Exactly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is a Hobson's choice. It might not be "your money or your life", but it could easily be "your money or your livelihood". My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on that issue.
Further clauses about which we should at least raise an eyebrow relate to the accounting and application of fixed penalty receipts. It looks as if in respect of the Nottingham City Council Bill there is slavering at the mouth at the prospect of what the council may do with any surplus in the accounts raised from the application of these fixed penalty receipts. If we are talking about excessive or otherwise figures, any surplus in the accounts raised by these particular fixed penalties must, by definition, be excessive because they go over and above what is required in order to administer the scheme. In one clause we are being asked to support the council in providing a level of fixed penalty that is reasonable for administering the street trading regime, yet a later clause talks about what might happen if there is any surplus in these accounts, which does not fill me with a great deal of confidence.
Canterbury City Council Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Philip Davies
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Canterbury City Council Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c929 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 10:04:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609464
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609464
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609464