My Lords, I am thoroughly in favour of Amendment 42, or at least the intention behind it. It is quite clear that the Bill as it stands will allow a continuation of current abuses in different forms. All you need is a couple of posts with a chain coiled next to one of them and you have a barrier that you can put whenever you want. Anyone caught within it might have to pay a large fine to be released. We will have the same people indulging in very much the same practices as at the moment but they will use a barrier rather than a clamp. Clearly this section is designed to exempt local authority car parks and others with a raised barrier and a ticket on entry. I entirely agree with that. However, it must be reworded, and Amendment 42 seems a pretty good way of doing it. It would be desirable to improve the arrangements in the Bill for appealing against unjustified tickets. I have no objection to the way in which the noble Baroness has set about doing it although I suspect she has taken on a hopeless cause when it comes to allowing more people to clamp. The Daily Mail will use that one, I suspect.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lucas
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
735 c63 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:19:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807561
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807561
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807561