questions & answers re BIS consultation
The following is an ongoing list of separate email questions from pedlars to government BIS following the consultation document URN 09/1074 – BIS replies in blue.
1 URN 09/1074 policing taskforce reference: 19 Nov
please provide access to Report by Alan Brown in the trafficlightssummary.pdf referred to at footnote 4 page 76 of your report URN 09/1074
BIS reply:
This information is accessible by clicking the web link in the electronic version of the consultation document on the BIS web site. I have been able to access the information via that web link. Alternatively you may wish to type the address into a web browser to produce the same effect. Please let me know if you have technical problems when you try these approaches. If necessary I will investigate and see how else the information might be made available to you.
as this did not answer the question, pedlars have reiterated and BIS now refer us to andrew.sadler@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk who has replaced Alan Brown – we have requested copy of the report to enable an intelligent response – 4 Dec
2 URN 09/1074 average costs £7000: 19 Nov
please provides access to statistical information and calculation of the figures in your point 89 page 23 and whether any of those cases related to small scale genuine pedlary or as indicated they relate to large scale static trading/hawking
BIS reply:
The cost to local authorities of £7000 as an average to bring street trading cases to court was outlined by a local authority representative attending the session we held at the Trading Standards Institute in July. The precise nature of the offences or offenders was not clear. Other representations by or on behalf of local authorities to us and in the House, for example a Mr Scraggs’ input to day two of the Opposed Bills Committee on Manchester and Bournemouth, have described similar sums and a variety of circumstances (mostly as you know revealing illegal street trading as opposed to wrong doing by genuine pedlars). However, it seems the chief issue identified by local authorities is the cost of enforcement where they are presented with a trader not acting in accordance with a pedlar’s certificate. They claim that evidence gathering, involving prolonged periods of observation, to the point at which they can prosecute for illegal street trading, is costly. In these circumstances total costs of up to £7,000 do not seem unreasonable. We look forward to receiving any responses which can either confirm this as being a reasonable estimate, or refute it. The remaining figures in paragraph 89 are sourced from the Association of London Government and relate to street trading prosecutions under the London Local Authorities Act and date from 2003/4.
see pedlars further question 12 below
3 URN 09/1074 misrepresentation: 19 Nov
We are receiving calls pointing out that your report misrepresents case law and would be grateful if your Counsel in CCP Kevin Davis will attend the meeting 2 December 2009
BIS reply
Kevin Davis will be attending on 2 December meeting and we will be pleased to receive views on presenting the case law in the draft Guidance. You should note, however, that he is not a lawyer or “Counsel”.
4 URN 09/1074 pedlars comments: 19 Nov
We are passing on to you some comment from pedlars about your report
4.1 pedlars are asking us to explain the document, what does it mean
4.2 the complaint that it is not written in plain english and simple language
4.3 it makes no sense to common people
BIS reply to 4.1,2,3
We are disappointed to learn that some people do not understand what the consultation is about. We made every effort to ensure that the consultation reflects Plain English principles before the material was released. Although there is no question of withdrawing the consultation, or revising its content, we will of course be happy to explain to any individuals any element of the document.
4.4 there is no introduction as to where the document originates, who instructed it, why
This work arose in response to a number of Private Bills (and a Private Members Bill) in Parliament seeking additional powers for local authorities in the areas of street trading and restrictions on pedlary.
As you may recall in the July 2007 Lord Harrison’s Committee, having considered the Bournemouth Borough Council and the Manchester City Council Bills, recommended that BERR (now BIS) consider whether there was a case for national legislation in this area. Concern at the number of private bills and whether they suggested a need for national legislation was also raised in the context of the Brian Iddon Private Members Bill by the House Authorities. In response to this the then Minister agreed to consider the national position further, and agreed that the Department should commission some research into the area.
As you know, the Durham research project in 2008 was designed to gather evidence from the stakeholder groups directly affected by the application and perception of local authority controls and pedlar legislation with a view to better identifying any shortfalls in the regimes, both in terms of practicalities and interpretation.
