is no legislative time. It is for the Government to defend their chosen level. I am pointing out that the two alternatives do not seem, on first inspection, to be any more solidly evidence based than what is in the Bill. The third criterion that might be useful is to consider the alternatives. As none of us has confidence in any particular level of fine, are we sure that we have considered all the alternatives? There may be more moderate punishments, such as some form of community service, which might take the vendors off the street.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

For the Mafia?

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) might be about to propose more serious penalties, which might involve the vendors never returning again.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I am attracted by the idea of the Mafia being involved in purveying hamburgers. That is something that we should encourage. If the Mafia can be tied up in distributing hamburgers, society might be enhanced.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. This is wide of the debate on the amendments.

Michael Fallon (Conservative, Sevenoaks)

There is an absence of rationale here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we are to criticise the Bill for overreacting to a problem, or coming up with a solution that is not based on a particular rationale, we must be honest and apply that same critique to amendments Nos. 17 and 1. I have said that this is a difficult and agonising choice for those of us who wish to support either or both of my right hon. Friends. However, when they reply to this important debate, it is incumbent on them to demonstrate that their amendments are better rooted in evidence and based on a more reasoned framework than the Bill that they seek to amend.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) because I share some of his scepticism. My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) have done a great service to the House and the country by ensuring that we have an opportunity to debate this matter. When speaking to clause 2 in Committee, the Minister justified the clause in just a few words. He said: The current maximum penalty…carries a fine of £200. Magistrates courts generally impose much lower fines, but even the maximum fine of £200 is no deterrent. The courts need to have much higher penalties available to them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 March 2000; c. 7.] He did not explain why or how higher maximum penalties would deter that activity. The best deterrent is the certainty of conviction. On Second Reading, the Minister said that those seeking to enforce the legislation in the royal parks were subject to strong-arm tactics and violence. In other words, offences were committed against them for which there are substantial penalties, including imprisonment. If the presence of those penalties on the statute book is not sufficient to deter this activity, why does the Minister think that a maximum fine of £1,000 might be? 6 pm There is a real concern about this piecemeal legislation and the displacement effect. The Government argue that the Bill will equalise the royal parks with the City of Westminster, but those of us who, when we are in London, live on the south bank, as I do, in the London borough of Lambeth, will justifiably ask why the displacement should cause a proliferation of the illegal activity in our area. The Minister has not addressed that point. Probably the best answer would be to have fixed penalties, decided by local authorities, just as they choose the level of parking fines. Fixed penalties and the certainty of conviction might be a much more effective deterrent than maximum penalties.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

There is a powerful argument for fixed penalties. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to avoid displacement, they should apply equally to the royal parks and gardens as well as to places that do not come under the provisions of the 1872 Act?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

That is a powerful point. The Minister admitted in the Second Reading Committee that he had been advised that interviews by the immigration and social security authorities have elicited that many of those operating these food carts say that they are asylum seekers.—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 7 March 2000; c. 5.] That shows that the Government will never achieve their objective of reducing that illegal activity through the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister has consulted the new chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality on whether he thinks that the legislation is discriminatory, but if those people are indeed asylum seekers, that further demonstrates the knock-on effects of the Government's inadequate asylum policies. Is it not unthinkable that maximum fines of £1,000 should be imposed on asylum seekers, who will justifiably be able to say that they have no source of income? How will the courts be able to impose £1,000 fines on asylum seekers, and how will asylum seekers be deterred from this unlawful activity by the provisions in clause 2?

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I do not yet know whether I am in favour of, or against, the amendments. That depends to some extent on what the Minister will say. I want briefly to rehearse my dilemma and to crystallise what has emerged. One has to decide which side of the fence to come down on. I want to rehearse the argument that has erected that fence for me. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) undermined the force of amendment No. 17 when he suggested that it might not be profitable to spend a great deal of time discussing the level of fines when those fines were unlikely to be enforced. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) dismissed that argument with powerful logic, but both he and my right hon. Friend relied on one piece of evidence: the four traders next to the London Eye to whom they referred. The key point is that we might be doing those traders a huge disservice, because no one has yet produced any evidence to persuade us that they are trading illegally, yet they were used as the example to prove that the fines would not be enforced. Without that evidence, no such issue can be decided. The thrust of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and those who followed his logic was that the fine had to be proportionate to the offence. If I understood him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) correctly, they did not believe that these offences were quite as heinous as some might portray them to be—reference was made earlier to the offensive smells that might emerge—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst therefore wanted to reduce the fine in respect of the first offence. I understand the force of those arguments. These vendors do not force their products on unwilling customers. They provide a service. If it constitutes a nuisance, we must be proportionate in our response. That is one side of the fence—the argument for the amendments. The argument against the amendments is the argument for zero tolerance—that the fines should be severe and there should be no reduction for the first offence on the grounds that, if we deal severely with the first offence, there will not be subsequent offences. The argument is that, if one takes these issues seriously, one deals with the problem rather than having a running sore. That might be countered by the proportionality argument—that it is ridiculous to deal with such trivial offences in so draconian a way—but the benefits of the zero tolerance approach are felt not in respect of those particular offences but in respect of all offences. The experience in New York is that dealing with minor offences such as street begging or illegal trading in a severe way has a knock-on effect on much more serious crime throughout the city. That is a powerful argument that we should consider. However, I have at the back of my mind a reservation, which sprang from a telephone call that I received last week from a constituent, complaining that he had reported a burglar alarm ringing next door to him to the police, only to be told that it was the policy of the police in Ringwood not to respond to burglar alarms. Here we are, discussing additional fines to pursue the purveyors of hamburgers, and I wonder whether we have lost our sense of proportion. I refer again to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, who suggested that the hamburger trade had been sewn up by the Mafia. It may bear repeating that if we could confine gangsterism to the purveyance of hamburgers, we would be doing very well indeed.

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

I am happy to respond to the debate on the amendments. I am grateful to all who have participated. It is proper that we should debate the proposals in the spirit of satisfying Parliament that the legislation proposed by the Government is necessary, well framed, proportionate—that has been mentioned several times—and therefore fit to proceed speedily on to the statute book. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are increasingly satisfied that that will be the case. The Bill has been considered carefully by Opposition Front Benchers, and I place on record my appreciation of the responsible attitude of the hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). I assure those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have cast a scintilla of doubt on whether Parliament's scrutiny of the measure has so far been adequate that I have been subjected to a rigorous and searching interrogation—more importantly, so has the legislation—by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. None the less, it is appropriate to proceed as we are this afternoon, and I shall address myself to the amendments. In so doing, I shall deal more gently with the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) than did the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who made some shrewd criticisms of the amendments—in the interests of opening up such issues for debate, I presume. This straightforward measure is intended to deal with a pretty clear-cut problem—unauthorised, and therefore illegal—trading in the royal parks. Indeed, the Metropolitan police and the Royal Parks Constabulary have advised us that such illegal trading is very much a manifestation of organised crime of an unpleasant nature. The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, who are strongly committed to upholding good law and order, would certainly want the Government to deal with such crime.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Minister says that he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that this is indeed a problem of organised crime. The word "Mafia" was used. Therefore, does he think that a level 3 penalty, which is suggested in clause 2 and is the subject of the amendments, will be adequate to deter the Mafia or others involved in such organised crime?

