§ 68 Page 20, line 41, leave out "and (2)".
§ The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
§ 69 Because it should remain an offence to give a notice under Clause 14 of the Bill which does not contain the prescribed information.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 68, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 69. The effect of this Amendment is to remove from Clause 18, concerning offences under Part III, the offence of failing to comply with the requirements of Clause 14(2). This is the requirement to submit a notice containing the prescribed information for the purposes of the notification system. This Amendment was limited to a number of other Amendments which were withdrawn in another place but which would have removed the provisions of Clause 14 for a notice in a prescribed 1722 form containing prescribed information. However, since the Bill still contains the requirement that under the notification system a notice should be supplied to the Board in the appropriate circumstances and should contain the prescribed information, it is clearly necessary to replace in the Bill the penalty for failing to comply with this requirement. If it is not replaced, there is no sanction at all on those who do not choose to comply with the requirement.
§ Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 69.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, we have always considered that this is an unnecessary requirement. Furthermore, the penalties which go with it seem to us to be particularly severe. Again, we are not going to insist upon the Amendment, but it seems to us that in a number of cases it will duplicate a great deal of effort on the part of those applying both to the Board and for planning permission.