Parking (Code of Practice) Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am happy to give that assurance and to confirm that the appeals process will be free of charge.

The new clause and amendment 6 are the substantive amendments and would allow the Secretary of State to appoint a single appeals service for the private parking industry. They would also amend the proposed levy powers in order to use the levy to cover the costs of establishing and maintaining such an appeals service. Amendments 1 to 5, which also stand in my name, are largely technical and would amend the Bill to allow the Government flexibility to delegate their functions for investigating breaches of the code. They would also ensure that, where the Secretary of State has delegated the function of preparing the code of practice, they must still approve the final version of the parking code.

The current provisions mean that the Minister can delegate only to a public authority, but my amendments would allow the delegation of the investigatory function to private bodies. That would allow subject matter experts from private industry to conduct the function, thus offering a greater range of options and value for money. Lastly, my final amendments cover where the Secretary of State has delegated the code of practice, as I have said, but is still required to give final approval to it. I commend my new clause and amendments to the House.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I commend the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) for his Bill and for the very sensible amendments that he has brought before the House. I assure him that I am not going to speak at length. I rise at this stage just to congratulate him and to assure him that he has the full support of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I address some remarks to the amendments in my name, particularly amendments 7 and 8 to clause 1? Like everybody else in the Chamber, I think this is a really good piece of legislation, but it is dependent on the good will of the Government to ensure that something actually happens.

Too often, we pass legislation in this House, and months or years later we find that nothing much has happened as far as the Government are concerned. I give as an example the primary legislation passed in this House to limit public sector exit payments to £95,000. That was contained in the Enterprise Act 2016. The Government have still not implemented that provision. Despite promises more than a year ago that they were about to bring forward regulations, they have not even fulfilled those promises. The most recent information I have is that there will be a write-round before Christmas, and then they may have a consultation on the regulations next year. When the Government say, “Yes, we’re definitely going to do something about this”, as they did when that law was passed, there is quite often a gap between what is said and the reality.

It is against that background that I am seeking, in amendments 7 and 8, to tighten up the requirements on the Government to bring forward the code of practice. Currently, all the Bill says is:

“The Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice containing guidance”.

However, he may not prepare that code of practice for many months or many years, and we should learn from past mistakes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on the progress of this much needed Bill, which I am pleased to support on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It is long overdue, as we have heard today, and I thank him personally for his tenacity on this issue. He will be the champion of drivers across the land, because we all know and can all tell very similar tales of constituents who have been clobbered by these sharp practices.

Today we have seen the Commons at its best. We often hear—and our constituents are the first to point this out—“Why can’t you ever agree on any measures? Why can’t you come together in the national interest over X, Y and Z and just come to a common-sense view and get it done?” Today, we have done precisely that, and I genuinely thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, the Minister and the Scottish National party spokesperson, because this is the Commons at its best. We are getting things done for our constituents in every part of the United Kingdom.

There is a need for landowners and private car-park operators to have some control over those who park—no one would disagree with that—but enforcement must be fair, reasonable and proportionate. While many operators act properly—we should always remember that; we only hear about the nightmare cases, but there are operators who operate reasonably—the bad practices that we have discussed today colour people’s views of all parking operators, which is why the Bill is important, as it will provide uniformity in the code of practice and give people certainty about the rules across all private car parks. I have dealt with similar cases to those dealt with by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I have a cross-borough constituency, and will give two examples, one from each borough.

First, there is a small private car park in Denton, the main town in my constituency. It is next to a building that until recently was a bank. A bank customer parked in the car park next to the bank, which she was visiting, only to receive forceful letters and parking charge notices that looked like penalty charge notices a few days later. She had not realised that the car park next to the bank was not linked to it, as there was no signage. She successfully appealed against the charges with the help of my constituency office, but how many people would have been frightened into paying the charge because of the official-looking notice that they received?

Secondly, there is a large retail car park in Stockport. Until recently, it did not charge disabled people who displayed a blue badge. The car park is designed so that the disabled parking bays are closest to the retail units. Unfortunately, the pay-and-display machines are at the far end of the car park—it is not possible for the machines to be any further away from the retail facilities, which are near the disabled parking bays. Two minuscule signs were erected at the entrance to the car park. When people drive in they do not see signs that are about the size of the Dispatch Box. Disabled constituents of mine parked, as they always have done, in the disabled bay, did their shopping and drove away, only to receive a parking charge notice a few days later. Again, it is wrong that there was not even a sign on the disabled parking bays, let alone a pay-and-display machine close to those bays. That probably contravenes the Equality Act 2010, along with several other laws.

That is wrong, and that is why I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for introducing the Bill. I hope that it will be seen by the sector as an opportunity to rebuild the shattered trust between car-park operators and the motoring public. Poor signage and sometimes no signage at all, unreasonable rules, exorbitant so-called fines, aggressive and excessive demand for payment and an appeals process that does not work in the interests of consumers constitutes behaviour that needs to be stopped. Having listened to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, I hope that the Secretary of State will take action once he is empowered by the Bill to do so, and, given the assurances from the Minister on Report, I expect that he will.

Similarly, action must be taken to ensure that parking companies are not able to raise the level of fines to mitigate the effects of the levy that will facilitate the scheme. We need to crack down on the bogus procedure whereby they are able to make their fines look official. These are not penalty charge notices; they are nothing of the sort. To frighten vulnerable and elderly people, in particular, into paying unreasonable charges when they do not have to do so is wrong, and something that the Bill seeks to address.

As others have already said, we need to ensure that there is a cap on fines, and that they are appropriate. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire that they should be at a level similar to the level of fines imposed by the local authority in whose area the car park is located.

It is absolutely right ultimately to deny access to DVLA records to companies that do not properly adhere to the code, and I thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for making it clear to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on Report that the Bill would provide for that. So many of my constituents cannot believe it is right for the DVLA to supply that information to cowboy operators, and it is most welcome that the loophole is to be closed.

As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman will be a hero among the long-suffering driving public. The Bill offers the prospect of a single set of standards that will help to end the confusion created by multiple codes of practice and appeals systems—and in many cases none—and will ultimately be fairer to all drivers. We wish it Godspeed in the other place, and look forward to its becoming law and saving so many drivers throughout the United Kingdom so much heartbreak.