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

I shall address the specific point that the hon. Gentleman properly raises in a moment, but right hon. and hon. Members want to know the nature of the problem, so I shall respond on that general point before dealing with the fines and other remedies and penalties that may be appropriate. We suspect that such activities are organised, but even if they are not, they involve ripping off the many visitors who come to enjoy the royal parks on a scale that should shock us all. I am advised that the illegal traders who have been arrested and charged with offences have told the police that they make approximately £1,200 a day—a lucrative trade indeed. However, they do not always have that sum on them because they use a system of runners to take the money back to those who control them. It is clear that significant penalties, including fines, are needed if we are to address the problem. I was asked about the incidence of such offences. In 1999, about 1,500 illegal traders were prosecuted for activity that occurred in St. James's and Green parks, so we are dealing with a large-scale problem that causes widespread offence. Licensed traders are losing a significant amount of business. Their turnover has been substantially reduced—by about 50 per cent. since the mid-1990s. A further effect is that The Royal Parks agency is deprived of the revenue that it would otherwise receive from the licensed traders, so a clear public interest is involved. 6.15 pm Apart from the financial aspects—the money made by the unauthorised traders and the sum lost by those who should benefit—we have seen a set of practices that I can only describe as squalid. We have seen episodes of violence. Unauthorised traders have gone at one another with knives as they contended for particular pitches. On one occasion, they went at one another with iron bars just outside a park. Hot fat was poured over a police officer who sought to prevent them from carrying on that trade.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

What puzzles some of us is that the Minister is describing criminal activity. Presumably, the criminal law extends to the royal parks. He used the phrase "we have seen", so presumably the police must have also seen those activities. Is he telling us that the police will not or cannot deal with the criminal activities that he describes, let alone the trading and the creation of offensive smells?

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

We must deal with those who are engaged in the criminal activity that we find on the spot. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to press me on that point because, of course, the police should make every effort to get at the racketeers who lie behind the trade. We are talking about practical measures to get at the roots of the problem as well as at the individuals who commit such offences in the parks.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

rose—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

rose—

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

I shall make a little more progress and then respond to any point that hon. Members want to make. I am dealing with the nature and scale of the problem because only when we understand that can we judge the appropriateness of the fines proposed. Amendment No. 17 would limit magistrates courts to imposing a fine not exceeding £500 for a first offence. They would be empowered to impose a fine not exceeding £1,000 for a subsequent offence. We heard an interesting history of inflation between 1872 and 1926, and we were all grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for his authoritative intervention. We also heard some interesting speculation about the rising incidence of criminality. In fact, the penalties that we introduce must be effective, not disproportionate or draconian.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Will the Minister give way?

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

Not yet. Amendment No. 1, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, would reduce the maximum fine that magistrates courts could impose for a park-trading offence to £500. There is no reason why we should stipulate that the courts should impose a more lenient penalty on an illegal trader for a first offence. Given the scale of the problem, the offences perpetrated and the rewards that the unauthorised traders enjoy, his proposal to impose a level 2 fine is not appropriate. A particularly important consideration—the point was helpfully made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—is the need for consistency; that theme has emerged during the debate. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst drew attention to the activities of traders on the south bank. As we debate the matter now, we have no idea whether those traders were licensed, so we cannot generalise usefully from the observation that he made, but we do know that, as far as possible, we should have available to us a consistent regime and a consistent range of penalties. It seems to me—I am grateful for the support that I have had on the point from the hon. Member for Ryedale—that it is obviously sensible for the regime that we create for the royal parks to be consistent with the regime that Parliament has created for the City of Westminster. The City of Westminster Act 1999 was passed only last year. We can ask all sorts of questions—they were asked in the debate—about whether there are alternatives to fines. Possibilities were proposed such as community service, but, unless we deal consistently with the same offences in neighbouring areas, we will continue to see the displacement effect, which has caused the state of affairs in the parks to deteriorate so badly, particularly since we introduced that Act.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I hope that the Minister is not implying that there is a causal link between deplorable violence and thriving trade. I assume that he accepts that the trade that is taking place is voluntary. In seeking to justify the fines that he proposes, what exactly does he mean by the term "ripping off'?

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

I am advised that some high prices for what I would think were unappetising hot dogs and hamburgers are being extorted from innocent visitors to parks. The hon. Gentleman, who is deeply committed to the unalloyed free market, would no doubt applaud such conduct. He would say good luck—caveat emptor—but, having responsibility within Government for The Royal Parks agency and for good conduct in, and good presentation of, the royal parks, I am concerned that we should not endorse the violations of hospitality that such practices involve, so I do not agree with him on the matter.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Minister says, rightly, that there needs to be consistency between the level of fines in the royal parks and the level of fines in the City of Westminster to avoid displacement, but, before a fine can be levied, there must be an arrest. What worries me is that, earlier, he spoke about crimes of violence that are against the criminal code and where there have not been arrests. Is he convinced that there are sufficient parks police—there are certainly not sufficient Metropolitan police—to ensure that such arrests can be made?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. That is going wide of the amendment that is before us. The amendment is about fines. Therefore, we should restrict ourselves to that.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

But the person must be arrested before he can be fined.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order.

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me pay tribute to the Royal Parks Constabulary because it is trying hard and doing its best to acquit its responsibilities in difficult circumstances. I believe that the force is sufficiently staffed for it to be able to carry out its responsibilities, but there need to be the sanctions and the penalties, which are available to the courts. Otherwise, the problem will grow and grow. At the moment, it is simply too easy for people to make a lot of money out of illegal trading, so the problem is liable to overwhelm the Royal Parks Constabulary, but I am glad to say that that is by no means the case at the moment. However, it is under a pressure that it should not be under. It is one of the reasons why we need that level of fines.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Will the Minister give way?

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

No. I should like to carry on a little further. Fines alone will not be sufficient. The scale of profiteering that I have described shows that, so we need the panoply of measures that Parliament has already provided the City of Westminster, including fines, powers of seizure and the power of the courts to order forfeiture. We need to see the fines in that broader context. The evidence is that the array of penalties available to magistrates to use for offences committed in the City of Westminster is working satisfactorily. We have had much debate about what the level of fine should be. That is a proper concern for the House to have, but let me remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Bill still leaves magistrates courts discretion to impose a lesser fine. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border underlined that it is not just a discretion. There is a duty to exercise that discretion—magistrates have a duty to take account of the circumstances of each case—so the concerns about proportionality are well met. The offence in question is not, as was suggested, merely the generation of offensive odours. We have an array of much more significant offences. It is right that we should have those powers to deal with them. I hope that, on that basis, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will be willing to withdraw his amendment and to agree that what we have in the Bill is, after all, appropriate.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to answer the debate in such detail and with such courtesy. I am conscious of the passage of time. I think that we have had a proper and thorough debate. In view of what the Minister and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) have said, I now realise that my amendments were probably misplaced and even misdirected. I feel properly chastened. On the basis of their remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

OFFENCE BY BODY CORPORATE

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 16, after "the" insert "knowledge,".

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 17 and 18. No. 2, in page 1, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert— '(a) a director or company secretary described in the articles of incorporation, and (b) a person purporting to act in either of the capacities above.' No. 4, in page 1, line 25, leave out paragraph (c). No. 20, in page 1, line 25, leave out "secretary" and insert— 'company secretary (in the terms defined in the Articles of Incorporation)'. No. 21, in page 2, line 2, leave out "purporting" and insert "authorised". No. 31, in page 2, line 2, leave out "purporting to act" and insert "acting".

