10 May 2008 – bills harm entrepreneurs
BOURNEMOUTH, MANCHESTER & PEDLAR BILLS
An illustration of unparliamentary harm to the rights of British Entrepreneurs
There was a period of political and social upheaval in the history of Europe as a whole, during which the French governmental structure, previously an absolute monarchy with feudal privileges for the aristocracy and Catholic clergy, underwent radical change to forms based on Enlightenment principles of nationalism, citizenship, and inalienable rights contained in Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
So too the Great Reform Act of 1832 to widened the vote to all British citizens above the age of 18 and an outlawing of the abusive doctrine of “restraint of trade” in the Settlement Act of 1871. In the same year Parliament preserved the rights of a particular socio-economic group whose flourishing and vital society later gave rise to a great British icon Marks & Spencer – Marcus Seiff its founder was a pedlar. The Pedlars Act 1871 preserved the liberty for a pedlar to travel & trade on foot, going from town to town (but not exclusively) or to other men’s houses (but not exclusively), carrying to sell (but not exclusively) or exposing for sale (but not exclusively), any goods or skills……..within a particular jurisdiction. Ten years later the Pedlars Act 1881 extended the scope of the original Act to the whole of the United Kingdom.
For one hundred years “these pedlars and the networks they built up played a crucial role in the birth of the European economy” by establishment of trading routes & centres in towns and cities. They are in today’s parlance contemporary entrepreneurs at the grass-roots community level – individuals with regulation by good faith but without representation. Though few may have chosen this path there are now some 48 million citizens [eligible in that they are above 18 years] who in choosing the same path will be directly and adversely affected by these bills. Three pedlars and one citizen now stand in defence of the rights of the majority of this nation.
During the last decade of the twentieth century an old mischief reappeared in the doctrine of “restraint of trade”. Pedlars of prejudice & mischief began a campaign in the exclusive corridors of economic power to blacken the good name of pedlars by way of association with rogues and vagabonds who by their nature took advantage of planned relaxation of enforcement of street trading regulations. Thereby successfully tarnishing with the same prejudice, all whom local authority did not licence.
The intent of the mischief was to restrict the freedom of association by prohibiting the contractual power of individuals in particular [designated] streets of Britain.
The method of implementing the mischief involved two forks: initially, lobbying by particular well-funded economic groups (NABMA, FED, NMTF) to the Public Protection Executive et al for the “repeal” of the Pedlars Acts, and secondly by promoting in Parliament private legislation to circumvent Statute. In the first instance there was no government support and little public interest and it floundered until last year when Brian Iddon MP attempted a resurrection. In the second instance, the victims of the mischief were left unaware that sleight-of-hand in private bills draws little or no scrutiny in Parliamentary procedure and the City of Westminster bill achieved ascent in 1999 followed in quick succession by five others.
The cleverness of the mischief involved selecting an obscure piece of legislation (Local Authority Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982) which recognises pedlars as having different regulation to street traders and therefore exempts them from local regulation. The new private bill maintains recognition of the exemption but then goes on to reverse/qualify the exemption in such as way that the very definition of a pedlar is altered from one who trades in the street to one who is prohibited from trading in the street – albeit with clever and careful arguments about control and regulate so as not to blatantly infringe human rights which forbids prohibition – but that is exactly the effect both intended and achieved.
The success of the mischief was lobbied hard and strong and the COW Act trumpeted as a trail blazing success by the Licensing Policy Advisor to the City of Westminster at the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Town Centre Management Issues.
The mischief misled in submissions claiming that the Regulators and the Regulated commended the bill to Parliament – a fallacious claim as no pedlars were even consulted. Further, by misquoting the Pedlars Act, Parliament was misled into believing that pedlars were door to door salesmen [55.6]. Claims to have consulted and written to those affected was untruthful. Slurred language deriding pedlars with anecdotal association with rogues concluded the misleading- all the mischief continues to this day with seven further bills in current session.
