IN PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF COMMONS
SESSION 2007–08
Against – on merits – Praying to be heard by Counsel, &c.
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
THE HUMBLE PETITION of ALEXANDER CAMPBELL-LLOYD
SHEWETH as follows:-
1 A Bill (hereinafter referred to as “the Bill”) has been introduced and is now pending in your honourable House intituled “A Bill to confer powers on Bournemouth Borough Council for the better control of street trading in the borough of Bournemouth”
2 The Bill is promoted by Bournemouth Borough Council. The Preamble to the Bill recites that, "(1) The borough of Bournemouth (hereinafter called "the borough") is a district under the management and local government of Bournemouth Borough Council (hereinafter called "the council"): (2) Certain powers relating to street trading in the borough are exercisable by the council under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Act 1982 (c. 30) and for their better enforcement it is expedient to amend that Act in its application to Bournemouth and supplement those powers".
3 The Purposes of the Bill as set out are:
1 To extend the scope of Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act so that it enables the Council to regulate the provisions of services on the street as well as the sale of articles;
2 To alter the exemption enjoyed by the holders of a pedlar's certificate from the street trading regime contained in the 1982 Act;
3 To empower council officers or police constables to seize articles, receptacles or equipment, in cases where they believe a street trading offence has been committed;
4 To allow the court to order the forfeiture of any article, receptacle or equipment which is shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate to the offence;
5 To enable council officers to serve fixed penalty notices in cases where they have reason to believe that street trading offences have been committed.
4 Your Petitioner petitions against the Bill and the Preamble now proposed.
5 Your Petitioner is Alexander Campbell-Lloyd who lives in Sussex and for the last 10 years has been a traveling and trading pedlar throughout the United Kingdom. When acting as a pedlar he carries a current Pedlar’s certificate and abides by the law.
6 Your Petitioner and his rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill, to which your Petitioner objects for reasons amongst others, hereinafter appearing.
7 Your Petitioner declares great disdain that he find himself personally petitioning the Houses of Parliament in defence of Parliament’s own Statutes, the Pedlars Acts, against what he considers to be an insidious Private Bill that seeks a hidden agenda to repeal the liberties, rights and freedoms granted by Statute to all citizens of this Nation. For Bournemouth Borough Council to protect itself from the effect of National Statute merely because it has the power and the funds to do so, and to willfully neglect to address the interests of those few genuine pedlars who operate within regulation, seems to your Petitioner to be profoundly wrong.
8 Your Petitioner contends that Clause 5 causes a misnomer because it does not differentiate a genuine pedlar from a rogue trader with an intended effect that pedlars are perceived to be rogues – such unwarranted projection is considered defamatory and emotive and prejudices the good name of a law abiding pedlar.
9 Your Petitioner contends that Clause 5 causes an anomaly in construction because Primary legislation [Pedlars Act 1871] carries in precedent a liberal construction of the activities of a pedlar but this Bill can carry a narrow literal construction that proscribes normal activities of a pedlar. Under the Pedlars Act going to other men’s houses means in precedent that a pedlar can trade in the street – therefore under the Bill going house to house can also mean that a pedlar can trade in the street. Construction is then consistent. To change construction to a literal interpretation is to make bad law.
10 Your Petitioner contends Clause 5 engages clause 6 seizure & forfeiture against a pedlar found in designated streets going from house to house making it an implied offence to be on the street trading from house to house:
The term pedlar means:
Any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, mender of chairs
or other person
who without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden
travels
and trades
on foot
and goes from town to town
or to other men’s houses
carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods wares or merchandise
or procuring orders for goods or merchandise immediately to be delivered
or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft
a) the Pedlars Act 1871 can be shown by precedent to carry a liberal construction enabling a pedlar going from town to town or to other men’s houses to trade on busy shopping streets and not only at houses – a pedlar who by definition is also a street trader does not occupy a fixed pitch like a licensed street trader.
b) the Bill is promoted with literal construction of the words:
If the trade is carried out
only by means of visits from house to house
making any activity of a pedlar in a designated street a perceived offence.
