PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Parking Regulation - 6 May 2025 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered parking regulation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for his support in securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) —my good friend and constituency neighbour—for their tireless work in challenging the rip-off fines that private parking companies across the country are charging our constituents day in, day out. Irrespective of industry pressure, we will continue to fight on behalf of our constituents who face unfair parking fines. I also thank the RAC and the AA for their ongoing work to advocate for drivers across the country.

I will keep my contribution brief to allow other Members to speak for their constituents. I know that MPs are here from across the country and across party lines because their constituents, like mine in Derby, are fed up. They are fed up of wrestling with a faulty payment app or an out-of-order ticket machine only to find that they will still be fined. They are fed up of the hassle of appealing a parking fine that should never have been issued in the first place. Most of all, they are fed up of feeling scammed by private parking companies that are unfairly pocketing their hard-earned cash.

In my constituency, the Copeland Street car park is a repeat offender, ripping constituents off—both workers and visitors—with unfair fines. Do not just take my word for it; listen to my constituent who fell foul of unclear signage while doing jury service at Derby Crown court. He will now have to defend himself in court against fines in excess of £1,000. Another of my constituents is a member of Derby’s community with hearing difficulties, who uses the car park to attend essential hearing appointments. After receiving an unfair fine, he is understandably worried that this will happen again and again.

Order. Please refrain from mentioning any matter that may be sub judice.

Another resident contacted me and said:

“I’ll probably just pay the fine without contesting it, because the hassle of appealing would be too much.”

The data shows us that those people are sadly far from alone. Although almost one in two motorists who appeals gets their fines cancelled, 80% of private parking fines are paid straight away. A lack of proper regulation has written these companies a blank cheque to collect unfair fines. According to insurance company Churchill’s data, they are on course to make 15.4 million requests to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for vehicle records this year. That is a record average of more than 43,000 private parking tickets issued every single day—one every two seconds. Shockingly, 2,700 will be issued during the course of this debate. It is time to say enough is enough and introduce a legally binding code of practice, to put an end to the extortionate fines.

Earlier this year, I wondered why private parking companies introduced a voluntary code of practice, after years of doing everything they could to block a legally binding code of practice being introduced. To nobody’s surprise, the voluntary code goes nowhere near far enough to stand up for drivers and give them the protections they need. The cap on parking charge notices is still too high. The debt recovery fees are still allowed under the industry code. Put simply, they are setting their own rules and marking their own homework, or at best their mates’ homework. That is just not good enough.

Private parking companies need to act with fairness and common sense. To achieve that, we need a robust code of practice put into law, which stands up for drivers and holds these companies to account. Voluntary guidelines are failing drivers. We need clear, enforceable rules that cover signage, the grace period, appeals processes and the use of CCTV. We also need to put an end to the threatening letters that use legal jargon to intimidate people into paying fines, and we need caps on those fines. Ultimately, we need accountability.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Labour Government’s determination to drive up standards across the private parking sector by committing to publishing a statutory code of practice. Today, on behalf of every driver who has faced the nightmare of an unfair fine, I urge the Minister to commit to introducing such a code without any further delays. Most importantly, the emails that flood our inboxes every day show that drivers across the country are willing us to stand up for them. Now it is time for action.

I remind Members that they must bob if they want to speak in this debate. A lot of people want to speak, so if anyone intends to intervene, they should prepare their interventions carefully, because if an intervention is too long I will cut you off.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on leading this debate, which has been a collaborative effort and is beautifully well attended.

Many private parking companies aim to make their record-making profits from the demands they issue via penalty charge notices, not being satisfied with their advertised parking fees. There is no incentive for them to operate fairly, to make PCN rules straightforward or clear, or to run a genuine appeals process. This model has worked on intimidation and threats, with the companies knowing that a fair proportion of people will be intimidated into paying. The process rapidly escalates into debt collection threats and solicitors’ letters. This cycle of threatening letters, which are often referred to as threatograms, tends to continue regardless of appeals or evidenced facts.

The companies will point to their own independent appeals processes; however, such processes are neither independent nor fair. In fact, they are run by the trade associations: the British Parking Association and the International Parking Community. These organisations are directly funded and directed by the private parking companies, the biggest of which are owned by US private equity groups. For too long, this industry has been allowed to set its own rules and mark its own homework, always at the expense of the motorist, and the RAC and AA agree.

There is a legitimate need for parking management to prevent abuse, but costs and tactics are out of proportion to any legitimate aims. Primary legislation already exists to create a truly independent regulator. We urge the Minister to progress the consultation on the existing draft code of conduct and set up the new regulator that is clearly necessary. These private parking companies are out of control, causing misery for far too many motorists. It has to stop.

In Horsham town, in my constituency, we have a central car park outside a Sainsbury’s, which is operated by a third-party contractor. The number of disputed tickets is out of control. Does my hon. Friend agree that the voluntary code of practice, which was introduced last year, seems to have made absolutely no difference? I can detect no reduction in the difficulties being created.

I agree with my hon. Friend.

I have spoken to a former employee of one of these private parking companies who was dismissed for whistleblowing. In my constituency of Newton Abbot, I have received numerous complaints about the behaviour of some private parking companies and the tactics they use, which include breaching data protection rules by hiding data and failing to comply with subject access requests. They have created a culture of “charge first, think second” and their default position is to refuse appeals. They also use equipment that is designed to be awkward or even to fail, such as machines that will not take cash or card payments, and then they deny appeals, arguing that drivers could have paid by app. They “double-clock” people coming in and out of car parks more than once, even if they have paid for tickets. One victim of this practice appealed and won because the company involved could not provide evidence to support the charges that had been made, but it took the company a further six weeks to cancel the charges.

Other tactics include deliberately targeting people who do not respond to their threatening letters, which are often issued with the wrong address or similar, and selecting them for court action. The companies know that these people are the most likely not to turn up, thus obtaining a default judgment, and that the cost of setting aside a county court judgment is greater than paying it off. There is also a constant use of trumped-up bailiff charges, many times the price of a normal parking fine.

In my constituency, Norma, an elderly driver, forgot to display her blue badge. She received a PCN for £100, which she paid but appealed. She was not offered the discount rate applicable under the company’s own code until I intervened.

I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this debate. At least four unpaid carers attending weekly Dementia Matters meetings in Brecon have been fined. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is more that we can do to protect unpaid carers?

Absolutely—this is something that they should not have to put up with.