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

In the light the debate that we have just had, I am tempted to designate this part of the Bill the "Mafia clause". I can conclude only that the description of the clause, "Offence by body corporate", must refer to the Mafia. It has not been suggested yet by the Minister that anything that would usually be known as a body corporate—a corporation or a company—is involved in that activity, but he has suggested, and seems to believe, that he has sufficient proof that the Mafia or some other organised crime organisation is behind it. I say that not in a spirit of levity, but to suggest that the thrust of the clause is either misdirected or directed for reasons that we have not yet been told by the Minister. In restricting my remarks and in making them as succinct as possible, in order that we may make progress, I wish to explore whether the Minister is satisfied that the words in the clause are sufficient. That is the reason for our amendments. They are part probing and part designed—I hope that he will accept it—genuinely to strengthen the clause. However, it will be up to the Minister, as ever, to satisfy me and my right hon. and hon. Friends and to say whether that is the case. The amendment would add the word "knowledge". We want to be able to demonstrate within the clause that the offence has been committed not just with consent or connivance, but with the knowledge of an officer. That is important to make full sense of the provision. There are references in the clause to the "director", the "manager" or the "secretary". Again, our concern was that the term "secretary" could be misconstrued and could draw into the net of the offence persons who perhaps should not be drawn in. We suggest the phrase "company secretary", which would provide the necessary elucidation or further expansion suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). 6.30 pm We are rather puzzled by paragraph (e), in which the word "purporting" appears. Unless the Minister tells us that the word has a specific meaning and will be specifically effective in terms of the Bill's aims, we propose the substitution of the word "authorised" for the word "purporting"—or, indeed, "acting". We want the legislation to be made more specific and therefore, as we would argue, more effective. I fear that the word "purporting" may not be strong enough or sufficiently focused to give the Bill the effect that I know everyone wants it to have.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

I understand why, in his introductory remarks, my right hon. Friend described this as the Mafia clause, but does he now accept that it would not apply to organised crime unless it was committed by a body corporate? Surely it is highly unlikely that any crime organisation would incorporate itself in the United Kingdom. On that assumption, there would be no company secretary and, indeed, no officer of such a corporation.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That helpful intervention simply exposes the fact that my suggestion that the Mafia might be caught by the clause was somewhat wide of the mark, and I do not want to pursue it unduly. However, one issue lingers. We must know, by the time we have completed the Bill's Report stage and Third Reading, whether it will deal with the Mafia problem—as the Minister introduced it to the debate—and whether the confiscation of hamburger carts will be sufficient to deal with that problem. We will discuss confiscations later, but we are currently dealing with the body corporate. I suspect that, like me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border wants to be satisfied that the clause as it stands, or as amended if the Minister feels able to recommend any of the amendments, is drafted well enough not just to deal with a problem whose existence we all now acknowledge, but to ensure that there is no risk that an innocent employee might be caught up in a way that was not intended. I am thinking of, for example, the use of the word "secretary". I assume that the Bill means officers rather than employees. I have doubts about the use of the term "manager", but I think the Minister will be able to explain that. The amendments are intended to be partly probing and partly helpful. I hope the Minister will accept them on those terms.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I was very surprised by the drafting of this part of the Bill. I never say that drafting is sloppy, because that usually constitutes unfair criticism of parliamentary draftsmen, and sometimes constitutes unfair criticism of the civil servants who issue those draftsmen with instructions. On this occasion, I simply say that the drafting is slightly odd or obscure. I see what the Minister and the Government are getting at; I just wonder whether the terminology is right to catch the people whom they want to catch. I fear that it could lead to an unfair interpretation in court. I am thinking particularly of the use of the term "secretary" rather than "company secretary", which denotes a legally defined person. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned that. Amendment No.2 proposes the omission of the examples cited in clause 3(2)—"director", "manager", "secretary", "another similar officer" and a person purporting to act in any of the capacities listed in the paragraphs… My amendment would substitute the words a director or company secretary described in the articles of incorporation, and…a person purporting to act in either of the capacities above. I think that, according to a proper interpretation of company law, my amendment uses the more appropriate terminology. In all company law, the people responsible are the directors of the company involved. When companies are incorporated, they must have directors, and I believe that they must have company secretaries. The company secretary is usually qualified: indeed, I think that a company secretary must be legally qualified under the law.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I will give way to my hon. Friend, who is about to correct me.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My right hon. Friend is right in saying that a company secretary ought to be qualified, but most company secretaries are qualified in accountancy or are members of an institute. They tend to be accountants rather than lawyers.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am grateful for that correction, but it does not undermine the thrust of my argument that a company secretary is generally a recognised person with a professional qualification—in accountancy, I now gather, and no doubt in company law, rather than that person being a lawyer. There is, however, a world of difference between a company secretary—according to the definition that I understood to be correct and what my hon. Friend informs me is correct—and a secretary. I think that, as drafted, the Bill could lead a court to convict a person who just happened to be a secretary—not a legally qualified company secretary or a company secretary qualified in accountancy; not a shareholder in the business; and not someone who has the authority of a director responsible for the management of a company and for ensuring that its accounts are filed and Companies Acts requirements are complied with; but a girl who just happens to be in a typing pool. I do not mean to be derogatory to ladies in the typing pool—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Or men.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Indeed. I am led to my conclusion by the fact that the word "manager" appears before the word "secretary". "Manager" is not a term used in Companies Acts either. I think that if the rules of interpretation of courts were applied, a court would conclude that clause 3(2) was trying to catch ordinary employees. It catches the director, then it catches managers of any description. They could be managing directors, but they could also be sales managers, store managers, floor managers, people in charge of hamburger barrows, or cold-store managers. If the Bill catches people who fall under the general description of manager, as opposed to director, the courts could easily assume that it catches people who just happen to be secretaries.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

My right hon. Friend raises the spectre of a worrying situation, but I wonder whether he has overlooked the use of the word "officers" in subsection (2). Surely that would rule out the secretary in a typing pool. The reference in subsection (2)(c) to a secretary means an officer of a body corporate, who would be the company secretary under the terms of the Companies Acts.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I beg to disagree with my hon. Friend. The Bill says: For the purposes for this section the following are officers of a body corporate. It then refers to a "director", a "manager", a "secretary" and "another similar officer". It says that, for the purposes of the Bill, those people are now to be regarded as officers of a body corporate, which is not the normal interpretation. I understand some of the reasons behind the legislation. The Government have concluded that some of those involved in this trade are not just big limited companies but partnerships and other funny little businesses, one-man bands, or outfits in which one person is the boss and a few other staff are working for him or her. Some of those other staff might be secretary types or manager types, but they are equally involved in criminality or illegal activity. The Government intend subsection (2) to catch all who are taking part in, or encouraging, such activity. However, if that is the case, the Government should use different terminology. It would have been acceptable if, in clause 3(1), the Government had used the terminology "with the consent or connivance of any other staff, managers or workers." What is unacceptable to me is the mucking around with the usual interpretation of company law, suggesting that the officers of a body corporate can include those who are rather loosely described as managers, secretaries or other similar officers. What officer is similar to a director, manager or secretary? In the Companies Acts, one knows what "another similar officer" is in relation to a director or a company secretary. The rather vague terminology used in the Bill does not help us on the matter. As I do not want to take too much time on this group of amendments, I shall move on to my first amendment, No. 3, which is more of a probing amendment than anything else. I can accept the first three lines of clause 3, although, in paragraph (a)—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggests—it might be appropriate to add the word "knowledge" to "consent or connivance". I perfectly well accept that, when an offence is committed as a deliberate act, with connivance or consent, the officers involved—as well as the body corporate, the limited company—should face the penalty. I do not understand, however, how the offence can be attributable to neglect by an officer. I do not know in what other spheres of the criminal law someone could find themselves in a criminal court because of neglect to comply with an aspect of company law, although I know that, under company law provisions, someone who fails to file accounts or value added tax returns faces the penalty. In this case, however, we are talking about a criminal offence, and potentially an attaching criminal record, because someone in a company—the secretary, the manager or a director—was neglectful in some way in allowing the offence to be committed. I can envisage circumstances in which someone's trading licence for a hamburger stall has come through for Green park, but not yet for St. James's park, and some manager or secretary says to their people with wheelbarrows or carts, "Off you go—you're off to St. James's park; it's all right, you have a licence there", but gets it wrong. I would say that that was not deliberate connivance—it might be a lack of knowledge—but a simple mistake. Yet, because of the neglect of that secretary in mistakenly directing a staff member to the wrong park, for which she thought that the company had a licence from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, she might suffer the full penalty of a criminal conviction and a fine of up to £1,000. She would face that penalty because the body corporate and she as a secretary have negligently committed that offence. The Minister may rightly say that the court would take that into account, and that the police may not charge them but take a sensible view. I am always happy to ascribe to police, including park police, a view that they will always operate with common sense. The only exception to that—this is merely an aside, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or you would promptly rule me out of order—is when one sees pictures of park police on roller-skates, which is their latest device for catching Mafia in the park. I have a such a picture—from the Evening Standardof 13 April—which I may pass to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for inspection. Therefore, one sometimes has to question the wisdom of park police—although I am told that the roller-skates are very effective.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