c) it follows that the Bill is promoted in designated streets to restrict a pedlar’s activities exclusively to private dwelling houses which are places outside the remit of local authority [under the LGMPA82]
d) the Bill contains no undertakings in regard to responsibility towards the occupants of those private dwelling houses to which pedlars are directed.
e) the Bill does not define how a pedlar may act whilst on the street between houses in designated areas – the trade of a pedlar is not limited to mere sale or display of goods.
f) the Bill does not state that a pedlar cannot trade in the street and this makes interpretation of the Bill confusing and misleading
g) the Bill does not define whether the proscribed activities of a pedlar include only those of economic value or whether the pedlars cultural rights and rights of freedom are also restricted.
11 Your Petitioner contends that under existing legislation the burden of proof is with the local authority to show that the activities of the pedlar are such that those activities take the pedlar outside the exemption from the street trading regime granted to the pedlar by way of a Pedlar’s Certificate. The Bill when enforced literally introduces a Reverse Burden that your Petitioner cannot discharge because of the implicit offence brought upon him by clause 5.
a) The burden of proof is reversed by the Bill because clause 5 when applied literally makes it an implied offence for a pedlar to be in a designated street – there is no definition of the trade of a pedlar save that in the Pedlars Act.
b) The burden cannot be discharged in a Magistrates Court because from experience issues of construction are deemed frivolous and/or outside the remit of a Magistrates Court.
c) The burden is therefore insurmountable.
d) If the burden of proof remains with the Local Authority, the implied evidential requirement is both fair and proportionate as the means for proof already exist - CCTV, police, licensing and trading standards officers.
e) The imposition on a pedlar of the burden of proof that "to other mens houses [Pedlars Act]" has the same construction as "only by means of visits from house to house [the bill]" is unfair and disproportionate because the penalty at stake, seizure & forfeiture, is severe and the proscribed conduct, trading as a pedlar in a designated street, relatively minor.
f) The Reverse Burden is a mischievous sleight-of-hand that takes us backwards to that time in history preceding the Pedlars Acts, which is why then for good reason Parliament legislated protection for traveling traders with good faith.
12 Your Petitoner contends that Clause 5, given ascent with literal interpretation engages Human Rights Articles 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 and Article 1 Part 2 First Protocol for the following reasons:
a) The liberty granted to a pedlar under the LGMPA82 exempts a pedlar from street trading regulation. The liberty granted to a pedlar under the Pedlars Act 1881 allows a pedlar to act within any part of the United Kingdom. Security and protection is granted by way of a Pedlars certificate issued under the Pedlars Act 1871. The Bill contains no safeguards against violation of Article 5 [HRA1998] - the right to liberty and security for a pedlar to trade in the street.
b) Genuine pedlars received no consultative process in formulating the wording of the Bill. The Bill clause 5 can impose an insurmountable Reverse Burden and violate a pedlar’s presumption of innocence. The notion that a pedlar has recourse for compensation against seizure & forfeiture is wholly undermined by the fact that an officer need only have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence has been committed. Such offence only comes about by clause 5 criminalising a pedlar. The Bill contains no safeguard against violation of Article 6 - the right to a fair trial, good administration and presumption of innocence.
c) The protection granted by the1871, 1881, 1982 Acts by way of the Pedlars Certificate are threatened by the Bill’s ‘seizure and forfeiture’ of goods the moment a pedlar steps onto a designated street. An officer need only have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence had been committed for a pedlar to loose his right to possible compensation. Anyone walking in the street offering goods or services does not commit an offence until overzealous perception threatens criminalisation. The Bill contains no safeguard against violation of Article 7 - no punishment without law and equality before the law.
d) The way of life of a pedlar incorporates his domestic life and his public life without differentiation, his cultural identity by choice is that of a pedlar which carries rights, liberties and freedoms to interact with dignity within his culture without frontiers. The Bill contains no safeguard against violation of Article 8 - the right to respect for private and family life with dignity.