Norma felt bullied into making the payment to avoid threats of escalation. Complaints go into a flawed process: appeals are simply denied, and the supposedly independent appeal system acts as little more than a tick box, with no real opportunity to argue reasons. This is immediately followed by continued threats of enforcement, action and increased costs—and it goes even further than that.

Private parking companies seem to have licence to go much further than any other form of organisation. Why can such companies set up automatic number plate recognition or CCTV, have cameras literally hidden on any old building—often really high on outside walls—to film entire streets and into the houses opposite, and have them running 24/7 with a 360° view using night vision, when councils or the police would never be allowed to do such a thing? Why are private parking companies allowed to use such cameras with no restrictions, especially when councils cannot use them at all for off-street parking, since the Deregulation Act 2015 banned camera use for parking contravention in council car parks?

We urgently need an independent regulator. The public need information on how the camera systems are used and who is recording. We need to ensure that the appeal system is working, and that faulty parking machines are rapidly fixed. We need a cap on the maximum penalty charge that can be issued for contraventions. We need a proportionate and responsible debt recovery process for operators to use for non-payments, and we need responsible behaviour and transparency from the companies operating in this area. Critically, a new regulator will provide a single code of practice, so that all private parking operators follow the same rules, and a single independent appeals process.

In 2010, indiscriminate wheel clamping and towing on private land was described as a licence to print money due to the firms’ rogue conduct. The practice was banned by the local transport Minister, the then Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who said:

“The rules governing parking on private land should be proportionate and should not result in motorists being intimidated or forced to pay excessive fines.”

Rather than the private parking lobby and finance world learning its lesson, it reverted to an industry based on outrageous practices, charges and threatograms. Let us end this situation. I ask the Minister to take urgent action.

I am going to have to impose a three-minute limit straight away, I am afraid.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The issue we are addressing today is symptomatic of a country where people who have done everything right are being burdened and bullied by a system that is weighted against them. I want to use this debate to tell the stories of some of my constituents in Darlington, and to outline why I am urging the Government to take action to regulate the private parking industry.

The reason people are so enraged by this issue is because it is a microcosm of people’s broader experiences. What was once an ordinary, day-to-day, unremarkable occurrence has been allowed, through the incompetence of the last Government, to become a truly unacceptable experience for ordinary people. While many simply pay the fine, for a lot of people in Darlington an unexpected bill of £170 really affects their budget.

I pay tribute to the people who have shared their stories; it has helped me greatly in my conversations with Ministers, colleagues and the companies. Each of the 140 people who have reached out to me since I was elected has been treated unfairly, and I am confident that they are just the tip of the iceberg nationally. I am convinced that we absolutely must regulate private parking companies, and that action is long overdue.

The car park that the majority of my constituents have complained about is situated right next to the Darlington Economic Campus, which houses the Treasury. While I was visiting that car park in my first week, a man using a wheelchair was trying to use the machine to pay for his parking. It had taken him longer than five minutes to get to the machine, so he had missed the window to pay without a fine. He was rightly shocked and angry about the unfairness of the rule. The fact that I witnessed him getting caught out in real time convinced me, there and then, that this was happening so frequently that something had to be done. Ten months later, the five-minute rule has been stopped, but we need to go further to protect people. We need proper reporting, proper regulation and an independent ombudsman for appeals, and we need it quickly.

Many Members will be familiar with the story of Hannah Robinson. She received a staggering £11,000 in parking fines from a single company across 67 tickets. In every case, she paid for her parking. Her only fault was that she did not do it within the five-minute window set by the operator. Often that was not even possible. Machines did not work, phonelines were unresponsive and the internet signal was too poor to pay online. The five-minute rule has now rightly been banned following campaigning efforts by MPs such as my hon. Friends the Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), whom I have been proud to work alongside. However, Hannah and others like her should never have been charged in the first place, or dragged through legal proceedings or forced to fight ruthless companies to prove they had done nothing wrong.

Another Darlington resident, Kim, had her life completely knocked off course for parking in the same facility. Like Hannah, she paid for her parking but was unable to do so immediately because of technical issues. She was sent a £170 charge, but she never received the letters. Completely unaware of the issue, she received a county court judgment. Her credit score collapsed. She and her partner were both working full time, doing the right thing, and were blocked from getting a mortgage. The fact of the matter remains: we must take action on this issue, as it is long overdue.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for setting the scene so very well. Not a week goes by in my constituency when I do not have complaints from those with parking tickets, so I wish to register my concerns.

Parking regulations in Northern Ireland are managed mostly by the Department for Infrastructure. It is the relevant agency to issue parking tickets, to which I am no stranger on occasion. A lot of the referrals I have every week on behalf of constituents relate to the Department and to private companies. In the financial year 2023-24, the Department for Infrastructure issued approximately £7.4 million-worth of penalty charge notices, commonly known as parking tickets, which perhaps highlights the scope of issues concerning public parking regulation in Northern Ireland.

First of all, machines are not working and people still get tickets. Secondly, payment facilities are not working. Thirdly, disabled bays are not always marked correctly with lines on the road or signage, and people may get a ticket for something that was there in the past and is not there now. People may also be just minutes, or seconds, over their time limit. Disabled people coming back in wheelchairs is an example.

Here’s a cracker—that was something that used to be said. One of my constituents complained to me one day. They went to a shopping centre—I will not mention which—and when they went in, there were no lines. As soon as they came out, there was a line painted right around the car. The paint was so fresh that there were spatters of yellow over the car, and guess what happened? They got a parking ticket. You could not write that story. We fought the case, and to be fair, the company withdrew the fine, as it should have. It should never have happened. What the—it would be unfair to say that; I do not want to use bad language.

I am under time pressure. These are the issues in my constituency of Strangford. I have heard of resident permit parking schemes that have been introduced in some areas across Northern Ireland. For example, Belfast has a system with a £30 annual permit to allow people to park in designated bays. There are ways of doing it better. I know the Minister is a good Minister—he answers questions and always tries to be constructive. There are methods whereby we can move forward, and a bit of common sense and flexibility would help. The Minister is always keen to have discussions with his counterpart in Northern Ireland, so will he tell us what is happening in relation to that? Regulations sometimes differ between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I ask him to tell us what has been done in those talks to work together better.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for the work they have done on this issue.

I am not the only Member to have people stop me in the street or message me to tell me how angry and frustrated they are at having to fork out for penalty charges in circumstances they think are wholly unfair. I have been there myself: as a mum of three, I have had to get my children out of their car seats, pull out the pushchair, unload the bags and try to ensure they do not run out in front of oncoming cars, all to the chorus of one or more children trying to get my attention—the usual juggle. Try finding a working payment machine or downloading an app when you are the only thing standing between children and soft play.

When I read about the case of Rosey Hudson, who was taken to court for nearly £2,000 of unpaid charges because she had not paid within five minutes, I became really keen to raise this issue in Parliament. The cases that have been raised with me have involved not just those caring for young children, but people with mobility issues, and machines not working. One person could not even find a parking space and was still charged.

Unlike Rosey, not everyone feels able to stand up and contest the fines. Many are put off by the threats of legal action and are worried about going to court. Of the 3.8 million private parking tickets issued in just three months last year, 80% were uncontested. When I convened a roundtable with MPs, car parking firms and consumer groups, I was asked what a fair time limit would be, but if a person pays for the time they have parked, there is no loss to the car park, so they should not face penalty charges. I am glad that the time people have to pay has been doubled to 10 minutes, but the only way to have a fair system is to have a statutory code. We want to protect drivers from unfair practices, plain and simple—particularly given that the number of parking tickets issued to motorists has nearly doubled since 2018.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sheer volume of parking tickets could be having an impact on people’s desire to visit our high streets and town centres, as they worry about parking without getting fined?

I completely agree. Firms hand out more than 43,000 parking tickets to motorists every day—one every two seconds. In line with what my hon. Friend said, I acknowledge the important role that private car parking plays, especially in our city and town centres. I want people to shop in our brilliant independent shops, such as those on Sadler Gate. I want people to be able to go to our fantastic restaurants, such as Lorentes, BEAR, the Dining Room and the Bookcafé. I want them to visit Derby theatre and our brand new 3,500-capacity performance venue, Vaillant Live. We need to ensure that when people use private car parks, they do not feel ripped off.

Parking regulations are not about where we leave our cars, but about how we shape our communities, support our local economies and respond to the climate crisis. When done well, they should enhance our communities, not stifle them. They should be not a revenue source, but a planning tool to balance environmental priorities, support active travel and nurture vibrant neighbourhoods. They are not about declaring war on motorists; they are about our public spaces, which belong to us all. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a national framework for fair parking standards, with clear rules that ensure transparency in permit pricing, protections for small businesses and common-sense exemptions for essential workers.

My Bath constituency is a beautiful and bustling city, but it is under pressure. Narrow Georgian streets and high visitor numbers mean that space for parking is in high demand. Parking regulations must be implemented fairly, with safeguards for lower-income households. Let us not forget the digital divide, which we have already heard about. As we move towards app-based payment systems, we must ensure that no one—especially the elderly or vulnerable, or those struggling with their kids—is left behind. We call for a requirement that all parking areas retain alternative, accessible methods of payment. Many of my Bath constituents—we have already heard about this issue this morning—have been hit with disproportionate fines from private operators, especially around retail areas and tourist hotspots. We need stronger regulations, and a binding code of conduct to prevent abuse and to ensure that all enforcement is appropriate and clearly communicated.

Today, we are calling for a review of private parking enforcement. Too many of my Bath constituents are being caught out by unclear signage and unfair fines, while appeals processes are skewed against individuals.

Constituents of mine in Yeovil have been given unfair fines at car parks run by Parkingeye, Excel Parking and Euro Car Parks due to unclear signs, faulty ticket machines, bad apps and poor road markings. Does my hon. Friend agree it is clear that private parking companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves?

Indeed. We have already heard this today, but we must have a mandatory code of conduct. I have one constituent who was hit with a £100 fine by a private company, despite having spent the entire time parked in the business that owns the car park. When she went to the Independent Appeals Service—as some people dare to do—the review stated that the charge was in the region of £85, when it was actually a lot higher. That also raises questions about the quality of the appeals process. It is high time that we brought private parking more fully under statutory regulation, with a code of practice that puts fairness first.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The Government were elected back in July on a mandate to put more money into working people’s pockets. However, almost as soon as that money goes in, those same pockets are being picked by the increasing costs of just living their daily lives. One of the most egregious culprits is the private parking industry. On average, 41,000 new private parking fines are issued each and every day. We are on course for more than 14 million this year alone. That is an issue that affects pretty much every motorist in the country, whether through being fined themselves or worrying that they will make a mistake and that they are at risk of being fined.

I will tell a couple of stories from my constituency just to illustrate the argument. First, we have Katie Lovett. She parked at the private car park near the railway station but was not sure how the payment machine worked, so approached someone on duty for help. This is what she said when she wrote to me, as her words are far more powerful than anything I could write:

“I received a letter from a debt company in March of this year telling me I had a parking fine of £170 for parking longer than I paid for at the London Street NCP carpark in Southport in January. I’ve never parked here before and even asked a gentleman if I paid on arrival or exit and he told me you pay on exit by putting your registration number in and paying the amount shown. This is exactly what I did although I found the whole process very complicated.”

After a lot of back and forth, she ended up paying the fine because:

“It turns out it was my fault because unbeknown to me you have to put the length of time you’ve been parked for in the machine when you pay. So I only paid for one hour and not two.”

Katie is not alone because, secondly, we have an issue with the Ocean Plaza car park near the beach. One of my residents went to the shops there a couple of months ago—parks up, does his shopping and gets a letter two weeks later to say that he had been parked for three days, four hours and 38 minutes. It was an obvious mistake, but it took the intervention of my office before the parking firm would admit it.

Even I have been caught out. I do not particularly class myself as a shrinking violet on this, nor do I think I am any less competent than the average person when it comes to dealing with these issues; but when someone like me gets a £100 fine through the post, God help the average motorist, who is just trying to navigate the complex multitude of different regimes and approaches. There needs to be standardised regulation in this area, concerning issues such as signage, grace periods, appeals processes and complaint handling. There needs to be a consideration period, so that people can make an informed judgment about whether to accept the terms and conditions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that private parking firms are running a racket in this country by adding debt recovery fees on top of already expensive parking fines? Will he join me in urging the Minister to bring forward the new regulatory code as soon as possible and ensure that it includes the ability to prevent the addition of bailiffs’ charges on top of already expensive fines?

I agree completely. The £70 uplift that the recovery firms are charging is indefensible.

For repeat offenders in the industry, there needs to be a statutory code of practice. It should include the power to remove a company’s access to the DVLA register of keepers, meaning that operators who fail to meet the standards of the code would be prevented from enforcing unpaid parking charges and would therefore effectively be unable to do business. Lastly, the Government need to stop the private operators issuing and enforcing fines due to inadequate signs, broken machines, faulty ANPR cameras and simple mistakes around dealing with the technology. I await the Minister’s remarks with interest.

In rural areas such as West Dorset, public transport is limited. Unfortunately, a car is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Our current approach to parking is outdated and increasingly unfair. At Dorchester South station, a lack of parking provision has become a source of real frustration, with drivers forced to park in surrounding residential streets, sometimes blocking access to emergency vehicles or cutting off neighbours in their own driveway. Some beach car parks have been privatised, pushing up charges and limiting access.

Where parking is available, payment systems increasingly discriminate against older people and against those without smartphones. Apps require good signal or wi-fi; large parts of West Dorset have neither. The use of apps and the withdrawal of cash or card options effectively exclude some of the most vulnerable people in our community, including older residents.

West Dorset experiences a dramatic increase in population during the summer, with up to 42% more people during peak months. It puts a huge strain on beach car parks, residential streets and protected natural areas. There must be parking to account for those swells in population, so that it is not our roadsides and verges that pay the price. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the creation of an independent car parking regulator, which would help to ensure national standards for appeals, signage, access and fairness. It would provide much-needed oversight of a system that currently operates with too little accountability and far too much inconsistency.

Hospital parking is another area in which urgent reform is needed. Research by the Liberal Democrats has found that NHS staff, patients and visitors have paid out £1.15 billion since 2018 in car parking fees. More than £300 million has come from NHS staff: people who are caring for others under intense pressure are being charged to go to work. We believe that this must change. We are calling for a visiting and caring fund to reduce parking costs for NHS workers and ensure that patients are not penalised for needing treatment or seeing loved ones.

What we need is a parking system that works for those who live in West Dorset, for those who visit and for those who rely on fair and safe access to work, healthcare and community life. Until that happens, we are letting down far too many people.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on their excellent speeches.

This is not a marginal issue, but a systemic one. It touches the lives of millions of motorists and contributes to the erosion of our high streets and of public confidence and belief in a fair process. Constituents continue to be harassed, penalised and financially extorted by a private parking industry that has operated largely unchecked for over a decade. In my constituency, I continue to receive complaints about one particular operator, which has become notorious. I am extremely disappointed that it has failed to respond to queries raised by my office. The scandal is that there are many motorists who pay up even when they should not have been issued a fine at all. The companies are known to use intimidatory methods to press people into paying high fines. People pay because they do not want the aggro.

I have a number of stories from constituents, but because time is short, I will share just one. Leila told me that she parked in the Broomhill Excel car park for a hairdressing appointment. There is no coin machine, so people are wholly reliant on the app. On that occasion, the machine did not work, but she kept trying for 17 minutes and eventually the payment went through. She thought nothing of it until she received a letter stating that she was liable to pay a fine of £100. She worried that the payment had not gone through, but she checked her statement and it showed that it had. She therefore confidently appealed, thinking that it was an oversight on Excel’s part. She was aghast to learn that her appeal had been rejected because, per its policy, she was seven minutes late. It erroneously states that there is an alternative payment source; there is not. It is wholly reliant on the app, which was not working at the time.

Some car parking firms still believe that their code of conduct is enough—the code of conduct that they decide and that they police. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a statutory code of practice so that car parking is straightforward, convenient and fair?

I agree: the private parking code of practice is not fit for purpose. Will the Minister explain whether the Government will consider reintroducing the official private parking code of practice as soon as possible? Will he also consider the immediate suspension of DVLA data access for any operators found to have engaged in predatory practices or information misuse?

Our constituents cannot continue to face this unjust system. The only winners under the current system are the private parking companies that are profiteering at the expense of the public.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate.

The RAC estimates that 14.5 million drivers will receive a parking fine this year. That is more than one in three drivers in this country. In the Derbyshire Dales, I have heard time and again from residents that private parking companies sometimes employ tactics akin to bullying and intimidation, many of which have been eloquently outlined in this debate, to get them to pay unjust fines. It has clearly become widespread: just 2% of drivers state that private parking firms treat fairly those who contravene parking rules.

I will share a few stories from the Derbyshire Dales that highlight the severity of the issue. Rachel Betton is a constituent of mine who was dropping off her grandchildren at a trampoline centre in Derby; I believe it may be the same one that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South mentioned. Rachel never even parked, but she was charged £60 by Excel Parking Services for entering the car park. Like many constituents, Rachel felt that she did not have the time or energy to appeal, so she decided to pay the fine despite feeling that it was unjust. Unbeknownst to her, however, her payment never went through, leaving her to pay an increased fine of £170.

Other constituents have had the same negative experience with the same company. Kathleen Jackson, who is 76, told me that she was fined £170 after it took her over 10 minutes to figure out how to use the machine. The machine has now been replaced due to serious functionality issues, but that has not stopped her having to pay the fine.

The issue is particularly problematic for disabled constituents, who often need more time to get to parking meters and pay for parking. One such constituent, Claire Ashbrook, has told me that she has been left feeling particularly stressed because she does not have the money to pay the fine, as she is caring for her sick daughter. These stories demonstrate that the private parking companies cannot be allowed to mark their own homework.

Although it is welcome that a voluntary code of conduct has now been introduced, it is voluntary. Only a statutory code of conduct will ensure that private parking companies are held to account. For the good of my constituents, I ask the Government to consider implementing such a code as soon as possible.

Order. Because you have all been so disciplined, and because one Member who had emailed about speaking in the debate is now not planning to do so, I can be a little more flexible with time, but not too much. You have roughly four minutes each from now on.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. It is clear from this debate that there are systemic weaknesses in how the private parking system is structured and regulated. That is the core issue that I wish to address.

One of the two DVLA-accredited trade associations is the International Parking Community. Members of the IPC are granted access to DVLA data to pursue unpaid parking charges. If a constituent receives a penalty charge notice from an IPC member, they are directed to appeal via the Independent Appeals Service, a body accepted by the DVLA for the purpose of handling appeals.

Although the IAS is an accredited alternative dispute resolution provider, it is not directly run by the Government. The word “independent” may lead consumers to believe that they are appealing to an impartial Government-run body, but the IAS operates independently of both Government oversight and parking operators. The International Parking Community and the Independent Appeals Service are both trading names of one company, United Trade and Industry Ltd. This overlap raises legitimate concerns about perceived conflicts of interest, as the same corporate entity that profits from private parking companies through membership fees is responsible for overseeing the code of practice and adjudicating disputes under it. This lack of separation, clearly, could undermine trust in the fairness of the process.

The IAS asserts that its independence is safeguarded by its use of qualified solicitors or barristers as self-employed adjudicators, all of whom remain anonymous, are duty-bound by their professional codes and are paid fixed fees regardless of appeal outcomes. It is also true that individuals retain the option of appealing a PCN through other means, such as in court, under consumer protection legislation. However, for the average citizen, and particularly for someone without time, resources or legal understanding, the impression of full independence created by the Independent Appeals Service’s name could easily be misleading. At a minimum, the current framework could contribute to a perception of bias and could foster a lack of public confidence.

These are precisely the issues that a Government private parking code of practice needs to address. I therefore look forward to the Minister setting out the progress that the Government are making in addressing the issues. I hope to hear about the progress to be made in how private parking is enforced, to ensure greater oversight, consistency and fairness.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) on securing this important debate, and so many others on campaigning on this issue.

I speak on behalf of the people of Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages. Our proud coastal community has stunning beaches, three glorious piers and a tourism and hospitality sector that plays an essential role in our local economy, but parking is a growing problem that is echoed across communities up and down the country. Far too often, the cost and availability of parking acts as a barrier, deterring visitors, frustrating local businesses and making it harder for residents to enjoy the very places that they call home. The issue has been hugely compounded by unscrupulous private parking companies, especially in recent years.

In Weston, we want both locals and tourists to come and enjoy our seafront and our high streets. We want them to visit our small businesses, our events and our attractions, but when a family find that parking for a day at the beach can cost as much as their fish and chips, they think twice. They might not come at all. The prospect—so often reinforced by these unscrupulous companies—of unfair and unclear fines further exacerbates the issue. We need to dramatically rethink our approach to parking regulation in coastal areas. That goes further than having a code of practice for private regulators; it is a wholesale issue about how we reinvigorate our town centres generally.

We must see cheaper and more flexible parking options, particularly during peak season, when towns such as Weston thrive on day visitors. Those might include capped daily rates, off-peak discounts, or partnerships with local businesses to validate parking. Too often, we have seen a “computer says no” attitude when such initiatives have been suggested, and far too often we are told, “We’ve outsourced this to private companies rather than innovating in-house.” Governments can make local decision makers shift their thinking on the subject.

Accessibility is also key. We have heard a lot about people with disabilities, older people, and those with Parkinson’s, such as my mum, who has been stung by parking charges simply because she cannot access the app or she does not do things quickly enough. Often, those are the people most at risk of extortionate fines, which are so out of proportion with the perceived error. It is not just about convenience; it is about fairness.

In Darlington, there are car parks with no signal, so people have to go outside to download the app, log into it and then pay for their parking, by which point they have often incurred a charge. Does my hon. Friend agree that in our code, we should include the provision of multiple payment methods in every car park?

Absolutely, and this goes to the heart of a lot of what we have talked about in this place in respect of the shift to a digital-first world. In many ways, that is great, but it excludes so many people. We need to continue to have other options, including cash payment, available for people who need them.

Coastal towns face unique economic challenges. Hospitality and tourism are two of the few industries that we rely on in Weston. If visitors are put off before they even step out of the car, or are punished by opportunistic private parking companies, we all lose out—local people, shops, cafés and attractions alike.

Let us be clear: better parking regulation is not about free-for-all parking; it is about sensible, locally driven policies that work for both residents and visitors. It is about supporting coastal regeneration by making it easier, not harder, for people to spend their time and money in our towns. Let us make it easier for people to get to our town centres, and for our communities to thrive.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As MPs, we all have a massive volume of casework that is generated from constituents who have come to us with concerns about parking charge notices. My constituency of Mansfield is no different. There is a real sense of anger among local people.

Common complaints that I have come across include problems with parking payment apps, payment machines that are out of order or not functioning properly, difficulties speaking to a real person to query a PCN, and, in particular, PCNs that have been issued wrongly because automatic number plate recognition systems have malfunctioned yet it is possible to prove payment. I have also dealt with many cases in which someone has purchased a ticket but has simply incorrectly entered a digit from their registration number into a tiny payment machine keypad. Many constituents, particularly those with visual impairment or those who are older, have come to me about that.

One company in particular, which manages the St Peter’s retail park car park in Mansfield, has been the subject of hundreds of complaints to my office. I have since met representatives of the company in Parliament, and I am pleased that they have agreed to make numerous improvements, including installing new payment machines, and to refund a large number of PCNs.

However, I still have many reservations about the conduct of car parking companies in my constituency. From my observations, it appears that many companies are intent on generating as many PCNs and as much income as possible, and putting up as many barriers to appealing as possible—for example, not having staffed telephone lines, or insisting that appeals must be made in a very specific manner. Charge income is increasing at a record rate, while the number of vehicles on British roads is increasing only minimally. Clearly, something is going wrong. We seriously need to consider why that is the case and look at the regulatory framework under which parking companies operate. Many operators have told me that they are British Parking Association approved and they adhere to the code of conduct and practice, but that is a voluntary code created by the car parking industry, as the British Parking Association is a membership organisation funded solely by the car parking companies themselves.

It seems to me that these companies act as judge and jury in the regulation of their industry, and I think enough is enough. My constituents in Mansfield demand that we in this House scrutinise these companies and decide whether further action is needed. I therefore urge the Government to look into the matter and to consider statutory regulation as a priority.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and other colleagues for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have made contributions illustrating something that is a scandal across the whole country.

I want to highlight how my constituents in Shipley are being ripped off with a number of cases that are impacting both residents and shoppers. I spoke to a constituent who lives at Victoria Mills, a beautiful residential development in the heart of Saltaire. He has been trying to register his vehicle with the company that operates the residents’ car park, BaySentry. It has him down as owning two cars and two spaces, neither of which has the correct registration details, so every time he enters or exits his car park—sometimes two or three times a day—he is issued with a fine. The website is extremely difficult and confusing to use. Although he has been contacting the company, which keeps saying it will respond in three days, he has still had no response. Having clocked up several thousands of pounds in fines owed, he has decided to move out. He knows that other residents threatened with the same sort of penalty notices have paid up because they are too scared, as we have heard today.

