Select Committee on Kent County Council Bill [Lords] and the Medway Council Bill [Lords] Special Report



SPECIAL REPORT

The Committee on the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] and the Medway Council Bill [Lords] has agreed to the following Special Report: —

THE KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] AND THE

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

1. The Kent County Council Bill [Lords] and the Medway Council Bill [Lords] are bills to enable the regulation of the market in secondhand goods in the administrative areas of Kent and Medway. But for this administrative distinction, the provisions of the bills are the same.

2. The bills were deposited by the Kent County Council and Medway Council in Parliament on 27th November 1998. They commenced their passage in the House of Lords and were received in the House of Commons on 18th January 2000. The bills were opposed in this House by three parties: DMG Antiques Fairs Limited; the London and Provincial Antique Dealers Association (LAPADA); and by Georgina McKinnon and David Jackson-Grant, antiques dealers in Kent. We heard evidence and arguments from the promoters, the petitioners, their counsel and witnesses over the course of eleven days. Having considered the bills, we have found that the proposals in each are broadly justified for the purpose sought.

3. In reaching our decision we were mindful of precedent: similar provisions have been enacted through the private bill procedure on eight occasions since 1980.[1] A further bill containing such provisions is currently before the House.[2] While these precedents testify to the value of such powers for local authorities, however, they have also caused us some concern. We think it appropriate to report the substance of our concerns—which go wider than the bills we were tasked with scrutinising—to the House.

4. Erskine May tells us that private legislation is "legislation of a special kind for conferring particular powers or benefits on any person or body of persons—including individuals, local authorities, companies or corporations—in excess of or in conflict with the general law. As such it is to be distinguished from public general legislation which is applicable to the general community".[3] The local and particular nature of private bills is reflected not only in the way they are dealt with on the floor of the House but also in the powers of, and constraints upon, committees charged with their close scrutiny. Committees on opposed private bills must weigh up the arguments presented by interested parties and determine whether the balance of interest lies with the promoters, or the petitioners (being those directly and specially affected by the provisions of the bills). They may not consider the cases of those who have not petitioned and, having no powers to summon witnesses other than those presented by the parties, have only a limited ability to compare the proposals with others previously made.

5. Nonetheless, our attention was drawn to the precedent acts by all the parties. While the provisions in the Kent and Medway bills were precedented they differed in a number of respects from the earlier acts which were not, themselves, entirely uniform. Only one act, for example, provided for the recording by registered dealers of sales as well as purchases.[4]

6. We heard from the petitioners that, although the provisions of the Kent and Medway bills are local, they will affect dealers who trade on a national basis.[5] Consequently there was a concern that if provisions akin to those in the Kent and Medway bills were introduced in further such bills, dealers would find themselves grappling with a number of subtly different regulatory regimes as they travelled around the country. The likelihood of dealers unwittingly committing offences against local legislation, we were told, was strong.[6] This was a powerful argument for introducing a single, national, regulatory structure.

7. The promoters equally told us that national legislation to regulate the second-hand market was desirable; but they understood that there was little prospect of it being introduced in the near future. They thus argued that their bills were necessary in order to deal locally with the market in stolen goods. It was put to Deputy Chief Constable Robert Ayling that the introduction of such provisions on a local basis would have a displacement effect on criminal activity. He accepted that this might be a result.[7] Sergeant Dan Murphy and Mr Mark Dalrymple went further in suggesting that, as a consequence of the bills being enacted, adjoining counties might in turn resort to local legislation as a means to tackle illegal trade.[8]

8. Speculation as to the future activities of other authorities could not form part of our deliberations in respect of the bills before us. Nonetheless we consider that, should an increasing number of local authorities seek equivalent powers, the variation in the regimes—already evidenced in the existing local acts—would be profoundly undesirable, both in terms of enforcement and in the burden imposed upon honest trade. We further note that a public act was called for by all the parties although this was beyond our powers to grant.

9. We strongly believe that any proposal to decrease the market in stolen goods should decrease the market, not displace it. This can only be achieved by the introduction of a national regulatory structure. The Government should reconsider the case for public legislation to regulate the market in second-hand goods. Such legislation needs to be introduced at an early stage. We hereby draw this matter to the attention of the House.


1  County of Merseyside Act 1980 (c.x, s34); South Yorkshire Act 1980 (c.xxxvii, s52 ); Greater Manchester Act 1981 (c.ix, s54 ); Humberside Act 1982 (c.iii, s48 ); County of Lancashire Act 1984 (c.xxi, s26, 27 ); Hereford City Council Act 1985 (c.xlii, s15 ); Worcester City Council Act 1985 (c.xliii, s20, 21 ); North Yorkshire Act 1991 (c.xiv, s6-12 ) Back
2  City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [LordsBack
3  Erskine May, 22nd edition p849 Back
4  North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991 s7(4); transcript of evidence, day 9, page 26 Back
5  Day 9, page 17 Back
6  Day 9, pages 26-27 Back
7  Day 7, page 58 para 171 Back
8  Day 5 (AM session) page 35 para 215; Day 5 (PM session) page 17 paragraphs 78-80 Back

 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 21 November 2000