We have had an interesting debate re-examining the issue. Having listened to the Minister explaining the provisions that she is seeking to introduce by means of amendments to the Bill, and having heard her explanation of clause 54(3), I am even more concerned that companies that wish to get round the law, operate in an intimidating way and issue excessive parking tickets will see this as an opportunity to go ahead. Under clause 54(3) putting down a barrier in effect immobilises a vehicle so I am particularly concerned about the Minister's response on that.
The impact assessment sets out that when issued with a ticket, 74% of people will pay up, so it is well worth rogue ticketing companies putting tickets on vehicles and getting those 74% of people to pay up. They do not have to worry about dealing with the 26% who might appeal from the keeper liability angle.
I am keen to test the opinion of the House on new clause 15. In terms of rogue wheel-clampers, I think that motorists are going to be out of the frying pan and into the fire and that the rogue companies will run riot. The problem will not be solved and I think that we will be back here another day.
Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Proceeding contribution from
Diana Johnson
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 10 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 3).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
533 c139 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:12:25 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771057
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771057
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771057