MP supports push for higher illegal parking fines
Lib Dem MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole, Vikki Slade, raised the issue in Parliament, saying towns like Poole and Bournemouth "are blighted with illegal parking".
This comes after Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council officers towed away a record-breaking number of vehicles over the weekend.
The government has been contacted for a comment.
"The government controlled level of fines clearly does not act as a deterrent," said Lib Dem Jeff Hanna, who represents Bournemouth West.
"Just £35 outside of London, but £80 in a London Borough – if paid within [two] weeks.
"BCP is as suburban as any London Borough."
Mr Hanna said 1,702 penalty charge notices (PCN) had been issued and 18 cars were lifted and removed on 12 and 13 July, despite sufficient spaces available in car parks "within walking distance of the beach".
He said towing came at a cost to the tax payers and the release fee of £105 was "nothing like enough to cover the actual cost". In London the release fee is £280.
"So the difference comes from your council tax", he added.
Mr Hanna said a motion would be coming to the next BCP council meeting from two Boscombe councillors, calling for yet more lobbying of the government on the level of penalties.
Following her question the House of Commons, Ms Slade wrote to Alex Norris, Minister for Local Growth and Building Safety, urging for exploring solutions with local authorities and a review of illegal parking fines that "have been frozen for 20 years".
"I would highlight that these drivers are not just breaking the law—they are endangering public safety," she wrote, citing the blocking of pavements, "depriving disabled people and families of safe passage" and "obstructing residents from accessing their own homes".
"This is a source of growing frustration for residents, who rightly expect their council to act.
You can follow BBC Dorset on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
'Pavement surfing' fines issued halved in 10 years
Cars parked on roundabouts by heatwave beachgoers
Parking fines set to rise across London
BCP Council
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Universities ‘on notice' they could face penalties over free speech
Universities have been put 'on notice' that they could face penalties if they fail to uphold free speech, the education minister said as new protections for academic freedom came into force. Skills minister Baroness Jacqui Smith has said the Government will 'not tolerate the silencing of academics or students who voice legitimate views'. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which comes into force on Friday, will require universities and colleges in England to promote academic freedom to ensure discussions can take place on campuses without fear of censorship of students, staff or speakers expressing lawful opinions. It also bans universities from using non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. The Office for Students (OfS), England's higher education regulator, can investigate universities and colleges and impose fines if it has found they have failed to protect free speech rights. In March, the OfS issued a record penalty of £585,000 to the University of Sussex after a three-and-a-half year probe into the resignation of academic Professor Kathleen Stock. The OfS's investigation found the institution's trans and non-binary equality policy statement had 'a chilling effect' of possible self-censorship of students and staff on campus. It was launched after high-profile protests called for the dismissal of Prof Stock in 2021 over her views on gender identity. Professor Arif Ahmed, director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS, previously suggested universities could face higher fines in the future if they fail to uphold free speech. Baroness Smith said: 'Academic freedom is non-negotiable in our world-leading institutions, and we will not tolerate the silencing of academics or students who voice legitimate views. 'These strengthened protections make this explicitly clear in law, and the record fine already handed down by the OfS has put universities on notice that they must comply or face the consequences. 'Through our Plan for Change we are restoring our world class universities as engines of growth, opportunity and innovation, and fostering a culture of free inquiry and academic freedom is at the heart of that.' In January, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced the Government would be pushing ahead with key measures in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. But she announced the 'statutory tort' – which could have allowed individuals to bring legal proceedings against universities that failed to comply with freedom of speech duties – would be removed from the legislation. Ms Phillipson said the tort would create 'costly litigation that would risk diverting resources away from students'. The implementation of legislation, passed under the previous Conservative government in 2023, was paused by Labour in July last year after the general election due to concerns it could be 'burdensome' for universities. A new OfS complaints scheme will allow academics, external speakers and university staff to raise concerns about restrictions on their lawful free speech, which could lead to fines if their free speech is not protected. Students will be able to make complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. Prof Ahmed said: 'Free speech and academic freedom are fundamental to the quality of students' education and their experience in higher education. 'From today universities and colleges take on new legal duties to secure and promote freedom of speech and academic freedom. 'The OfS's regulatory requirements to prevent and address harassment and sexual misconduct are also fully in place. 'These are an important set of measures which will further protect students from harassment while ensuring that students and academics are free to discuss controversial views, including those which some might find shocking or offensive.'