e) The Promoters seek qualification of the exemption for pedlars under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act regarding street trading. ‘Street trading’ means ‘the selling exposing or offering for sale of any article (including a living thing) in the street and includes services’. Pedlars enjoy an oral tradition and the street is where not only street trading is carried out but all aspects of the traveling and trade of a pedlar which includes social & fraternal networking, receiving and imparting information, meeting, exchanging, demonstrating, displaying, researching and investigating ideas all of which amount to more than mere street trading. The Bill contains no safeguard against violation of Article 10 - freedom of expression & information without interference from public authority and regardless of frontiers.
f) The scope of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act is limited to matters of trading in the street ie the selling, exposing or offering of goods but the scope of the Bill appears to seek control of a pedlars association with others which forms the greater part of a pedlar’s activity of networking and seeking contacts. The Bill contains no safeguard against violation of Article 11 - freedom of assembly & association with others.
g) The Promoters seek supplementary powers under the1982 Act to control rogue traders whom they allege cause problems and circumvent street trading regulation by claiming to be pedlars but who are not acting as pedlars. They claim it is difficult to differentiate a genuine pedlar from a rogue trader and state in the preamble that it is expedient to amend the 1982 Act. Whether expediency is right or just is the issue affecting genuine pedlars who have been, and could be innocently caught in a blanket policy. The Bill contains no safeguard against violation of Article 14 - prohibition of discrimination.
h) The Bill Clause 5 in effect criminalises a genuine pedlar going in a designated street by denying a right to an interest of going in the street and preferring the benefit to other interests. This prohibition effects ‘freedom of movement by threat of seizure and forfeiture whilst going in designated streets. The Bill contains no safeguard against violation of Article 1 Part 2 First Protocol - freedom of movement and access to services of a general economic interest.
13 Your Petitioner contends that the Promoters have in all Select Committee Hearings to date presented anecdotal evidence – such anecdotal evidence, to be acceptable, has to have a viable empirical basis and be capable of proof in a Court of Law.
a) With this Bill in the other place, the promoters local authority witness was a Head of Tourism who conceded not to be an expert in trading standards, nor to be an expert in street trading regulation, nor in policing and enforcement, nor in consumer law, nor in legal matters, nor in other issues about pedlars and his grasp of the definition of a pedlar was confused or misled, and altogether unreliable. [HL140,141,142,152,154,231].
b) The Promoters called evidence consisting of 68 instances of rogue trading with admission that none were genuine pedlars. There was no evidence whatsoever that pedlars acting within regulation cause problems and the claim that evidence has been presented to demonstrate why the restriction on genuine pedlars is in the general interest has not been proven.
c) In Evidence from London Local Authority Bill, whilst trumpeting the success of the Westminster Act, the Promoters Mr Butterfield states “we still have a significant problem with illegal street traders” [299] and your Petitioner contends that rogue traders are not affected by the Bill and will continue to be rogue traders as in other places – clause 5 is ineffective in resolving the Purposes for the Bill.
14 Your Petitioner contends that the Promoters have an anecdotal list of concerns to justify the Bill but when pressed in previous Evidence [eg 143-155] the witness acknowledged that existing legislation was available to deal with shoddy goods, counterfeit goods, dangerous goods, illegal goods and obstruction. The witness repeatedly referred to lack of economic resource as the main reason for introducing a Bill to restrict pedlars activity in designated streets and alleged that the business of licensed street traders is being undermined by pedlars across the country. The economic argument is promoted in two different ways.
a) Firstly, that a Pedlar pays so little [£12.50pa] compared to some £3000-£4000pa that a licensed street trader pays. On a price per square metre rate the Petitioner showed that a pedlar pays about £100/square metre/year compared to £200/square metre/year by a licensed street trader. The fact that a pedlar is a traveler and visits many towns and cities indicates that in real terms there is no difference and you Petitioner contends that such argument is invalid.
