|Criminal Justice and Police Bill
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The amendment is constructive and would streamline the paperwork rather than increase it. Under subsection (3)(c), the obligation is already to give. It says that the constable shall
``Consumption of alcohol in designated public place''.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the reasoning behind the amendment, but fixed penalty notices on the street rather than in the police station are unlikely to make the process easier. Have the Government considered a much simpler system that effectively requires individuals to go to a police station, within a certain amount of time, where they will have the opportunity to pay the penalty if they agree with the information given? The whole process of deciding whether to pay and accept the notice would take place in the police station. That seems a much more protected system, and one worth considering.
Mr. Hawkins: It seemed to me that one of the problems arising from the proposalsand perhaps the Government's dilemmais set out by the contrasting approaches of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The Government want to produce a quick and easy solution but they have had to draw back suddenly from the Prime Minister's original back-of-an-envelope idea. They realise that there are legal consequences, which is why we have ended up with detailed proposals and debates. The Government cannot have it both ways. That is why the Prime Minister's original speech, which referred to fixed penalty fines and dragging drunks to cashpoints, was pie in the sky
It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Hood, Mr. (Chairman)
Clarke, Mr Charles
Hamilton, Mr. Fabian
Hughes, Mr. Simon
Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smith, Miss Geraldine
Thomas, Mr. Gareth R.
|©Parliamentary copyright 2001||Prepared 13 February 2001|