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 NICHOLAS JOHN McGERR
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".
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 provision 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 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.
3 Your Petitioner petitions against the Bill now proposed and contends that the Bill is neither expedient nor in the general interest.
4 Your Petitioner is Nicholas McGerr who lives in Somerset and wishes should he choose, to travel throughout the United Kingdom under the terms of a Pedlars Certificate authorised by the Pedlars Acts, but considers the Bill without good reason goes against him and contends that his rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill which your Petitioner objects to for the reasons he sets out here.
3 The Bill as set out does not allow him to visit Bournemouth as a pedlar and to go freely throughout Bournemouth meeting up with those he may choose to meet - being able to fulfill the terms of his certificate.
4 Without clarification of this Bill he is unable to see how the Bill by amending the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 will enable him to go only by means of visits from house to house, especially that without clear direction from the local authority he is not enabled to make out what is an appropriate house, and more particularly to the owners of property such direct indication is an anathema and an abuse of their right of privacy.
5 He understands that his certificate allows him to make visits from house to house but does not require him to do so. He is concerned that this Bill makes him out with his simple and lawful possession of a Pedlars Certificate - to be a criminal. He considers therefore the Bill to be expedient is neither fair nor just, and as a member of the general public he does not see the proposed amendment, without any direction to act in any particular way in designated areas of Bournemouth, is in the general interest.
6 He reads in the Bill that to alter the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982, is to extend the scope of Street Trading regulations, is expedient and in the general interest, but also understands that for the Purposes of Miscellaneous Provisions “pedlars are not Street Trading” and is satisfied that the Bill as written does not interfere with his ability under the 1881 Pedlars Act but seeks clarification about how he may go by means of visits from house, for which there is no requirement to have a Pedlars Certificate or a Street Trader’s licence which for him is unnecessary and inappropriate.
7 He is aware that this Bill is of a type that almost exactly mirror images an initial and precursor Bill to be given Assent as the Westminster Act 1999 - based on that Bill being unique to a unique place and using a unique form of words; he is also aware of evidence in this House that this type of legislation may well choose to deal with the issue of pedlars, but is corrosive and is not satisfactory in the disposal of the problem of “rogue” or illicit traders who continue to operate.
8 He has been given expert legal opinion about this and it is that a balance needs be made, but he is unable to see that balance in terms of this Bill, rather that there are difficulties inherent within it indicating protracted resolution and considerable cost outside of over all weakening of respect for law.
9 He notes that current law effective though out the country has to deal with a variety of issues arising and Bournemouth is not exceptional in having to dedicate resources to particular issues - this is the nature of local government and provision is made to deal with perceived outcomes. This is a situation that persists whether he visits Bournemouth or not, and as a pedlar or not, it is a cost of contemporary society but one eased by effective techniques.
10 Your Petitioner is incredulous of a proposal to disrupt a useful law in default of applying technical, educational, and resource solutions, as witnessed to be successful in similar situation as Bournemouth.
11 Your petitioner is witness to the view that a local act going against national legislation creates difficulties to adjudicate and appeal, gathers up costs, and does not add to fairness and justice of administration.
12 Your Petitioner’s contention is that he has prima facie authority to enter the Borough of Bournemouth and sees in this Bill not only a derogation of that authority, but an insurmountable burden of proof being laid against him on a suspicion by persons unknown that deny and abrogate his authority and charge him to seek redress in courts that are bound by the consequence of this Bill which in its terms is unclear.
13 Your Petitioner finds this Bill unacceptable, not only to himself, but to all other persons respectful of law and to those like himself wishing to visit or to be in Bournemouth, to be constrained by these particular clauses 5, 6, and 9 of this Bill, which also do not comply with his Human Rights:
5. that he does not agree he needs to be directed to make only visits to houses, a
constraint he is not familiar with in law, and that in this Bill is not fully determined;
6. that seizure and forfeiture of his property, which includes an amount of his private
life is an interference with his basic rights;
9. that the relief of compensation is without benefit on a cost basis and also because it
draws an unnecessary and onerous burden towards compliance.
Your Petitioner notes that it is fair for the Government to not wish to rule against him and there is many like him, as a majority throughout the nation who have a right to follow a pedlar’s occupation, this Bill is not proportionate to the purpose it claims, does not make for protection, and without setting out clear terms adds confusion and difficulty to administration.
Your Petitioner notes that the submission made in another place by himself as Agent to a fellow Petitioner is to have relief in this Bill in the text of clause 5 with “goods carried about the person as a pedestrian”, sufficient to define him as a pedlar and to remove the trouble of having to make visits only by means of house to house.
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 their 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