Afternoon wine & canapés parties are now being thrown by those whose names [NABMA/Sharpe Pritchard Solicitors & Parliamentary Agents] represent the mischief whilst others talk it up [Iddon, MP; Lewis, Parliamentary Agent; Thomas, Sharpe Pritchard Solicitors; Wilson, Chief Ex NABMA]. Invitations extended to all [local authority lawyers, licensing managers, markets managers, town centre managers] but not to those affected. In 1698 a second reading amendment was tabled in the HC “That Attornies at Law shall be deemed Hawkers” and it is interesting to consider some of the math/economic benefit aside from the principle matters. There are 471 Local Authorities in UK and the benefit to the Promoters Agents for one private bill, paid by rate paying citizens, is as much as £200,000 – but there are greater unfathomable costs to the tax paying nation for Parliamentary time ridiculed by L Harrison as he sent the latest batch to the other House – a struggle between benefit & waste………a gravy train for some and for others, an insult to Parliament.
Speaking as a person of mixed background, landscape architect, businessman, pedlar, and now Parliamentary agent for the next generation including a son, a pedlar [Bournemouth] studying Chiropractic and proud of funding his own way towards a better future for his own new family. His rights are directly and injuriously affected by the bills because they act against the 1881 Pedlars Act which gives him the right to act as a pedlar anywhere in Britain. One is joined in this David v Goliath by an other brave soul, also an agent for a pedlar [McGerr, Manchester], in defending individual’s rights originating in natural law; contained in the Magna Carta, specified in the Pedlars Acts and qualified in the Human Rights Act. We are currently assisted through a Second Reading blocking motion by MP’s Chope & Liddell-Grainger to secure further debate in the Commons before the bill goes to another Select Committee.
We seek Parliamentary debate about freedom with moral responsibility; about equality in matters before the law; and about fraternity in the dominance of economic interests.
We seek a motion to amend the wording of a private bill to preserve and protect that which alone represents a flagship in Europe, is a British flagship – a law to preserve and protect an individual entrepreneur as a foundation underpinning the nation’s open door policy as alternative to anachronistic, protective, private feudal privilege through restraint of trade brought about by private bills lacking political, economic or moral scrutiny – a throwback to the dark age of un-Enlightment.
There is an identifiable evidential problem with illegal trolleys for all regulated fee paying traders, but to apportion blame onto the weakest, least represented, most vulnerable group and not onto the problem itself is neither right nor just and cannot legitimately be reasoned in the General Interest.
The word pedlar is derived from pedus the foot and herein lies the solution to qualifying the street trading exemption and so preserve genuine pedlar’s activities as distinct from a barrow bearing hawker or a stationary licensed street trader by amendment to the qualifying wording in the LG(MP)A to read “with goods carried on the person as a pedestrian”.
In one simple qualification all issues for the legislature are resolved but there remains an additional final problem for the judiciary and which this plethora of private bills has directly caused by introducing conflict and anomaly. Pedlars are legislated to trade also in the street providing they do not set up a fixed pitch. The Magistracy has a dilemma – should interpretation of the qualification be liberal or literal? There is clearly need for government guidance or statutory guidance to ensure new Private legislation is consistent with National Statute.
A second alternative to resolving all issues for genuine pedlars can be achieved, not only for the current bills, but all those that have reached the Statute book since 1999. In addition to the offensive clause concerning pedlars in the bills, there be added Statutory Clarification
(1) A pedlar for the purpose of this Act is not street trading [reiteration of LGMPA] (a) if the trading is carried out only by means of visits from house to house with goods carried on the person as a pedestrian, (b) if the pedlar is seeking out customers rather than taking up a fixed pitch;
(2) A pedlar is by definition one who travels and trades in the street whilst going from place to place;
(3) Interpretation of Clause 5 of the bill is consistent in construction with Clause 3 of the Pedlars Act 1871 [“or other men’s houses” means the same as “only by means of visits from house to house].
Either of these two resolutions deals with the totality of problems put forward in evidence during the last ten years – the difference is that equal opportunity is preserved for all regulated traders. By the promoters own admission in evidence, rogues and illegal traders still operate even in the flagship City of Westminster, and genuine pedlars gone.
These private bills are injudicious in that they throw the alleged burden onto other Local Authorities for their own economic benefit. Parliamentary procedure demands that bills work on both national & local levels – clearly they do not.
Readers are invited to be aware of this plight, to consider the implications in the General Interest, and to assist us to widen awareness from grass-roots individual level to the very heights of authority with which they may have contact. As a lay person one has spent some years familiarising oneself with the raft of procedure that an individual must follow to be heard in Parliament and it seems to me that reliance on the democratic system forces one to lobby and I am sincerely grateful that readers have taken time over this plight of principle.
Robert Campbell-Lloyd
pro bono Parliamentary Agent
wsk@eircom.net