IN PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

SESSION 2007-08

Manchester City Council Bill

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 DAVID PETER MURPHY

SHEWETH as follows:-

1 A Bill (hereinafter referred to as “the bill”) has been introduced and is now pending in

your honourable House entitled "A Bill to confer powers on Manchester City Council for

the better control of street trading in the city of Manchester".

2 The Bill is promoted by Manchester City Council. The Preamble to the Bill recites that,

“(1) The city of Manchester (hereinafter called "the city") is a district under the

management and local government of Manchester City Council (hereinafter called "the

council"): (2) Certain powers relating to street trading in the city are exercisable by the

council under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30) and for

their better enforcement it is expedient to amend that Act in its application to Manchester

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 David Peter Murphy who lives in Manchester and carries a current Pedlars

Certificate issued under the Pedlars Act 1871 by The Greater Manchester Police in the County of

Greater Manchester on 13 November 2007 serial number 028419.

The certificate has effect under the Pedlars Act 1871 as it does under the Pedlars Act 1881 authorising David “to act as a pedlar within any part of the United Kingdom” and as stated in the Bill under the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 section 3, Schedule 4 paragraph 1 (2) “The following are not street trading”: (a) “trading as a pedlar under the authority of a pedlar’s certificate” and so he travels throughout the United Kingdom including the city of Manchester, stopping to trade there as and when he goes elsewhere from town to town and place to place and other than as a “commercial traveler” going only by means of “visits from house to house” which, as is stated in the Pedlars Act 1871: - nothing is “necessary for a certificate to be obtained”.

5 Your Petitioner contends that his good faith is certified to be in the general interest and that he is

required to safeguard the certificate as a protection to benefit the public. As a lawful pedlar he seeks to maintain his status and disagrees with the purpose of the Bill to curtail the Pedlars Act as stated in the Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 - making its effect unworkable.

For the purposes of this Petition the word “street” is to mean the same as the Bill’s designated areas but

not only

6 Your Petitioner contends:

· that by application of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982, the pedlar is not street trading within terms of the Pedlars Act and to alter Section 3 Schedule 4 para 1. 2(a) is to reverse it, in effect to rescind that same provision and to affect the Pedlars Act;

· the Bill about street trading regulation is not required for making visits from house to house and is therefore redundant for the purposes of the Pedlars Act;

· the Bill requiring regulation in the street needs detail, and to regulate how persons are to go and for the purposes of the Pedlars Act, the Bill absents itself of detail about how such visits are to be made and is only about going on the street as a criminal;

· criminal law persists in regulating behaviour on the street and the Bill while stating street trading provision to be necessary, needs detail how local provision can be effected;

· the Bill requiring officers to have reason about an offence, requires exact detail to be made and direction given about how to reason the impact on a pedlar’s certificate drawn up by Statute.

Your Petitioner contends these aspects are all important towards good governance and administration

From precedent and from evidence presented, it is clear that problems are to do with the scale of illicit

trading and the type of equipment used.

7 Your Petitioner contends that Genuine Pedlars according to the extant law of the Pedlars Act do not feature adversely in any viable evidence gathering because they cause no real problem and are in general endorsed.

8 Your Petitioner contends:

· that purpose 2. in the Bill is not to “alter the exemption enjoyed by the holders of a pedlar’’s

certificate” but more precisely and accurately is intended to cut out the provision for pedlars

· that purpose 1. is more exactly stated by the intention “to extend the scope” of street trading regulation into the private domain, which in the words “house to house” is other than that intended by Schedule 4 to the1982 Act and makes the Bill go against existing law and adds confusion to its practice;

· that as there has been added “genuine” to the context of the Bill, it points to the primary and defining law about the genuine pedlar as one who goes and travels and trades. Clause 3 of the Pedlars Act sets this clearly and the intention of Parliament is as plain today as when first enacted and in short is that:

Any pedlar..

Or other person who .. travels and trades on foot

and goes from town to town

or to other men's houses

carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods wares or merchandise

or procuring orders for goods or merchandise immediately to be delivered

or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft is a lawful person, and is allowed for with choice.

· This intrinsic definition stands and for it to be altered requires the defining law to be rescinded, repealed or amended – none of which this Bill states.

· This exact wording of Parliament’s intention for the pedlars’ act does not state that a pedlar goes from town to town and only to other men’s houses but by stating “or”, allows for choice of means to make visits from house to house. Thus for the promoters to seek to alter the wording of this originating legislation with a Clause 5 of the Bill is redundant and contentious.

