My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that that would be the consequence and that it indicates the shoddy drafting. One has to ask why the provision is so broad brush. That is why I tabled amendment 5. It is only a small amendment; it does not address all that I think is wrong with clause 3, but it would at least remove part of the wide ambit and prevent people who have not been the subject of penalty charges from being served with penalty charge notices. One might ask whether it really matters if penalty notices are served on people who should not be served with them. It does if we also look at clause 4. If the person being served with a penalty charge notice to which he should not be subject, as he has been wrongly accused of having liability for it, is asked to give his name and address and refuses to do so, he then becomes under clause 4 a criminal and is liable to a summary fine on strict liability of up to a £1,000.
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Christopher Chope
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 7 December 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on London Local Authorities Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
537 c327 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:20:36 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792863
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792863
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792863