What if the Mafia put on skates?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

They will no doubt evade the police. Nevertheless, although we shall give police all credence for having common sense on whether they prosecute a poor secretary because she makes a little mistake in sending the guy to the wrong park and commits an offence, it is our duty as legislators not to give police the opportunity to get it wrong initially. We should not build into the legislation a provision that will lead to police catching the wrong people—those who are not the real ringleaders, company directors or masterminds who may be making £1,200 a day. I may be tempted, in the summer recess, to ask the Minister how one can apply for a licence to sell goods in the park, as it sounds a rather lucrative profession. 6.45 pm My final amendment, No. 31, deals with "purporting to act", which I think should be substituted by "acting". As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, it would not be right to prosecute a company because someone falsely claims to be acting in any of the capacities listed earlier in the clause. It is perfectly right to catch those who are not company directors, managers, secretaries or—if the Government wish—other similar officers, but who are acting in that capacity, actually doing it. Someone in the business may be called "the doorkeeper", "the doorman" or "the garage hand", although those titles are only a cover for his having a very powerful say in the company and the fact that he is the mastermind. In such cases, that person is acting in one of the listed capacities—he is the boss, although he may not have that title. Someone who is acting in a listed capacity should be caught. What concerns me, however, is that there may be people who falsely claim to be acting in the capacity of boss. I cannot understand the wisdom of simply adding the word "purporting" when I think that the Government really want to catch people who are genuinely doing the acting and perhaps passing themselves off as someone else. It is a small group of amendments, and we have not dealt with them at great length; there is much more that we could say. There are, however, a few serious points in them. I summarise those points by saying that I am still intrigued by the terminology that the Government have decided to use in the legislation, particularly in clause 3(2). I should like reassurances on the matter from the Minister, who was exceptionally kind and courteous in replying to the first group, thereby persuading my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I not to press them to a vote. We were persuaded by the strength of the Minister's arguments, which shows the importance of having exploratory amendments and a good ministerial reply. I hope that the Minister will be able to convince us on this occasion also, so that we shall be able to make some progress—especially as there are some considerable things that I should like to say in speaking to the third group of amendments. There may be issues in that group that we wish to press further. Now, however, I should be happy to hear the Minister's reply.

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments in this group have been dealt with by the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I think that, principally, once again, they are seeking clarification and reassurance that the terms in which the Bill is drafted are appropriate. In amendment No. 18, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has actually sought to strengthen the Bill's provisions. I put it to him that his amendment would be excessively draconian—to use a term that we used in our first debate—in its effect, because it would make liable to prosecution an individual who had any knowledge of a certain state of affairs, regardless of the extent to which that individual could be held personally responsible. It could render officers of a company liable to conviction in cases in which it is unreasonable that they should be punished at all. The type of cases that amendment No. 18 would add are ones in which a person had attempted, unsuccessfully, to prevent a misdeed—although they knew about it, they were ineffective in being able to deal with it—and various other cases in which someone who had some knowledge was powerless to be effective. I think that that would be unreasonable. I believe—as I hope to persuade Opposition Members—that, as drafted, clause 3(1) covers all the levels of action or inaction by an officer that are appropriate to prosecute. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border has just spoken to amendment No. 3, which he explained was intended as a probing amendment. We need to make provision to deal with negligence. The amendment would restrict the circumstances in which an officer of a company may be convicted of a park trading offence to those in which he has consented to or connived at the commission of the offence by a body corporate. Clause 3(1) provides that if a body corporate has been convicted of a park trading offence and an officer is proved to have consented to or connived at it, or the offence is proved to be attributable to the neglect of the officer, that officer will be liable to prosecution. That additional provision is important. The amendment would weaken the Bill by excluding from prosecution an officer or body corporate who was negligent. The negligence might be in failing to realise that the body corporate was committing an offence, albeit that the officer concerned was in a position of responsibility within that body corporate. The officer could equally not be prosecuted if he knew that the offence was being committed but did nothing to prevent it. I see no good reason why those who have been negligent should get away with it. On amendment No. 2, the right hon. Gentlemen were concerned that the language that we have used may not be consistent with the ordinary terminology of company law. The amendment would create a loophole, allowing officers who do not hold the formal title of director or company secretary, but who carry out such responsibilities, to escape liability. It would preclude the possibility of prosecuting a manager or anyone purporting to act in such a capacity for the commission of a parks trading offence. Furthermore, it would remove the important flexibility that is currently written into clause 3(2) that provides for the possibility of prosecuting those who do not precisely fit the categories of director, manager or secretary, but who hold similar positions that have effectively the same functions even if they are not formally so styled. Amendment No. 20 would not add anything to the Bill, although I assume that it was intended to clarify matters. I am advised that the word "secretary" would be interpreted by the courts to mean company secretary in this context. The amendment would create a loophole by defining the term "company secretary" only by reference to the articles of incorporation, with the result that someone who was effectively company secretary but was not formally styled as such would fall outside the scope of the Bill and would escape criminal liability.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Will the Minister give way?

Alan Howarth (Labour, Newport East)

No. I should like to carry on because we have a little business to transact before 7 pm and the hon. Gentleman has already spoken a certain amount. Amendment No. 21 would restrict the class of person who may be considered to be an officer of a body corporate by excluding those who were purporting to act as a director, manager or secretary but did not have the authority to do so. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seeks to change the word "purporting" to "authorised". The amendment would achieve nothing positive. The persons authorised to act in the capacity of officer are already provided for in clause 3(2)(d). The amendment would preclude the possibility of prosecuting those who purport to act as an officer without the authority to do so. I cannot see why such individuals should escape liability. Finally, amendment No. 31 would not improve or clarify the Bill. Persons acting in the capacity of officer are already provided for by clause 3(2)(d). Like amendment No. 21, it would preclude the possibility of prosecuting those who purport to act as an officer without the authority to do so. It is again unclear why such a category of individual should escape liability. Having heard those explanations, I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen will not press their amendments.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

