|
HOUSE OF COMMONS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCEtaken before the UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEEon the READING BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL Before: Sir Michael Lord, in the Chair Mr Adrian Bailey Gordon Banks Peter Bottomley Sir Robert Smith
[Mr Peter Davis, Counsel for Domestic Legislation, in attendance]
MR ALASTAIR LEWIS of SHARPE PRITCHARD appeared as Agent. 1. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon everybody, Mr Lewis and your team and colleagues. Could we ask Mr Lewis to explain to the Committee the position and take us through it and either you yourself or perhaps some of your colleagues explain the differences between the approaches of the four different authorities. 2. MR
LEWIS: I will, sir. Today I am here before you on behalf of the
four different local authorities who are promoting the Bills. We have one metropolitan district council,
which is Leeds City Council; we have two unitary authorities, Reading Borough
Council and Nottingham City Council; and we have the traditional district
council of 3. Sir, the approach I am hoping to take today, if that is acceptable, is that I will provide a relatively brief introduction to the Bills in the way that you asked and I was then intending, if the Committee thought it would be helpful, to call just one witness primarily to explain the difficulties that are faced in their area, and that will be Mr Mortlock from Reading who is sitting at the front there. If the Committee wanted to hear anything about the difficulties faced by the other councils then we do have witnesses here who can also explain the problems that they are facing. 4. CHAIRMAN: Are we assuming that Mr Mortlock will just deal with his own authority? 5. MR LEWIS: He will deal with his own authority but I can say, I think quite confidently, that the four different authorities are all facing very similar problems. We have before you in your bundles, as you will have seen, a number of photographs in particular which exhibit what the difficulties faced by the councils are. 6. CHAIRMAN: If we follow that procedure and perhaps we will find that the differences between the authorities will come out when colleagues ask questions. 7. MR LEWIS: Indeed. Sir, I will start off by saying that, as you would expect, all four councils have gone through all the necessary preliminary formal steps that they need to take under local government legislation to approve the promotion of these Bills. There have been two full council resolutions passed in favour of the promotion of these Bills, both passed unanimously and with cross-party support. There have been no government reports against these Bills except in relation to human rights, and I will deal with that later on because I have to. 8. The common theme, as I am sure you know, is street trading. There are four individual common themes relating to street trading which all four Bills deal with. The first is pedlars which I am going to come on to probably last because it has been the most contentious part of these Bills in times past and on the floor of the House leading up to today's proceedings. The second is the extension of the street trading regime to cover the provision of services on the street, not just goods. That is common to all four Bills. There are provisions which allow better enforcement of unlicensed street trading by giving powers to all four councils to seize goods and have them forfeited by the courts. Finally, the fourth common thread is the ability for the councils to issue fixed penalties when they find that an offence of unlicensed street trading has been committed. 9. There
are two provisions which are not consistent across the four Bills. The first one is touting. By that I do not mean ticket touting but
touting for trade or business. So in
Canterbury and Reading there is a clause, and I will come on to this in a bit
more detail later, which prohibits touting for certain types of business on the
streets of Canterbury and Reading. The
other provision which is not uniform across the four Bills is in fact ticket
touting as it happens. 10. Street
trading across the country, except in 11. The councils can also leave areas within their area completely unregulated so that street trading can carry on without any consent licence or anything else. The basis of the 1982 Act is to enable the council effectively to deal with issues of safety, obstruction, competition and consumer protection. 12. Just
going through each of the four councils, in 13. Just
dealing with the Bill, I think of the four Reading is probably the best one for
the Committee to take up in terms of the clauses because it includes not only
the touting provision but it also includes an additional amendment to the Bill
which only Reading and Leeds are seeking before you today and which I will come
on to in detail. I was intending, as I
said earlier, to take the clauses slightly out of order and deal with pedlars
towards the end, being perhaps the most controversial provision. In the 14. Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill deal with the formalities so I will not dwell on those. 15. Clause
4 is the clause which extends the provision of street trading legislation to
services. It is precedented in 16. PETER BOTTOMLEY: Whitening or widening? 17. MR LEWIS: Whitening. Clause 4(2)(b), if you look in the Reading Bill, deals with the ticket touting issue which I mentioned. It extends it to the purchasing of and offering to purchase tickets. We would say that the sale of tickets is actually already covered because tickets can be counted as goods, but not purchasing. As you will be aware, professional ticket touts do not just sell tickets, they buy tickets too, so this is intended to cover them. It is a particularly prevalent problem in Reading which is one of the two councils promoting this legislation, because of the Reading Festival, where there is a serious issue and where there is evidence, I am told, of serious criminal activity lying behind the ticket touting that goes on there. 18. There