Another constituent overstayed slightly at a supermarket car park, but saw that the signage was extremely poor and submitted evidence to that effect. She went down the route of appeal using POPLA—Parking on Private Land Appeals. That pretends to look like an independent appeals process, but, as we know, these are not independent processes; they are paid for by the parking companies. She has got into dispute with POPLA, which is not progressing her appeal. This is really undermining people’s confidence in parking.

The third case study is that of Susan, who has a happier story. She was shopping at the new Lidl store—she was there 30 minutes before opening time to use the browsing time before the store opened on a Sunday—and she received a fine from Parkingeye. She paid the fine and went to appeal, but got no joy from the company. It turned out that Parkingeye was not up to date with the store opening times, and it should never have fined her as she was not there out of hours. Thanks to my intervention on her behalf, we got a small victory: the cameras were updated and she got her money back.

It should not require the intervention of MPs with these private companies to stop this rip-off Britain. It seems like the companies have a blank cheque and are exploiting law-abiding residents of my constituency and people around the country. I hope the Minister will respond positively to my call and that of colleagues for properly independent regulation and clarity for consumers, and a legally binding code of practice.

We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, which I would like to finish by 12.58 pm so that the mover of the motion has the opportunity to sum up the debate.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing the debate. I know from my personal experience and that of my constituents that private parking can often feel like the wild west. Extortionate fees, poor signage, outrageous fines and an often opaque and unjust appeals process are too often the norm. As one can see from the attendance at the debate, it is a real issue across the country—although oddly not in many Conservative constituencies, it seems. In the words of the AA, private parking operators often act as “shark-like businesses”. I consequently welcome today’s debate and the opportunity it affords to shine a light on this issue.

Some of the stories we have heard are appalling. The time has come to stop wringing our hands and do something about the issue. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the introduction of an independent parking regulator with appropriate power to regulate fees, enforcement and appeals. It is vital that national standards are introduced to protect motorists and ensure transparency across the system.

Trust in parking companies is so low that more and more motorists are moving to on-street parking, including in Heald Green, where nuisance parking outside high-footfall businesses has caused much concern among local residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to encourage holistic parking strategies, to ensure that motorists and residents get a fairer deal?

I completely agree. We need a parking system that works. We are not against parking; we are against abuse of the parking system.

It is beyond doubt that the status quo is allowing private companies to act with impunity, preying on the millions of motorists in this country who rely on private car parks to go about their everyday life. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Abbot, for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for West Dorest (Edward Morello), and the hon. Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), as well as many others, many of these companies use underhand tactics to increase the fines charged and county court judgments issued. It is simply not acceptable. As the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) said, it is rip-off Britain.

As the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) noted, the RAC has said that private parking operators are on track this year to hand out a record 14.5 million fines, each costing the recipient up to £100, and potentially more if they dispute or delay payment. Many fines are not for genuine infringements; they are simply devices to raise money, with little to no scrutiny by the Government. As the hon. Members for Derby North, for Derby South and for Shipley noted, some of our constituents face fines that soon escalate to many thousands of pounds. It is truly shocking. Such situations simply should not be allowed to happen.

The Government must urgently stamp down on the abuse of the parking ticket system. In addition to the establishment of a fully resourced and empowered regulator, a clear national code of practice must be reintroduced to promote transparency. Will the Minister confirm when the code of practice will be reissued? We also need a robust independent appeals body, as the industry’s own processes clearly are not working. As the hon. Members for Derby South, for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) said, many motorists simply do not bother to appeal, as the process is so difficult and time-consuming.

On the appeals process, constituents across the country are attending court to find that their hearing has been cancelled by the company at the last minute. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a waste of their time and a waste of the court’s time?

I do. These companies use tactics simply to increase their profits and our frustration, and to make people impotent in the face of their abuses.

Even when individuals take the trouble to appeal, the process is opaque and impossible to navigate, as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) so eloquently noted. I have experienced that myself. When one of my constituents got in touch about an incorrect parking penalty notice from Britannia Parking, it was well-nigh impossible to find the contact details of the company, while the links it provided to appeal did not work.

The Liberal Democrats stand for fairness and accountability in the private parking system. Although we welcome the Government’s promise to introduce a code of practice, as always the devil will be in the detail. We must scrutinise the new code when it materialises, to ensure that motorists are properly protected from rogue parking firms. We remain of the view that the Government should go further and introduce a regulator with appropriate powers to enforce the code of practice and put an end to the abuse.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Members for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. As we have heard from across the Chamber, there are many examples of rogue parking companies. Before I begin, I will just note that this is my first opportunity to reply to a debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—not bad for a boy from Broxbourne—so please go easy on me.

Luckily, both I and my constituents have plenty of experience of dealing with parking problems—as do many Members across the Chamber, as we have heard, with passionate contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber, including the right hon. Member—sorry, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); he should be a right hon. Member. It would not be a debate in this Chamber without him in attendance. I noted down many comments from Members across the Chamber, but I will not go through them; I will just say that I heard nothing that I disagreed with about these cowboy parking companies. I think everyone has agreed with everything that everyone else has said and that action needs to be taken on rogue parking companies.

Parking is a crucial part of everyday life, but too often it is overlooked because it is not a glamorous political issue. When parking is too hard to find, too expensive or just too complicated, it can have a ripple effect on the local economy and the basic quality of life of all our constituents. I would like to make a number of practical points to the Minister and I look forward to the Government taking constructive steps to make things easier and better as soon as possible.

Although Labour’s manifesto failed to mention parking—its priorities clearly lying elsewhere—the Conservatives pledged to roll out the national parking platform fully, ending the ludicrous situation of someone needing one app on their phone to park in one car park, another app to park in the car park down the road and so on. A single payment system would make paying easier, especially for older people. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), said in February that options were being explored with the parking industry to deliver that platform, so let me ask today’s Minister: how are those discussions going, and when will we see action on that matter? Can he confirm whether the funding for the pilot version of the national parking platform ceased on 31 March?

While making parking easier for drivers, there is a balance to be struck between making simpler regulations and protecting pedestrians and local residents. At the last election, we promised to give councils the power to ban pavement parking if they so wish, provided that they engage with businesses and residents first to ensure that they are not adversely affected. It is incredibly frustrating for pedestrians to find their path blocked by inconsiderate cars; for those with disabilities or young children in prams, it can mean the choice between a dangerous detour and not continuing their journey at all. My sister has used a wheelchair to get around Hoddesdon and sadly has been forced into busy roads too many times.

