Employment Rights Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

The present position is unacceptable and leaves young people, particularly those between 14 and 16, unable to enjoy and benefit from the experience of working on a steam railway. The railways are thus unable to engage their enthusiasm at a crucial time in their development, and the opportunity to encourage enthusiastic recruits to the rail industry is being lost. Enactment of this amendment would be a boost for the heritage railway sector, which has had a difficult time since Covid, with many cost increases, particularly for coal needed for steam locomotives. It would increase the number of young people, which would enable them to be given opportunities that previous generations have enjoyed. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to offer some comfort that the Government are prepared to accept this. I beg to move.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to add my support to Amendment 201, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to which I have added my name in an expression of cross-party support for this very sensible endeavour. In doing so, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for his tenacity on this issue, as well as to the hard work over many years by the Heritage Railway Association and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail, of which I am a member.

As the noble Lord outlined, he has been campaigning on this issue, along with those colleagues, for a number of years, including through the Private Member’s Bill that he brought in the previous Parliament. It was debated in this House when I was Heritage Minister but was responded to for the then Government by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She, and indeed all the noble Lords who spoke in the Second Reading debate on that Private Member’s Bill, spoke very sympathetically about it. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spoke also with fondness of the Kent and East Sussex Railway, which passes very close to where she lives. Speaking from the Labour Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, who also mentioned the Talyllyn Railway and the Pontypool and Blaenavon Railway, said in her remarks from the Opposition Front Bench then:

“I have little doubt that achieving and delivering the desired objectives will eventually be managed, whether it is through this Bill or by the Government’s hand”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1724.]


Sadly, that “eventually” is still outstanding, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of this Bill to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others have been campaigning for so long.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out very clearly the legal position as it stands, as well as very powerfully the beneficial impact that heritage railways have in communities up and down the country: the social skills that they provide to young volunteers; the employment that they offer in rural areas; the linchpin that they often are to the visitor economy in their parts of the United Kingdom.

It is very welcome that, as the noble Lord highlighted, both the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road have made clear that they would not seek to enforce the 1920 Act to prevent children, women or young people volunteering on heritage railways. But the point, as the noble Lord rightly said, is that this confusing provision remains on the statute book. That has a potentially chilling effect for the voluntary organisations that look after our heritage railways. They are dependent on volunteers, not just for restoring and running locomotives, welcoming the many visitors from around the world who come to this country to enjoy them, but also the volunteer trustees and custodians who have to get their heads around the legal and regulatory position in which those organisations are operating. They take their duties in relation to the safety of the staff and visitors to heritage rail very seriously indeed, and the Heritage Railway Association does excellent work in providing advice and guidance to its member railways. But we should do our bit as legislators to make the job of all those volunteers easier by making sure that the law is up to date and clearly understood.

Amendment 201 does not seek to repeal the 1920 Act but to amend it, to put beyond doubt that it does not prohibit women, young persons and children from volunteering on our heritage railways and heritage tramways. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred in the previous exchanges he has had with many Governments that one of the arguments against doing this is “unintended consequences”. I have seen that many times myself in the briefings that I was given as a Minister at the government Dispatch Box. Often unintended consequences are also unspecified ones. It is hard to think what the unintended consequences might be, but the noble Lord has very sensibly drawn Amendment 201 very tightly in order to obviate that problem, so I hope the Government will look favourably upon it.

We all want to encourage volunteering, not just to help these cherished organisations to continue to bounce back from the pandemic and the challenging time that they had during Covid-19 and the challenges they face in relation to the supply of coal; their very purpose is to pass on to future generations an appreciation of our industrial past, the vital role that the railways played in the history of our nation, and to use the scientific and engineering advances of the past to inspire new generations to come up with world-changing advances of their own. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, some 22,000 volunteers are involved in keeping our heritage railways going, but too few of them are women or young people. The sector very much wants to welcome volunteers from an ever-wider background, and this piece of more than 100 year-old legislation stands in the way of their valiant efforts.