is again a precedent and again it is 19. Clauses 6 to 10, if you look at the Reading Bill, deal with enforcement and again these clauses are picked up by all four councils. The difficulty with the street trading legislation which the councils are trying to face here is that whilst the maximum fine for offences of unlawful street trading is a £1,000 fine, it is very rare for the magistrates to give that sort of fine. We are talking usually of fines between £50 to £150-£200. I know that Bournemouth are not before you today but again last week in the Select Committee I think there was evidence of a fine of £2.50 in one instance for unlawful street trading. It is seen by the Promoters as something of an occupational hazard for the unlawful street traders because a lot of them are repeat offenders. I was told today for example that there was a case before the magistrates in Canterbury today where either one of the magistrates or the court clerk, we are not clear who, said, "We are going to hand down this fine but we are not going to bother chasing you because you are a repeat offender and we know we are not going to be able to recover it." In Leeds Mr Sanderson told me today that they had a recent repeat offender who was given a conditional discharge simply because the court knew that they would not be able to recover the fine from the chap. 20. The same goes for the council's costs of prosecuting. Not only can the courts impose a fine, they can also require the offender to pay the council's costs of prosecution. Usually the costs order does not go anywhere near meeting the actual cost in any event, but even when a cost order is made, again, the same difficulties with recovery are faced by the courts. I was not going to say anything more on the seizure provisions other than to say effectively what they do is allow the council an additional set of teeth, if you like, because when they suspect a street trading offence is being committed, it allows them to seize objects which are related to the unlawful street trading and then ask the magistrates' court to forfeit those goods on conviction. 21. Again, the provisions are very well precedented. In London they have been around since 1990 and I know for a fact that they have worked extremely well in London, in particular for example in Westminster, where there still remains a bit of a problem with hot dog vendors but it was an incredibly big problem some years ago and the powers of seizure have made it much more difficult for that sort of trader to work. 22. CHAIRMAN: Can you explain how today's proceedings are going to improve the non-payment of fines? 23. PETER BOTTOMLEY: Seizures. 24. MR LEWIS: It is exactly as Mr Bottomley says. We will not be able to improve on the recovery of fines by this legislation, but it is the additional threat of the seizure. In a sense it is a type of additional punishment, if you like. The trader is stopped from trading that day if the council is allowed to take the goods and in many cases we suspect, and if my knowledge of London is followed, the trader will not appear in court when he is prosecuted because in many cases the council will not be able to find where he is and so it is a deterrent. If they do take the offender to court and he does bother to show up then I suspect that the fines may well stay at the sort of level that I have just explained, but the court will have the additional power to forfeit the goods. 25. SIR ROBERT SMITH: Obviously if it turns out that they were wrong and the goods are returned, is there any compensation for the loss? 26. MR LEWIS: There is. It is clause 10 which provides for compensation where seizure is unlawful. 27. SIR ROBERT SMITH: Are you saying the council might have difficulty finding the person but obviously when the seizure takes place the person has the ability to give an accurate address if they want their stuff back? 28. MR LEWIS: Yes, they can, and in fact there are provisions in here which require the council to give a certificate to the person which effectively tells him how he can get his goods back too, but of course with a lot of these cases - I do not want to give evidence but I am sure this can be confirmed by nods - it is very difficult to establish the name of the person in the first place because he is here today and gone tomorrow. 29. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 30. MR LEWIS: Clauses 12 to 18, if you look at the Reading Bill, deal with fixed penalties. I would imagine this is a familiar regime for Members. It provides a more cost-effective and straightforward alternative to prosecution whereby a council officer or a constable would be able to give a fixed penalty notice to somebody who they suspect of unlawful street trading and the recipient can discharge his criminal liability by paying the fixed penalty. It follows road traffic fixed penalty legislation and has been picked up by local authorities in terms of litter, dog fouling and environmental crimes. 31. GORDON BANKS: Can I just ask a question on that. You said a few moments ago that it will not increase the collection of fines and you lump fixed penalty notices into that at the same point in time, so the cost effectiveness would be that it would not take a court case to produce the penalty? 