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 [Lords] Back
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
|