b) Secondly, that the cost of local authority administration is too high and the return from conviction and fines too little. The Petitioner contends that the local authority has neglected its responsibilities in prosecuting rogues and as a consequence the rogues have been encouraged to trade in the streets. This policy of neglect has harmed genuine pedlars and the Council remedy [the Bill] makes for further harm. A figure of £12,000 was the cost of prosecuting rogues with little return to offset this figure but perhaps a more robust prosecution regime would have been sufficient deterrent to rogues and be considerably less expensive than the £100,000 being used to harm genuine pedlars.
c) This issue was addressed by Lord Bach for the Government [1399] who encouraged local authorities to take a different direction and await the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill which may enable adequate financial penalties against rogues as the solution. However for this Bill to pass in its present conflicting terms, without strict definition about what constitutes a genuine pedlar, prior to the Sanctions Bill will add a greater burden of difficulty to the law.
d) Your Petitioner humbly submits with the benefit of experience and testified by Parliament’s own witness that the removal of genuine pedlars will not resolve the problem of rogue traders and that problems with economic resource lie outside of the remit of this proposed legislation and should not be entered quasi in the form of street regulation.
15 The Petitioner contends Standing Order 38(3) requires a statement of opinion be given as to the issue of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the Promoters are reliant on their reply to questions from Joint Committee on Human Rights in Scrutiny of Medway Council Bill HC Paper 427.
a) The Promoters claim that the Bill complies with the formality under SO38(3) but the Petitioner is not convinced because in his view the provisions of the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill are incompatible with the Convention of Rights and his reasons have been reported to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and given in Evidence.
b) The JCHR replied referring to the forthcoming Select Committee Hearing stating "there will be ample opportunity to be heard re the impact on human rights".
c) JCHR previously ruled [Leicester Liverpool & Maidstone] that "it was for the appropriate committee in the Lords to consider the justification for limiting the rights of pedlars and for that to be in the general interest, and further that it is for the Select Committee to decide whether the Promoters can establish their case for the Bill with regard to proportionality as a legitimate aim and if justified, interference with a pedlar’s rights".
d) Rt Hon Ian McCartney MP DTI reiterated the same opinion in regard to the Bill.
e) In the minutes of the Select Committee hearing at item 704 the Chairman declared on behalf of the Committee that "we are not experts in human rights" and "we rely on expert committee & legal advisers who have both pronounced that they are clear that there are no human rights implications…..".
f) The Agent’s detailed presentation to the Committee was curtailed by the Chairman and a very restrained & condensed outline of the Human Rights issues was presented.
g) A Special Report [HL Paper 148] for the first time identifies genuine pedlars.
h) The report refers to compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights but a paper-trail analysis of previous scrutiny reveals that at no time has the effect on genuine pedlars been specifically heard.
i) Much has been written by the Promoters attempt to justify previous Bills but the Petitioner contends that the Bill does not comply with regard to genuine pedlars.
j) The House of Lords has identified the need for your Committee to make a clear statement about the definition of a genuine pedlar. The Petitioner has given Evidence towards that definition which the Promoters refuse to accept.
k) No specific questions regarding the effect on genuine pedlars have been raised and it is therefore the delegated task of the Select Committee Hearing to raise the matter of the effect on genuine pedlars regardless of previous scrutiny.
16 The Promoters are reliant on Scrutiny of the Medway Bill by JCHR for compliance with the Convention on Human Rights. No new questions have been raised by JCHR since then and so the Promoters merely repeat this reliance; but your Petitioner is concerned by Question 3 in the scrutiny of Medway “Why do the Promoters consider that clause 4 [Medway- same as clause 5 Bournemouth] represents a fair balance between the general interest and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR?” and with the Promoters reply.
a) The Promoters undertake to justify the interference with genuine pedlars to be in the public interest and the Petitioner contends that the anecdotal evidence brought before the Committee on this Bill does not withstand scrutiny, has not been proven and has been provided by unreliable witness who admitted having no expertise in trading standards, nor street trading regulation, nor policing and enforcement, nor in consumer law, nor in legal matters, nor in other issues about pedlars.
b) The Promoters undertake to bring evidence of manifest problems but your Petitioner contends that no proved evidence was provided and by the witness own admission the anecdotal evidence involved no genuine pedlars.
