Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I fear I am a wholly inadequate substitute for my noble friend Lord Attlee, who has now retired from your Lordships’ House after 35 years of dedicated service. During that time, he raised many important issues relating to haulage, including in Committee on this Bill. While my noble friend was proud to be the only Member of either House of Parliament with an HGV licence, I should admit, with a little shame, that I do not have a driving licence at all. There is perhaps a lesson in that, now that we have passed a Bill to expel our hereditary colleagues, with all their varied areas of expertise, leaving behind former apparatchiks such as me.

I was very glad to support my noble friend’s amendment in Committee and to take up the cudgels now, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, because it is an issue which has a profound impact on many organisations across the cultural, tourism and heritage sectors, not least our heritage railways, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out very strongly in Committee. This weekend, he and I had the pleasure of being in Llandudno, in our capacities as president and chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, for the HRA annual awards. These celebrated the extraordinary achievements of charities, small businesses and volunteers of all ages, from every corner of the UK, in keeping this much-loved part of our national heritage thriving in the face of considerable challenges, such as rising costs, employment taxes and more.

I was especially pleased to see such strong representation there from the north-east of England as we celebrated those responsible for marking the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey from Stockton to Darlington in such style, and I was delighted to see the Tanfield Railway, which charts its history back 100 years even further, to the age of horse-driven wagon-ways, become Railway of the Year. That means that a small corner of County Durham now boasts the Museum of the Year, in Beamish, and the Railway of the Year just a few minutes away.

However, one of the things which makes the work of brilliant organisations like these harder is the way that certain police forces manage the movement of abnormal loads on our road network. The movement of most heritage rolling stock between railways is undertaken by road on low loaders. These movements are vital for the galas at which historic locomotives and vintage carriages bring such joy to people of all generations—not to mention inward investment to towns, cities and rural communities—as well as for essential maintenance and repairs. These road movements are undertaken by specialist haulage contractors and sometimes have to be accompanied by a police escort vehicle. The cost of these police escorts is typically between £2,500 and £5,000 per trip, but they can be higher and, in some cases, even exceed the haulier’s charges, with some heritage railways reporting charges that they have seen in excess of £7,000. For many of our heritage railways, which are registered charities or small businesses operating on very tight margins, these costs can be entirely prohibitive.

Moreover, there is widespread inconsistency in the application of these charges, with some police forces charging and others not. Most determine whether a police escort is required based on the weight of the load, but some determine it on the length. In some cases, an escort is required only for a few miles through a particular police force area, with the rest of the journey going unescorted, but a full fee is still applied. To avoid these charges, some hauliers are now making large and unnecessary detours, which add mileage and costs, and increase the environmental impact. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, explained that a particular culprit in this regard is West Midlands Police, which many hauliers have been trying to avoid because of the unhelpful attitudes that it has displayed, but of course that is not very easy given its central location in England.

Following the debates in Committee and the tireless efforts of my noble friend Lord Attlee, the Policing Minister Sarah Jones had a helpful exchange of correspondence with the acting chief constable of West Midlands, underlining the importance of adhering to the guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council on this matter. We are very grateful to the Minister for writing in the way that she did, and we all hope that her letter and the change of leadership at that force will bring some improvements. However, West Midlands is far from the only force causing dismay with an inconsistent approach or excessive charges. Heritage railways moving loads through Staffordshire, West Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and parts of Scotland have all reported similar issues to those confronted in the West Midlands.

This is a problem that afflicts many businesses and organisations in every sector. I have heard from the Holiday and Residential Parks Association, which represents the owners and operators of approximately 3,000 holiday, touring and residential parks across the United Kingdom. Its members also have experienced excessive cost increases when transporting static caravans to and from holiday parks, as well as significant delays from an inconsistent application of embargoes by various police forces. Most troublingly, the Holiday and Residential Parks Association says that, despite the publication of revised guidance by the NPCC last summer, it and its members continue to see very little improvement in practice. Given the need for clarity and consistency, this is not a matter which should have rely on the whims of individual police forces or the good offices of the Policing Minister, whoever he or she happens to be at the time.