32. MR LEWIS: Exactly right so it is an alternative to spending all that money. 33. GORDON BANKS: To not get anything. 34. MR LEWIS: To not get anything, quite right, exactly right. As I said, it is very well precedented amongst local authorities as are the provisions which I should mention which allow the local authorities to set the level of fixed penalty themselves, subject to a fallback to the Secretary of State to intervene if he thinks that the level is too high. It also allows local authorities to keep the proceeds of fixed penalties too and apply them to improving the amenity of the area. 35. I am not saying for one instant, by the way, that the councils are expecting to make a huge amount of money out of these fixed penalties because I would imagine in many of the cases because of the reasons I have already mentioned they just will not hear anything from the recipient of the fixed penalty and they will not be able to find them either. It does give another string to the bow. 36. GORDON BANKS: Can I ask a question on that. For a seizure to work does a fixed penalty have to be given? 37. MR LEWIS: A fixed penalty notice has to be given to the recipient first. 38. GORDON BANKS: Before seizure? 39. MR LEWIS: No, seizure is completely separate. The council officer will now have a range of options in front of him. He can either seize and say, "Right, give me your name" - maybe he gets Mickey Mouse, maybe he gets the proper name - "because I am going to take you to the magistrates' court because I think this is a particularly serious offence," or he will be able to seize and serve a fixed penalty notice as well, so those are the options. 40. GORDON BANKS: So they can go together? 41. MR LEWIS: Yes, they can go together, that is right, yes, but with the fixed penalty procedure the recipient always has the ability to say, once he receives a fixed penalty, he does not have to pay it, he could ignore it, but he always has the ability to say, "Hang on a minute, I am not guilty," and go to the magistrates' courts and defend himself. 42. MR BAILEY: Can I just explore this a little further. On apprehension the pedlar, as you say, has the ability to say, "No, I will not pay the fixed penalty," but goods could be seized. If he said, "Yes, I will pay the fixed penalty," presumably those goods would not be seized, or would they? 43. PETER BOTTOMLEY: It is not the only reason they could be seized. 44. MR LEWIS: No. 45. GORDON BANKS: Presumably they could be counterfeit goods which would generate a reason for seizure. 46. MR LEWIS: Yes but under separate legislation rather than under this legislation. I need to remind myself what the Bill says on that. 47. PETER
BOTTOMLEY: 6(1) - I am looking at 48. MR LEWIS: That's correct and I am just looking at the fixed penalty procedures. 49. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we ought to let Mr Lewis finish his commentary and then pick these things up. I can see heads nodding and people having different views as they are thinking about these things. 50. MR LEWIS: Clause 8(3) provides the safeguard. There is firstly the concept that you can seize and offer a fixed penalty notice. 8(3) provides the circumstances in which goods must be returned if the fixed penalty is paid. 51. CHAIRMAN: Mr Lewis, we will let you proceed I think for a while. 52. MR
LEWIS: I was next going to briefly
mention touting. Again it is in 53. Now I will move on, if I may, to pedlars. As Members will no doubt be aware, the reason it has taken us so long to get here is because of the controversial nature of the pedlars provisions. The 1982 Miscellaneous Provisions Act provides for a number of exemptions from the street trading regime, ie people who do not need to have a licence if they want to trade on the street. One is for persons who are acting as a pedlar with the authority of a pedlar's certificate under the Pedlars Act 1871. That Act of 1871 regularised what was already an ancient practice and its language, we say, reflects the time in which it was passed. The exemption for pedlars applies throughout each of the areas of the council. Even in prohibited streets where street trading is prohibited it is still acceptable to trade as a pedlar but the exemption would also apply in consent and licensed streets as well. 54. What
the amendment does across all four councils is to restrict its scope so that
peddling would only be allowed from house to house. There is additional protection in the
amendments which are being proffered by 55. Just to demonstrate the ancient nature of the 1871 Act I am afraid I am going to recite once again the definition of a pedlar, which I have done before in committees like this before many times and which has been recited on the floor of the House now countless times. It is: "Any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, mender of chairs or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men's houses, carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares or merchandise, or procuring orders for goods, wares or merchandise immediately to be delivered, or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft." 56. You will see that that is a rather old-fashioned definition and the courts have taken many different decisions as to what it actually means and it has remained unamended I believe since 1871. 57. However, not for long. The Government, in compliance with the Services Directive, is having to look through all legislation to ensure that it is compliant with that Directive and I believe that menders of chairs are soon to be released from the great burdens of the Pedlars Act 1871 because they are providing a service and there are restrictions under the Pedlars Act which are obviously seen by the Government as being too restrictive on menders of chairs from the Continent. 58. CHAIRMAN: Where is the Directive coming from, can I ask you? 59. MR LEWIS: It is European. 60. CHAIRMAN: And that will cover onion sellers on bicycles as well, will it? 61. MR LEWIS: No, that would not be covered because of course they are not offering a service. They are selling goods so your onion sellers will be all right. 62. I