When I looked at the clause and set about drafting my amendments, I suspected that I might get into difficulty because I was encroaching on a narrow, legalistic area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) may have felt the same, although he has much more expertise in this area than I have, given his distinguished ministerial experience in a previous existence. The Minister confirmed my suspicions in the most helpful and positive way. I tried to follow his arguments—he quite properly gave the House a carefully drafted reply of the kind with which some of us are very familiar. He reassured us that clause 3 has been carefully drafted; it is intended to cover all conceivable possibilities in this area. We may want to return subsequently to the Mafia point because I am not sure that the clause would cover it, but it was not intended to do so. The clause is intended to cover more organised operations, rather than sole practitioners or single-person enterprises. I accept the spirit in which that explanation was offered. The Minister has gone a considerable way to reassure us that our unhappiness about the use of the term "secretary" was misplaced, because it is a term of art. My attempt to define it more accurately could have misfired and unduly narrowed the Bill or caused it to lose its focus. I did not quite follow the argument, but I gather that the same was true of the word "purporting", which appears also to be a term of art that I had not fully understood. We can be reassured by what the Minister has said—that clause 3 strikes a reasonable balance, being broad enough to cover those who should properly be encompassed within the Bill and avoiding being too narrow to miss those whom we might wish to catch. I thank the Minister again for his care and courtesy in replying to the amendments. In the light of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 4, leave out clauses 4 and 5.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 28, in clause 4, page 2, line 13, at end insert— '(4) Where a park constable exercises his powers under subsection (1) above he shall— (a) ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of any perishable material by the person having possession or control; (b) give to the person having possession or control a document, in an appropriate language, setting out the reasons for the seizure, itemising the things seized and informing the person of his rights and liabilities under section 5; and (c) not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create a hazard for his or others' health and safety. (5) The document referred to in subsection (4)(b) above shall comply with the model in Schedule (Document relating to seizure of property).'. Amendment No. 22, in clause 5, page 2, line 20, after "at", insert "or before". Amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 26, at end insert— '(3A) Proceedings arising from subsections (1) to (3) (including appeals) shall be concluded within a period of three months, after which the charges shall be withdrawn, or appeal deemed to have succeeded.'. Amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 30, leave out from first "of" to second "of" and insert— '60 days beginning with the date of the initiation'. Amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 35, at end insert— '(5A) If the Secretary of State has retained a thing under subsection (3)(b) for the period of 60 days from the initiation of proceedings relating to the offence (including any appeal), he shall return it to the person from whom it was seized.'. Amendment No. 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 2, leave out from "anything" to end of line 8 and insert— 'which the court believes to have been used in commission of the offence to be forfeited and dealt with in a manner specified in the order.'.

Document Relating to Seizure of Property

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

It is a pleasure to make such considerable progress on the Bill. We are now beginning to gallop. It is a pity that our proceedings have to be interrupted shortly, because we could polish the Bill off in another hour if only we had the time.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

We started late.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Had it not been for the statement, we might now be concluding Third Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I have always been keen to ensure that we get the Bill on the statute book at the earliest opportunity, following proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is excellent to see the House operating properly, as the Parliament of this country has consistently operated over the years, giving excellent scrutiny to a Bill that will make a fundamental difference to the state of affairs in the royal parks, about which many hon. Members on both sides are concerned. My first two amendments are considerable—No. 6 would delete clauses 4 and 5. They are exploratory amendments, although there are others in the group that I may wish to pursue more vigorously. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for his courtesy and consistency and for the detail of his replies, which has enabled us not to press our amendments, having been persuaded of the merits of the case. However, if his reply to these amendments is less satisfactory than his replies have been so far, I shall unfortunately have to pursue them to a Division. I hope that we can avoid that. I do not wish to pursue the first two amendments to a Division, because I do not wish to delete provisions that may be essential to the proper enforcement of the Act. However, it is right to explore, in the Minister's words, the other section of the panoply of legislative sledgehammers that he and his Department feel it necessary to take to those who sell hamburgers, hot dogs and other goods in stalls in the royal parks. We have already dealt properly with fines and explored how effective the Government's proposal of level 3 on the standard scale—a £1,000 fine—would be. We did not press our proposals for a £500 fine; we are happy with £1,000 and consider that reasonable and sensible. We must now turn our attention to whether the parks police should have the additional power to seize all the property of those committing the offences and to retain and dispose of that property—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that this afternoon, in a written answer, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food divulged the rather alarming information that genetically modified crops had been planted in this country during the past two years, contrary to Government policy, on the basis of recent information from Advanta Seeds UK. Perhaps you are not aware that the Minister then provided further information to journalists to the effect that 14,000 hectares of GM crops had been sown and that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions became aware of that on 17 April.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

First, have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had any approaches from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at any time during the past four weeks seeking to make the House aware of that information? Secondly, is it in order for a Minister inadvertently to give the House partial and perhaps misleading information in the form of a written answer and then provide much fuller information, which is essential to an understanding of the case, to the press but not to right hon. and hon. Members?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I remind the House that with this we are considering amendments Nos. 28, 22 to 25, 7 and new schedule 2.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, as you were taking the Chair, I was beginning my introduction to the amendments. We have dealt with important private Bills in the past two hours, but, as I said earlier, if we had not had the Government statement today, I am sure that we could have polished off the important business of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill before the private business commenced at 7 o'clock. Amendment No. 6 would delete clauses 4 and 5. I stressed that I did not intend to press that amendment to a Division because I suspect that, as the Bill is constructed, those two clauses may be essential to the panoply of penalties that the Minister wants. Nevertheless, in order to explore whether the seizure of property was necessary, and some of the rules incorporated in clause 5 on retention and disposal, the best parliamentary device available is to suggest deletion of the clauses, and to let the Minister persuade the House that it is essential to retain them. Clause 4 allows a park constable who reasonably suspects that a person has committed one of the park trading offences to seize property of a non-perishable nature. There are a couple of points on which the Minister must comment. The first point is the nature of these park trading offences. The Minister was expansive in his earlier replies to the amendments proposed by my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and myself, but he did not say what he envisaged would be the park trading offences in future. It may be more appropriate, and I hope entirely in order, if, in discussing the deletion of clause 4, I pressed the Minister to explain to the House which offences he envisages will be designated as park trading offences in future. I quoted to the House from regulation 4 of the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, which listed a series of offences that may take place in the royal parks. Those offences include stepping on the shrubbery, stepping on the flower beds and playing music. One offence, specified in paragraph (6), is trading in a royal park and selling goods and services. When the Minister makes regulations on park trading offences and designates certain offences, I anticipate that regulation 4(6) of the 1997 regulations will be lifted entirely or redrafted. I mentioned that the 1997 regulations specified other offences, such as taking photographs for commercial purposes. If that were designated as a park trading offence, there is a possibility that colleagues who go across to the royal park opposite Millbank studios and have their photographs taken by the BBC and other august organs of the state—or even less august organs of the state than the BBC—may be committing an offence and subject to a £1,000 penalty. Other activities in royal parks, such as displaying posters, advertising the millennium dome, displaying billboards, or putting on reviews, shows or theatrical events, could be a trading offence if done for commercial purposes. We understand from what the Minister said earlier and from what we read in the London local rag that the main thrust of the Bill is to deal with the hamburger and hot-dog sellers. I well understand that 99 per cent. of the action is directed against those who are selling those foods in parks. That seems to be where the bulk of the offence is committed and what the bulk of the trade is. However, it would be helpful if the Minister would say whether other items that are listed in the regulations are being sold, illegally and without a licence, in the royal parks. In what other commercial activities do people indulge without a licence, under the third of the 1997 regulations? Will the Minister list what he envisages will be the future park trading offences that he wishes to create under the Bill? My second point has to do with the seizure of non-perishable items. Hamburgers, hot dogs and chestnuts are all sold in our royal parks. One cold December day, I enjoyed some hot chestnuts that I had purchased in Westminster gardens on my way to the House. I had no idea that I was aiding and abetting a serious criminal offence, or that I was buying the local Mafia's nuts. I can understand why park constables should be empowered to confiscate the carts or barrows of the people who sell such commodities, and that those constables would not want to have to deal with a great many hot dogs, hamburgers and fried onions. However, the little wheeled carts or barrows used by food sellers in parks are often red hot, thanks to the fire that burns inside them. They also contain red-hot fat in which to cook the items, and any park constable who tries to seize such a cart clearly risks injury—to himself and to others. However, clause 4 makes it clear that the Government do not want park constables to take the edible material—cooked chestnuts, half-cooked hamburgers and hot dogs, fried onions and fat—when they seize the barrow and the rest of the equipment. In those circumstances, what are the park constables to do? I do not want to be facetious, but to make a genuine little point.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I think that my right hon. Friend makes a genuinely big point. In Standing Committee, the Minister was asked a similar question, to which he replied: The Royal Parks Constabulary will follow the same procedures as City of Westminster council officials, who offer the unlicensed trader the opportunity to take the perishable goods away. Almost all traders accept that invitation—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 March 2000; c. 9.] In other words, there is no answer to the question, according to the Minister's response in Standing Committee. Thank goodness, therefore, that we can do the job properly on Report today. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the Minister hard for a satisfactory answer now.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I have been stirred up by my right hon. Friend on a point that I may, negligently, have glossed over as minor. The mind boggles when one tries to imagine how traders take their goods away. This morning, I tried to purchase—for academic and scientific reasons—a hot dog and/or a hamburger from the two chaps at the House of Lords end of Westminster gardens.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Without onions?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