c) The witness when pressed [277] admitted that the photographic evidence taken was not really evidence in the strict term but “what it is meant to do is give the Committee a feel for the problems” and the Petitioner contends that any significance in evidence based on “feelings” should be dismissed.
d) The Promoters undertake to bring evidence of significant complaints from those who hold street trading licences, those who buy shoddy goods from pedlars and from other business charge payers but the petitioner contends that such evidence when subject to scrutiny in Evidence was heresay rallied from those who want pedlars removed because they are commercial rivals [302]; your Petitioner contends that insignificant complaints should be dismissed as frivolous.
e) The Promoters undertake to “seek to persuade the Committee that in many cases the quality of goods sold by pedlars is shoddy or in breach of copyright” but your Petitioner notes that no examples of “shoddy” or “breach of copyright” was brought in Evidence.
f) The Promoters acknowledge that “the Council has powers to deal with obstruction and nuisance”.
g) The Promoters contend that “very few if any ‘genuine’ pedlars would be affected” - but provided no statistical evidence gathering about the effect on genuine pedlars and your Petitioner contends that this goes to the heart of the matter, and recommends the Committee not to give weight to such hypothetical surmise. Your Petitioner reminds the Committee that he is before them as a living example of a genuine pedlar and who is directly affected.
h) The Promoters contend that “clause 4 does not, of course, necessarily take away the right of a pedlar to trade in the street” and your Petitioner urges this Committee to dismiss their contention as a mis-direction, clause 4/5 prohibits the effect of a pedlars certificate in designated streets.
i) Your Petitioner contends that in the matter of this most serious Question 3 the Promoters fail to show Compliance with the Convention on Human Rights.
17 The Promoters acknowledge “the justification for removal of a pedlars right to trade in the street as being proportionate to a legitimate aim, is a matter that the Select Committee was to consider when deciding whether the Promoters had established the case for the Bill”. To this date the issue of justification for removal of genuine pedlars rights remains outstanding and: - whether or not the interference with pedlar’s rights is in the general interest - as also whether this particular interference benefits other economic interests disproportionately to the detriment of pedlars.
a) Lord Boyd reiterated the duty of his Committee to consider the matter of “proportionate response” [311] and the Promoters witness was filled with feelings that all Councils who adopted the same Bills were successful in dealing with the alleged problems but your Petitioner contends that the witness may have been unaware of the fact that the Head of Licensing for City of Westminister when called as witness in the London Local Authorities Bill 2003 stated “although we still have a significant problem with illegal street trading – the pedlars issue has not operated since” [299].
b) Your Petitioner here presents accepted Evidence that the effect that this Bill proposes, is in effect to remove genuine pedlars - but rogues still continue to trade – making the Bill without effect on rogues whether or not they have a pedlars certificate, but visciating for pedlars.
c) “There is without doubt a powerful and organized lobby against pedlars. This operates both at national and local level. At National level various individuals and organizations are engaged in informing interested MPs about street trading problems as they see them. In general their representation focus on (1) the repeal of the Pedlars Acts 1871 & 1881, that is to say, the amendment of street trading legislation so that the exemption for pedlars is abolished; and (2) that the power of seizure of goods be extended beyond London in accordance with the Westminster model. Amongst the organizations which have urged Parliament to one or more of these changes are the National Association of British Market Authorities, the Local Government Association, the Association of the British Chambers of Commerce and the Association of Town Centre Management. The Local Government Licensing Forum has also been urged to lobby Parliament to abolish the pedlars’ exemption. There is an All Party Parliamentary Group on Town Centre Management Issues which receives these representations” [Hough B, Professor of English Law, Bournemouth University]. Your Petitioner contends that the Parliamentary Agents are directly responsible for orchestrating the furore against humble pedlars by rallying meetings with those who may gain from pedlars demise. Your Petitioner does not have £200,000 to oppose this Bill but it is surely good business for those that do and worth touting for.
d) “That Attornies at Law shall be deemed Hawkers” [House of Commons Journal Vol 12: 26 May 1698 – Supply Bill; Hawkers and Pedlars – a Clause was offered, to be added to the Bill]. Your Petitioner asserts that honourable Parliamentary Agents may well have the lineage of a pedlar in their honour as does one of our most famous and successful pedlars, going on to give his name to one of the nation’s most successful brands – Marks & Spencer.