ought to explain the procedure for obtaining a pedlar's certificate under the
1871 Act because it is an important part of our case. Certificates are issued by the police and not
local authorities. All that the
applicant has to demonstrate is that he has been living in the police area for
at least a month, that he is over 17, that he is of good character and that in
good faith he intends to carry on the trade of a pedlar. Once an application has been granted the
pedlar is able to utilise the certificate freely anywhere in the country. So a person can obtain a pedlar's certificate
in Leeds and trade in 63. The fee that the pedlar has to pay is £12.25 and that is for a whole year and that in itself causes considerable resentment, particularly amongst the street traders with consents and licences from the council who, as you will hear, have to pay a lot more. 64. Obviously, as I have just mentioned, one of the big differences between pedlar's certificates and street trading consents is that pedlar's certificates are portable whereas a street trading pitch is usually on a fixed pitch. For street trading licences the council will assess the applicant in some depth. They will make checks with the local police and they will check their own prosecution records for unlicensed street trading. I think again the councils will probably say - and this is no criticism of the police I should add because they obviously have other priorities - that the police checks may not be quite so thorough. 65. As I said, the
big difference in fees is another cause of resentment. As I say, it is £12.25 a year for a
pedlar. In 66. CHAIRMAN: Could I just ask a question. Are pedlar's certificates still being issued and in what kind of numbers and by whom? 67. MR LEWIS: They are still being issued and they are still being issued by the police. This is something which the Government is looking at, I think, as part of its on-going review of the pedlars legislation as to whether it is appropriate for the police, with all their other responsibilities, to be dealing with this. There may be national legislation coming forward to deal with that particular issue at some time in the future. 68. PETER BOTTOMLEY: There is a letter where they talk about 35 licensed traders and 100 consents. 69. MR LEWIS: They are the ones who have the licences and consents. I am afraid I do not know offhand how many pedlar's certificates are issued, but I do not think there has been a decrease in recent years. I suspect, if anything, it has increased but I am afraid I cannot really say for certain. It is very difficult to say because of course you would have to ask every single police authority to come up with the number. 70. SIR ROBERT SMITH: Do the pedlars get to choose which policy authority or is it based on residence? 71. MR
LEWIS: Cynics might say they do but
what they are meant to do is choose the police authority in the area in which
they live. As I say, one of the criteria
of obtaining a pedlar's certificate is that you have to have been resident in
the area for four weeks, I think it is.
That is one of the reasons why the Services Directive impinges on the
pedlars provision because if you are living in 72. If
I can turn to one of the main issues of today and that is the amendment that is
being proposed by 73. The
effect of the amendment would be that in addition to being able to trade from
house-to-house those with pedlar's certificates would be able to continue
trading under the authority of their certificate so long as they did so by
carrying all their equipment and used no other means of support for that
equipment. In effect going back to what
the government-sponsored 74. I
should mention that there is a slight difference between the two different sets
of amendments. If you turn up the 75. With
the Reading Festival problem what Reading Borough Council do not want to find
is that pedlars can still trade without their stall but still act as ticket
touts. That is the distinction between
the two. 76. I think it is fair to say that both councils feel the amendment will inevitably weaken the legislation, but it will not alter the main thrust with is to ease their problems of enforcement in particular against those with the large barrows and stalls which are the main blight for them. 77. On
the other side of the coin you will no doubt want to hear why Nottingham and 78. The
issues shared by 79. Another
issue which I did not raise earlier and should have done is that the councils
have at least some control over the quality of the goods if they are the
licensing authority. It is much easier,
for example if there are complaints about the quality of goods, for the council
to be able to trace their own licensed street traders. They know where they are, they know their
addresses. With a pedlar it is
different. As I said, they could be from
a completely different side of the country, as the evidence will show, if you
want to hear if there are some issues about fraudulent use of pedlar's
certificates as well. Those are the main
reasons why 80. I