No; they smelt rather good. The two men were selling their goods when I passed at 10 o'clock this morning. It would be out of order to comment on the quality—we have already discussed the smell and whether the stink may be objectionable to local people. Clause 4 gives park constables the right to take the equipment: the barrow, or sort of stainless steel and aluminium cart that the chap at the House of Lords end had this morning. He looked as if he was in his 90s—I cannot imagine that he was a Mafia person. I am not trying to make an ageist remark—I hope that, if the Government set up a commission for age equality, it will not prosecute me. The old boy who was selling hamburgers and hot dogs at the House of Lords end this morning had a large bag of unpeeled onions and a large bag of sesame seed rolls. As I passed, he had a fry-up on the go. It smelt rather good at 10 o'clock. The hot dogs, the hamburgers and the onions were on the griddle. If the park constable had arrived and used his powers under clause 4 to seize anything of a non-perishable nature, he would have taken the aluminium cart and barrow, but he would not have been empowered legally to take the bag of unpeeled onions or the bag of sesame seed rolls. Doubtless, the seller could return those. What on earth would the constable do with the food that was sizzling away on the griddle, ready for the tourists to eat?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Perhaps the answer is to include a grandfather clause in the Bill.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am one of the few hon. Members who, many years ago, passed their articulated truck driving qualification. I believe it was called the national certificate of competence in road traffic management—those are the correct words, but they are not necessarily in the correct order. Doubtless those in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions could advise. Having done the qualification, I should be better able to advise my right hon. Friend. However, I had better not go down that route. It may appear that I have been slightly facetious, but there is a genuine problem, which the Bill does not address. I hope that the Minister will deal with it in his reply. Parks police will have to devise extra legal measures to deal with the problem. The Government have given them no help in the Bill. I shall not vote against the clause, but the Government will give the police powers to seize non-perishable goods but no powers to deal with perishable goods, which constitute 99 per cent. of the problem, given that the food sellers cause the main difficulty. What will happen to them? Clause 5 states: The Secretary of State may retain anything which has been seized under section 4 until the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the seizure. Subsection (3) applies where before the end of that period an information for a park trading offence is laid. Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to "retain the thing"—or things—until the court case is over. If an award is made, the Secretary of State can hang on to "the thing seized" until the costs have been paid. The clause uses standard forfeiture terms that may appear in other legislation. The fact that the parks constables have seized the items and the Secretary of State has hung on to them means that their value instantly diminishes. If the person buys the goods new, they become second hand as soon as he uses them. By the time that they have been confiscated by the parks police, they are third hand. The value declines immeasurably. The retention and disposal provisions make it impossible for the Secretary of State to get a fair price for the goods. Perhaps that is part of the penalty. If the Government say that it is, I have no qualms about it. Part of the penalty that we parliamentarians are building into the legislation is that a parks constable may seize the cart, the barrow, the brazier, and all the rest of the stuff, which are perhaps worth £500. However, the second that they are seized by an organ of the state and are sold off at a warrant sale or a disposal of surplus Government junk and property, they are worth only a tenner—that seems to be standard practice. Are we saying that we are happy with that and that it is another penalty that the person has to suffer when his goods are confiscated? He has not a hope in Hades of getting anything like the real value or a fair market value. With Government sales of surplus property and surplus equipment, or at sales at Waterloo station of all the equipment that people leave on trains, including umbrellas and wooden legs, one gets a fantastic bargain. People do not like going to such a sale because things have been handed in or they may have been stolen and, although they are dirt cheap, it is all awful and tacky. If the Government confiscate the property, when it is sold on behalf of the people who have committed the offence, the Government will get nothing like its real value—the people from whom it has been confiscated will get nothing like its value. If that is the case, let us be honest with the House. Then we will know that we are passing yet another sanction. We dealt with the fines in clause 2. Another part of the penalty will be the fact that the goods will be sold for a song and people will have to suffer that penalty as well.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

My right hon. Friend will doubtless have seen recent press reports that suggest that bailiffs should no longer sell off the goods and chattels of people who have committed some offence. The argument is that the goods and chattels have so little value nowadays that it is not worth the effort of seizing them. Does he agree that, if the equipment that is be seized under the Bill is re-sold—as he said, it will have a low value—it is likely to be sold back to the same sort of people who are committing the offences in the first place?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was concluding my remarks on the amendment and I was about to mention bailiffs and warrant sales. It is a fact that, if one is unfortunate enough not to have paid one's bills and bailiffs seize one's property, one never gets anything like its real value. That is a good allusion to what may happen under this clause. One may purchase a new television for £300 today, but the second that one takes it out of the shop, it is second-hand. If the bailiffs seize it tomorrow, they may get £50 for it, if they are lucky. The same is true of the hamburger stalls, although they may be of greater value to the sort of people who are in the business than to my hon. Friend and me, who do not want to purchase a hamburger stall, or to the general public. The specialists who trade in the business may pay slightly more for them. I do not think that the Government would want to sell them back to the sort of people from whom they confiscated them, unless those people had got a licence in the meantime. The main amendment in the group is No. 28, which would provide that the constable ensured that there were facilities for the safe removal from the park of perishable material by the person in possession or control. I will not again discuss the problem of the burgers, the sausage rolls and what one does when someone takes the trolley that they are on but not them. Amendment No. 28 suggests a solution to the Government. If they are going to give the park constables the powers under clause 4 to seize the fellow's cart and barrow, under my amendment they must stipulate that the park constables and police must have facilities for the safe removal of the perishable materials. If the hamburger seller usually takes away his stuff when the police tell him to move on, he will want to take it with him. For example, the sack of unpeeled onions that I saw this morning must have been worth a few pounds. The seller would want to take it with him—no problem. He would want to take his buns with him, but I bet that he would not take his semi-cooked hot dogs and half-fried onions with him. That would not make sense. So what will happen to them? The royal parks are meticulously kept. It was a tragedy to see the damage in the park at Millbank after the millennium celebrations. The garbage left behind was appalling. I felt sorry for the park staff as they tried for days to clear up. Nevertheless, Mr. Haselhurst—I mean, Sir Alan—Mr. Deputy Speaker—there have been so many occupants of the Chair tonight—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. That is one of the quickest promotions that I have ever received.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