At its most serious, inconsiderate parking can be a matter of life and death. I am sad to say that in my Broxbourne constituency there was a case in which an ambulance was unable to reach a person experiencing a 999 medical emergency, with paramedics having to run down the road because cars were parked too closely on both sides of it. In my previous role as the local county councillor, I was able to respond immediately by putting in place practical double yellow lines to ensure that that could never happen again, while ensuring that parking was still available.

We did try to implement some of the recommendations from the consultation; the courts and the private companies that threatened legal action were the reason why we could not do that. I hope this Government will answer those questions and reply to that consultation, as the hon. Member rightly says; I would not go near a primary or secondary school in my constituency during school pick-up and drop-off time. Sadly, it is often parents taking their children to school who are parking dangerously, and that affects other children going to the same school. We must do something about that.

I firmly believe that councils and councillors, who understand their local areas, should have the power to tackle inconsiderate parking. The Minister speaks about devolving more responsibility to local authorities. Will that include the power for local authorities, if they so wish, to ban pavement parking?

When it comes to parking, local people also need a say from a planning perspective. In my constituency, a new development has been proposed with just 17 spare spaces for 80 flats. If only half those flats contain two people—a couple who both drive—spaces will run out very quickly indeed, forcing more cars on to already full neighbouring roads.

Although the shadow Minister raises some really important issues around school parking and parking on pavements, does he recognise that this debate is focused on the operations of private parking companies, which are ripping off so many of our residents, and that we should not dilute that message?

I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that if he will wait, I am coming on to that point in my speech. There are a range of parking issues that all affect this situation.

The issues around planning and getting the right number of parking spaces are already evident in Marsh Close in my constituency. Constituents there have written to me to share their frustrations about struggling to find space to park close to their home—why? Because not enough cars were catered for when the development was built. The Government’s new national planning policy framework expects parking to be integral to the design of new housing schemes. That is vital and should be applied in every new development. Almost every development I see needs more parking spaces, so the Government must prioritise it.

Constituents have also been in contact to tell me stories of dreadful treatment by the handful of rogue parking companies, as we have heard from Members from across the Chamber today. Outrageously, Parkingeye has repeatedly sent threatening letters to one of my constituents, demanding money, without even providing an explanation of why they had received the fine in the first place.

Across the country, 14.5 million parking tickets will be issued to drivers this year. Too often, parking firms deliberately work to fleece motorists for as much money as they can, with misleading and confusing signage, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees. That must stop. The Government must get a grip on these cowboy operators, stop this war on motorists and deal with the other parking issues that our constituents are always contacting us about.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for the spirit and intent with which they both spoke. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate.

I must say that I am generally not one for diary policing colleagues, and I always say to constituents that the number of people attending a debate does not always reflect the amount of feeling that exists about an issue. However, it is clear that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have tapped into a real issue, and the range of colleagues present, of different political persuasions and from around the country, shows that. Something my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said particularly stuck with me: I think that all colleagues have experienced, as I have myself, being contacted by frustrated, angry and upset constituents—good people, who go about their days doing the right thing, but end up battling a system that is not only seemingly unresponsive to their challenges, but is actually set up to challenge them and indeed to trip them up.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about the strength of feeling that exists about this issue, but they provided a purposeful and solution-focused approach to lead the debate, which has stood us in good stead. In the contributions that colleagues have made, they have clearly set out the “rap sheet” and the frustrations of their constituents, and I will respond to those points shortly. I hope that their constituents, and indeed constituents from around the country, can hear their voices in this debate; they have been very present.

I have a little more time in which to speak than colleagues did, so I will start by saying, as they perhaps would not have had time to do, that there is an intrinsic importance and value in private parking. Parking is important for our motorists and, as some colleagues alluded to, it is also important for the resilience of towns, cities and communities across the country. People want and need—and must be able—to use their cars to do their shopping, attend medical appointments, go to work and take their children to the activities they need to go to.

As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, in many areas across the country, people are totally dependent on their cars and rely on the consistent and available provision of good-quality car parks. All our communities in our towns and our cities rely on having a mix of transport options, of which privately managed car parks are an essential element. That is how important and fundamental car parks are.

If we individualise some of the challenges that exist, such as a number being keyed wrongly here or an overstay by two minutes there, parking might be seen as a granular challenge, but actually it is a hugely significant issue for the vitality of our communities. Like other colleagues, I have heard from those who represent the private parking industry, who say that 99% of the time there is a quality interaction, but we have heard stories in this debate that show that is too often not the case—and too often for seemingly avoidable reasons.

I am grateful to hon. Members for setting out their cases. I am also grateful to those colleagues who highlighted that the issue is on the rise. We heard about the scale of it: as colleagues said, between 2012 and 2022 there was a near 500% increase in DVLA vehicle keeper data requests. Something must be done. As other colleagues said, a parking charge will be issued every two seconds during this debate. The system must be fair, and it must ensure that motorists can park without fear of an unfair charge.

I will speak a little about what we intend to do as a Government shortly, but colleagues have set out an important road map—if hon. Members will excuse a totally unintended pun—for different improvements that could be made to the system. First, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) mentioned the clarity of the rules. My hon. Friend raised an important point about his assessment of his own capacity to comply or otherwise with rules. By instinct, I want to follow the rules to their fullest—I definitely do not want to get fined—but they can be difficult and unclear, and they ought not to be. They ought to be something that anybody can comprehend and follow.

Similarly, my hon. Friends the Members for Derby South and for Shipley (Anna Dixon) talked about the importance of signage. It is important that that is not seen as a hurdle to clear—an invisible hurdle, something that people could have known if only they were 15 feet taller. There has to be fairness in ensuring that people know how to follow the rules.

The systems themselves also have to work, as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said. Kimberley, in my constituency, is in a dip, so it is often very hard to use the app because there is no connectivity. The systems have to be ones that people can access and use.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) talked about proportionate responses, so that, if people do not follow the rules, the penalties are fair and relate to the transgression. He also made important points about what parking can do in a tourism context. Like him, the last thing I would want is for someone to come to my constituency—perhaps to enjoy Nottingham’s fabulous night-time economy—and for the one thing they remember to be, “Oh, but I got a parking ticket, didn’t I?”. Those things stick, so the system has to be fair and transparent; if it is not, there is a knock-on impact.

My hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about an appeal system. This is fundamental. People must be able to exercise their right to a fair hearing. People must also have confidence in the appeal system. Otherwise, they will not use it, and the virtuous feedback loop that is created when the appeal system demonstrates to operators areas where there might be challenges—why are they getting a lot of appeals on a specific car park? Is there a signage or technology issue?—gets lost.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) mentioned access to the DVLA database. The database is accessible where there is reasonable cause, which underpins the system. I say to her and other colleagues who expressed concerns that there can be consequences for operators who misuse the system.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland. This is a devolved matter, but I reiterate a commitment I have given to him in relation to a number of other issues, which he very kindly mentioned: I talk to my counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive frequently about a variety of issues, and I am always keen that we learn from each other. There are sometimes good reasons for doing things differently, but we must not create a lack of clarity by doing wildly different things. It is always interesting to hear what they are doing, and I am always keen to borrow the best of what is going on across the UK.

Like a number of other colleagues, the hon. Gentleman also mentioned a local example from his constituency of the importance of political pressure in getting the right thing to happen. I think particularly of the five-minute cap issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and the constituent who was fined £2,000. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned the significant fine—a matter of public record—given to one of her constituents. Reading ahead to where I am going here, colleagues will know that pressure by hon. Members meant that that system was changed under the voluntary code of practice. That is a good thing, but that is not how a system ought to work.

Similarly, in my community we had a number of complaints about the same car park. A member of staff from my office went and saw that one of the cameras had been knocked, so they were getting duff data. We were able to get that changed. That may have to happen sometimes, but that is not a system that is working. It should not rely on politicians intervening in individual cases to change policy. We can and will do much better.

I want to reiterate—or iterate and then reiterate, perhaps—to colleagues our commitment as a Government on this issue. I hope colleagues have seen my strength of feeling on this issue. We are committed to taking action to protect motorists and drive up standards in the private parking industry. We have a helpful bit of support from previous Parliaments in that. I think that, other than the hon. Member for Strangford, only you and I, Mr Efford, will remember the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which started as a private Member’s Bill tabled by Greg Knight. That was a good use of the private Member’s Bill process.

The 2019 Act places a duty on the Government to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. However, doing so was an exercise that confuddled four previous Prime Ministers and five Secretaries of State—one of them twice—not to mention goodness knows how many Ministers. The process was too slow and too chaotic. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), said, the Government tried in 2022 but then had to withdraw the code of practice. I give the clear commitment from this Dispatch Box that as a Government we will deliver.

What timeframe is the Department working to? I am not the only Member present who has asked that question, and it would be helpful to get confirmation from the Minister.

I suspect that my reply to the hon. Lady will be the same as I have set out previously to a number of Members, either via written question or in correspondence. The timeframe is coming in due course. I will talk a little more about that, because we are having an important debate. We want to get this right, and I am aware of the potted and challenging history in this space. We want to get it right this time, and we are committed to delivering a code that recognises the importance of this issue to motorists and gets it right for them.

The Department meets regularly with the AA, the RAC and other consumer groups, which have done such important work in this area, to ensure that the code we publish will act in the best interests of motorists and addresses their concerns. As would be expected, we have talked to the accredited trade associations—the British Parking Association and the Internation Parking Community—to ensure that we do not inadvertently make life harder for motorists along the way. I assure Members that we will engage with the issues that have been raised with the Department as we work towards publishing the code.

We have talked about the impact of parking practices on particular towns, and I am concerned about some of the towns in the Tyne valley, where a lot of effort is being made to preserve the local environment and clean air, and to drive down car use and promote the use of public transport. Northern Rail has just brought in paid parking at Stocksfield train station, which has dramatically impacted the local community and caused a lot of concerns about future on-street parking in residential areas. It would be good to know that the Government are considering those kinds of moves from train companies, which will ultimately have a damaging effect on local communities.

My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that there needs to be, at the heart of this Government’s work, stronger local say about the full transport balance. The goals that he talks about are those of many of his constituents, who are the experts in ensuring the right balance. Whether that is in regard to bus services or planning, as raised by the shadow Minister, we want to ensure that the tools are in the hands of local communities, so that they can lean in and plan at a community level the amenities and assets that they need collectively.

Will the Minister assure us that he will go back and look at the national planning policy framework, to ensure that local development plans include enough spaces? I regularly visit developments in my constituency, and every one needs more parking.

I am slightly loath to start a speech on the national planning policy framework—not least because I think you will smite me down, Mr Efford—but I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s points. We have of course consulted on the NPPF, and have published our changes as a result of the consultation.

On the code of practice, our goal is to find a proper balance to ensure that parking charges and debt recovery fees are fair and proportionate, while providing an effective deterrent against the small number of people who deliberately do not comply. We intend to publish a consultation shortly—and I do mean shortly—to outline where the Government are and give everybody a chance to share their views. I encourage colleagues from across the House to take part—as always, I am available to meet any and all to hear their views—but I cannot say strongly enough that it is coming shortly.

I hear stories of places like Cornwall council being so strapped for money that they are considering sub-letting all their parking spaces to independent private parking companies, which will run them for nothing other than the fines they will take from tourists visiting Cornwall and residents. Does the Minister agree that this issue is urgent? I do not hear urgency in his timescales. I repeat the request for a specific timescale for introducing a code of conduct.

I appreciate that this is an urgent issue—that was a feature of all Members’ contributions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me when I say “shortly”. At the risk of getting into a debate about what is short and what is urgent, all I can say is that we want to get on with this at the best pace we can. We want it to work, deliver and hold up. Last time, in 2022, it did not survive its first contact with reality. We will publish the code shortly, but I ask for a bit of trust that I am getting on with it at the fastest possible pace.

This has been a valuable debate, and I am grateful for the challenges that colleagues set out. I have heard them clearly and they will form part of my considerations as Minister. I hope that the constituents who have had their voices brought into the room feel that they have been represented. I hope those who think, “Well, this happened to me too, and boy am I frustrated about it,” appreciate that change is coming. I very much look forward to delivering that change.

I call Baggy Shanker to sum up for a couple of minutes. That is not an invitation for a seven-minute speech.

I thank all Members from both sides of the House who took part in the debate. As enlightening as their contributions were, it was really unfortunate to hear so many stories of residents across the country who have been subject to fines and such poor tactics and behaviours from private car parking operators. That needs to stop.

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. He recognised the issues and challenges, and committed to take action. He said he will take a bit of time to ensure we get the regulation right, because it has to be sustainable once it is implemented. I welcome his commitment to start a consultation process shortly. Enough is enough, and we need to protect our residents from rip-off fines. As I said earlier, over the length of this debate about 3,000 more fines have been issued.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered parking regulation.