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.
| 