It is particularly damaging for rural and coastal areas where tourism is one of the major sources of employment. If the Government want to support economic growth across our country, here is a clear area in which they could act to help the growth creators. The Minister has been very helpful in discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and me. First, can he say what weight the guidance prepared by the National Police Chiefs’ Council carries? What penalties or remedies apply if an individual force do not adhere to it? Secondly, can the Minister set out some of the actions that the West Midlands Police has promised, following the exchange of correspondence between it and the Policing Minister? Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said in Committee that:

“Introducing a standardised regulatory framework … would also risk undermining the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs”.—[Official Report, 15/1/26; col. 1953.]


Does he really think it fair that heritage railways or holiday parks in some parts of the country should be treated differently to others, and does he think it right to risk creating the sort of postcode lottery that we have already begun to see?

Amendment 384, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I are proud to bring forward on behalf of our noble friend Lord Attlee, and building on his work, does not ask Ministers to intervene in operational matters. It simply requires the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage more clearly and consistently the fees that are charged to hauliers when escorting what may be dryly termed in the industry as “abnormal loads”, but which ordinary people across this country would think of as inspiring locomotives, much-loved holiday homes and more besides. I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 384, which is similar to the one tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and debated in Committee on 15 January. Police charges for abnormal loads are a cause he very much made his own, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, and I am sorry that his retirement from your Lordships’ House came just a couple of weeks too early for him to be here to move the amendment today.

Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the regulations in front of us. I strongly support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the question of the inclusion of the women’s game. It is an argument that I have heard on a number of occasions. The fact that there is willingness and a desire on the part of women’s football to come under the aegis of the regulator is, I hope, something of which the Minister will take account.

I want to mention briefly one aspect of this instrument: its scope. As the Minister correctly said, it covers the Premier League, the three divisions of the Football League and the top level of the National League, which used to be called the Football Conference. It is quite appropriate for the line to be drawn at that, as the clubs below that level are not in need of the regulatory burden that I suspect the introduction of a regulator and its activities would impose, but there is one aspect of the relationship between the National League and the Football League that I would like her to take on board and, perhaps, discuss with the regulator when she next sees him.

Between the Premier League and the Championship, there is a promotion and relegation arrangement: three clubs go up and three clubs go down. Between the Championship and what is now the first division of the Football League, again, it is three up and three down. When you go down from the first division of the Championship to the second division, it is four up and four down. However, when you get to the second division of the Football League and the top level of the National League, it is only two up and two down; indeed, the introduction of a second place was awarded only as recently as 2003.

A very powerful campaign is under way in the non-league game, if one can call it that, to introduce three up and three down. If any of your Lordships attended a match in the National League or its feeder leagues last Saturday, they will have discovered that the kick-off was put back by three minutes in order to draw attention to this campaign. It is strongly supported by the Football Supporters’ Association. If there is to be fairness, as well as an opportunity for clubs below the Football League to thrive, it is very important that “three up” comes into being. I hope that the regulator will take account of that and will be prepared to consider it when it looks at the structure of the game. I would like my noble friend to be prepared to raise this with the regulator at the first opportunity.

I am sorry; I should have declared my interest as the honorary vice-president of the National League.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I first share in the felicitations that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, sent to the Scottish team on their result last night. I send my best wishes to all the home nations for good results in the next World Cup.

The regulations before the Grand Committee define the statutory scope of the Independent Football Regulator created under the Football Governance Act 2025. The Government have chosen to include the top five professional leagues in English men’s football—116 clubs —on the basis that financial and governance risks are greatest at this level. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there is no surprise here; this was the policy direction that was set out in the Explanatory Notes that accompanied the Bill that became that Act.

However, he was not quite right when he said that this is more or less what the Act says because, as the Minister alluded to in her remarks, the reason we are here making this law in a rather sparsely attended Grand Committee, rather than through primary legislation on the Floor of the House, is that making that clear in the Bill would have made it a hybrid Bill. As she said, that was much discussed during our debates on the Bill, so here we are.