House of Commons Hansard of 21 April 2009 Column 183 onwards shows the debate in the House of Commons on the Manchester City and Bournemouth Council Bill. It records that following the publication of the Durham report in February 2009 Gareth Thomas (the former Consumer Affairs Minister) announced that the Government would be consulting to seek views from the wider constituency on the findings of the Durham research and on possible ways forward.
Although he was not yet in a position to set out firm proposals, he expected that, in general, the consultation would cover more flexible enforcement tools, the possibility of guidance for pedlars and enforcers on the current regime, the question of updating the Pedlars Act and the possibility of adapting the street trader licensing scheme in respect of the activities of pedlars.
The Minister and others in Government had not formed a view on what the exact response to the research should be. The Government wanted, genuinely, to obtain feedback and evidence from as wide a group as possible to help it think through the various options.
As we explained to the attendees at the Trading Standards Institute Conference, on 1July, we are keen to gather responses to the consultation from the public relating to potential improvements which could be made to the existing framework in the areas of:
Guidance on existing legislation
Enforcement
Updating the Pedlars Act
This message has been displayed since the summer on the BIS web site.
I hope this has helped to clarify the reasons behind our continuing to work on this area and the decision to consult.
4.5 it appears threatening and intimidating
BIS reply
It is also regrettable that the consultation document has been seen as threatening or intimidating by anyone. It was certainly not our intention that the consultation should be perceived as such. It does not present Government intent, but seeks views. We can only reiterate that no decisions have been made in respect of this legislation, or the guidance, and none will be made until Ministers have had the opportunity to consider the responses to our questions.
We would like to re-emphasise that the consultation reflects the differing views of all the stakeholders who participated in the 2008 research exercise undertaken by Durham University, and others. It is an open invitation to let the Government have views and any further evidence in response to the possible options discussed.
4.6 is there any benefit to pedlars in participating
BIS reply
Having hopefully assured you and your colleagues that the consultation is a genuinely open exercise we invite as many members of the pedlar community as possible to respond to the questions posed by the consultation. Their views will be listened to and taken into account as any future plans for change are developed.
4.7 it says it will reduce the burden on pedlars but everything smacks of restriction, control and ending of their work as pedlars
BIS reply
We are seeking views on ways to achieve a balance of the different interests in trading in the street against a background of private action which seeks to restrict pedlar activities.
4.8 it appears not to be a consultation but a ‘Notice of Intent’
BIS reply see 4.5
4.9 is fearful that he will no longer be able to work
BIS reply see 4.7
4.10 it appears to be a wish list from councils
no reply!
4.11 civil servants are doing private business in the name of government
BIS reply
We do not fully understand this charge. However, we believe the consultation document is balanced in its presentation of the views and information we have received so far.
4.12 didn’t the Durham Report say just enforce existing laws and give guidance about them to councils
BIS reply
The Durham report suggested that there was no evidence to suggest a need for national restrictions on pedlar activities but that there may be a case for evidence based restrictions in some local areas. The report also suggested that there may be a case for extending local authority enforcement powers in relation to illegal street trading although the evidence for that was far from firm. The report also suggested that there was a need for clear guidance for the enforcement authorities and pedlars. The consultation looks at and seeks views on all of these issues.
5 Please confirm that you received our emailed letter dated 22 September 2009. Please also confirm who if anybody at BIS read the 40 page report attached to the letter.
BIS reply
Your 22 September email and subsequent messages were acknowledged by my 1 October email (copy enclosed for ease of reference). The material is available to colleagues within the department with an interest in street trading and pedlary.
6 URN09/1074 Lord Bach RESA: 24 Nov
Please explain why your report has not mentioned Lord Bach, for the government stating in (Hansard 29 Nov 2007) “that local authorities have adequate legislation to deal with illegal street trading and noted that the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2007 allows local authorities to impose a range of administrative sanctions as an alternative to criminal prosecution when enforcing existing legislation, thereby reducing the need for local authorities to promote private bills”
or for the government to model policy in terms of private business?
