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 Herald Scotland
22 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reeves in tears as Starmer fails to back her at PMQs
The Prime Minister faced MPs after being forced to scrap key planks of his welfare reforms, leaving an almost £5 billion black hole in Ms Reeves' spending plans and fuelling speculation she could be forced to hike taxes. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was in tears in the Commons as Sir Keir Starmer failed to back her to remain in place until the election. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said Ms Reeves looked 'absolutely miserable' and challenged the Prime Minister to say whether the Chancellor would keep her job until the next election. Sir Keir dodged the question about whether Ms Reeves would be in place for the remainder of the Parliament, saying Mrs Badenoch 'certainly won't'. Chancellor Rachel Reeves was left in floods of tears in the Commons on Wednesday. (Image: PA) The Tory leader said: 'How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm that she would stay in place.' Changes to restrict eligibility to the personal independence payment (Pip) were abandoned on Tuesday night to limit a Labour revolt, wiping out the savings that Ms Reeves had counted on to help meet her goal of funding day-to-day spending through tax receipts rather than borrowing. READ MORE: Mrs Badenoch said the welfare reforms were designed 'to plug a black hole created by the Chancellor' but 'instead they're creating new ones'. She told Sir Keir: 'Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the Chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. 'In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?' Sir Keir replied by suggesting that Mrs Badenoch herself 'certainly won't' remain as Conservative leader, adding: 'I'm always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.' The Prime Minister did not directly comment on Ms Reeves's position. Mrs Badenoch noted: "How awful for the Chancellor that he couldn't confirm she would remain in place." As the Chancellor left the Commons following the Prime Minister's Questions session her sister Ellie Reeves took her hand in an apparent show of support. After Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister's press secretary said Rachel Reeves 'is going nowhere' as Chancellor and retains the Prime Minister's 'full backing'. Asked about Ms Reeves' tears, a spokesman for the Chancellor said it was a 'personal matter'. Earlier, Pat McFadden said taxes on 'working people' will not rise, but he left the door open to other types of revenue raising. Mr McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, told Times Radio that Labour would stick by its promise not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT on 'working people'. He said: 'This is a decision that will have financial consequences. The process of the last couple of weeks does have financial consequences. They will all be taken together with all the other moving parts that there are in the economy and the fiscal picture of the budget. And that will be set out at the time.' The Institute for Fiscal Studies' incoming director Helen Miller said: 'Since departmental spending plans are now effectively locked in, and the Government has already had to row back on planned cuts to pensioner benefits and working-age benefits, tax rises would look increasingly likely. 'This will doubtless intensify the speculation over the summer about which taxes may rise and by how much.' Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride said: 'Tax rises are on the way to pay for Labour's mismanagement of the economy. 'Hard-working families will have an agonising summer waiting to hear how Rachel Reeves will claw back the cash to make up for the failings of this weak Prime Minister.'
Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Spectator
Claws out for Keir, Mamdani's poisoned apple & are most wedding toasts awful?
This week: one year of Labour – the verdict In the magazine this week Tim Shipman declares his verdict on Keir Starmer's Labour government as we approach the first anniversary of their election victory. One year on, some of Labour's most notable policies have been completely changed – from the u-turn over winter fuel allowance to the embarrassing climb-down over welfare this week. Starmer has appeared more confident on the world stage but, for domestic audiences, this is small consolation when the public has perceived little change on the problems that have faced Britain for years. Can Starmer turn it around? Tim joined the podcast alongside the Spectator's editor Michael Gove. What would they say Starmer's greatest mistake, and biggest success, have been over the past year? (1:46) Next: would Zohran Mamdani ruin New York? In the magazine this week, the Spectator's deputy US editor Kate Andrews writes about Zohran Mamdani – the self-declared 'democratic socialist' who defied expectations to become the Democratic Party's presumptive candidate for the New York City mayoral election this November. From a little-known state assemblyman to the mayoral heir presumptive – how did Mamdani do it? And what effect could his policies have? Kate joined the podcast alongside the Spectator's US editor Freddy Gray. (24:03) And finally: 'admit it – most wedding toasts are awful' Are wedding toasts as awful as Madeline Grant says they are in the magazine this week? Maddie writes about the trend for multiple speeches at weddings, beyond the traditional three, blaming creeping Americanisms and the feminist revolution, amongst other things. These, compounded with widespread poor oratory skills, means the playbill looks 'fuller and fuller' and guests are denied a moment to 'at least dull the horror with alcohol'. Should we push back against the trend? Maddie joined the podcast alongside professional speechwriter Damian Reilly. (35:37) Hosted by William Moore and Gus Carter. Produced by Patrick Gibbons.
