Starmer pledges to review minimum barrier heights in multi-storey car parks
The Prime Minister said he wanted to 'prevent future tragedies', and the Government will conduct a call for evidence on minimum barrier heights in car parks.
This came after Labour MP Peter Dowd urged Sir Keir to back his calls to increase the minimum required height of guarding.
Mr Dowd's Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill also proposes 24-hour staffing of such car parks, to improve safety.
During Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Dowd, MP for Bootle said: 'Gabe Santer, a 15-year-old, fell to his death from a multi-storey car park in Liverpool in 2020. He's one of the many dying in such tragic circumstances, including in my constituency.
'My Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill seeks to prevent such deaths.
'Will the Government look carefully at its content as part of a national suicide prevention strategy?'
Labour MP for Bootle Peter Dowd raised the case of Gabe Santer (Chris McAndrew/PA)
The Prime Minister replied: 'The answer is yes, we will look at the content of it, and I'm grateful to him for raising it.'
He added: 'Across the House, we have all got tragic experience of suicide, and our thoughts are with Gabe's family and with his friends.
'We will conduct a call for evidence on part K of the building regulations about minimum guarding heights, so that necessary protections are in place to prevent future tragedies. We will also look at the contents of the Bill.'
Defence minister Maria Eagle previously presented 'Gabe's Law' to Parliament in 2023, in a bid to reform the safety of car parks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
It is time to release prisoners trapped by inhuman endless jail terms
The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, introduced in 2005 under the Labour government, was intended to protect the public from serious offenders deemed too dangerous for a fixed-term release. But nearly two decades on, this law stands as one of the most egregious stains on Britain's criminal justice system. Abolished in 2012 for its inherent flaws, it nonetheless continues to trap thousands of people in a cruel legal limbo, as a debate in the House of Lords today will no doubt highlight. It is long past time that every person still serving an IPP sentence be resentenced. The continued use of this now-defunct punishment is both unjust and, arguably, inhumane. At its core, the IPP sentence allowed judges to hand out indeterminate prison terms for offences that did not justify life imprisonment but were deemed serious enough to warrant extended supervision. Offenders were given a 'tariff' – the minimum time they must serve before being considered for release. Many of these tariffs were shockingly short, some as low as two years. Yet thousands remain in prison long after these tariffs have expired. Why? Because release is dependent not on time served, but on proving to the Parole Board that they are no longer a danger to the public – a nebulous, subjective, and often unreachable standard. This flips the basic presumption of justice on its head. In a fair system, the state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to imprison a person. Under IPP, once the tariff is served, the burden of proof shifts unfairly to the prisoner. It is no longer the state's job to justify incarceration; it is the prisoner's burden to earn freedom. This is particularly problematic when access to rehabilitative programmes, often required for parole, is limited or unavailable – especially in overcrowded prisons. The system sets people up to fail and then blames them for not succeeding. Moreover, the psychological toll of such indefinite punishment is catastrophic. Suicide and self-harm rates among IPP prisoners are significantly higher than average. Many live in a state of constant uncertainty and despair, unsure if they will ever be released, even decades after their offence. It is not unusual to find individuals still imprisoned for minor crimes – such as theft or assault – that would today warrant only a few years behind bars, yet they languish without a release date. The punishment no longer fits the crime, if it ever did. The injustice of the IPP system has been widely recognised. The House of Commons justice committee labelled it "irredeemably flawed" and called for all remaining IPP prisoners to be resentenced. The European Court of Human Rights has also condemned aspects of the sentence as incompatible with human rights obligations. Yet the government has so far refused to act decisively, citing public safety and political sensitivity. This is a failure of courage and leadership. Protecting public safety does not require trampling basic rights or holding people indefinitely for crimes long past. Dangerous individuals can be managed through proper risk assessment and robust parole conditions – not through perpetual punishment without end. Resentencing every IPP prisoner is not only fair, it is necessary. It would give judges the opportunity to reconsider the nature and severity of each offence and impose a proportionate, fixed sentence with clear guidance for release. For many, this would mean immediate or imminent freedom; for others, it would offer clarity, rehabilitation goals, and hope – something the current system wholly lacks. Justice demands consistency, proportionality, and transparency. The IPP sentence undermines all three. Some argue that resentencing might release dangerous individuals back into society. But the risk can be responsibly managed without recourse to indeterminate detention. Modern sentencing tools, community supervision, mental health support, and parole frameworks are all capable of mitigating risk. Perpetual incarceration without due process is not a solution – it is a violation. Britain prides itself on the rule of law, but this chapter of penal policy betrays that principle. IPP sentences should not only be consigned to history – they must be actively undone. Every person still caught in this Kafkaesque trap deserves a proper sentence, a path to rehabilitation, and a chance at freedom. Anything less is a continuation of a deep and unforgivable wrong.
Evening Standard
25 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Keir Starmer's first-year scorecard: Has the Prime Minister kept his promises?
Labour promised not to raise taxes on 'working people' and pledged not to raise the rates of NI, income tax, or VAT. Reeves told Sky News in late May 2024: 'There is nothing in our plans that requires any further increases in taxes, I have confidence in that. Voters can have confidence.' She also said on Kuenssberg that Labour 'won't be increasing income tax or national insurance if we win at the election.' The manifesto contained only £8 billion of revenue-raising taxes.
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
Germany proposes law to speed up geothermal and clean heat expansion
BERLIN, July 4 (Reuters) - Germany's economy ministry presented a draft law on Friday that would accelerate the expansion of geothermal energy projects, as Berlin aims to phase out the use of fossil fuels in heating systems by 2045. Germany possesses some of Europe's largest geothermal reserves, which could cover more than a quarter of its annual heating demand, a study by Fraunhofer Institute showed in 2023. But development has long been stalled by local resistance and regulatory red tape. The new bill offers simplified approval procedures for geothermal facilities, heat pumps, heat storage, and heating pipelines. It would legally designate these projects as being of "overriding public interest", similar to the status given to wind and solar energy, and push for accelerated permitting through changes in mining, water, and environmental laws. It would also give government mining authorities fixed deadlines for project approval procedures and ease restrictions on geothermal exploration. Under the bill, mining authorities would be able to waive a requirement for an operational plan for larger heat generation projects under certain conditions and would be required to respond within set deadlines when notified of planned drilling activities. It also gives them the power to require geothermal companies to provide financial security against potential mining damages related to their projects. The renewed interest in geothermal energy in Germany follows an energy price spike resulting from Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine that prompted major municipal utilities — as well as German and international fossil fuel firms — to explore new investment opportunities in the sector. Germany's ambitions to cut greenhouse emissions in the building sector, where heating is the main emissions contributor, has also boosted interest in geothermal energy. The new bill, which the economy ministry hopes will enter into force at the start of next year, must now be approved by Germany's cabinet as well as the lower and upper houses of parliament.