9 Your Petitioner wishes it to be known:

· that his goods are lightweight and walking on foot, he carries his goods in a display box often with a shoulder strap to help him show, demonstrate and sell. He goes seeking where his customers are, rather than obliging them to come to him and without him requiring to retain a fixed pitch needing a licence to be maintained and without the substantial operation of a stall:

· that he therefore has low environmental impact and is of negligible cost;

· that he seeks customers amongst the public and knows that he needs to maintain quality, be careful for his customers, and to respect the many laws that govern trade and behaviour;

· that his customers’ health and safety are as important as his own and it is only with a scrupulous regard to all laws governing him that he likely to be able to continue with his occupation;

· that to be a pedlar is not merely only to trade: - his occupation relies much on his ability to entertain the public and to give information. His is not a solitary private quest on private ground for an individual private contract - he must exhibit himself in public as defined in the Pedlars Act “exposing his skill”, approaching customers for immediate inquiries or future requirements; - these are the elements of publicity that makes him a pedlar;

· that his personal contact allows him to gather information properly, and by word of mouth he is able to make direct delivery. These meetings are particularly important for him to be able to make contact that is not always otherwise available;

· that he is concerned that the Bill impinges on these rights, and with the Bill adding seizure and forfeiture of his goods, it will prevent him going about to do as he is entitled to do by law throughout the United Kingdom

10 Your Petitioner contends that his property, rights and interests will be injuriously affected by the

provisions of the Bill as proposed and he objects for the following reasons:

· your Petitioner is concerned that he could be misunderstood as a Pedlar, and to make it clear what is involved, he describes being a Pedlar in his own words:

· being a pedlar involves "going" out of doors, that is to say - stepping out of doors away from his door onto the street and to meet up by visiting with the public;

· going from door to door, perhaps from his door and back to his door, he meets up with his public in a variety of ways not only to trade, but also for conversation and information which is all part of his way of life as a pedlar.

· His understanding of the Pedlars Act allows him to travel and trade, and for him "travel" is all about “going about”, and to do that means "going" on the street.

· He considers the penalty of the Bill stops him from "going" in the streets of Manchester:

· in effect absolutely preventing him in terms of the Bill from making visits from house to house, because it stops him on the street where he is required to have a Street Traders Licence which he is not required to have in making only visits from house to house with his Pedlar's Certificate.

· The Bill with its "seizure" and "forfeiture" stops him from "going" out on the street to make his visits and removes his rights as a pedlar and many of his Human Rights.

11 Your Petitioner contends that in its Purpose the Bill should state it is to do away with the provisions of the Pedlars Act 1871 & Pedlars Act 1881 by removing the distinction of being a Pedlar in the exemption made in the Local Authority (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982., Section 3, Schedule 4.

12 Your Petitioner considers that this Bill presents too much like having his way of life taken away from him and for his home life to be disturbed too much by the threat of seizure and forfeiture of his property.

He considers the Bill to be unfair and shouldn’t be allowed.

13 Your Petitioner is concerned that there is a lot about this Bill that goes against the sort of things he

considers basic. He understands these to be his human rights and that these are part of the law of the

the land as in the Human Rights Act 1998, and so these are also part of the reasons for him to petition against the Bill and he details these as follows:

· the 1982 Act exempts a pedlar from street trading regulation. The liberty granted under the 1881 Act authorises a pedlar throughout the United Kingdom.

· Security and protection is granted by way of a Pedlars Certificate issued under the 1871 Act and your Petitioner seeks to see stated that these safeguards are contained in the Bill in compliance with Article 5 for the right to liberty and security for him going in the street...

14 Your Petitioner is concerned that Genuine pedlars are directly and adversely affected by the Bill but

there is no evidence that genuine pedlars have been included, with good administration, by

consultation, in formulating the wording of the Bill.

· The Bill clause 5 can impose an insurmountable Reverse Burden and violate a pedlar’s presumption of innocence. The notion that a pedlar has recourse for compensation .against seizure & forfeiture is wholly undetermined by an officer needing only to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant offence has been committed, but such an offence only comes about by clause 5 criminalising a pedlar.

· It is with this in mind that your Petitioner looks to see stated what safeguards are contained in the Bill against violation of Article 6: - the right to a fair trial, good administration and presumption of innocence, and with the threat of losing the protection of his certificate: that of Article 7 - no punishment without law, the certificate is removed and so is his status of equality before the law

15 Your Petitioner knows how his way of life is combined at home with how he meets with his public.

His way of life is one of a cultural choice to be that of a pedlar, which in turn carries certain rights, of liberties and of freedom to have as stated by Article 8 , dignity and respect for his private and family life.

16 For your Petitioner as a dyslexic it is an important issue to be able to be a pedlar and to enjoy that oral

tradition.