Your Petitioner also has an economic interest in continuing his fragile way of life as a pedlar, and humble as it may seem he simply seeks to maintain his right to an economic interest provided by the Pedlars Acts and protected by Human Rights Convention Article 1 Part 2 First Protocol.
18 The Petitioner has in Evidence presented a form of wording for Clause 5 that would enable the Bill to go forward without infringing the Rights of genuine pedlars. Clause 5 would read:“In their application to the borough, the provisions of Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act shall apply as if in paragraph 1(2)(a) of that schedule there were inserted, after the reference to the Pedlars Act 1871 (c.96), the words ‘with goods carried on the person as a pedestrian’.”
a) The amendment satisfies the Promoters problem of rogue traders who use street traders trolleys and pretend to be pedlars; it satisfies the concerns of genuine pedlars that clause 5 seeks an unjust blanket policy; it satisfies the concerns of Government that local issues be resolved locally without conflict with National Statute; it satisfies the Human Rights issues; it satisfies Council’s concern that its officers have little or no skill in perceiving a rogue from a genuine pedlar; it satisfies the needs for enforcement to be simple and cost effective; it satisfies local residents concern that rogues will not be displaced from the streets onto their doors; it satisfies outlying districts concern that rogues will not be displaced to their towns; it is a win win situation for everybody concerned, unless of course there is a blatant hidden agenda to harm genuine pedlars.
b) The Promoters have stated in Evidence that “The reasons why it [Petitioner’s amendment] is not accepted are these: first, the general point that Mr Campbell-Lloyd is seeking to reverse amendments to existing legislation - that is just simply not possible, as the Committee I have no doubt is aware. So as a general point it would be sensible to have continuity in the legislation particularly to the nine or ten towns or cities, and the continuity would, it is submitted, require a form of words as is promoted in clause 5.” That Clarkson states “reversing amendments to existing legislation is just simply not possible” goes against the purpose of Parliament. The Petitioners have maintained all along that there have been human rights issues since Westminster 1999 and the contention to simply continue without regard to error or neglect is to challenge the merit of post-legislative scrutiny.
19 The Promoters Evidence lacks any consideration whatsoever about the effect of the Bill on genuine pedlars other than to mislead the Committee with the statement that “they are unconstrained elsewhere [outside designated streets] by this limited control”.
a) There is no analysis of how many genuine pedlars may be affected by the Bill.
b) There has been no consultative process with genuine pedlars.
c) Besides the effect on genuine pedlars there is no consideration of the effect on ordinary citizens – this effect should not be underestimated.
d) The sifting procedure [JCHR23rd Report item 27] for closer scrutiny of legislation raises amongst others, the question of “how many people are likely to be affected by the legislation” and it is important to recognize the fact that every citizen above the age of seventeen (four out of every five citizens - 48 million citizens) has the liberty to apply for a Certificate to act as a trader on the streets - a craftsman to sell his wares, an entrepreneur to market-research his new invention, the balloon seller to cheer up the children - each to meet and exchange ideas, information and goods and to be as a travelling pedlar.
e) It is a fact that few choose this particular trade or lifestyle - perhaps because for now we live in an affluent society, but it is a society that has a wonderful safety mechanism for those moments when for the few, hard times prevail and the common man or woman with a need to survive has as a saving liberty - the freedom to become a pedlar and trade on the streets for his or her daily needs.
f) The Petitioner contends that the Bill has the capacity to deprive 48 million citizens of their rights in designated streets of Bournemouth and once lost they will not be regained.
20 The Bill disregards Government policy which is “against ad hoc changes to national Statute brought about through local legislation” [City of Westminster Bill 1998 Report of Secretary of State for the Home Department].
a) Gareth Thomas M.P. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, (DFID) October 17, 2007 does not support Lord Harrison’s recommendation for a Government Review. On the contrary he states that “local authorities have existing powers to tackle illegal street-trading, if they choose to take them up, and to tackle illegal street-traders in areas such as counterfeit goods or dangerous goods. My own Department would require strong evidence-based case from advocates of national powers to highlight the extent to which all local authorities face such enforcement problems. In the absence of evidence we consider the case for national powers has not been properly made”
b) Lord Harrison, November 29 HL debate, misleads with the statement:- “The Government allow that there is a problem particularly with pedlars”. Gareth Thomas does not “allow” that statement, he accepts that “some local authorities may face particular difficulties with street trading, and that some of the difficulties may be caused by licensed pedlars,”.
c) Your Petitioner is concerned that Lord Harrison’s voice carries significant weight and his irritation with the plethora of similar Bills taking precious time in the Lords should bear no weight against genuine pedlars. He himself having written a Report drawing attention to “genuine pedlars” confuses the issue by remarking “about the unfairness of having two types of street trader: the pedlar and the “genuine street trader” – your Petitioner considers this as obfuscation by high order.
21 The Promoters presented the Select Committee HL with their Legal Framework document to persuade a change in the law. It attempts to justify “the change of definition of a pedlar in the particular circumstances of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982” however the Petitioner contends that the argument fails under close scrutiny:
a) definition of a pedlar in the 1982 Act is that of the Pedlars Act 1871
b) Parliament in 1982 had good reason to state “trading by a person acting as a pedlar under the authority of a Pedlars Certificate granted under the Pedlars Act 1871 is not street trading for the purposes of this schedule”
c) Clarkson states “The short purpose of the Bills is to prevent pedlars…..”, not to control pedlars but to deprive pedlars and the ‘wide margin of appreciation concerning ‘control’ compared to ‘deprivation’ is an invalid justification for infringing human rights
d) the definition of a Pedlar is different to that of a fixed pitch street trader
e) the pedlar is exempt from street trading regulation under the authority of a Pedlars Certificate granted under the Pedlars Act 1871, and under the Pedlars Act 1881 has clear definition authorising a pedlar within any part of the United Kingdom.
22 The Promoters claim that the Bill imposes “limited control”, however the Petitioner contends the purpose of the Bill and the effect of the Bill imposes a total control of genuine pedlars and therefore fails to represent a fair balance between the general interest and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and therefore engages Human Rights.
a) the Petitioner contends that such control amounts to a total prohibition of pedlars (deprivation of the authority of a Pedlars Certificate) in designated streets contrary to existing Law, giving rise to anomaly and difficulty in law, and does not serve the public interest;
b) to state that “elsewhere a pedlar would be unconstrained” is capable of misleading as “elsewhere” pedlars rarely go for to do so would make them a vagabond. The Pedlars Act gives a pedlar an option to travel anywhere or to go from house to house or anywhere else, and by doing so “have built up the very networks that have played a crucial role in the birth of the modern European economy” [Fontain];
c) the very notion that to constrain or to deprive a pedlar, is as vile as it is repugnant to human rights; it goes against the dignity of good faith given by a Certificate, and only furthers the prejudice that preceded the Victorian Reforming Acts that gave birth to the Pedlars Acts.
23 There are other clauses and provisions of the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand will prejudicially affect your Petitioner and his rights, interests and property and for which no adequate provision is made to protect your Petitioner.
24 The Preamble to the Bill, in so far as it relates to the matters aforesaid, is untrue and incapable of proof.
YOUR PETITIONER therefore humbly prays your Honourable House that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands and that he may be heard by his Counsel, Agents and witnesses in support of the allegations of this Petition against the Preamble and against such of the clauses and provisions of the Bill as effect the property, rights and interests of your Petitioner and in support of such other clauses and provisions as may be necessary or expedient for his protection, or that such other relief may be given to your Petitioner in the premises as your Honourable House shall deem meet.
AND your Petitioner will ever pray, &c.
Signed:………………………………………….
The Petitioner