4 Jan 2013 – In the General Interest – Designations

David wrote to pedlars.info 4 Jan 2013:

Swaffham is in an area covered by Breckland Council (an area in Norfolk)

Please see following link:

http://www.breckland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Uploads/licensing/Street%20trading%20policy%20conditions%20Final%20Committee%20version%20.pdf

for   Definition of “Street Trading” and Exemptions  3a therefore stating that pedlars trading with a certificate are exempt.

This is for reference only.

Pedlars.info replied 5 Jan 2013:

David

Thank you for raising this concern about “designations” with pedlars.info.
I note that the information you provided is for “reference only” but it explodes bigger issues and there is a thread that leads through the work that pedlars.info has exposed online for public exposure and transparency purposes.

To your question… devious or natural?
This power by LA’s to designate has in the past not affected pedlars but you identify a loophole that enforcement officers use to harass and intimidate pedlars.
When issuing a Summons to a pedlar the alleged offence is “trading without a licence or consent” and naive pedlars are confused by this because of the exemption clause for pedlary within the LGMPA (LLAA and other private Acts are another issue).
Designation relates only to static trading and that is why pedlary (pedestrian trading) is free from the LGMPA but both pedestrian traders and static traders provide the same service to the public… that of trading in the street. This generic use of lower case s & t for street trading changes from generic to legal when upper case S & T are used because legally speaking upper case S & T refer to the LGMPA Street Trading regulations whereas s & t includes pedlary.

Promoters of private business in parliament are responsible for maintaining confusion instead of clearly differentiating the difference between pedestrian trading and static trading when first raised in Watson-v-Malloy 1988 and ordered by LJ Brooke in Chichester-v-Wood 1997 (note Sharpe Pritchard’s involvement) .
Back in 1966 Hawkers licences were abolished and hawkers with large scale apparatus similar to static traders were then prosecuted under the Highways Act for “obstruction without legal authority” and they took advantage of a loophole in the Pedlars Act that described pedlar and hawker in the same terms so they obtained a legal authority to trade under a Pedlars Certificate. The scale and proportion issue was not resolved by the 1982 LGMPA and that has been the ONLY genuine problem that lead to the promotion of private bills since 1997 and the unfortunate tarring of pedlars with the same brush as large scale hawkers.
In any Court it can be shown either that a hawker is more akin in scale and proportion to a pedestrian trader or to that of a static licensed trader but the likes of Parliamentary Roll A Agents Sharpe Pritchard (mentioned above) make more money from bringing private legislation than by applying or clarifying existing law. The gravy train has been supped from ever since.

In discussions just yesterday with another pedlar Simon he proposed that a two tier system be introduced for pedlary namely for those who carry their goods and another for those who use a pedestrian scale apparatus. It occurred to me that retaining the Pedlars Act for those who carry and reintroducing the Hawkers Act for those who use a pedestrian scale apparatus such as a trolley would resolve all legislative problems.
We only need read the latest Paper 242 from the House of Lords 2 day deliberations on 4 private bills to realise that parliament has come to the same conclusion namely, that scale & proportion is the ONLY issue. In those 4 bills Parliament has provided legislative guidance and resolution so the question is… Why is BIS ignoring the will of Parliament?

Pedlars.info on 3 July 2012 proposed to BIS similar resolution through existing legislation but BIS’s Onikosi refused in writing to consider the proposal and worse she personally refused to read the proposals or inform the minister. This begs the question… Why?

The influence of private business in Parliament cannot be underestimated bearing in mind that parliamentary protocol prohibits government from having an opinion about private business. Private business benefits from this GAGGING. This means that BIS cannot resolve any of the issues that Sharpe Pritchard have incorporated into 15 or so private Acts that impact on pedlary and Static trading.
BIS URN invitation to the likes of Westminster City Council to reconsider their COWAct in regard to the Services Directive is a bit like asking an apple if it would like to peal itself… a nonsense. COW may say… No thanks… we are happy with the Act and that will mean that all the years of work that the DTI, BERR & BIS have done will be of no consequence in the largest of towns and cities in the UK.
Question is… Does this predicament not amount to a constitutional crisis where Parliament is being subverted by Private Business and vested interests?

Why is it that pedlars are having to wrestle with such enormous questions whilst their documented concerns go ignored by high positions such as the Attorney General et al?

Pedlars are just common ordinary pedestrians whose liberty includes unfettered right of access throughout the UK… with 1 single difference… the Crown accepts their “good faith” to act as a pedestrian person with entitlement (by way of certificate) to trade in any goods and in any place.
The Crown’s certificate identifies the pedlar so that any other person can request to see their bona fides.
BIS is leading parliament to strip a person’s affidavit of good faith (a recognised profession in European nomenclature); undermine the Crown’s oversight, and open all LGMPA jurisdictions to unidentifiable traders and rogues.
Not only will pedlars be potential victims of zealous private enforcement gangs contracted by LA’s but the jurisdictions themselves will become potential centres of crime, criminal gangs and chaos in the streets.
Ask yourself why BIS draft clause 5 gives powers of designation for LA’s to prohibit “all persons” or “all persons other than service providers from another EEA state”? What? No British… only foreigners allowed… that should get a tirade from Nigel Farage.  
Ask why BIS propaganda (by whatever means… even doublespeak?) within the URN uses SPIN language like “continue to protect the rights of genuine pedlars to operate… and… be free to trade with the minimum of restrictions”?

This utter confusion and chaos is been perpetrated upon the British public by a government department that has been in disarray since 2009 when it justified the retention and amendment of the Pedlars Act under Recital 54 of the Services Directive as follows:
Kevin Davis of BIS writes on 4 November 2009 – “We think that the requirement to have a pedlar certificate is a proportionate measure
justified by the need to ensure that those with a criminal record are not allowed to sell services on the street and that consumers are able to know who it is that is selling the service so they can seek redress if something goes wrong”.

OMG! Who derailed that policy?
Before some low-rung operative at BIS tries on the fallacious excuse of “oh ho ho it’s because of our fiddle-diddle mis-diddle-de-do-interpretation of the Services Directive don’t ya no”.

David… this may not provide a nutshell answer to your question but you may appreciate now that pedlars questions lead ultimately to Principle that can only be legislatively resolved not by a minister’s secretive Statutory Instrument but by a ruling from the House of Lords on the Question of Constitutional Law-v-Private Business.

Big Stakes for brave Counsel… in the General Interest.
Robert