Quite right. How could I fail to agree? I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green comes to the decision of withdrawing the whole Bill, we will welcome that decision even more. But just—just—in case it comes back at some later stage, let us look at it briefly and in passing, because we come back to the same problem of the authorised officer not being a constable.
Who is this authorised officer? What is an obstruction? What is an intentional obstruction? What if you, Mr Deputy Speaker, fall over in front of him and he trips over you? Is that an obstruction, or do you have to be more aggressive? What happens if you see him coming but he is not in his uniform—you may not know it is him—and you scarper? Is that an obstruction of him in his duties because you are not there and, therefore, he cannot catch you, whereas if you were there he could catch you? That seems to me, arguably, an obstruction, even an intentional one, because you had to run away to be away from the person who was trying to catch you—because if you had not decided to run away, you would still be there, and then he would have caught you. So if you follow the logic of what I am saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are doing jolly well! But, if you follow the logic of what I am saying, you will see that the clause really ought to be removed and should never have been in the Bill in the first place.
Again, the fines really do seem excessive, and I go back to the point that I was making about the traffic wardens in the city of Westminster, who were put in uniforms that any civilised fellow would have been ashamed to be seen dead in. They were the most scruffy things that really did make the wardens look as if they were vagrants, and I should have thought that most people would scarper if they saw somebody like that coming after them, particularly if they were bringing out a book of fines. One would think, ““I'm getting out of his way pretty sharpish, because I don't know really who he is and I don't know why he's got his fines book out, because I don't think I have done anything wrong.”” If we are going to authorise those sorts of people, many of us might obstruct them and say, ““Who the Dickens do you think you are?”” or words to that effect.
That gives me the opportunity to answer the valid point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, that if one is innocent one has nothing to fear. If only it worked like that. Those of us who have contested parking tickets over the years—when we have done absolutely nothing wrong but the machine has broken or the person coming round has misread his own figures and all that stuff—have found that when we appeal we get off. It happens to those of us who are innocent again and again. I was even stopped under one of those ludicrous terrorist Acts that the previous Government passed—going about my lawful business.
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Jacob Rees-Mogg
(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 c347 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:19:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792929
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792929
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792929