BIS reply
Things have moved on a little since Lord Bach’s comments during the debate on the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill in 2007. Interested local authorities have continued to argue their case for extended powers to be able to deal with illegal street trading, including, they say, the power to seize goods and the Durham Report has been published. The consultation document reflects this continuing desire on the part of interested local authorities. As with the rest of the document this element is open to discussion and subject to decisions further down the line in the light of the responses to the consultation.
7 URN09/1074 RESA2008: 24 Nov
Please explain why your consultation fails to address RESA as introduced by Ms Vadera as a civil alternative to criminal prosecution of pedlars modelled on private business?
“Regulations help to protect citizens, consumers, workers, and the
environment as well as ensuring fair competition amongst
businesses. The way in which regulation is enforced can make a
major difference to each of these groups, and local authorities play
a critical role in the way that this is done.
Effective local authority regulatory enforcement can ensure that
compliant businesses operate freely in an increasing competitive
market, while resources are targeted at the rogues that present the greatest threat to
consumers and citizens. I am pleased, therefore, to introduce this consultation on the
Primary Authority scheme.
One of the most significant obstacles to delivering effective local authority regulatory
enforcement is the lack of communication between local authorities.
For businesses that operate across a number of local authorities this can result in
inconsistent and uncoordinated advice and enforcement. Ultimately, this leads to
unnecessary duplication of effort and wasted resources.
I believe that the Primary Authority scheme will play a critical part in addressing this,
and we need to make sure that the scheme works effectively. This is why we are
seeking your views on the detailed operation of the Primary Authority scheme and
the statutory instruments that will shape this.”
BIS reply
In respect of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act, I am sorry but I do not quite follow your point regarding criminal prosecutions and private business. Perhaps this is a topic you will want to say something about in our forthcoming meeting. Similarly I am afraid we do not understand why you have raised the issue of Primary Authority scheme in this context, but appreciate that Baroness Vadera’s comments in relation to more effective communication and lack of consistency across local authorities has resonance in this context.
More generally, in relation to the powers available under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, work to implement that Act and the alternative sanctions it provides for local authorities continues. Those powers are not available yet to local authorities. You will note that the consultation document does not address the technical means by which any eventual outcomes will be implemented. We will consider that when any decisions are made in the light of the responses to the consultation. However, if a decision was made to make new sanctions available to local authorities in national legislation we would take into consideration what powers they may by then have access to as the result of the RES Act. If by such a time they already had those powers there would be no need to take further action. You will note, however, that the RES Act does not provide for powers of seizure or confiscation.
8 URN09/1074 Rogers Report: 24 Nov
Please explain why your report does not mention the findings of the Rogers Report.
BERR’s own Better Regulation Office, BRE, in the Rogers Review of National Enforcement Priorities for Local Authority Regulatory Services 2007 places street-trading issues “at the lowest level of priority”.
This evidence based report is from Peter Rogers the chief executive of Westminster City Council responsible for the first of these private bills but Butterfield, the Westminster Trading Standards Officer stated in evidence before the Select Committee on the London Local Authorities Bill c.299 – that in Westminster 3 years after Assent “pedlars are gone but significant illegal street trading persists”…….
BIS reply
he Rogers Review sought to establish a set of key national priorities for local authorities to pursue in the context of their very broad enforcement responsibilities and obligations. Street trader licensing was identified in the context of national priorities as low priority. However, adopting and pursuing the recommendations of the report does not preclude local authorities from applying greater priority to local issues which a local authority chooses also to prioritise. Clearly, those local authorities who take the view that they have a particular problem with illegal street trading have chosen that as a local priority for them. We do not believe that in discussing a possible option in the consultation document whereby local authorities for whom this is a local priority might better and more efficiently enforce against illegal street traders or Pedlars Act offences is in conflict with the Rogers recommendations for national priority areas. As you know, the Durham Report underlined that the enforcement concerns of local authorities in relation to illegal street trading were far from held nationally and we would not advocate that solutions would be national priorities. We take the view, therefore, that the Rogers Report is not particularly relevant to this work.
9 URN09/1074 scotland: 25 Nov
Your document includes UK and Scottish government and on page 7 you indicate that guidance for Scotland will reflect different case law. Pedlars in Scotland express concern and have asked us to find out why you have inserted this differentiation.
In Normand-v-Alexander 1993 Case Stated relies heavily on Watson-v-Malloy 1988 UK.
In Prentice-v-Normand 1993 Case Stated relies on Normand-v-Alexander which relioes on Watson-v-Malloy UK.
Pedlars contend that the geographical location of these Case Stated is irrelevant and that the Principle extends throughout the UK. Furthermore those Principle Arguments have been developed in 8 subsequent Cases.
We remind you and your Scottish counterpart that the Scottish Government Report on Street Trading 2004 concludes that “the Task Group are content that the exemption in Civic Government (Scotland) Act c.45 at Section 39(3)(d) remains valid – ie that a street traders licence shall not be required for any activity in respect of which a certificate under the Pedlars Act 1871 has been granted”.
Your attention is also drawn to evidence that Strathclyde Police under the authorisation of the Divisional & Area Procurator Fiscal Central & West Division enforces a no tolerance policy toward pedlary in Glasgow and refuse to concede any ground.
Can you please explain why pedlary which is a civil matter in both UK & Scotland is being referred in Scotland to “Criminal Law & Licensing Division”?
no reply
10 URN09/1074 extension of time: 25 Nov
We are receiving complaints from pedlars that the launch of your URN09/1074 coincides with a very busy period in their trading year, especially that it includes the 12 days of Christmas and because they are finding your document very confusing they request more time to consider the implications and how to respond.
You have given an 84 day period 6 Nov – 29 Jan which is an extension of 1 week on the obligatory 6 week guideline previously mentioned.
Please confirm that the consultation period will be extended for a further 4 weeks to 26 February 2010.
BIS reply
We have responded to your 25 November request for an extension to the consultation period. To allow all potential stakeholders enough time to respond to the consultation, we are extending the deadline for consultation responses to Friday 12 February 2010.
I am happy to re-confirm that the consultation material does not present Government intent, rather it seeks views from the public on possible options. No decisions have been made in respect of possible legislative change, or the guidance, and none will be made until Ministers have had the opportunity to consider the responses to our questions.
In closing I have received your 30 November emails and look forward to seeing you and your colleagues tomorrow, 2 December. I hope that after our meeting you and many other pedlars will go on to offer views in response to the consultation material before the extended closing date of Friday 12 February 2010.
11 URN09/1074 case law + comparison: 25 Nov
Attached is a summary of Case Stated together with guidance about Certified & Licensed traders.
We trust this will assist in clarifying the perceived shortfalls in your Pedlary Checklist on page 38.
Please confirm if the document contains any misleading or confusing information?
BIS have received your Case Law Comparison material. If the intent behind comments in the BISedit document was to lead BIS to withdraw the consultation material please note that BIS will not be doing so.
12 URN 09/1074 average costs £7000: 19 Nov & 26 Nov
Further question to BIS reply to question 2 above
In summary and factually your figure relies on a single anecdotal comment without substantiation and you have failed to indicate the nature of the offense or the types of offenders whether Licensed or Certified or neither.
Please provide details of “other representations” made.
As evidence in support you rely on Mr Scragg [Hansard] “757 (Mr Scragg) It is difficult to quantify the exact costs to the City Council. I can point to some legal costs of our Legal Department between 2006 and 2009 when the legal costs which were incurred in taking street trading cases amounted to £9,657. Of that figure, £3,187 was awarded in costs by the court which left a deficit of £6,500, and that is purely just legal costs and it does not take account of the costs of the time of my officers, the GMP officers and CCTV operators as well. On top of that, I also have to pay officers overtime to come out on Saturdays and Sundays when these traders are trading on a regular basis, and those are additional costs as well.”
We have prima facia evidence that the average over 3 years costs for a case in Bournemouth & Manchester is £1105.
We have further prima facia evidence that average income from fines amount to £547 with average loss of £558.
In making your case at page 84 you calculate an unjustified 200 x7000x10 -3.5% = £13m but the above evidence calculates 200x1105x10 -3.5% = £2.13m
Income from fines 200x547x10 -3.5% = £1.055m. Your claim of net benefit of £13m over a ten year period is a gross mis-calculation.
Your reliance on anecdotal evidence from 1 individual and “others” unsubstantiated is unacceptable.
Your cost analysis evidence on page 73/4, 80, 84/5 is flawed to the extent that readers are misled and incapable of forming an intelligent response about FPN’s.
The entire document URN09/1074 should be withdrawn as misleading.
BIS will take your views on Average Costs and LGA Survey into consideration as the Impact Assessment is developed in light of responses to the consultation. BIS will not be withdrawing the consultation.
13 URN09/1074 LGA survey: 26 Nov
We are receiving further concerns.
Your footnote #9 refers to an LGA survey when it is actually a propaganda Press Release dated 4 Aug 2008 authored by the media department of the LGA presenting a distinct bias against Pedlary supported by NABMA & cohorts to “repeal” the PA.
Please explain why you have chosen to present an unbalanced article without any counterbalance eg https://pedlars.info/news/30-letter.
Please provide the readership of your document with an evidence base that thoroughly investigates your statistics (51 out of 57) with:
analysis of the nature of the alleged “problems”;
how many allegations were connected to Certified pedlars;
how many to Static traders;
how many to others;
and how many successful prosecutions of Certified pedlars were recorded in the survey?
Without this information the readership of your document is misled and unable to make an intelligent response.
BIS will take your views on LGA Survey into consideration as the Impact Assessment is developed in light of responses to the consultation
14 URN09/1074 edits page1-7: 27 Nov
We are obliged to respond to errors and inaccuracies in your document URN09/1074.
We attach edits with explanatory notes to remove prejudice against pedlars for clarity and objectivity.
This is sent in anticipation of our meeting 2 December prior to editing the remainder of the document.
If the intent behind comments in the BISedit document was to lead BIS to withdraw the consultation material please note that BIS will not be doing so.
15 URN09/1074 evidence compilation: 3 Dec
Question has arisen:
Pedlars are lodging concerns with we 4 individuals and/or pedlars.info in preference to responding to you re Q1-33.
We are prepared to collate those responses and concerns and include them in our joint response via pedlars.info.
We are asking each person to agree that their name be published as respondent at the conclusion of our replies.
Will the above suffice or does your process require every comment and response be attributed to a particular person?
You are aware that pedlars.info is not a formal organisation and exists only as a reference centre and point of contact.
We welcome clear understanding about how you intend to analyse the responses.
BIS reply
Thank you for your email and for this offer of assistance.
Ideally, as I’m sure you will appreciate, we would like to receive
individual responses direct if at all possible and anything you and your
colleagues can do to encourage that in the first instance would be much
appreciated and very helpful. As I said at the meeting we are more than
happy to help people through the process by explaining the questions and
the content of the consultation on a one to one basis.
Failing that we are happy to receive comments and responses from or via
any source including your good selves. It would be helpful in terms of
our analysis if each comment could be attributable to the individual
with contact details because the option of being able to contact folk in
respect of any comments or views which we do not fully understand is
important. We would certainly not want to waste your time by simply
acting as “middleman” where that would not be necessary.
Without seeing the responses of course, I wonder whether any collation
would be necessary on your part. For example we would be happy to
receive forwarded emails or a document detailing a series of emails if
that was simpler. It strikes me that would be less work for you.
A concern I have with your proposal is that of the possible perception
of others on seeing the published responses. That is, that the full
breadth and depth of the response from the pedlar “side” may not come
across if the bulk of those responses is presented in a single paper.
