Camera dei Lords - Dibattito sulla riforma 2007

Riforma dei coroners

Oxfordshire. Stiamo cercando di risolvere la situazione nel miglior modo possibile all'interno del quadro legale attuale, che è molto rigido e arcaico. La riforma dei coroners nel nostro prossimo disegno di legge renderà molto più facile farlo.

6 Mar 2007: Colonna 1383

Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): Il Ministro può garantire che in futuro non ci sarà un ritardo di quasi 10 anni per un'inchiesta così importante come quella sulla morte della defunta Diana, Principessa del Galles, e ritardi di anni per le persone uccise al servizio del loro paese, che costano una fortuna, come lei sa? Possiamo avere la garanzia che ci sarà un limite di tempo per l'apertura di un'inchiesta e per ottenere le risposte?

Ms Harman: Un problema è che la giurisdizione di ogni coroner è completamente autonoma. Non ci sono standard di prestazione centrali, non c'è monitoraggio centrale, 6 Mar 2007: Colonna 1384 e non c'è un coroner capo che fornisca una leadership come il Lord Chief Justice fornisce ai giudici.

As a result, while some areas are conducting inquests very promptly, in others there are delays that nobody in this House would regard as acceptable. We will be able to deal with that when we have our legislation on coroners. However, we are not simply waiting until that happens—we are trying to ensure that we get a much better picture of where the delays are and that we work with our colleagues in local government to ensure that there are no such delays. I think that the inquest into the death of Princess Diana was unprecedented; certainly, the length of time taken has been exceptional.

6 Mar 2007 : Column 1385 BILL PRESENTED Retail Packaging Recycling Andrew Stunell, supported by Chris Huhne, Martin Horwood, David Howarth, Norman Baker, Tom Brake and Mr. Dan Rogerson, presented a Bill to require that certain retailers shall provide free of charge a collection point for any packaging materials sold or supplied by them; and to require them to recycle or safely dispose of such materials: And

The same was read theFirst time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed. [Bill71].

6 Mar 2007 : Column 1386

Private Parking (Regulation) Bill

3.34 pm

David Wright (Telford) (Lab): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision about penalties relatingto parking on private land; to make provision about compliance with notices concerningparking for disabled people on private land; and for connected purposes.

I want to make it clear from the outset that people who provide private parking spaces on theirland should be able to protect them. Many businesses are affected by people who park vehicleson their land and create problems. Pubs, shops and businesses in town centres want to ensurethat their customers can park, and we need to make sure that they have the right to do that.

It is important for businesses to protect their parking spaces for their customers andemployees.

Many organisations use private security companies to

Enforce parking regulations on their land. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 provides for the regulation of such matters. It also provides for the security industry authority to license organisations that undertake immobilising and clamping activity in private car parks.

In addition to holding a valid security industry authority licence, vehicle immobilisers must observe specific requirements. First, a vehicle must not be clamped, blocked or towed if it displays a valid disabled badge or if it is marked as an emergency services vehicle that is in use as such. Secondly, any licence holder who collects a release fee must provide a receipt, which must include: the location of the clamping or towing; the name and signature of the person who clamped the vehicle; the licence number of the organisation that carried out the clamping, and the date on which it happened. The immobiliser must wear a licence. Those who work without a licence commit a criminal offence, which is punishable on conviction.

By a fine of up to £5,000, six months' imprisonment or both. The problem is that there is no clarity about the sort of signage that private clamping companies have to provide on sites before clamping is undertaken. There is no standard process. The fees are also a problem. The legislation simply states that fees should be "reasonable". That causes several difficulties.

The BBC in the midlands has recently undertaken some work in Birmingham to examine the operation of private clamping in the city. It got a woman driver to park a vehicle on a privately owned space and leave the scene. Almost immediately, the clampers from a private company emerged and began to tow away the vehicle. The woman returned to be told that she had to pay hundreds of pounds in cash to the company to release the vehicle and that she would be escorted to a cash machine to make the payment. When she said that she could not pay, she was left to make her own way home alone late at night. The

The company's behaviour was clearly unacceptable. However, people will pay almost anything to get their car released.

My constituent, Paul Watling from Telford, was also caught out on an area of land in Birmingham. He fully acknowledged that he was parking in a private space. However, the signage on the site was poor and he had to pay £350 to get his car released from clamping. He was virtually frogmarched to the cash machine by some fairly aggressive and intimidating clamping agents.

The Bill proposes that clamping companies must inform the local authority in their area of activity of the scope, style and location of signs to be used on private land. I am trying to drive towards some standardisation of the signage in local authority areas. The Bill also proposes giving the local authority the power to set a range in which penalty fees should be set. Clearly, that may vary between different towns and cities, depending on the market and the scarcity of parking spaces.

I believe that the decision should be made locally by the local authority. However, we should consider setting a maximum amount for such fees—£350 in cash is extortionate. The second element of the Bill concerns the provision of disabled parking spaces on private land. The Department for Transport provides advice on the provision of spaces for disabled drivers. The Disability Discrimination Act requires service providers to take reasonable steps to ensure that disabled people can enjoy services. Department for Transport leaflet 5/95 suggests: "For car parks associated with shopping areas, leisure or recreational facilities, and places open to the general public: A minimum of one space for each employee who is a disabled motorist, plus 6 per cent. of the total capacity for visiting disabled motorists. The numbers of designated spaces may need to be greater at hotels and sports stadiums that specialise in accommodating groups of disabled people." Most disabled persons'

Parking bays in off-street car parks, such as supermarket car parks, are not covered by blue badge scheme regulations. Such car parks and parking bays are likely to be privately owned and managed by the individual business: the agreement, and any cost to use them, will be between the owner and the motorist or customer.

If a disabled motorist or passenger complains to, for example, a supermarket that a non-disabled motorist has parked in a disabled bay, an employee of the store can ask the driver to move their car but cannot legally insist on it. In some instances, the owners of private car parks are reluctant to take action against people, because they think that it is bad for business. In my view, not providing bays for people with disabilities and mobility problems is bad for business. One of the problems is that spaces tend to be close to the store and people feel that they can park briefly in one of those spaces when they use a cash machine or pick up friends or.

family who have been shopping. Such behaviour is not acceptable. A number of surveys have been conducted on the use and abuse of disabled parking bays in recent years. In 2005, a survey carried out by Baywatch found that one in five bays were being abused on supermarket sites. The Bill would require all owners of private car parks with disabled parking bays to have a clear written strategy on enforcement, which is available to the public on request. It would also require owners to submit an annual report on their enforcement activity to the local authority and the Disability Rights Commission or its successor bodies.

I have considered proposals to extend the blue badge scheme on to private land and, for example, supermarket car parks. My main concern about an extension of that scheme is that many authorities already find it difficult to enforce the provision on public car parks. The Bill does not therefore include such proposals. Supermarkets and other car park owners who provide disabled places are,

however, drinking in the last chance saloon: they need to act more effectively, or we will have to bring in more draconian legislation.

In closing, may I thank Douglas Campbell, chairman of Mobilise, and John Pring of DisabilityNow for their help on this issue? I also thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), whose support for the Bill has been especially helpful. I am conscious that the House is fairly full this afternoon. To ensure that the next speaker can make his points, perhaps Members will leave the Chamber quietly once they have listened to the presentation of my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by David Wright, John Mann, Mr. Iain Wright, Mr. Dai Havard, Chris Mole, Mike Penning, Philip Davies, Mr. Robert Flello, Martin Salter, Helen Jones and Ann Coffey.

Private Parking (regulation)

David Wright accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision about penalties relating to parking on private land; to make provision about compliance with

notices concerning parking for disabled people on private land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed [Bill72].

6 Mar 2007 : Column 1389 Speaker’s Statement

3.44 pm

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make relating to the main business.

In the debate on House of Lords reform, I have selected amendment (c) to the motion on hereditary places.

For the benefit of the House, I will set out the procedure to be followed at the end of the debate tomorrow. Under the Order of the House of 27 February, at 5.30 pm tomorrow I shall put the Question on the first motion, on retention of a bicameral Parliament. Thereafter, the Questions will be put successively on each of the remaining motions until the last. On that motion, on hereditary places, as I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I shall put the Question on that amendment first. I shall then put the Question on the

Question in the u