This is the year in which we are celebrating Railway 200, the bicentenary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington, in my native north-east. I am very pleased to see my noble friend Lord Mendoza in his place. Historic England, which he chairs, is among the many organisations that are supporting Railway 200 with great enthusiasm to inspire new generations to get involved in our heritage railways but also to inspire them in the exploits of the future.

So, as we mark that important 200th anniversary, I hope we can finally take the opportunity to amend this law, which is already more than 100 years old and which has caused confusion for too long. I know that the Minister has a background in rail, and I hope he will look favourably on this amendment from his noble friend and agree to discuss with both of us how we might take this opportunity, finally, to solve the problem that he has been seeking to address for so long.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I certainly do not have the expertise that he has in heritage railways, but steam railways are an important part of this country’s heritage and, as each year passes, that importance surely grows. We are getting closer to a time when there will be no one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life. As well as being an enjoyable activity for interested and enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, says, in supporting our heritage—and support for our heritage is something that this Government have pledged to give. This is an instance that shows the world of work in all its manifestations as a very varied one, including voluntary work undertaken by young people. I hope that the Government show some flexibility in this regard and accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I have not spoken previously on this issue, and I do not have the creative abilities of so many noble Members of this House, but I have listened repeatedly to these debates. It is right now to speak briefly in support of protecting our creative industries so that we can continue to reap the ripe rewards of their efforts.

We have to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, whose interests are being protected here. We have a duty to protect the wonderful creativity of our own country, which gives us so much pleasure and informs, educates and develops us in more ways than anything else can. We are under no obligation to protect others, but we are under an obligation to protect the interests of our people, not of massive tech industries.

I will support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, because her amendment is the right thing to do. Even at this late stage, His Majesty’s Government could choose to act positively to respond to the massive concern that has been articulated in your Lordships’ House. If they do not do so, I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will seek to call a Division on this matter.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Yesterday, in another place, Conservative MPs voted proudly for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, including my fellow members of the shadow DCMS team, and they stand ready, I am sure, to do the same again, if necessary. I understand the reticence of many noble Lords for prolonged rounds of ping-pong, but I have to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, this is not unprecedented. We would not be in this position if the Government had not wasted the first two opportunities by hiding behind points of process on financial privilege rather than engaging with the substance of the argument that the noble Baroness put.

The Bill began in your Lordships’ House, and the noble Baroness is right to insist upon this; there are important points of principle at stake about the protection of private property and the dignity of labour. This is not the point that would kill the Bill; it would ask the Government to come forward with a bit more compromise and respect than they have shown so far. I am proud to be a member of a revising Chamber that stands up for those principles and that power of scrutiny.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I do not intend to repeat what I said last time, the Minister will be pleased to hear, but there are one or two things that have arisen today which I wish to address. We were told by the Minister that the Government’s view is that we might be in danger of privileging one section of the creative industries as against another, or one section of the community that is likely to be affected by AI. However, copyright underlines everything. It is universal. If you are talking about film, television, a work of literature or anything else, copyright is the essential ingredient.

On the issue of going in small parts, with one thing leading to another, I want to mention something that happened a few years ago and that we are still trying to deal with. Before Brexit, I and others made the point to the Government that it was going to cause a serious problem for touring musicians and artists. Boris Johnson’s Government said, “We can see that; we’re not going to let it happen”. Well, we have been trying to sort it out ever since. My point is simply this: getting small issues right is incredibly important because, further down the line, they become massive. That is why I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is right to keep pushing. Like many other noble Lords here, I am very concerned about ping-pong—especially when we seem to be frustrating the mandated Chamber—but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, once said to me, there are sometimes issues where you just have to stand firm for as long as possible. I believe that this is one of them.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this is my first time speaking on this Bill, so the Government Chief Whip will be pleased to know that I am not able to repeat comments I have previously made. I have followed the debates on it closely and followed, with great admiration, the campaign led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not just in this Chamber but far beyond it.

This has never been a question of party politics. Indeed, it is striking that the initiative here has been led from the Cross Benches and the Back Benches in both Houses, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, just pointed out. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has led the charge. She has put her case clearly and been extremely reasonable and patient in the face of answers even more frustrating than those I used to give her when I was at the government Dispatch Box. More than that, she has been proactive in seeking solutions. The morning after her victory in the last round of ping-pong, she was up early to welcome to your Lordships’ House academics, policymakers and practitioners from not just the creative industries but the AI sector as part of the University of Oxford’s consultation on copyright and AI, as she mentioned in her opening remarks.

The Government keep making this sound like it is a binary choice between two competing sectors. It is not. As my noble friend Lord Vaizey just reminded us, responsible innovators from the AI sector know how vital design and creativity are to all parts of our economy, as well as to our society. They do not want to base their businesses on the theft of others’ intellectual property, paternity rights, maternity rights, pension rights and so much more, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. It was announced last week that Taylor Swift had succeeded in buying back the rights to her first six albums, after many years of legal wrangling, for a nine-figure sum. It would be a cruel irony for her to have expended all that time and money only for her brilliant work to be stolen and fed into a large language model with no transparency and no accountability.

The creative industries have spoken with one voice on this—something that is rather unique—but well they might, for this is existential to them. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have not responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the many noble Lords who have joined her in the Division Lobbies in the previous rounds of ping-pong to express their concerns about this issue. They have not engaged on the point of substance behind her amendments but have relied on arguments of process. There is nothing in the noble Baroness’s latest amendment in lieu—her third attempt to offer a solution to the Government—that engages the financial privilege of another place.

I hope we will hear more from the Minister on the substance of the argument and on the substance of this new amendment, rather than an attempt to run down the clock or to hide behind process. I hope we might yet, even at this late stage, get a glimmer of the compromise that the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Brennan of Canton, and others have hoped for. There is a long-standing convention that your Lordships’ House respects the will of the elected one, of course. But it would not be a constitutional crisis, as the Minister put it in the closing words of her opening remarks, for noble Lords to continue to express their concerns about this Bill, because that convention relies on the Government engaging faithfully and relying not just on points of process but on points of substance.

At a time when the Government are seeking to weaken the scrutiny functions of your Lordships’ House by removing almost 90 Members—all but three of whom are from outwith their own Benches—they need to treat your Lordships’ House with a bit more respect if they want those conventions to be adhered to. I pay tribute to the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Chief Whip said at the start of this debate, we are now into the third round of ping-pong on this Bill. These issues have been extensively debated across Committee, Report and ping-pong. A cross-section of Back-Benchers has spoken, and now I invite Front-Benchers to speak.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

16: Clause 1, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
“(10A) In making regulations relating to the duty to offer guaranteed hours under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the nature of the work and operational characteristics of different sectors, including but not limited to sectors with irregular or seasonal work patterns.(10B) Specifically, in sectors where work schedules are inherently variable and unpredictable, such as the theatre sector, the Secretary of State shall consider the concept of Available Hours, which reflects the actual hours an employer can reasonably offer workers based on the known operational needs of the sector, without imposing undue rigidity on employers or creating unfair advantage or disadvantage for workers.(10C) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue specific guidance on how employers in sectors with variable work patterns may meet their obligations to offer guaranteed hours, while taking into account the fluctuating nature of work, the distribution of available hours, and the need for flexibility to accommodate the unique operational demands of the sector.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the Secretary of State considers sector-specific work patterns, like those in the theatre industry, when regulating guaranteed hours.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 16 in my name, I offer my apologies for not being able to be present at Second Reading, although I followed the debate that your Lordships had then, as I have today’s debate, particularly the earlier group on zero-hours contracts.

I also offer my thanks to the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, which represent some 500 of the UK’s leading theatre producers, venue owners, managers and performing arts centres, and with which I had the honour of working closely when I was Arts Minister, for raising the issue that underlies my amendment and for discussing it with me in some detail. I stress that those organisations welcome many of the measures in this Bill and share the Government’s ambition to eliminate exploitative practices, but they have flagged their concerns with the provisions relating to zero-hours contracts, which are integral to operations in theatre and other live performing arts, and which presently operate in a way that delivers fairness, flexibility and inclusion for the sector and the brilliant, creative people who sustain it.

I am sure, by the end of proceedings on the Bill, that the Minister will have tired of special pleading on behalf of every sector of the economy, but theatres operate under a unique set of pressures, including the stark new pressures that I saw them confront during my time in government—from the bleak months of Covid-19 to the rising costs of energy and materials following the inflationary effects of that pandemic and of the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The effects of that turbulence—rising costs and falling real-terms income—mean that theatres must work harder than ever before to balance the necessity of making a profit with long-term investment and their sincere commitment to delivering social good. The arts hold a mirror up to our society and help us to understand the human condition—a value that cannot simply be measured in ticket sales and bottom lines, important though those are.

In particular, as major employers of a casual workforce, theatres have to manage highly irregular and unpredictable staffing needs while supporting and valuing their workers, without whom theatre simply could not happen. As one of the organisations which sprang up during the pandemic put it in its very well-chosen name, freelancers make theatre work.

The proposals in the Bill as currently drafted, regarding the right to guaranteed hours for casual workers, risk upsetting the delicate equilibrium by which the theatre sector operates, balancing commercial viability with social value, long-term investment with short-term realities, and the demands of an irregular calendar with a commitment to fairness for its workforce. Although I am glad to see that the Government have amended the Bill in the ways we have just debated in the previous group and will debate when we look at further government amendments which follow—particularly, in this instance, to allow collective agreements to override the new statutory right—the mechanism set out in new Section 27BW does not fully solve the problem and is unlikely in practice to provide the safeguards that this cherished sector needs.

Theatre’s operating model is inherently shaped by irregular programming, seasonal variation and periods of closure. Those aspects are baked into the way that theatre works and are part of what makes it so dynamic and diverse. Notwithstanding the well-known mantra that the show must go on, theatres do not operate continuously. Even long-running productions experience periods of closure, known as dark weeks, when no performances can be staged and no box office income is generated. The opening of a major new production might require up to 12 weeks to load in sets and equipment and to undergo technical rehearsals. These help productions to dazzle us with ever-more ambitious technical wizardry, and are rightly the stuff of separate award categories for lighting, sound, set design and more.

Short, planned closures, typically for at least a fortnight each year, are needed to carry out essential inspections and to ensure that buildings remain safe and compliant for those who enjoy visiting them. That is particularly important in heritage venues, which receive heavy footfall but only modest and irregular investment. I pay tribute to the work of the Theatres Trust and others who champion the value and plight of historic theatres, concert halls and other cultural buildings across the country, and acknowledge the pressing capital needs of our cultural estate, particularly at a time when many of the boilers, roofs and windows that were funded by the first wave of National Lottery funding some quarter of a century ago are all reaching or long passing the natural time for an upgrade.

Sometimes, of course, these periods of closure are needed without much warning at all, as I saw during my time as Minister, when I had occasion to learn, along with most of the rest of the country, what reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, from the Benches opposite, and I were both at a very enjoyable performance of “The Witches” at the National Theatre, which had to be halted midway because of a breakdown of the Olivier’s revolving stage. I am very pleased that the last Conservative Budget helped the theatre to fix that before its 60th birthday year was over.

The sad fact is that performances can be cancelled at short notice for a variety of reasons, most of which are beyond the control of the theatre operator and staff. I have mentioned two egregious examples already—the pandemic and the need for health and safety in the face of things such as RAAC—but many other external challenges beset theatres from time to time: severe weather causing leaks or other damage which requires repairs, external events such as power cuts, or industrial grievances from other sectors having a knock-on effect. I am sure it is not betraying any state secrets to say that one of the few COBRA meetings I was called to attend as Arts Minister was to discuss the effects of the train strikes on our theatres and other parts of our night-time economy, which lost audiences and vital income as a result.

Of course, there are those unforeseen incidents which come like the theatrical deus ex machina. Last year, for example, a touring production of “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” was brought to a halt when the eponymous vehicle, “our fine four-fendered friend”, was damaged during the get-out at one of its venues. The repairs to the vehicle took several weeks, leading to the cancellation of all performances during that period. That meant that other venues which had booked the production received no income and were unable to programme another show at such short notice.

During times such as these, there is, quite simply and unavoidably, no front-of-house work available. Guaranteeing hours during periods like that, as the Bill requires, would mean paying staff when no work exists, placing enormous pressure on theatres’ and other arts venues’ already very tight operating budgets. That is the reason for my Amendment 16.

The proposed right to guaranteed hours assumes that organisations operate with consistent demand and regular staffing patterns. That is not the case in theatres or, as we heard in previous debates, in many other businesses and organisations. Theatres’ scheduling requirements and therefore their staffing needs shift weekly—sometimes daily. Guaranteeing fixed hours based on short-term patterns of work, as the Bill proposes, would introduce a level of rigidity that threatens their entire staffing model.

The aim of my Amendment 16 is to urge the Government to acknowledge the unique dynamics of theatre and of the arts sector more broadly, and to adopt a more realistic framework, which will be beneficial to many sectors beyond theatre and the performing arts. UK Theatre has suggested the concept of “available hours”, which I have reflected in my Amendment 16, referring to the actual hours that an employer can collectively offer workers in a given period. This approach would allow for the equitable allocation of work while remaining responsive to the volatile nature of theatre operations.

It would also reflect the desires of the staff who value the flexibility that theatre work currently affords them. Many of those who work front of house do so to support other careers or responsibilities; as noble Lords noted in our debates in relation to other sectors, people have many family or caring burdens. But theatres particularly attract front-of-house staff who want a flexible job, perhaps because they are creative freelancers balancing work with auditions, because they are students are still learning their trade, or because they are retirees and theatre lovers seeking fulfilling part-time work or seeking sociable evening, but not night-time, working hours—rather unlike your Lordships’ House.

The theatre sector’s sincere understanding of its workforce is rooted in over a century of constructive and collaborative industrial relations with the trade unions in the sector, whose names are almost as well-known as those of some of their famous members: Equity, BECTU, the Musicians’ Union and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. Their symbiotic relationships have produced agreements which are highly tailored to this unique sector. These strong union relationships and robust collective agreements already guarantee protections such as minimum calls, notice periods and compensation for cancelled shifts.

The recent amendments to the Bill include a provision under new Section 27BW which allows certain rights, such as the proposed right to guaranteed hours, to be excluded through a relevant collective agreement. But such an agreement must explicitly exclude the statutory right and include clear replacement provisions. Retaining this flexibility would now depend on being able to negotiate its exclusion.

Without that flexibility, the Bill before us risks creating structural unfairness, entrenching advantage for a small number of workers at the expense of wider opportunity, undermining long-standing and vitally cherished industrial relations, and damaging the ability of theatres to take creative risks, maintain their heritage buildings and serve the community. What is intended as a protection could in practice become a barrier to access and inclusion. I am sure that is not what the Government want to see, so I hope the Minister will agree to look at this carefully and to discuss it with me, with UK Theatre, the Society of London Theatre and many others from the world of the arts to make sure that the Bill delivers for those cherished sectors. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment points up the need for a nuanced approach tailored to industry requirements. This is the first particular instance we have in the Bill of its potential effect on the creative industries, which will crop up again—I assure the Minister—as the Bill progresses. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on introducing this amendment. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the SOLT/UK Theatre briefing, which is highly informative and measured and demonstrates well the wide degree of flexibility required for the employment of, for instance, front-of-house staff in theatres.

We often take front-of-house staff in theatres and cinema workers for granted, but they are the backbone of these organisations. They could not run without them. In my experience, they are unfailingly polite and helpful and often highly knowledgeable. A fair number, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, have jobs in other areas of the creative industries, which highlights the complexities of working relationships in this sector.

The briefing from SOLT/UK Theatre is, of course, the view from the employers, and the solution has to have the support of all stakeholders, including the workers themselves. According to The Stage,

“actor Nicola Hurst, who is also a duty manager … at Southwark Playhouse, said … she had turned down permanent contracts multiple times … as they could never offer her the flexibility she needed to pursue her creative work”.

She speaks for many in this sector when she says:

“I have colleagues and friends working at all levels in the theatre industry, from fringe to the West End, and for all of them, zero-hours contracts are essential to support themselves between creative jobs, and often, to bolster fees from a tragically underfunded sector”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We have previously had a debate on the nature of reference periods, and that is something that we are going to consult further upon. If we are going to have a discussion, let us have a discussion on that as well, and I will see if I can reassure noble Lords on that matter.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for the willingness she has just indicated to continue discussions. SOLT and UK Theatre updated their briefing on the Bill in the light of the amendments that the Government have brought but they retain some concerns about the amendments in this area, so I am sure that they and others across the arts sector will be glad to continue to discuss it with the Government as they continue to write the Bill as it is before us.

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, at this late hour; their championing of the arts knows no temporal limit. I am grateful to them for staying to express support for this amendment. I should say that I am much attracted to many of the amendments that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have tabled later in the Bill on the need to consider its differential impacts on certain sectors. I look forward to the debates we will have those.

I am grateful too to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for his generous remarks. I am happy to say that the UK’s theatres have indeed bounced back well from the pandemic. Last year, more than 17 million theatregoers attended a show in the West End alone—an 11% increase on pre-pandemic levels. In fact, the West End outperformed the Premier League, attracting 2.5 million more attendees. As we have just finished a long Bill on football, perhaps we ought to spend a bit more time on the things that people go to in greater numbers.

However, the sector remains precarious. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, the people who are that smiling welcome at front of house are often taken for granted. During the pandemic, we saw how challenging it was for them, especially when enforcing some of the Covid restrictions. They deal with exuberant, sometimes well-oiled audiences, and during that time they had to explain to people why they had to sit two metres apart or wear face masks, or why the show had been cancelled or much delayed. They perform a vital role in welcoming people to theatrical productions, orchestral recitals and much more. As the noble Earl said, that relates just as much to cinemas and many other cultural venues. The UK Cinema Association has provided a helpful briefing on the Bill and its impacts on our cinemas.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important prelude to the other debates that we will have on the creative industries and the cultural sector, and I am grateful to the Minister for her willingness to continue to discuss these matters with those organisations. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government agree with many of the points made during the debate on the data Bill, and in other discussions in this House, that further transparency is needed from AI developers about their use of web crawlers and the materials that they use to train their models. However, we have a consultation out and it would be premature to commit to specific legislation until we have analysed the responses to that consultation and heard all the voices in this sector. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Viscount that we intend to resolve this issue. It is one that the previous Government failed to resolve and we need to resolve it now, so we will take action as soon as the consultation has been analysed and resolved.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, there has been widespread concern that the Secretary of State in the Minister’s department has been very happy to meet representatives of big tech and AI firms but less willing to meet representatives of our thriving but threatened creative industries. Of course, in due course his meetings will be published through the Government’s quarterly transparency returns but, given how germane this is to a contentious area of policy currently under discussion, will she give consideration to publishing that list of meetings sooner?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, that information will be published in the normal way. What I will say is that the Minister for AI and Digital Government and the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism have been extremely active in engaging on this subject. They have held round tables with the creative industries and the AI sector during the consultation, which is a joint consultation involving DCMS and DSIT. This morning, the Secretary of State for DSIT explained that, and also said that he is of course open to meetings with the creative sector. All that is on the table and there is no problem about dialogue or engagement. That will go on in the next few months as well, while we seek to find a solution to this issue.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I just want to say very briefly that, having served alongside my noble friend Lord Stevenson on the Front Bench during the passage of this Act, I want to thoroughly endorse what he has said. I am very proud of the work that we did together—I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said—to try to create a piece of legislation that could work in a very complex area, and I think we did a good job.