16 URN09/1074 1994 Government Consultation: 7 Dec
It appears that a government consultation was carried out in 1994 regarding pedlars. The source of this information is from a debate in the commons between Dr. Brand and Mr. Howarth, HC Deb 01 July 1998, vol315 cc316-22. The reference is at the second from last paragraph of:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1998/jul/01/pedlars
This we presume would have been under the remit of the DTI at the time, and we would therefore expect that your office which carries on the duties of the former DTI, will have this document available as a public record for our scrutiny?
awaiting reply
17 URN09/1074 definition of a pedlar or actions of a pedlar: 8 Dec
On page 13 of the consultation document you allege confusion because of the age of the Pedlars Act.
Pedlars are complaining to us that their forefathers have relied on the Pedlars Act for 138 years because it is good law and should not be sullied by the fact of its age – such logic undermines Parliament itself.
The definition of a pedlar should not be altered because it gives by example some of the trades that existed in 1871 but was never intended to be an exhaustive list. The insertion of “or other person” makes allowance for any other person such as, in contemporary life, a balloon twister, an artist etc. It grants a liberty and the freedom to do anything by way of a chosen trade or a ‘yet to be evolved’ trade.
The difficulty created by the LGMPA concerns not the definition of a pedlar but the allowable activities of a pedlar. This is so because the LGMPA exempts persons acting as a pedlar being answerable to LA’s. In Court the LA is obliged to prove that the person was not acting as a pedlar if they are to succeed in an allegation of illegal street trading. The essential yardstick for measuring is not some intellectual abstraction but is grounded in the regulation of a Licensed Static Trader whose fixed pitch is outlined on the street, who occupies that pitch for 365 days a year up to 10 hours a day, and receives services provided by the local authority in exchange for a licence fee.
The definition is not intended to reflect the activities of a modern-day pedlar – these may only be argued on the basis of Case Law since 1982 when the LGMPA was introduced. Your Annex B fails to adequately disclose and scrutinise Case Law [11 in all] and at point 45 gives no indication whatever about the position in Scotland. Without this no reader can make an intelligent response and we note that you have not responded to our earlier concern dated 25 November re Scotland.
We have supplied you with a full schedule of Case Law indicating allowable activities. You say you have read this but are unwilling to respond and unwilling to amend the misleading information on page 38 and we would ask again how any reader can intelligently respond without full disclosure.
My colleagues and I thank you for your comments which will be taken into account as we consider the responses to the consultation and develop the draft guidance following the consultation.
18 URN09/1074 parallel guidance for scotland: 9 Dec
The consultation document refers to “parallel guidance for Scotland, reflecting the different case law in Scotland” page 7.
Page 13 cl 45 refers to England & Wales in Annex B draft guidance but Scottish draft guidance is missing.
Page 23 options B & D do not provide information about FPN’s in Scotland.
Page 31 cl 117 again refers to parallel guidance but there is none.
Please provide all the missing information to enable an intelligent response.
– there is no special significance to the fact that this consultation is handled by Criminal Law and Licensing Division. The division deals with a wide range of matters including licensing in respect of alcohol, gambling, knives dealers, and street traders.
– the references in the document are to proposed guidance in Scotland. It hasn’t been written yet. It is likely that guidance would be similar to guidance for England and Wales.
– I am not sure that any substantial devolution issues particularly delayed the consultation. There were discussions between officials to ensure that the differing Scottish aspects were reflected in the document. For example, the presence of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
– In that same spirit, we have mentioned in the consultation Scottish case law. We sought only to highlight that there is a separate legal system in Scotland with its own body of case law. Any guidance we produce will reflect that. There was no implication that the Scottish courts have taken a radically different approach to the issues.
– I note your points about the conclusions of the 2004 task group. Nevertheless, the consultation explains why it is worth looking at the issues again.
