Select Committee on Unopposed Bill Committee on the Medway Council Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witness by the Committee (Questions 80-99)

MR GAVIN WILDERS

16 JUNE 2004

80. CHAIRMAN: Rapidly?

(Mr Wilders) Steadily.

 81. CHAIRMAN: Why Medway?

(Mr Wilders) Medway is the largest urban area in Kent. We have got commercial and historic centres that the rest of the district authorities around us do not necessarily have and although we are not a county town like Maidstone is, we are a focus for a lot of footfall commercial activity and the festivals we put on are attracting a large number of people into the area. There are very, very large regeneration schemes going on in Medway, especially around Chatham at the moment which is going to make it a regional centre. That is encouraging more people to live in Medway, more income into Medway, so you are encouraging traders to come in as well. What we are finding is that we are getting people coming to trade in Medway now who would have traditionally traded in Maidstone.

 82. CHAIRMAN: You commented on the role of the police in this. There are also trading standards officers who look at the kind of goods being sold and there must also be laws about hazards in streets and so on. Do you not think these matters could be dealt with by the law as it already exists?

(Mr Wilders) We do not think it can be. Again, you are right, we do have trading standards officers. Trading standards, if you look at the full range of services that they provide within the team, deal with enforcement issues to do with things such as under­age sales of alcohol, cigarettes to children, going out and enforcing against car traders etcetera, etcetera. It comes back to what I was saying earlier about trading standards officers, environmental health officers and the role that they play. It is pertinent we have them going out and doing a level of street scene enforcement and within Medway it is something that we have given out to our wardens.

 83. MR LEWIS: You told me about a case brought under the highways legislation where you did try to deal with it as a matter of obstruction.

(Mr Wilders) We did, and unfortunately it was the same trader that we failed in court with over the preparation of his goods. We used the highways legislation and seized a barrow and stored it for about six months whilst waiting to go to court. The judgment of the court was that we had behaved too onerously and we had (a) to give the barrow back, and (b) pay compensation for loss of business during the time that we were holding the barrow.

 84. CHAIRMAN: You mentioned complaints from other traders, the more legitimate traders. Have you had any complaints from residents?

(Mr Wilders) We have had complaints from residents. In the last two years we have had 150 complaints from residents just for the Chatham area alone.

 85. CHAIRMAN: The other question is about proportionality. I do not know whether either or both of you would like to comment on that. I think we are being asked as a Committee to question whether we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut in human rights terms. What are your thoughts on that, Mr Lewis or Mr Wilders?

 86. MR LEWIS: I hope we have outlined and driven home to you what the problem is. We think it is a big problem. I did say that pedlars would still be able to trade door to door if that is what they wished to do, but clearly the people who you are really trying to get to are not such people. These are people who in our view are in effect acting as street traders and deliberately not applying for street trading consent for whatever reason, it might be the high fees, it may be the onerous conditions which we say are legitimate conditions and therefore proportional, or it may be that they fear the Council would not grant them a consent either because the street is already full up. I have said that that is not actually the case in all three centres. It may be because the Council would say, "Yes, you could have a consent but you are not selling that," again for legitimate reasons, which again we say goes towards the proportionality argument. We look to the precedents as well, although just because there is an Act in Westminster and in the whole of Northern Ireland and in Newcastle and in fact next month the whole of London does not mean that those Acts are necessarily incompatible with the Convention and we would have to wait and see until there is a decision to the contrary. As far as I am aware there has been no challenge in Westminster and that Act has been in force now for five years.

 87. CHAIRMAN: Are you saying that Mr Wilders is saying in essence that the pedlars as defined in the 1871 Act no longer exist?

 88. MR LEWIS: That is the essence of our case, yes.

(Mr Wilders) Certainly in our area.

