WARRINGTON North MP Charlotte Nichols is encouraging all residents to respond to a Government survey on a new law to close dodgy shops for up to 12 months.
More raids are now taking place to shut down rogue barber shops, vape stores, mini-marts, and sweet shops – but they can only be closed for 3 months currently unless the law changes.
Ms Nichols recently joined Cheshire Police, Trading Standards and other partners on a series of enforcement visits, and in some cases, the premises visited had previously been subject to closure orders and had resumed their activity – suggesting the current penalties are not acting as a robust enough deterrent.
But now – the Government is asking the nation whether we agree to increase the maximum initial closure order from 3 months to 12 months. 12 months gives much longer for the police to investigate offenders and gives the authorities a better chance of closing the shops for good.
You can have your say by the 31st July on the Government website by CLICKING HERE
Ms Nichols said: “I have joined Cheshire Police recently and seen first hand the raids which take place on these dodgy shops, but closure orders only give temporary relief to communities blighted by these businesses and too often they are soon back to their old tricks.
“The Police and other partners are working hard to close shops but we need to strengthen the law to help get these shops closed once and for all, and stop legitimate businesses from being undercut by those not playing by the rules.
“I have now responded to the government survey on the issue and I would encourage everyone concerned to respond as soon as possible.”
Ms Nichols has now responded to the consultation, you can see a copy of her reply below:
1. Do you agree or disagree in principle with the proposal to increase the maximum duration of a closure order to 12 months? Please explain your answer.
I agree. As an MP, I have joined my local police force for a series of raids in Warrington, where officers informed me that in some cases the shops we were visiting had only just been closed and reopened recently, demonstrating to me that a 3 month closure order was not a sufficient deterrent and built into the business model of shops operating illegally. It creates significant frustration within the community that these shops are only briefly closed before operating again, and undermines the work and reputation of the police who get the blame for this.
2. Do you agree that the maximum duration of an initial closure order should be for a period of 12 months? If so, please explain your answer. If not, please specify a proposed duration and your reasoning for this.
I agree. The current closure period is only 3 months, which is not enough time for the authorities to investigate the owners, or any wider network they may form part of. A 12 months closure will help the authorities to investigate these criminal operations, disrupting the business model of the premises (and any network upstream of the premises), and giving reassurance and breathing space to the local community where illegal activity has been taking place.
3. Do you agree or disagree in principle with the proposal to also increase the maximum period for which an initial closure order can be extended to 12 months (where the initial closure order was for a shorter period)?
I agree.
4. Are there potential risks, adverse impacts or unintended consequences that should be considered if the maximum overall duration of closure orders were to be extended to 12 months? If yes, please provide detail.
The authorities should consider carefully, and on good evidence whether to issue a closure order of 12 months.
5. Are there particular groups, businesses, communities or individuals who might be adversely affected by an amendment to this effect? Please provide details.
It will of course most likely impact the type of businesses we are commonly finding to be selling dangerous goods such as counterfeit vapes, and the type of businesses commonly used for money laundering including cash intensive high street businesses. Speaking to legitimate high street businesses, particularly small shops, who both struggle to compete with those operating illegally and can be negatively stereotyped as being involved in the same sort of activity, the strongly held view is that more robust sanctions will help them both define themselves as legitimate in the public view and make them more sustainable by stopping them from being undercut by those who aren’t playing by the rules.
6. Do you think extending the maximum overall duration of a closure order to 12 months should be limited to tackling criminal behaviour alone, and exclude nuisance behaviour and disorder?
I do not believe it should be limited to tackling just criminal behaviour, but I agree it should also be used to tackle nuisance behaviour and disorder too.
7. The powers enable different provision to be made for different kinds of businesses. Do you think that would be helpful? For example, do you think any extension should only be in relation to high street businesses and exclude private residential properties? Are there any limitations which should be applied?
I do not believe residential properties should be excluded, as this is a maximum duration, and consideration can be given when determining the length of the closure order according to the specifics of the case and its severity rather than on the category of case.
8. Are there additional considerations, or issues with the use of closure orders, that the government should be taking into account?
An appeal mechanism should be available.