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Councils warn new funding formula will ‘devastate' children's services
Planned changes to the way funding allocations for children's services are calculated would have a 'devastating impact' on key services in London and beyond, councils have warned. They say the new approach, which is part of adjustments to the process of setting authorities' overall annual core funding, risks 'dramatically underestimating levels of need' across the country. The Government is consulting on plans to alter the way the distribution of core council funding is set from 2026/27. A key element of this is the use of a new formula which determines funding levels for individual councils' children's services using various measures, with the aim of distributing funding based on relative needs. The children's services formula alone would cover about a quarter of the overall £30 billion that would be distributed using the new overall approach. Modelling of the impact of the changes by London Councils, which represents 32 boroughs and the City of London, found £1.5 billion would be redistributed away from the capital's boroughs over three years if the children's services formula was the only change. The analysis showed that if all planned financial protections and overall changes to formulae, some of which benefit London authorities, come into effect, councils in the capital would lose £700 million over the period. Research by the National Children's Bureau found the new 'unique' formula for children's services 'has questionable overall robustness and accuracy' because of a lack of testing and metrics that 'are not correlated with need'. The study concluded that the proposed data sources to be used do not include housing costs, which are particularly high in London, resulting in funding allocations being skewed. It also said that the proposed measure of child health is 'subjective' and a more 'objective' measure, such as figures on special educational needs and disability, would capture a broader range of need. The proposed metrics relating to housing occupation and parents' level of education were also identified as problematic measures. The new formula is also said to assume London's demand for children's services has decreased by nearly 40%, despite a collective overspend of budgets by more than £150 million in each of the previous two years. London boroughs claimed the children's formula has been developed 'behind closed doors' with insufficient scrutiny or testing. Claire Holland, the newly elected chairwoman of London Councils and Labour leader of Lambeth Council, said: 'We welcome the Government's intention to reform council funding since this is long overdue, and it is critical that funding is distributed fairly and efficiently on the basis of need. 'However, it's clear there are serious issues with the proposed children's services formula, which risks dramatically underestimating levels of need in London and other parts of the country. This would have a devastating impact on our ability to deliver vital local services, particularly for our most vulnerable children and young people. 'A more accurate approach to assessing local levels of need is in everyone's interests. It will help create a funding system that is robust, provides councils with the resources they need and, following 14 years of structural underfunding, restores long-term financial stability to boroughs and the wider local government sector. 'The consultation is an essential opportunity to re-examine the formula, and we are keen to work with the Government to develop a model that is accurate and robust.' James Shutkever, social care programme lead at the National Children's Bureau, added: 'At a time of increased pressure on children's services departments across the country the relative needs formula is a crucial tool for fair distribution of funding to ensure that children, young people and their families get the support that they need and deserve. 'However, our research raises significant concerns about the robustness of the Government's proposed methodology for the funding formula. 'We urge the Government to consider the recommendations set out in the report and refine its proposals. This will help to ensure that the formula lives up to its name and is based on need.' The Government has been approached for comment.
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British steelmakers boosted by change to EU tariffs
British steelmakers will be able to sell more to the EU tariff-free from Friday in a boost for the beleaguered sector. The EU has agreed to more than double the UK's tariff-free quota for certain steel products in a move the Government described as a 'direct win' from Sir Keir Starmer's deal with the bloc earlier this year. At May's UK-EU summit, Sir Keir and European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen agreed to restore Britain's steel quotas to historic levels after they were slashed in March. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the announcement was 'yet another positive step forward for the UK steel sector' that would give producers 'certainty'. The agreement comes at a difficult time for the industry, which continues to face 25% tariffs on exports to the US. An agreement with President Donald Trump to effectively reduce those tariffs to zero is yet to come into effect, but Britain has been protected from the 50% tariff Mr Trump imposed on steel from the rest of the world last month. UK Steel director general Gareth Stace said Friday's change was 'excellent news' for the sector that had been 'plagued by problems' in exporting steel to the EU. He added: 'The quota will restore historic trade flows and is good news for both UK steelmakers and their EU customers.' The decision means the UK can export 27,000 tonnes of 'category 17' steel – which includes angles and sections of steel – to the EU each quarter without paying tariffs. The figure had been cut to 10,000 tonnes after the EU introduced a cap intended to prevent a single exporter dominating the market. In total, the UK exports around 2.4 million tonnes of steel to the EU, worth nearly £3 billion and accounting for 75% of British steel exports. Ministers expect the change to help protect jobs in the industry, which has been a priority for the Labour Government since coming to power. In April, the Government used an almost unprecedented weekend recall of Parliament to take control of British Steel to prevent the shutdown of its blast furnaces and maintain the UK's primary steel-making capacity. British Steel's interim chief operating officer Lisa Coulson said: 'The removal of EU tariffs on British-made steel is a significant boost to our business. 'The EU is an important market to us, particularly for the products our highly skilled colleagues manufacture in Scunthorpe, Teesside, and Skinningrove.' But Conservative shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith described the quota as 'tiny' and 'embarrassing from a Government which has nothing to show on removing the US tariffs on steel which the PM claimed to have delivered back in May'. He added: 'It's a paltry return for giving up 12 years of fishing rights and tying the energy costs of every business to a higher cost EU emissions regime over which the UK will have no say. 'When Labour nationalised British Steel we said they had no plan. This government by press release shows we were right.'