Nobody disputes the need for clearer oversight of the beautiful game, but the question before the Committee today is whether the Government have brought forward a regime that is proportionate, workable and credible. On each of these tests, some doubts remain, and those doubts were only heightened by the unanswered questions in the exchanges we had yesterday on the leadership of the new regulator.

The Government say that the clubs at the five levels set out in the instrument before us can absorb the new compliance obligations, but the reality, as we heard across your Lordships’ House in our debates on the Bill and from the sector itself, is rather different. Premier League clubs have the structures to cope; many League Two and National League clubs do not. Some operate with only one or two staff; many others rely on volunteers. For them, these regulations are not a technical adjustment but a material burden. In her introductory remarks, the Minister spoke of the regulatory burden that the Government have decided would be too great for clubs in lower leagues, but I hope she will acknowledge that there will be burdens on many of the 116 clubs that we are proposing to designate today.

The Government have produced no clear assessment of this disparity. We think that is an omission. If regulation becomes too onerous, investment will dry up and the base of the pyramid—the foundations of our national game—will be weakened. The very system that this Act is seeking to protect could be undermined by the way that the new law is implemented.

The timing compounds the problem. These regulations come into force in less than a month, half way through the season, giving clubs minimal time to adjust. That is not proportionate regulation; it is regulatory pressure imposed without due preparation.

These concerns become even sharper in light of yesterday’s unanswered questions on the credibility and independence of the regulator’s leadership. These matters are directly relevant to this statutory instrument because the effectiveness of the regulatory regime is inseparable from trust in those enforcing it. As I set out in the House yesterday, this matters not because of what it means for trust in the present Government but because UEFA and others have been very clear that English teams’ continued participation in international tournaments depends on the demonstrable independence of the new football regulator.

In our exchanges yesterday, the Minister said that I asked a number of questions. In fact, I asked just two and she gave full answers to neither. Before we decide whether to allow this statutory instrument to pass, I hope that she will give some clearer answers to them.

When the Urgent Question that we repeated yesterday was taken in another place last week, the Secretary of State said that the appointment of David Kogan as the chairman of the new regulator was

“not a prime ministerial appointment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/25; col. 170.]

If that is the case, why did the official read-out that the Secretary of State gave to the submission that she was sent by her department on 19 March, quoted at paragraph 27 of the report by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, say that her “preferred candidate” was Mr Kogan? I quote from the Secretary of State’s own words given in that report,

“subject to No. 10 giving the green light”.

Why did she send the Prime Minister a note asking for that green light? That is my first question.

Last week, the Prime Minister was forced to write to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, because of the partial information given in another place during the debate on the Urgent Question. That letter said that in the light of the hospitality that the Prime Minister had received from football clubs and the Football Association, he had agreed with Sir Laurie last autumn that:

“I would recuse myself from decisions relating to the Football Governance Bill”.


Despite that recusal, the Prime Minister was not only sent a note asking for the green light on Mr Kogan’s appointment but responded in writing to confirm that he was supportive of it. The Prime Minister now says:

“This was an unfortunate error for which I express my sincere regret”.


This note was sent in April before it became public knowledge that, like the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister had received political donations from Mr Kogan for his Labour leadership campaign.

In the light of that revelation, the Prime Minister and Sir Laurie Magnus had another meeting in June this year and, as his letter of last week puts it, agreed that he should stay out of the appointment process for the new football regulator. My second question is: given these recusals, originally made in autumn last year and strengthened and repeated in June this year, how can the Prime Minister play a part in exonerating the Secretary of State for her breaches of the appointments code? How can he determine whether she has breached the Ministerial Code in this matter?