It is well deserved, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not discuss further the problem of garbage in the park after the millennium celebrations. However, such problems could be increased, if the park constable exercised his powers under subsection (1) of the clause and had to dispose of the material. He cannot take it with him, because he is not empowered to remove non-perishables. He would probably not want to touch them; they could be dangerous or a health hazard—discuss that matter later. The person from whom he has removed the property would not want it. Those apparent Mafia types are hardly likely to want to put their semi-fried onions into a poly bag to take them away—they will just chuck them into the bushes. They will dispose of them in the easiest possible way. If their non-perishable equipment has been confiscated, they will dump the semi-cooked burgers and hot dogs. We need to ensure that, when a constable exercises such powers, he brings with him a bucket or a dustbin or insists that there is some facility for getting rid of the perishable material that the person conducting the illegal or criminal activities is ready to dump in the park. My amendment states that the constable shall give to the person having possession or control— of the thing or things to be seized— a document, in an appropriate language, setting out the reasons for the seizure, itemising the things seized and informing the person of his rights and liabilities under section 5. My rough attempt at a model schedule sets out what the person whose property has been confiscated should be told. Some colleagues may have found some parts of that schedule amusing, because I listed the languages that are used by many of those sellers—or so I am informed. It has been pointed out that many people engaged in such activities were of eastern European origin—some were asylum seekers. Under normal police rules and PACE, when people are taken to police stations and charged, the normal procedure is for interpreters to be employed and for people to be informed in their own language of their rights, duties and obligations and of the reasons for the charge. That is a fundamental principle; it would be a breach of the convention on human rights to take people who are not English to a police station and charge them in English when they do not have a clue about what is going on. The police are under an obligation to make sure that such people understand. The Minister, with all his excellent advisers, may tell me that my schedule is not perfect or inappropriate—it may contain too many languages. I may have the wrong languages; it might be condensed or improved. However, it is a rough attempt to say that a person arrested in a park who has his property seized should be told what is happening in a language that he understands. I have included English, French and Spanish and many eastern European languages, which the Library of the House of Commons kindly provided for me. I shall not go through them.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Why not?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The new schedule speaks for itself. I offer it merely as guidance for the Minister and hope that he will accept the concept in principle and tidy up the details later. The other place, which is, of course, much closer to the illegal hamburger sellers than we are, may wish to concentrate on refining the schedule. The new schedule also provides that the person should be given the reasons for seizure, which is common practice, for example, when a health and safety at work notice is issued warning someone of a prohibition, or when an inspector sets out reasons in an improvement notice. In this case, the reasons for seizure should be set out so that the person involved may take them to his lawyer, or whoever. There should also be a list of the items seized. There is nothing fancy or posh about that; it is a simple form of receipt, which will protect the park constable. If the people involved have criminal links with organised crime, the next new racket will be suing the parks constables for the equipment that they have confiscated. It is a source of distress and annoyance to me that one of the best rackets going is suing the Metropolitan police for no good reason. People who trip over pavements sue the Met. I can see people getting into the same racket with claims that the police have confiscated equipment worth tens of thousands of pounds. The parks police will have to spend a fortune defending the allegation and proving that they were right. A receipt would provide protection for the constabulary. Finally, my model new schedule, to which the Minister or other hon. Members may wish to add, suggests that the person should be told his rights and liabilities. The Minister may say that they are set out in the Bill and that the person could read clause 5 or clause 6. However, when police officers stop and search someone, they tell the person that he has been stopped and will be searched and they give him his rights and liabilities under the PACE rules. I have tried to replicate that so that a person will be told all his rights—I hope that I have listed all of them, but I may not have. The person will be told that the Secretary of State may hang on to his barrow and trolley until court proceedings are finished. He will be told that the Secretary of State can sell them off and keep the proceeds until costs are paid, and will then return the remainder, if there is one. He will be told that the court may hang on to his goods and that they may be forfeited or destroyed if he is found guilty. He will be told that he has the right to make representations to the court before the court decides how to dispose of his goods.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

My right hon. Friend has taken advice from the Library on the relevant languages. Why did he miss out German and Italian? There are significant German minorities in eastern Europe, and many poorer people from the Mezzogiorno in southern Italy try to come to the UK.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

That is a good point. I deliberately missed out languages that I thought were not used by those involved. Perhaps not many English people are involved, but it is a common language, and a parks constable must serve a notice in English when he arrests anyone. I included the languages of people who, I had heard or read or been instructed, might be involved in the activity. I was not aware of many Italians or Germans being involved. It may be best simply to have a schedule of the main United Nations languages: English, French, Spanish, German—American is not a United Nations language, is it?—and some of the main Indian or eastern European languages.

Jenny Tonge (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

Esperanto?