mentioned briefly then a report by the 81. The Government's own summary, which I have also put in on page 9 of our bundle there, says similarly about halfway down under the heading "Updating of Pedlars Act: "However the report does recognise that there may be specific problems in some areas eg major city centres that attract large numbers of traders potentially posing a public safety risk and that this may require a localised solution." One reason why the Promoters of these Bills do not want to wait to see if the Government will do anything about this is because of course there is no certainty that they will or when it might take place. I have mentioned this before on previous occasions but the City of Westminster were the first to promote this type of legislation and their Bill was actually introduced in 1996 and the Home Office reported against it saying it was too premature, they were about to conduct a review of the pedlars legislation. That still has not happened. That is one of the reasons why we are still hanging on. There may be some time in the future when the problem will be dealt with nationally. My own view is that the specific problem of enforcement probably will not be. There may be national legislation dealing with the issue for example of who issues pedlar's certificates, should it be the police or should it be the local authority, or maybe an increase in the fee for a pedlar's certificate, but whether this issue of enforcement is grasped is a different question. 82. Finally, before introducing any evidence, I have to deal with human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has taken the view that it should be for this Committee to ensure that the Bill is compatible as all the councils say on the front of their Bills. In his report Mr Thomas, the Minister on Human Rights, says that he is satisfied that the Promoters have undertaken a full assessment of ECHR compatibility and he sees no reason to dispute their conclusions. He goes on to say that he has not seen the evidence the Promoters rely on to justify a restriction as being in the general interest, and again that is what we are intending to do today. 83. I am assuming that the restrictions to which Mr Thomas refers are those restrictions on pedlars but not any other restrictions in the Bill. This would follow the position that has been taken on previous similar Bills. In those cases, the evidence given to the Committees in both Houses in support of the Bill sufficed and that is the course of action that I propose to take today. 84. The Promoters recognise that Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention is engaged because the economic benefit deriving from the licence, which probably includes a pedlar's certificate, has been held to be capable of constituting a possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol. Article 1 has three rules and the third is the relevant one here. It recognises that states are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest by enforcing such rules as they deem necessary for the purpose. Restrictions on the right of a person holding a licence to exercise that right are likely to be held to fall within the third rule, namely because it is the control of the use of property that is being envisaged here. For a measure constituting a control of use to be justified, firstly it must be in accordance with the law and, secondly, in accordance with the general interest. Thirdly, the measure must be proportionate to the aim pursued. 85. The provisions of the Bill comply with the first requirement in that the control of use would be in accordance with the law. The European Court of Rights has recognised that states have a wide margin of appreciation in determining the necessity for interference with a person's possessions. If by my introduction and by the evidence the Promoters establish that the proposed restriction on the holder of a pedlar's certificate is in the general interest, then the second requirement would be fulfilled. 86. The third requirement that the interference be proportionate to the aim pursued requires that a fair balance be struck between the means employed in the furtherance of the general interest identified and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. A wider margin of appreciation is permitted in cases concerning control, as in this case, than in cases concerning deprivation. The means employed in the general interest, namely the restriction on pedlars trading in prohibited streets or in consent or licensed streets, save when granted a consent or licence, is likely, the councils submit, to be considered to be proportionate and to strike a fair balance. It should not be forgotten that holders of pedlar's certificates would still be able to trade door to door and in Reading and Leeds will be able to trade without a barrow stall and they will able to apply for consents and licences from the councils in consent and licensed streets. 87. That is all I was going to say in the introduction, you will be relieved to hear. I can call Mr Mortlock to perhaps give a local flavour if that is what the Committee would like to hear. 88. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that would be a good idea. MR JOHN MORTLOCK, Sworn Examined by MR LEWIS 89. MR LEWIS: Could you introduce yourself, Mr Mortlock? (Mr Mortlock) Yes I
will. I am John Mortlock. I am employed by Reading Borough Council as a
team leader with the licensing and enforcement section. I have been with the council since 1998,
originally as a senior licensing officer, and then from 2004 I became a team
leader within the same section. Prior to
that I was a member of Thames Valley Police Force. I served with them for 33 years, retiring in
1998. I have spent the last 33 years in
and around the 90. For