The street is not only where trading is carried out but all aspects of being a pedlar, including social

and fraternal networks receiving and imparting information, meeting and exchanging to demonstrate,

investigate, research or display ideas and novelties, all of which amounts to more than mere street trading.

Your petitioner is concerned that the Bill as written, cutting out the effect of the Pedlars Act and limiting

the scope of Miscellaneous Provisions, goes against the Article 10 safeguards to freedom of expression &

information “without interference from public authority and regardless of frontiers”;

the Bill in effect seeks control of his association with others and goes against the freedom of assembly and

association of Article 11.

17 Your Petitioner contends that the Bill to amend the Act gives powers of enforcement that discriminate

against him simply for being a pedlar having a lawful Certificate that describes him as a Pedlar, and that

this is against Article 14.

18 Your Petitioner respectfully submits that the Bill directly and injuriously infringes his rights under

the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms 2003;

· the Bill affects the rights of Your Petitioner in Articles 5, 6,7, 8,10, 11,14 and Article 1 Part 2 the First Protocol

Your Petitioner humbly submits that the Bill affects his right to free association, expression, dignity and way of life;

- the Bill seeks to alter his distinction as a Pedlar expressed by exemption (2a) in schedule 4 of the

Local Authority (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and his purpose as a Pedlar made clear in the definition of "Pedlar" in the Pedlars Act 1871, and his ability by the Pedlars Act 1881 to enter freely the district of the City of Manchester as throughout the United Kingdom a part of which is the city of Manchester.

Your Petitioner is concerned that the Bill although stating the 1982 Act which gives him an

exemption as a pedlar, alters the meaning of that Act by inserting “if the trading is carried out only

by means of visits from house to house":

- he contends that without further explanation, he does not see how he will be able to “enjoy” the

protection of the 1982 Act, and he is very concerned that this alteration conflicts with the Pedlars

Act 1881 and prejudices him as a pedlar;

- he sees the Bill's wording "house to house" as making him only a door to door salesman which

makes the Bill not merely an alteration to the Pedlars Act but removes a difference that in effect

does not allow him to enjoy the distinction of being a Pedlar as stated in the 1982 Act;

- he sees in the Pedlars Act 1871 recognition of a trade that is different entirely to that of other

trades;

- he sees in the Local Authority (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to which the Bill refers, a

public good which extends to him not only as a person but to him traveling and trading as a

Pedlar which is a trade more than the mere sale of goods;

- he is part of the social and cultural dialogue of society in Manchester;

- he sees the Bill excluding him from exercising these rights in the City of Manchester and as Your

Petitioner considers himself acting within the general law he sees himself in a common sense acting in his and the general interest.

Your Petitioner contends that in the context of this Bill, Lord Harrison’s words: “there are existing

powers. However.. the existing powers are confused, not well understood by those who are

supposed to enforce them and need some clearing up” - indicate more than a change to the law:

- in that the better education of authority will lead to the better and proper effect of the law, which

is also what Lord Harrison’ Committee has indicated;

- removing the effect of a law only further exacerbates issues, driving them into the more difficult

category of criminal and encouraging disparagement of law by rogues. Unfortunately for the

progress of this Bill Lord Harrison’s confusion about the “unfairness of having two types of

street trader: the pedlar and the genuine street trader” is added to by its lack of clarity.

Your Petitioner as a pedlar is not street trading for the purposes of the LGMPAct 82, and with his

certificate he is capable of proof to be a genuine pedlar;

- the street trader may also be proved with a form of consent but to state unfairness between these

types is pejorative, creates imbalance, and sets out possible abuse;

– to be expedient law also risks lack of justice and fairness and to have it altered too easily away

from its original purpose may cause it to go against the general interest:

- law exists to persist and your Petitioner who is also a family man has in mind not only himself

but also future generations and despite those comments made of the Pedlars Act as being “almost

mediaeval - historic”, he calls to mind that this welcoming legislation has enabled many great

persons and much valuable enterprise, which makes him alert and that to seek to hobble the law

is to pin down humanity.

For all of the foregoing Your Petitioner seeks no relief in this Bill other than to have those clauses struck out where he sees harm. Your Petitioner considers his way of life as a Pedlar as important today as when the Pedlars Act was first enacted to reform and consolidate legislation for his protection and the public good.

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 himself, his Counsel or Agent 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 his property, rights, and interests and in support of other clauses and provisions for their protection, or such relief may be given to your Petitioner in the premises as your Honourable House shall deem meet

AND YOUR PETITIONER will ever pray, etc.

Signed:

Date: