An explanation of why ÒPrivate LegislationÓ should not be allowed to go against the Public
- the Bournemouth Borough Council and Manchester City Council bills as examples are
currently blocked in the House of Commons by Ian Liddell Grainger M.P. & Christopher Chope M.P.
Parliamentary agents Robert Campbell-Lloyd and N.J. McGerr have thought to respond to some of the various inquiries about this matter of ÒpedlarsÓ and here submit an outline to assist with debate. This has been moved to Christopher Chope M.P. and Ian Liddell Grainger M.P. To help with further assistance please contact your M.P.
1 The bills affect three Public statutes, not only the adoptive Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 - LGMPA82, but the two national statutes:
- the Pedlars Act 1871 & the Pedlars Act 1881.
The proponents of the bills look only at the 1871 Act because it regulates ÒdistrictÓ and hence are confident to work at it through the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 with its ÒlocalÓ provisions Ð but, the Pedlars Act 1881 is a national statute and so there is a clash which requires that this Òprivate businessÓ be put before Parliament
requiring these sorts of bills not to go forward as indeed at present with current blocking motions against these bills needing to have continued support. Further dismissal may reside with Speaker citing Erskine May and such as the I980 Portsmouth City Council Bill1.
2 The Pedlars Act 1871 in todayÕs parlance preserves the right of law abiding entrepreneurs to share in an economic interest by trading as they have done for some 400 years giving us such great British icons as Michael Marks2 ÒMarks & SpencersÓ - now a focal point in today's successful shopping centres.
3 The Pedlars Act 1881 extends to pedlars the right to trade anywhere in the United Kingdom. The legislation for pedlars is national and contains 24 clauses of regulation.
4 The adoptive LGMPA82 controls local street trading on fixed pitches, but pedlars are quite different from licensed street traders in that they are pedestrians who carry their goods on foot3 and do not set up the more cumbersome trolleys and stalls. Parliament determined in 1982 that pedlars are exempt from local authority regulation because they do not occupy allocated spaces under local authority control and do not require the provision of local authority services.
5 There is existing power in the LGMPA82 for local authority to prosecute pedlars who do not act as pedlars, and rogue traders with their stalls pretending to be licensed street traders can be removed by citing obstruction. Local authorities are able to use their contingency funds to increase the benefit of regulation and with that best moderated in the public interest through the courts being able to safeguard the public interest. These private bills are not brought before Parliament to balance primary public statutes - they alter the safeguard of the public statute by confusion with Òprivate businessÓ.
6 These bills affect all Local Authorities (400 or so) who are not in the privileged position of their more wealthy authorities who use charge payers' money to lobby Parliament for private bills - these bills cost upwards of £200,000 per bill and deny 48 million people a liberty granted by Parliament.
7 The burden of the bills catch all surrounding local authorities unfairly by shifting alleged problems to other areas4 - evidence shows that innocent pedlars are harmed but that rogues continue to operate nonetheless with police remaining to be resourced.
8 The bills do not affect just a few individuals caught in a blanket policy of restrictive trade but affect the many who may not choose to use their liberty to become a pedlar
- the bills cannot be argued to be in the "general interest", they serve only the narrow interests of the cliques who have been identified with wanting to abolish Pedlars.
9 The last decade has seen several bills passed into law and also in that same decade the unfair effect on all of their implementation. BERR is currently consulting for the very first time with those who have been identified as "genuine pedlars" by Lord Harrison5, Chairman of the Select Committee in the House of Lords.
10 Genuine pedlars put forward their recommendation for how the bills can be amended to satisfy all three relevant national statutes and meet the modern requirements of Ògenuine pedlarsÓ, so for Clause 5 of the bills:
- In their application to
the borough, the provisions of Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act shall apply as if in
paragraph 1(2)(a) of that schedule there were inserted, after the reference to
the Pedlars Act 1871 (c.98), the words "with
goods carried on the person as a pedestrian"
11 However it is our opinion that a move be made that the subject matter of the bills, the definition of Public Statute is unsuitable for private legislation and that these bills should be withdrawn:
- that Parliamentary Guidance be given to existing legislation and that sufficient
requirement be laid before Parliament:
- that there be a properly constructed public bill.
There is of course much more detailed argument that will come up if these bills
get to Select Committee stage in the House of Commons but there is trust in the
essential commitment of and to the Public and for respect for Parliament to
have these bills thrown out and all of the others before ever they get there Ð
and many can sign up for that and it is possible.
Information from Erskine MayÕs Ð ÒTreatise on ParliamentÓ could help reject these bills on the very same grounds as the
Portsmouth City Council bill which was struck out as it could only shift the
burden on to others.
Contact with your local M.P. is vital to protect this important constitutional issue.
My regards
N.J.McGerr
[1] Rejected on the basis of shifting the burden to other authorities
2 a pedlar
3 hence the definition Òfrom town to town or to other menÕs housesÓ
4 ibid 1
5 HL Paper 148