those members of the Committee who are unfamiliar with the (Mr Mortlock) Yes I can. Reading itself is the county town of 91. So in effect it is a big regional shopping destination? (Mr Mortlock) Yes, indeed, it is. 92. If the Committee could turn up this bundle of documents which is the Reading Borough Council appendices, we will briefly skip through those. If the Committee could turn to page 5, which is appendix 2, the number is on the bottom right-hand corner, could you briefly describe the pedestrianised town centre. (Mr Mortlock) What you have
in front of you are two maps. One is
just in a map formation but the other one is a more detailed map in
colour. It shows as you look at the
picture from left to right, left is 93. And that is the street I mentioned earlier where the cost of the consent is over £5,000? (Mr Mortlock) That's correct, yes, indeed. 94. Would I be right in saying if you look at the aerial photograph on page 6 that the brown-coloured streets are in effect pedestrianised streets? (Mr Mortlock) Yes, that is pedestrianised and you will see that it is covered with trees and there are seating areas and a whole host of areas where people can relax whilst they are shopping. 95. If we could then move on to appendix 4 which starts on page 13, sir, this section demonstrates to you, you will not be surprised to hear, one of the traders who does have a consent from the council, so, Mr Mortlock, could you briefly flick through them. Does the Committee have them? The first one is the Hot Sausage Company. (Mr Mortlock) The Hot Sausage Company. That gentleman has been there as long as I can remember and, as you can see, he has a stall which is in fine shape and he does a very good trade there. 96. Is
he on (Mr Mortlock) He is on 97. The next one? (Mr Mortlock) The next one almost opposite him is again another stall which has been there for a long time. 98. Are they the licence holders looking pleased with themselves or are they customers? (Mr Mortlock) They are customers in actual fact that were just partaking in the photograph that we happened to be taking at the time. 99. In
the next one you can see the two stalls opposite each other and that is (Mr Mortlock) Virtually, yes, and that is facing west. 100. CHAIRMAN: These are the people paying £5,000? (Mr Mortlock) These people are paying in excess of £5,000 per annum. 101. MR LEWIS: If you go to page 17 you will see a florist there. I am going to try to find, if the Committee put their finger at number 17 and then try to flick through to number 33, you might get a flavour of why the florist paying thousands of pounds a year for his licence might not be too pleased to see someone like the trader that you see on page 33 effectively being able to trade right next door to him. Is that fair enough? First of all, we should make clear that what this chap at number 33 is selling are not actually real flowers, are they? (Mr Mortlock) No, they are in fact wooden roses. We get a selection of wooden, plastic and paper. We do also get real flowers especially on Valentine's Day and Mother's Day and that type of thing but they prefer to be fairly close to the proper flower seller. 102. SIR ROBERT SMITH: 17 is real flowers and a licensed trader? (Mr Mortlock) Indeed. 103. CHAIRMAN: And 32 is trading illegally? 104. MR LEWIS: This is the whole issue. He will have a pedlar's certificate probably. I am sure I will be told if he does not have one. (Mr Mortlock) He does have a pedlar's certificate. 105. He has a wheelbarrow which High Court authority says he is allowed to have and he is presumably moving it around now and again but maybe not because whilst the local authority officers are not watching him, whilst the police are not there, I should imagine he is just standing still, is he not? (Mr Mortlock) They do, predominantly they do stand still and that is our problem, yes. 106. MR LEWIS: I do not know if we can very quickly flick through the rest. The Committee will get a flavour. 107. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask how will what we are doing today stop that? 108. MR
LEWIS: What the Bill will say is
that effectively you cannot trade in the Borough of Reading under the authority
of a pedlar's certificate unless you are trading either house to house, which
this guy is not, or you are carrying all your goods unsupported, which this guy
is not. He might still be able to wander
around with a couple of buckets of wooden flowers and I suppose there is an
argument to say that is still acting in competition with the chap with his
£5,000 licence but it is on nowhere near the same kind of scale. Unfortunately it will not deal on Valentine's
Day, which would be the florist's best day of the year, with people carrying
bunches of roses around and selling them with a pedlar's certificate and
holding them. As I have said, Reading have
taken a pragmatic view that offering the amendment to Mr Chope to satisfy him
is the way forward and it is something effectively that they are having to live
with. If we could then move on to