The National
34 minutes ago
- The National
How Reform UK's plans could dismantle the welfare state
According to a report by The Independent, recent YouGov polls suggest that 38% of working-class voters support Reform – despite evidence that the party's policies could actually stand to make them worse off. We looked at four key policy areas – the NHS, free school meals, benefits and employment – and found that, in spite of promoting themselves as the party of the people, Reform have consistently campaigned on policies or voted against legislation that would keep what's left of the welfare state intact. NHS Nigel Farage has hit back at claims from Labour that under a Reform government, the NHS would no longer be free of charge. An independent fact checker found that Labour had quoted Farage out of context. The right-wing leader has never outright said that his party would fully scrap or privatise the healthcare system and that their policy is 'to always keep the NHS free at the point of use'. However, Farage has been clear that he doesn't want the NHS to be publicly funded. The party has also proposed a range of measures including expanding private provision, bringing in tax relief on private healthcare, bringing in weekend operating hours, and fining patients for missed appointments. Their plan also leans heavily on expanding private provision – offering tax relief on private healthcare and introducing NHS-funded vouchers for private treatment when NHS wait times are too long. READ MORE: Labour partially U-turn on benefits cuts in bid to win over rebel MPs Free school meals Free school meals are a devolved issue, but let's take a look at what Reform are proposing for England. In 2020, Farage criticised the Conservative government for voting against providing free school meals for pupils from low income families during school holidays, branding the move 'mean' and 'wrong'. If the government can subsidise Eat Out to Help Out, not being seen to give poor kids lunch in the school holidays looks mean and is wrong. — Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) October 22, 2020 However, Reform's official policy documents contain zero proposals regarding the provision of free school meals. Farage also abstained from voting on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill at its third reading. The bill proposes that primary schools in England must provide free breakfast for pupils and limit the number of branded items required for uniforms to support families and reduce inequality around hunger and clothing. Reform's four other MPs (excluding Rupert Lowe, who has been suspended by the party) voted on the bill as follows: Lee Anderson: No James McMurdock: No Richard Tice: No Sarah Pochin: No available information The provision of free school meals helps improve pupils' concentration in the classroom, as well as helping to tackle poverty, food insecurity and improving children's overall wellbeing. The Scottish Government, on the other hand, recently expanded eligibility for free school meals, as well as wiping millions of pounds worth of lunch debts for pupils across the country in a bid to tackle the cost of living crisis. (Image: Supplied)Scottish Greens MSP Ross Greer said: 'Children can't learn if they are hungry and we know that free meals can have a transformative impact on their success at school.' Benefits Reform UK wants to overhaul the 'bloated' benefits system to make work more attractive and stop more people falling into the 'benefits trap'. Their 2024 manifesto states the party would raise the income tax threshold to £20,000 and focus on getting up to 2 million people, especially 16–34-year-olds, back into work. Jobseekers would have to accept a job after two offers and find employment within four months or risk benefit sanctions. Disability benefit assessments would be face-to-face with medical proof required, though exemptions would apply for severe cases. They'd also push to end so-called 'health tourism' by restricting access to benefits for new arrivals until they've lived and worked in the UK for five years. READ MORE: No changes to council tax 'in this decade', says Scottish Government Reform's benefit proposals risk punishing the vulnerable rather than addressing the root causes of unemployment. Raising the income tax threshold may help some, but it doesn't address those whose wages are too low to meet the bar in the first place, and does little to improve job quality or security. Forcing people to accept jobs under threat of losing benefits – the 'two-strike' policy – risks pushing individuals into unsuitable, low-paid, or exploitative work. Disability campaigners have also long criticised the dehumanising benefits assessments, especially for those with hidden or fluctuating conditions. Increasing the number of assessments required to receive payments is likely to do nothing but cause distress and further alienate disabled people. As it stands, and unlike myths peddled by the far-right, asylum seekers in the UK are not actually entitled to any mainstream benefits such as Universal Credit. Instead, they are granted £49.18 per person, per week, to cover essentials like food and clothing. If an asylum seeker is placed in accommodation that provides food, the weekly payment is then slashed to £9.95 per person. However, Reform MPs were largely against Labour's welfare cuts. Farage, Tice, McMurdock and Pochin all voted no at the "chaotic" second reading of the bill, whilst Anderson did not vote at all. Employment Outside overhauls to the benefits system, Reform's proposed employment policies are mostly based on removing EU regulations. Their manifesto mentions '[slashing] red tape to boost industry', ie scrapping EU based-employment laws and making it easier for businesses to adopt fire and hire staff members. UK employment law still draws largely from key EU legislations, like the Working Time Regulations 1998 act, TUPE and the Equality Act 2010. Working Time Regulations maintains EU standards on maximum weekly hours (48 hours), rest breaks and annual leave, while TUPE protects employees during business transfers. The Equality Act enforces anti-discrimination and sexual harassment policies in the workplace. READ MORE: 'Bizarre': Question Time called out as Reform councillor joins Scottish panel If Reform were to scrap these policies entirely, there is a risk of gutting workers' rights. Protections like paid leave, rest breaks and safeguards against unfair dismissal could be weakened. Making it 'easier to hire and fire' may sound pro-business, but in reality it could lead to job insecurity, longer hours, and reduced protections for vulnerable workers. Stripping back anti-discrimination laws rooted in EU rules, like the Equality Act 2010, could further erode workplace fairness. Additionally, for a party which claims to be for the people, their voting records on employment rights suggest otherwise. At the third reading for the Employment Rights Bill, Reform MPs voted as follows: Nigel Farage: No Lee Anderson: Didn't vote James McMurdock: Didn't vote Richard Tice: Didn't vote Sarah Pochin: No information available When asked by ITV about youth unemployment, Farage said: 'There's a lot of young people not working who could be. It's almost as if the culture's gone wrong.' The Reform leader attributed the number of youngsters out of work to 17-and-18-year-olds not being pushed to work, while failing to cite rising retirement ages, gaps between education and employment, a lack of local jobs and health, work experience and education inequalities caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The party has provided no substantial pathways to decreasing the number of unemployed young people, other than vague promises to 'get more young people into farming', recruiting 30,000 for the armed forces and taxing foreign workers to pay for undefined apprenticeships.