These are not peripheral matters. They go to the heart of whether Parliament and international sporting bodies can have confidence in the regime and the regulator, whose scope we are asked to approve today. Independence, transparency and good governance are not optional extras in regulation; they are prerequisites. I hope that we will get clearer answers to those questions today. Until the Government provide full and credible answers to them, this Committee cannot be confident that the framework underpinning this instrument is as robust, independent or transparent as it must be.

I look forward to the Minister’s answers on that, as well as to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Evans about the possible future inclusion of the women’s game.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The House has heard me speak on this subject a number of times over the past 10 years, ever since the counsel’s opinion came through that the engagement of young people on heritage railways and tramways was illegal under the 1920 Act. The government amendment, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I discussed with Ministers during the process of the Bill’s consideration, removes that threat from heritage railways provided that they follow the guidance which the ORR and the Health and Safety Executive lay down for them. I am grateful to them for their willingness to undertake the consultation which will produce that guidance, we hope by 31 March. Meanwhile, heritage railways are now able to recruit youngsters legally and, I believe, successfully to be involved in the running of the railway, and thereby provide some certainty that the heritage railway movement will continue. I will of course support the Motion that my noble friend has moved.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will be briefer still. I renew my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and the Government for listening on this issue and my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. This compromise from the Government, which the noble Lord very kindly outlined to us before the tabling of the Motion in another place, puts beyond the uncertainty of recent years an issue that has prevented young people from gaining skills and opportunities in volunteering on heritage railways, which are often considerable employers in their local areas and the linchpin of the visitor economy. This is a measure which will help growth and employment, as well as extending opportunity.

As it happens, when the Government were inserting these new words into the Bill in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I were both at the Heritage Railway Association’s annual conference in Southampton where the Government were rightly getting the plaudits that they deserve for moving on this issue, so I am very grateful that they have done so.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I can be very brief because the Minister has brought glad tidings. I thank him very much for that and for the way that he set out this debate.

As noble Lords who followed this narrow but important issue will know, this confusion stems from the question of how a 1920 Act of Parliament applies in the modern era to volunteers and young employees on heritage railways and tramways. For more than a decade, this has been taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has been campaigning to clarify this in law; I pay tribute to him for 10 years of hard work and for his efforts behind the scenes to secure this important change today.

I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, whom I welcome to her place. We had a very helpful meeting last week with them both. They were in listening mode and I am glad they have taken this away and helped to solve it. We welcome the drawing up of guidelines, as we said in our meeting, and I am glad to report that the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have already begun their work with the Heritage Railway Association, as the Minister said. I am delighted to hear that the target is for that to be completed by 31 March; I am sure that work can indeed be done.

The sticking point for us is that this needs to be clarified in law as well as in guidelines. In our debate on Report, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, said that it is no use Ministers saying that guidance shows that organisations will not prosecute; the fact is that the law forbids it—and if the law forbids it, no respectable organisation should allow it to go forward. That is why I was so keen that these guidelines should be given some statutory backing. In effect, the amendment that I tried to table sought to describe what the Government, the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered and are happy to happen. I am delighted to hear that the Government are happy for that to be written into the Bill. I accept that my version has some drafting deficiencies, which I would be very glad to work with the Government to clear up.

I have a non-financial interest to declare: I am the unremunerated chairman of the Heritage Railway Association. I am very pleased to have succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who had to give it up to become the Rail Minister. Next week, I will be in Southampton with heritage railways from across the country, which will be delighted to hear that this long-standing problem, which holds back young volunteers from getting experience and skills in our heritage railways, will finally be solved, and I am grateful to the Government for their part in solving it.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am almost lost for words. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, this campaign has been running for almost 15 years. The first stage was when I took a Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House to attempt to address the problems of the 1920 Act. It passed without any opposition, except from the Government Front Bench, sadly—not this Government Front Bench but previous one.

We have reached this point because the organisations involved—the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive—have been instructed by the department to come to a conclusion. We had an excellent meeting on 21 October, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to, which my noble friends Lady Lloyd of Effra and Lord Leong also attended. I offer them, the ORR and the HSE my warmest congratulations and thanks for what is a very satisfactory outcome.