My fear now is that, now that Ofcom, the regulator, has published its road map, it is like a juggernaut: it has just got on with delivering what it was always going to deliver and has ignored what we in this House amended the Bill to do. In that respect, it is treating us with contempt and it is important that we express our regret in one way or another this evening about the way that we have been treated. I came in wanting to be convinced by my noble friend the Minister; I am afraid that so far she has not done it.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations and to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling his amendment and for moving it in the way that he did, because it has given us the opportunity to have this very important debate on this landmark Act of Parliament.

My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes was right to begin her remarks by reminding your Lordships that the passage of that Act was a shining example of this House doing its job very well indeed, giving careful, considered and non-partisan scrutiny to legislation before us. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, rightly recalls the cross-party spirit that he did so much to foster from Second Reading, and it was a pleasure working with noble Lords from across the House in that spirit to make sure that the Act found its way to the statute book in the improved way that it did.

We are here tonight because of a number of amendments made to the Bill as it went through this House. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House recommended in its report on the Bill that the first regulation for the category 1 thresholds should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I was glad to accept that recommendation when I was the Minister taking the Bill through, and I am glad to be here for the debate on it, albeit speaking from a different Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, does indeed embarrass me by citing the Parkinson rule. I said at the time that Cyril Northcote Parkinson has the better reputation for Parkinson’s laws. But that undertaking was an important one that I was happy to make to ensure that Parliament had the ongoing scrutiny. We all recognised as we passed this law that this was a fast-moving area of technology, that legislatures across the world were struggling to keep up, and that it would be important for the post-legislative scrutiny to take place in the same agile and consensual way in which we sought to pass the Act.

We are also here because of an amendment made to the Bill on Report by my noble friend Lady Morgan. Both she and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were too gracious to recall that it took me a little longer to get there. That amendment was made despite my arguments to the contrary. My noble friend pressed her amendment, defeated me and the previous Government and changed the Bill. When the Bill was in another place, the Government accepted her point.

I was helped along the way in that legislative journey by clear exhortations from noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench who were then in opposition. In our debate on my noble friend Lady Morgan’s amendment on 19 July 2023, the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, who I am glad to see in his place, albeit now on the Back Benches, said that my noble friend’s amendment was a “no-brainer”. He pointed out that the Bill, as it stood,

“requires Ofcom to … be mindful of size”,

but argued that:

“We need to be more nuanced”.—[Official Report, 19/7/23; col. 2344.]


and that it was right to give Ofcom leeway or flexibility in the categorisation and to bring providers into the safety regime.

Those points were echoed in another place by Alex Davies-Jones, the Member of Parliament for Pontypridd, who is now a Minister at the Ministry of Justice with responsibility for tackling violence against women and girls, rape and serious sexual offences, child sexual abuse and many other very serious matters. In opposition, following that debate, she made the point that:

“Categorisation of services based on size rather than risk of harm will mean that the Bill will fail to address some of the most extreme harms on the internet”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/22; col. 168.]


I wonder what Ms Davies-Jones says now that she is at the Ministry of Justice.

I am very grateful to Ofcom. I had a helpful phone call last week with Robert Brown and Mark Bunting of Ofcom to understand its approach. My criticisms are directed at the Government, not at Ofcom. Without wanting to rehearse my old job, I will help the Minister by pointing out that many of the concerns raised are covered by the Bill.

The Bill is very clear that the duties to act on illegal content and to protect children apply to services of every size. Some of the points made, including the very moving and harrowing examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, may well be covered by the illegal duties and the protection of children duties, and the Minister was right to point that out. But there is a shift in approach from the commitments I made at the Dispatch Box when I was a Minister and the decision that Parliament took in backing my noble friend Lady Morgan’s amendment. I am interested in why the Government have changed their mind, particularly having been so strongly in favour of making those changes to the Bill when in opposition.