appendix 7 which is where we found number 33 and it begins at number 29, it is (Mr Mortlock) Yes, that is 109. And this time instead of the consent traders these photographs concentrate on the traders who do not have a consent from the council but do have a pedlar's certificate and the Promoters say are effectively carrying out street trading, but with all the difficulties that go with enforcement. Are all four or five stalls that you can see on page 29 --- (Mr Mortlock) In fact there are more than that. At times we do have up to 13 of these at any one time, perhaps all selling the same articles. 110. MR LEWIS: If you look at 30, there you see a stark example of a licensed trader and okay, selling different goods, a pedlar effectively trading almost next door, and then on the next page you see three different traders, and then the next one again three, four, possibly. We have seen 33. A couple on 34, three on 35, and then how many have we got in 36? The Committee has an idea. It is a lot. 111. CHAIRMAN: I think we have got the flavour of it. 112. MR LEWIS: Of course even if it were easy to take enforcement action against one of these individuals, it makes it much, much more difficult if there is a lot of them because you have to watch all of them to make sure they are all moving at the same time. That means having a lot of enforcement officers or a lot of officers reviewing a lot of CCTV footage and wasting a lot of time in effect. 113. CHAIRMAN: Are we still with Mr Mortlock? 114. MR
LEWIS: We are. For brevity I was not
really going to introduce much more evidence because that really puts the
problem in stark perspective. Mr
Mortlock has come prepared to deal with questions about deficiencies in the
pedlar's certificate and the way it operates, the way the police grant them and
difficulties they found in enforcement and the sort of traders they have. He can tell you what they sell and where they
come from, which in itself is interesting, they do not all come from 115. CHAIRMAN: Unless you have anybody else you want to call at this stage it might be helpful if members of the Committee ask any questions they have got. 116. MR LEWIS: Certainly. The only other
thing I would have done, so you get the impression that it is not just 117. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 118. MR LEWIS: I am happy to leave you with that and any questions from the Committee. 119. MR BOTTOMLEY: We were hearing you justify and demonstrate the fact there is a problem and that the proposed solution is proportionate. Could you look at page 54, which is part of the enforcement experience. 120. MR
LEWIS: Is this the 121. MR
BOTTOMLEY: Yes, the 122. MR LEWIS: Yes. 123. MR
BOTTOMLEY: Where we see the oddity under G, Greenburg. Three Greenburgs selling pashminas, all with
pedlar's licences from Devon and (Mr Mortlock) I think, Sir, that is information recorded by the police. It may not be the same police station, but it
is all 124. MR
LEWIS: Of course Reading has no control over the issue of these pedlar's
certificates, it is 125. MR BOTTOMLEY: I think I am satisfied it is an issue, I am not satisfied it does not put people out of business. It allows them to be reasonably rigorous. 126. MR BANKS: If I could ask one question relating to the ticket touting aspect you talked about earlier. I got a bit confused when you mentioned the purchasing of tickets and then you explained that was the tout buying from another source. There is no implication on the individual who may buy. 127. MR LEWIS: No. The purchasing of the ticket has to be in the course of the business effectively, so if you or I were desperate to see a particular concert and we went quite lawfully to a ticket tout on that street and bought a ticket from that tout, it would not be us who would be prosecuted, would it, Mr Mortlock? No. 128. MR BANKS: It is to prevent the tout from stocking up his tickets. 129. MR LEWIS: Exactly. 130. MR BAILEY: Apart from the issues that you have covered in terms of pedlars and their licences, is there much evidence of what you might call a pedlar's licence being used by people perpetuating criminal activity, counterfeit goods, smuggled goods, maybe illegal goods, toys that do not meet safety standards and so on and so forth? On the basis of your research is it an avenue by which illegal trading is carried out? 131. MR LEWIS: Perhaps one of the witnesses, any volunteers? (Mr Mortlock) Certainly I can say, Sir, from the inquiries I have carried out it
does depend on the actual type of goods.
Certainly with DVDs and CDs we have had a considerable number of
individuals in the 132. MR BAILEY: This is interesting because on the basis of what you said this would not actually curb that particular activity. 133. MR
LEWIS: If he has not got a trolley you are quite right, so in 134. MR BAILEY: The thrust of this is still basically the unfair competition angle, if you like, rather than curbing. 135. MR LEWIS: I think the first point is difficulty in enforcement, that is really the main issue why all four councils are here today. It is the resources that are needed to follow people around who are quite clearly, in anyone's view, setting up a stall which is like a street trader's stall and having to spend all day either watching the trader to make sure he moves around or having someone back at base watching CCTV footage and getting a view from there. That is the main reason why everyone is here today but you are right, it is the competition issue as well. That is certainly one of the other main reasons why we are here. It is competition not just from the other licensed and consented street traders but also from retailers as well. All the councils have strong support from their local business communities for these bills. 136. MR BAILEY: Presumably in the event of this being implemented then your legitimate licensed traders and other retailers will effectively be the eyes and the ears of the Trading Standards and so on or enforcement agencies. 137. MR LEWIS: I suspect the enforcement officers will still be carrying out their duties because, and I am sure Mr Mortlock will confirm if I am wrong, they do have other things to do and that is one of the reasons they are here as well, they have a lot of other things they need to do, they cannot spend the time doing this; they will be patrolling the streets. 138. MR BAILEY: Shall we say, it will significantly reduce the level of resources needed to police. 139. MR LEWIS: Yes. (Mr Mortlock) Yes, indeed, and I would like to add that the street traders who are lawfully there at this present time are very much our eyes and ears now and I can assure you, Sir, they do phone us and tell us when we have pedlars in town. 140. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask, is there anybody here other than Reading who would like to make a point if you want to cover anything? 141. MR
