Comment posted Scrapping metal theft: Justice Secretary’s steely measures against the rip off merchants by newsroom.
Stuart McMillan has sent us this note on what the Law Society say in their response to the consultation:
“The Sub-Committee notes the policy intent of this proposal which, by increasing the Exemption Warrant where a dealer has a turnover of over £100,000 to £10 million would, of course, significantly increase the turnover level required in order for a warrant exempting a dealer from licensing to be obtained and accordingly have the effect of drawing many more dealers into the licensing system.”
newsroom also commented
- This is a very good point, with immediate logic.
We will seek answers on this and make them known here when we get them.
Recent comments by newsroom
- Argyll and Bute Council: Councillor McCuish leads again
We appreciate that it is inconvenient for a light to be shone on doings your party would prefer to keep hidden in shady places from those it asks to vote for it.
That is a dishonourable contract.
As the former Alliance of Independent Councillors [which had nothing at all do with Michael Russell ] knows very well, when it was damaging Argyll and Bute by its conduct during the 2010-11 schools closure wars, we were even more vigilant in keeping them under scrutiny and publishing on their manoeuvres.
We had to be even more vigilant because they were skilled at keeping things under wraps – where the SNP has conducted its acts of political genocide en plein air. All anyone has had to do is draw up a chair.
It should be obvious from our stance in recent weeks that we have no ‘vendetta’ against Councillor Dick Walsh, whom we dealt with arguably more harshly than we have done with Mr Russell.
A central function of our role is to contribute to the holding to account of those elected to serve the people. We do our best to fulfil this fairly – and hard. But we have no vendetta against anyone.
In Mr Russell’s case we simply feel he is a hot air balloon who has imploded over Argyll and done a great deal of harm – profoundly so to his own party, which we used to support. The evidence for our view is in the public domain. - Radically new council group changes all the dynamics: party politics dead in Argyll
The fact is that the SNP councillors in the Argyll and Bute for Change group are not ‘SNP councilors’ in council group terms – as rules forbid membership of more than one group.
So the ‘Russell camp’ is definitely no longer in the council’s SNP group, although presumably they will personally vote in elections according to their preferences.
And IF the other 8 SNP members have actually joined [as opposed to supporting [the Argyll, Lomond and the Isles group, there is no formal SNP group at all in Argyll and Bute Council.
If this has become the situation, it means that the SNP as a party has no right of purview over the behaviour of ANY of its originally elected councillors, none of whom would now be SNP councillors.
You have to say this is fun. It's not politics but it is a laugh. - Argyll and Bute Council: Councillor McCuish leads again
As given in one of the recent updates above - the missing person is Councillor Strong - from the, as of this morning, Argyll and Bute for Change Group. This would leave that group with 18 members but only 17 present to vote - which would not be enough to carry them to administration IF all other 18 councillors voted together.
This has to be likely but in the current situation the finessing is so arcane that one cannot be certain of anything until it's done. - Argyll and Bute Council: Councillor McCuish leads again
The fact is that they were quite prepared to work with the Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups - but were ordered by the the SNP to face expulsion from the party or to leave the administration that was planning just such a coalition.
We do not yet know what the SNP party position is today - although in our 14.15 update above, we have laid out the range of possibilities - but we do know that the 8 SNP Councillors have not resigned from the party. - Argyll and Bute Council: Councillor McCuish leads again
Sincere apologies for the temporary error - now corrected - and thank you for the prompt.
We are doing our level best - live - to get changing situations out to people as fast and as best as we can.
When we inevitably have the odd muddle [like cloning Mary Jean Devon], it is corrected very quickly.
powered by SEO Super Comments
I’m a bit mystified, what about the dealers with a turnover GREATER than £i million? Don’t they too need a license?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It turns out: in principle, all metal dealers (of any size) do need a licence.
But LARGE dealers, with a turnover above £1M (currently £100k) — who can be assumed to be well-run businesses — can apply to be exempted from licencing, and (if in possession of an exemption warrant) would not require a licence.
SMALL dealers cannot be exempted, and require to be licenced, no matter how small the turnover.
I was as mystified as you — or more so. (As may be apparent from my other comments on this story.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Raising an exemption limit from £100,000 to £1M would seem to INCREASE the number of exempt dealers, rather than bring more under control. Are you sure the story is the right way up? (Yes, this does seem to be what Mr MacAskill said, and Mr McMillan welcomed. I think I am missing something here.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is a very good point, with immediate logic.
We will seek answers on this and make them known here when we get them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stuart McMillan has sent us this note on what the Law Society say in their response to the consultation:
“The Sub-Committee notes the policy intent of this proposal which, by increasing the Exemption Warrant where a dealer has a turnover of over £100,000 to £10 million would, of course, significantly increase the turnover level required in order for a warrant exempting a dealer from licensing to be obtained and accordingly have the effect of drawing many more dealers into the licensing system.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ahah, I may have got it now. (But it has taken several cups of coffee to get here.)
My interpretation: ANY scrap metal dealer (no matter how small) must, in principle, be licensed. But small dealers may apply for an exemption warrant, exempting them from licencing. Any larger dealers must be fully licensed. The definition of “small” is being changed from £100k to £1M, so a dealer with a turnover somewhere in the £100k-£1M range will now be subject to the full licensing regime (whereas previously warranted) and will not be able to clain the small trader’s exemption warrant.
Have I got this right now?
I say that the publicity about this matter has not been entirely clear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, I still don’t understand it.
Previously, a “small” dealer (who could apply for a warrant) had a turnover up to £100k; now, a “small” dealer with a turnover up to £1M can apply for an exemption warrant. Really? I still think this will exempt more dealers, rather than bring more into the full licencing system.
I am sorry to go on and on about this, and I would be grateful if anyone can give me an explanation in words of not-many syllables (because, as Pooh said, “big words bother me”).
Variation: will someone please explain what the licencing / warrant requirements were in the past, and will be in the future, for dealers with turnovers of say £50k, £200k, £2M. One of these has changed — but in which direction?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is I who have got it the wrong way up. I would have assumed that an exemption process would be available to small dealers. That assumption was wrong — exemption from licencing is only available to large dealers. As such, increasing the threshold does indeed bring more businesses fully into the licencing net.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HMF
If the current level of exemption is above £100,000 then by raising it to a million and above you would have a greater catchment number by introducing a licence system at 1Million and below you will eradicate the criminal element within small dealers.
Just look how successful the driving licence is! we have no accidents involving licensed drivers the alcohol licence is even better we have no underage drinking and no more alcoholics.
I think we need even more forms of licensing maybe a walking licence or a sickness licence just think about it if we had a sickness licence then no one could take a fake sickie without first applying for a licence
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How about a blogging licence? Any childish insults, rubbish presented as fact, and/or talking gibberish, and you’re OUT. Not you personally, mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting thinking,licence people and they will all of sudden stop stealing our property or selling it on.Well are the courts going to issue licences to all the criminals.Who will pay for the extra police to investigate the dealers if this business is so lucrative.Thats it lads we need a licence to go on the roof for the lead we better just stay in and watch cornation street instead.I am sorry I just don,t see a piece of paper working.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There have been several mentions of unlicenced scrap metal dealers being caught in Argyll & Bute (Dunoon Observer). Some were offering a good service to the public but they were stopped from trading all the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0