Proceeding contribution from Mark Field (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 7 December 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on London Local Authorities Bill [Lords].
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
I sympathise extensively with what my hon. Friend says about the civil liberties issues, but on this specific matter I suspect that the official concerned would have computer access to the electoral register and could therefore make at least a cursory check, although that might not necessarily resolve the matter. Is his concern—it is a relatively valid one, and I would be interested to hear what the promoters think—that were clause 4 to be deleted, law-abiding citizens would find themselves subject to the penalties under clause 3, while less law-abiding citizens would get away scot-free? In other words, there would be a strong disincentive for those willing to play by the rules, while others would find a way of avoiding the consequences. Although I accept his civil liberties argument, surely there is a concern that many pedlars of no fixed abode, or of an abode many miles away, could get away with such things more easily than others.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 537 c330-1
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Fixed penalties Greater London Local government Police Litter Powers
- Legislation
- London Local Authorities Bill (HL) 2007-08 to 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:20:26 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792880
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792880
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792880