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I respect those who participate in Esperanto and recently attended a national conference on it in my constituency, but I did not think it appropriate to the new schedule. I was speaking about the part of amendment No. 28 that deals with the proposed new schedule. I consider amendment No. 28 to be terribly important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that he will accept some of it in spirit or in context. The final part of amendment No. 28 relates to the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. Under proposed subsection (4)(c), the constable should not remove any article until he has performed an assessment under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations that the removal of the thing or things would not create hazard for his or others' health and safety. This is a slightly different point from disposing of obnoxious hamburgers. Disposal of the hamburgers into the bushes may cause an environmental hazard. If the constable grabbed the red-hot chestnuts and the burning brazier, he would injure himself. I refer not to the burning Brazier from Canterbury—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—but the burning brazier containing charcoal and chestnuts. Park constables will be expected to take such articles. Apart from obvious things such as hot fat and burning charcoal, there will be heavy trolleys which may be of an odd construction. Some of the barrows may be built of steel and various contraptions on them may be dangerous to the health of someone who does not know how the barrow is constructed. If the constable takes possession of a mobile cart, which has a steel frame and is covered by a parasol, and he does not know how to collapse that parasol, fold the barrow, load it on to his parks' department vehicle, he could suffer a serious back injury or other injury. The amendment suggests that, in those circumstances, before the park constable and the police take possession of these contraptions, they perform a quick assessment that doing so will not injure their health and safety or the health and safety of others who may have to do so. The amendment refers to performing an assessment, but I think that in reality it would be a checklist—a simple page of A4, with a list of items that the park constable can run through and tick off. If he is then satisfied that he can confiscate the red-hot chestnut trolley with the burning charcoal brazier with no risk to his health or that of others, he can carry on. The Minister may pooh-pooh this idea, or say that it is not necessary to include it in the law. I am not a betting man, and one should not, in any case, lay a bet on the Floor of the House of Commons. However, I am willing to bet that, when the Bill becomes an Act and the police have to operate its provisions, they will perform a COSHH assessment before carrying out any of the requirements specified. The requirement to perform health and safety assessments before making any police decisions bogs down the rest of the civil constabulary. It will take only one bobby or one park constable to be injured for a claim for £500,000 to be made, and then the Department will have to ensure that these actions are carried out safely. Amendment No. 28 is my main area of concern. I will not speak to amendment No. 7. It makes sense to me, but it would make sense to others only if various other amendments were grouped with it. As those other amendments have not been selected for debate, I do not wish to speak to it. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that clauses 4 and 5 are essential, tell us more about what park trading offences he envisages being designated, deal with the problem of perishable goods, mention COSHH and say what facilities there will be for the safe removal of perishable materials. I hope that he will also be able to reassure me that there will be procedures for telling these people—who apparently include many asylum seekers and foreign nationals—in their own language, whatever that may be, about their rights, obligations and duties.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I want to reinforce some of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and then cover some other points. I share my right hon. Friend's anxiety about a lacuna in the Bill as drafted. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said: It would be helpful if the Minister could give a more graphic account of what will happen to perishable goods. That is the thrust of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has said. I confess that I posed a trick question to my right hon. Friend earlier, because I quoted the first part of the Minister's reply. The Minister said: The Royal Parks Constabulary will follow the same procedures as City of Westminster council officials, who offer the unlicensed trader the opportunity to take the perishable goods away. That concerns the man with the hot nuts who is running off in the opposite direction. In fairness to the Minister, he went on to say: The trader is asked to sign a form acknowledging that he is either taking or refusing to take the perishables, whichever applies. We now have some documentation entering the scene, although none of that is in the Bill. He went on: If he refuses to take them, it is on the understanding that they will be destroyed by the enforcing authority to protect environmental health and the general amenity of the surroundings.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21 March 2000; c. 8–9.] That raises more questions and, at best, is a partial answer to the problem. Never mind that the trader is being offered options, or that documents are being filled in, seemingly on the spot; it raises the question as to how or when the goods will be destroyed by the enforcing authority. So we have a Mafia man with his cart in the middle of a royal park, peddling hot dogs and hamburgers. His collar is felt by the constable, and documents are then filled out in the middle of the park. Then, the enforcing authority appears mysteriously to take away the offending items. That does not sound right to me, and we will have to hear more from the Minister. That is not a credible sequence of events, but it is all we have on record from the Minister in the 35 minutes of the Committee. I am not happy with the proposal, which is why I am attracted by amendment No. 28. The amendment proposes that when the park constable is exercising his powers, he must ensure that he provides facilities for the safe removal from the park of the perishable materials. That is an explicit requirement, which, at the moment, I cannot find in the Bill, and which we are being asked to take on trust.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I am concerned by the use of the word "safe". What are the hazards consequent upon hot nuts, either environmental or otherwise?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My hon. Friend knows about the hazards because my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border explained them. We are talking about the definition of heated items. We are talking about heated hamburgers, heated hot dogs and hot fat. Those are all perishable and potentially dangerous. They are a hazard to health and a danger to whoever handles them. That is where the COSHH regulations arise, which were correctly mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border under amendment No. 28. I recall dealing with this in the past when I had certain responsibilities for the Health and Safety Executive. There is an attempt under the regulations to try to ensure that in the workplace—ironically, this is a workplace of sorts—we do whatever we can to ensure that unnecessary hazards are not met. There could be a hazard for the Mafia man, with whom we are becoming familiar—or even fond—the officer and any members of the public in the vicinity. Let us not forget that this is a public area. We have a responsibility to ensure that, as far as possible, all those people are protected. That is why I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. Enough of that. My amendment No. 22 seeks to strengthen the Bill. I thought that there was a risk that the drafting of clause 5(2)(b) may be unduly restrictive. Subsection (2) says: Subsection (3) applies where before the end of that period an information for a park trading offence is laid— (a) against the person from whom the thing was seized, and (b) in respect of his activities at the time of the seizure. It occurred to me that the words, at the time of the seizure may be unnecessarily and unfortunately restrictive. My amendment seeks to insert the words "or before". It occurred to me that a narrow interpretation of the current drafting could unnecessarily restrict the powers available to the precise moment of seizure. To be more effective, the subsection needs to be broadened to encompass activities that may have occurred before or just before the time of seizure. I am trying to be helpful. I have identified what I believe is unduly restrictive wording and I hope that the Minister can reassure us or, who knows, accept this modest but helpful amendment. Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 touch on what I believe is an important area. Throughout the Bill we are talking, necessarily, about a tension or conflict between the understandable desire of the authorities and the House to deal with what everybody perceives to be antisocial, unpleasant and unfortunate while also dealing with individuals who have rights, who are attempting to run a business and who own property in the form of perishable or non-perishable materials. The Bill introduces some draconian powers. Indeed, clause 4 is entitled "Seizure of property" and clause 5 is entitled "Retention and disposal". One of the main arguments in favour of the Bill—it is argued by the Minister—is that, in addition to mere fines, which were discussed earlier, the ability to seize or confiscate property will be one of the most potent new weapons available to the authorities. Given all that, and accepting the thrust and the principle of the Bill, what bothers me is that we must make sure that we strike the appropriate balance between our desire to do all the necessary seizing, confiscating, punishing and stopping of illegal trading while considering the proper rights of the individual. We live in an age where we are sensitive, perhaps overly so, about the powers of the police and the possibility of giving them more. I bet that, in a different context, the Chamber would be full of people frothing at the mouth at the suggestion that we should give the police any more powers, yet the Bill gives the police considerable extra powers and there is little frothing. I am puzzled as to why such powers should be given almost casually in this case, when in other circumstances there would be widespread concerns. My modest amendments are an attempt to strike a proper balance between the increase in powers and the rights of individuals, by putting reasonable time limits on the process, so that if someone is deprived of his livelihood and it turns out, after rapid due process, to have been an injustice, he will at least be deprived of it for only a minimum, reasonable time. We all know that the wheels of justice tend to grind somewhat slowly. If such draconian powers are introduced, some innocent individuals may be deprived of their livelihood almost indefinitely, or at least for too long.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Under some of the amendments, including No. 28, for which I know my right hon. Friend is not personally responsible, the police may actually lack powers. I am not persuaded of the hazardous nature of many of these comestibles—they are for consumption—but if we accept the force of the amendment, that they are hazards, under proposed new subsection (4)(c) they are not to be removed; they are to stay in the park. What agency is to remove them thereafter?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That thought is even less palatable—if I may use that word—than what we had before. My hon. Friend illustrates the alarming element of doubt in everyone's mind about what is to happen to these hot, unpleasant perishables when the cart has been seized. Are they left in the park? Are they taken away, and by whom? Where are they put as a matter of safety? The Minister may have satisfied the Committee—it went so quickly that nobody would have noticed whether he did—but he has not yet satisfied us. We are now properly fulfilling our role on Report, and he will have the time carefully and comprehensively to answer our questions. I tabled my amendments to raise those questions and to probe. I hope that we will get full answers, because I am very attracted by amendment No. 28, which contains much that is valuable and would strengthen the Bill. We will listen very carefully to the Minister's response before deciding how far to proceed. If necessary—if we are not satisfied—my right hon. Friend may want to press amendment No. 28 to a vote.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I support amendment No. 6. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that it was designed to probe. My worry is that clauses 4 and 5, which it would delete, might have unintended consequences—not an unusual effect for the legislation that we discuss. The rationale for the Bill is succinctly expressed by a source at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as reported in The Daily Telegraph on 4 February. He said: The Royal Parks should be a showcase for Britain. They should not be ruined by a dodgy geezer selling a burger on a dirty old trolley. Clauses 4 and 5 could mean that there are more people selling burgers on dirty old trolleys than on clean new ones. Those who sell such goods should, in the interests of public hygiene, have equipment to refrigerate the uncooked goods, separate cooked and uncooked meats and ensure that the cooking is done to an adequate temperature to kill the vile bugs that the Food Standards Agency—