In her opening remarks, the Minister used the ubiquitous phrase “unintended consequences”. She mentioned that the Government did not want unintentionally to categorise hundreds of small and non-risky services, but would that necessarily be the case? Surely a granular case-by-case categorisation would not bring in so many hundreds. It seems that she and the Government are leaning rather heavily on other parts of the Act that talk about the quick, easy and wide dissemination of material online. I wonder whether the “and wide” part of that is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Is that what is making the Government make the connection to the size? Is the width of dissemination driving the policy decision here? And it is a policy decision. The Government are not bound to follow the advice that Ofcom has provided; they can disagree with it.

In the debate in another place on these regulations, my right honourable friend Sir Jeremy Wright, a former law officer, said it would not be right to ask the Government to provide the legal advice they have had on these matters, but like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I would be very interested in seeing that. I wonder whether the Minister is able to say a bit more about the legal basis on which they have decided that they are unable to disagree, or are not inclined to disagree, with Ofcom on this. I hope she will be able to give a very clear answer to the very clear question posed by my noble friend Lady Penn, who put very well the question about legal advice and the Government’s room for manoeuvre here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the whole “small but risky” issue that the noble Lord is raising is hugely close to our heart. We have engaged with Ofcom and pressed it to take more action on the sort of small but risky services that he is talking about. Our view is that they do not necessarily have to be dealt with under the categorisation process; there are other ways. Ofcom has assured us, in the way that it has come back to us, that there are other ways in which it is addressing them.

It is not as though they have been discarded. It is an absolute priority for this Government that we address the “small but risky” issue, and we are doing so. We are working with Ofcom to make sure that that is followed through. As I said when I opened this debate, the fact is that we have worked with Ofcom and it is setting up a task force to look at this, while separately we are looking at these issues. What more can we do? On the position at the moment regarding the rollout of the SI and the categorisation, the reality is that Ofcom’s research and advice, and the risk of unintended consequences, means that it is not currently workable to ignore user numbers when setting category 1 and so on.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The Minister rightly said “currently” and, even if that is the case, why are the Government closing the door to having this option available to them and Ofcom later? She is right that Ofcom is doing a lot of work in ways other than categorisation, but surely she and her colleagues in government can see that this is a useful tool to have in the armoury in the fight against the sorts of harms noble Lords have been raising. Why are the regulations written so tightly as to close that off and avoid taking the concession that was so hard won by my noble friend Lady Morgan and others when the Bill went through Parliament?

Online Safety Legislation: Abuse on Social Media

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. Part of Ofcom’s responsibility is to heighten the role of media literacy. We are talking to the Department for Education, and obviously there is a role for schools to be involved in all this—but parents also have to take responsibility for their children, and for their access to these sites. The media literacy role that we have to play goes right throughout society; it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that people understand, when they access these sites, what they are able to see and how all that can be moderated. Again, the social media companies have a particular responsibility to play in all that. We expect them to uphold their terms of service to make sure that children cannot access the sites that are inappropriate, and we will work with them to make sure that this happens.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I hope that the Government will look with sympathy at the Private Member’s Bill being brought forward by my noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, which the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, mentioned. It deals with very important issues.

The Minister will be aware of the arrest of Pavel Durov in France—the founder and chief executive of the messaging application Telegram. I do not expect her to be able to comment on an ongoing investigation, but can she tell your Lordships’ House whether His Majesty’s Government have had any contact with the Government of France in relation to this matter and whether British law enforcement agencies have been involved in the investigation? I appreciate that she may need to write after checking with them.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord for all the work that he did in getting the Online Safety Act on to the statute book. With regard to Telegram, obviously we cannot comment on issues in another country’s jurisdiction. We have regular contact with all friendly nations dealing with those issues. I cannot comment on whether there has been specific dialogue on the issue of Telegram, but we would normally expect that to be something for the French Government to deal with.