Parking (Code of Practice) Bill - Passed by MPs

Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

One of the points that stuck with me was made by the Torbay MP when he said that two private car parks in his constituency generated more complaints than 30+ car parks operated by the local council.

It might be because Councils can't use ANPR.

pappa_golf

Castle wrote: »

It might be because Councils can't use ANPR.

an idea that should be followed by the private sector

Johno100

The_Deep wrote: »

One thing which was missed was the comparative percentages of successful appeals by P0PLA and the IAS, and that IAS adjudicators were anonymous.

Also no mention of the great pressure on the courts system dealing with these robo-claims.

bargepole

An interesting feature of all this, was the fact that despite all their lobbying, the BPA et al could not find a single one of the 650 MPs to oppose the second reading of the Bill.

Had they been able to do so, the Speaker would have had to call 'Division', and the members would have voted on the motion. But the parliamentary rules say that any vote following a division is only valid if there are at least 100 members in the chamber, and there were actually only about 30-40.

So that would have killed off the Bill if it had happened, but the fact that it didn't demonstrates the universal degree of contempt and loathing with which this 'industry' is regarded.

trisontana

A full transcript of the debate can be found here:-

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02a.1149.0&p=11026

Castle

bargepole wrote: »

Had they been able to do so, the Speaker would have had to call 'Division', and the members would have voted on the motion. But the parliamentary rules say that any vote following a division is only valid if there are at least 100 members in the chamber, and there were actually only about 30-40.

Actually they don't have to be in the Chamber to vote; so long as 100 members vote within 8 minutes, you can come straight from your offices, the bar or anywhere local;-
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/divisions/

catfunt

bargepole wrote: »

An interesting feature of all this, was the fact that despite all their lobbying, the BPA et al could not find a single one of the 650 MPs to oppose the second reading of the Bill.

Had they been able to do so, the Speaker would have had to call 'Division', and the members would have voted on the motion. But the parliamentary rules say that any vote following a division is only valid if there are at least 100 members in the chamber, and there were actually only about 30-40.

So that would have killed off the Bill if it had happened, but the fact that it didn't demonstrates the universal degree of contempt and loathing with which this 'industry' is regarded.

Even Chris Chope, that serial killer and filibusterer-in-chief of all sorts of decent Private Members Bills, supported this one. When I saw he was in the chamber, I thougth "uh-oh...."

kryten3000

Each MP's office has a display in their office with an alarm that alerts them to a division, they can then go and vote without having attended the debate.

kryten3000

bargepole wrote: »

An interesting feature of all this, was the fact that despite all their lobbying, the BPA et al could not find a single one of the 650 MPs to oppose the second reading of the Bill.

The BPA support the bill because they think they'll get to write the new CoP.

bargepole

kryten3000 wrote: »

The BPA support the bill because they think they'll get to write the new CoP.

I believe Caroline Sheppard has other ideas.

Some BPA members were mentioned during the debate, as examples of the worst offenders.

The Government were hoodwinked by the BPA in the lead up to POFA 2012 becoming law. They aren't about to fall for the same trick twice.