LEWIS: I can certainly ask. We have Mr Sanderson from Leeds, Mr Ehrhart
from Nottingham and Mr Vick from 142. CHAIRMAN: It is not obligatory! 143. MR SANDERSON: I would like to add that when we were talking about flower sellers earlier sometime ago there was an on-off street trader with a pedlar's certificate trading close to a fresh flower shop and that ceased trading as a result of that. We did take a prosecution to the magistrates' court and the pedlar was fined and was told that if he came before the court again he would have his pedlar's certificate taken away. It is on one of the lists. His first fine was in May 2006. He presented again before the magistrates with similar evidence in the following January and the magistrates conditionally discharged him and did not take away the certificate because, of course, they were not bound by the previous hearing. He continued to trade, having had a serious effect and having been threatened by the magistrates earlier that he would have his certificate rescinded. I think Mr Lewis said earlier about not knowing whether any certificates had ever been rescinded and this was an example where there was clear evidence from our point of view. In our view it should have been and it was not. 144. CHAIRMAN:
Mr Lewis, I think colleagues do not want to ask any more. Perhaps I could not summarise but get it
clear in my own head. Leeds and 145. MR LEWIS: Correct. 146. CHAIRMAN:
In essence 147. MR LEWIS: Correct. 148. CHAIRMAN: Forbidding ticket touts. 149. MR LEWIS: Correct[2]. 150. CHAIRMAN: And allowing community support officers to become involved as well. 151. MR LEWIS: Correct. 152. CHAIRMAN:
153. MR LEWIS: Correct. 154. MR EHRHART: There is also the inclusion of purchasing or offering to purchase tickets. 155. MR
LEWIS: 156. CHAIRMAN:
157. MR LEWIS: Yes. 158. MR EHRHART: But not touting in general but we are on the sale of tickets. 159. CHAIRMAN:
160. MR LEWIS: Yes. 161. CHAIRMAN:
162. MR LEWIS: Yes. 163. CHAIRMAN: Carrying their wares. 164. MR LEWIS: Yes. 165. CHAIRMAN: Ticket touts sorted out. 166. MR LEWIS: Yes. 167. CHAIRMAN: And community support officers there again involved. Is that right? 168. MR LEWIS: Yes, that is correct. 169. MR BOTTOMLEY: I see under C2 that one person has been moved on for trying to sell poems. To observe, to get the proper licence and go on doing it seems to be an excellent thing to do. 170. MR LEWIS: Trying to sell --- 171. CHAIRMAN: Hopefully they will make their way to Wye. 172. MR BOTTOMLEY: It is on page 28 at the bottom. 173. MR LEWIS: Selling poems? 174. MR BAILEY: We could have licensed poem sellers. 175. MR VICK: We could have licensed him if he applied. 176. CHAIRMAN: If everybody is now content, could I say that I think we are happy that the Bills should be allowed to proceed with all of the amendments proposed to the next parliamentary stage and perhaps I could ask the agent to call formally on different colleagues to prove the preambles.
MR JOHN MORTLOCK, sworn previously Examined by MR LEWIS 177. MR
LEWIS: First, Mr Mortlock, it is John Mortlock from (Mr Mortlock) I have, yes, indeed. 178. Is your name John Mortlock? (Mr Mortlock) It is. 179. I am sorry, I do not have it in front of me, could you give the Committee your full job title, please? (Mr Mortlock) Yes. I am a Licensing and Enforcement Team Leader. 180. At Reading Borough Council? (Mr Mortlock) With Reading Borough Council, yes. 181. Have you read the preamble to the Reading Borough Council Bill? (Mr Mortlock) I have, yes. 182. Is it true? (Mr Mortlock) It is true.
MS GILL MARSHALL, sworn previously Examined by MR LEWIS 183. Next
Gill Marshall from (Ms Marshall) It is, yes. 184. Are you the Section Head, Regulatory and Enforcement at Leeds City Council? (Ms Marshall) I am, yes. 185. Have you read the preamble to the Leeds City Council Bill? (Ms Marshall) Yes, I have. 186. Is it true? (Ms Marshall) It is.
MR ROGER VICK, sworn previously Examined by MR LEWIS 187. Roger Vick from Canterbury City Council, is your name Roger Vick? (Mr Vick) It is, Sir. 188. Are you the Food and Licensing Manager at Canterbury City Council? (Mr Vick) I am, Sir, yes. 189. Have you read the preamble to the Canterbury City Council Bill? (Mr Vick) I have indeed. 190. Is it true? (Mr Vick) It is true, Sir.
MR NEIL EHRHART, sworn previously Examined by MR LEWIS 191. Mr Ehrhart, are you Neil Ehrhart? (Mr Ehrhart) I am. 192. Are you the Markets and Fairs Service Manager at Nottingham City Council? (Mr Ehrhart) That is correct. 193. Have you read the preamble to the Nottingham City Council Bill? (Mr Ehrhart) Yes, I have. 194. Is it true? (Mr Ehrhart) It is.
195. MR LEWIS: Thank you. 196. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Lewis, for coming this afternoon and thank you, everybody, for coming to help us with this business. We hope very much it does the job it is designed to do and proceeds at further stages. Thank you very much indeed and thank you to my colleagues for doing the business today. 197. MR LEWIS: Thank you. [1] Note by witness: This is incorrect. The reference should have been to [2] Note by witness: This is incorrect [3] Note by witness: This is incorrect. The reference should have been to |