– I also note what you say about the situation in Strathclyde. As these are operational decisions of Strathclyde Police and the Crown Office it would not be appropriate to comment. Clearly the final decision in specific cases will rest with the courts.
– As regards Fixed Penalty Notice’s, as the consultation says, in Scotland there is the option of a ‘fiscal fine’ as an alternative to prosecution. We don’t propose at the moment to extend the scope of FPN’s in Scotland to apply to offences specifically in relation to illegal trading.
19 URN09/1074 LA’s without LGMPA page 67-8: 10 Dec
Please explain why those LA’s who have not adopted the LGMPA have not been consulted?
Please confirm how many LA’s have adopted the LGMPA?
Please confirm which organisations are government quangos/state funded?
We have made every effort, through UK local government umbrella bodies, to draw our consultation to the attention of local authorities, and have asked the LGA to do so. We hope that a large number of them, including those which have, and those which have not, adopted powers from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, will choose to respond to the consultation.
We hope you will understand that for resource reasons it is not practical to attempt to communicate with every pedlar in the UK, particularly as police records are not all held electronically.
We have noted your views and representations as regards a national database.
20 URN09/1074 national audit office: 10 Dec
During the last 20 months we have written to you 5 times urging you to produce a thorough audit of pedlars in the UK.
At this time you do not know how many pedlars are affected by your consultation and it appears you do not care to find out.
In the absence of your willingness may we suggest that you make arrangements with the National Audit Office.
We note that they are not on the consultee list.
We propose that the NAO could offer more reliable competence to your empty and fabricated cost benefit analysis.
As far as our consultation goes we hope to receive views from a reasonable cross section of pedlars to help inform decisions. Your response suggests that you would like BIS to involve the National Audit Office in an exercise to research pedlar numbers nationally. Such a research exercise is unlikely to fall within the NAO’s list of functions. If you would like to find out more about the NAO’s role you can visit their web site at www.nao.org.uk
You have also asked whether any of the organisations shown within the list of consultees receive public funds. We have not investigated how the bodies listed are funded. Irrespective of how an organisation is funded, we fully expect that their consultation responses (where they choose to respond) will represent properly considered views and ideas. We will be assessing all the responses critically particularly with regard to evidence to support the views expressed.
21 URN09/1074 minutes of meeting: 14 Dec
Those who attended the meeting on 2 Dec asked particular questions that were not minuted and again ask:
1 Why has BIS ignored pedlars.info amendments to the BIS consultation pages 1-7?
2 Why did BIS legal counsel Michelle Rafferty not read those amendments prior to the meeting?
3 What reason is there for Michelle’s opinion that FPN’s are justiciable and within HRA/ECHR?
4 What reason is there for Michelle’s opinion that “reasonable suspicion” (as in the context of the cause of the Brixton Riots) is justiciable and within HRA/ECHR?
5 What reason is there for not applying for “transitional” arrangements for possible derogation of the Services Directive to allow time to consult with pedlars about the implication of meddling with the Pedlars Act through the Statutory Instrument?
It is helpful to receive your comments on the meeting note. We hope that you and your colleagues will be mindful that we do make a real effort to communicate effectively with all our stakeholders including pedlars. As we mentioned in the meeting we are a busy section with a variety of equally important policy areas on which we work aside from street trading and pedlary. Having said that, we appreciated your comments about the way the law is sometimes interpreted and your concerns. We should add that our meeting note recorded only the relevant areas of discussion relating to clarification of the consultation document.
The comments on the subject matter (that “‘Fixed Penalty Notices’ and ‘reasonable suspicion’ are not justiciable and within Human Rights Act / European Convention on Human Rights”) are viewed as responses and we will be taking these into consideration when formulating policy. It should be noted that the proposals in the consultation document, if taken forward, would be subject in any event to Parliamentary scrutiny including the compatibility of the proposals with the HRA.
Finally, you may like to note that BIS Colleagues responsible for the implementation of the Services Directive will respond to you shortly about transitional arrangements.
22 to follow shortly…………