15 Feb 2013 – Pedlar questions MP on Third Option
Gavin met with his MP Alun Cairns to ask him to respond to pedlars Third Option proposals 15 Feb 2013:
copy to pedlars.info of email to Alun Cairns – 19 June 2013
Dear Mr Cairns
Thank you for your letter 14 June 2013.
I have taken this opportunity to obtain a considered reply from the authors of the Third Option at pedlars.info who can provide substantive evidence that the minister has either been mislead by operatives within her own department BIS or that she is prepared to mislead MPs regarding constituent enquiries.
The evidential paper trail exposing BIS dealings with pedlars Third Option proposals is published online at:
https://pedlars.info/communications-with-bis-re-urn11542
As you can see the proposals were first sent to BIS point of contact Rachel Onikosi 19 June 2012 and updated 3 July 2012.
Her/BIS reply 17 August 2012 says that the proposals would not be circulated within BIS nor considered until after it published its consultation in spite of stakeholders request to include them in the consultation.
A full chronology of pedlars communications with HMG/BIS is online at:
https://pedlars.info/category/article/bis-consultation/
BIS published URN 12/605 & 606 on 23 November 2012 with reference only to Option 1 “do nothing” or Option 2 “repeal the Pedlars Act”.
No consideration or mention was made of pedlars proposals.
I refer to your letter “the Minister confirms that the ‘third option” was considered as part of the consultation”.
It is apparent that BIS operatives have grossly mislead the Minister because pedlars earlier proposals (concerning amendments to local street trading regulation) were never referred to as “Third Option” (to amend the Pedlars Act) until after the consultation was published in February 2013.
I refer again to your letter “However the Department decided not to consult explicitly on those proposals…” and you must ask the Minister – which proposals does she specifically refer? Was it those of June/July 2012 or of those February 2013 and is she aware of the difference – apparently not!
And again “as they did not in the Departments’ view at the time, adequately provide compliance…” and you must ask the Minister – why her Department placed in writing refusal to consider, read or forward to others and only to consult on “our [BIS]” proposals.
This agenda has corrupted the original intent of the consultation to amend the Pedlars Act and BIS refuses to provide substantive justification for changed government policy from ‘amend’ to ‘repeal’ without any public consultation and impact assessment. Pedlars consider it fallacious to point to the Services Directive as HMG knows full well that it may disregard any Directive that is contrary to its national interest.
Pedlars sent a first response to the Consultation here:
https://pedlars.info/category/article/bis-consultation
Pedlars sent a second response to the consultation here:
https://pedlars.info/2-april-2013-pedlars-2nd-reply-to-consultation-urn12605
On another but related matter:
Pedlar stakeholders have consistently formalised complaints about the handling and process of the consultation.
BIS has adopted a policy to ignore complaints.
The nominated consultation complaints person John Conway has adopted this policy to ignore.
The BIS Complaints Officer Margaret Housden has adopted this policy to ignore.
Pedlars have escalated a Freedom of Information request but has been met with a policy to ignore.
This complaint has now been referred to the Information Commission.
You may now understand pedlar stakeholder’s concerns over this fiasco during which the BIS undertaking to meet with pedlars has been assured but is currently also ignored. This process has not been a consultation but is a con and an in…sult…ation.
I am grateful that you welcome my/our views especially that you will bring this to the attention of the Minister and your colleague on this subject Christopher Chope MP.
I look forward to her reply.
Sincerely
Gavyn