 89. CHAIRMAN: And in your experience of trying to do the job you have never seen the kind of pedlars ---?

(Mr Wilders) We have never seen anyone peddling from door to door, certainly. We think these are people that are trading without giving the consumer the benefit of any recourse, without having the same constraints as permanent traders and shops in the high street have. Coming back to the proportionality, we do not want to stop legitimate trading. What we want to do is have measures in place so that we can protect our consumers. We want to be able to look at the type of trading in our area and make sure there is a fair mix of trading that is being carried out. As part of our work with this Bill we went out and did consultation and not only did we consult with people like trading standards, the police and fire authorities, town centre forums; we also tried to consult with at least two of our main pedlars that were down there. One of them was the chap that we had taken the court case against and we wrote to him at the address that was provided on his pedlar's certificate and got no reply. We did actually consult with a couple that operate a burger stall down there and they came and had a meeting with me where we discussed the various issues and we said, "We are not trying to stop legitimate trading. It may be that we want to control the mix of trading in the area", and they went away quite happy and said, "Okay. If it turns out that we cannot trade with burgers any more, we are legitimate traders, we used to be market traders. Would you accept an application from us to be trading other goods?", and we said, "Yes, and as long as you meet the conditions on the application you can have a consent to trade".

 90. MR BAILEY: I suppose it is the issue of proportionality again. I think in your submission you said that a number of local authorities or organisations had taken this particular route and I think I am right in saying that they were the Council of Westminster, the Royal Parks and the Northern Ireland Assembly; is that correct?

 91. MR LEWIS: The Royal Parks are slightly different. In the Royal Parks there is an outright ban on any sort of trading at all. There are no exemptions for peddling. What they have done in the Royal Parks is take the seizure powers but they did not need to do anything about the pedlars' exemption because there was not one. It is London, including Westminster but not the City because they have their own regime, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Ulster.

 92. MR BAILEY: My first reaction is that that is a relatively small number of commercial centres in comparison to the huge numbers where this sort of activity takes place but whilst I am in no way wishing to be disrespectful to Medway's commercial pull, why does Medway have to resort to this particular process when other commercial centres do not? Do other centres manage it in a different way?

 93. MR LEWIS: It is difficult for us to answer that question, not knowing what the other city centres do.

 94. MR BAILEY: I would expect the council officer to have an idea.

(Mr Wilders) Certainly. We have discussed this with other authorities throughout Kent. The type of trading that we have appears to be unique within Kent. In talking to other authorities' enforcement officers, they do not have the high levels of activity that we have in a number of centres. Again, most authorities, because they have one town centre, have a fairly focused area of commercial activity. Ours is spread over five centres and we have problems in three of those because of the historic nature of the area as well. With the festivals we are attracting a lot of people into that area and because of that there is a greater commercial ability. Having discussed it both at police-wide groups that I sit on and what used to be the Chief Environmental Health Officers' Group throughout Kent, no-one appears to have the level of activity that we are experiencing.

 95. MR LEWIS: I think it is fair to say that other local authorities know what happens in Westminster. I certainly know that myself, having been approached by councils with queries about the legislation and there has been at least one adjournment debate on the issue. I think it was some time ago now, perhaps three or four years ago, and I do recall seeing an Early Day Motion where Members from all parties were calling for wholesale reform of the pedlars' legislation. I think it is a nationwide issue. It is just that so far Newcastle, London and Medway have bitten the bullet. There has not been a floodgate opening since Westminster promoted their legislation but there may be more in the pipeline; I do not know.

 96. MR BAILEY: Let us say in effect that you believe it is a problem common to other local authorities in other parts of the country but you are effectively trailblazing a process for dealing with it.

 97. MR LEWIS: We have a distinct problem and this is a matter which has exercised Parliament on occasions before where promoters have been asked, "What is your special problem?", and in cases such as that promoters have willingly conceded that it may well be a general problem but it is a problem which affects them so much that they require the law to be amended to meet the special concerns that they have in their own area.

 98. MR BAILEY: Can I advance another question which comes back to the prosecution/seizure issue? Would the way that you envisage the working of this policy, if it is enacted, mean that you would seize property rather than prosecute pedlars operating without licences?

 99. MR LEWIS: I think the way that it has to work is that the council must prosecute.

(Mr Wilders) Yes, it is.


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 30 June 2004