Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

384: After Clause 160, insert the following new Clause—
“Police charges for escorting vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a framework to regulate the fees charged to hauliers by police forces for escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions. (2) The framework under subsection (1) must—(a) include criteria to specify when a police escort is required for vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions, as opposed to a private self-escort, and(b) set out the fees police forces may charge for escorting vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions.(3) Police forces may submit applications in writing to the Secretary of State to disapply the fees set by the regulatory framework in extenuating circumstances.(4) The Secretary of State must make a determination within ten days of receiving an application submitted under subsection (3).(5) In this section “vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions” means a vehicle or trailer the use of which is authorised by an order made under section 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (authorisation of use on roads of special vehicles not complying with regulations under section 41).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage the fees charged to hauliers by police forces for escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I would need to go back and check on the correspondence for the noble Lord, but this is about making sure that this is covering costs, rather than anything else.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her absence, as well as to my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their support on the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, for the engagement that we had in recent days and for the meetings he had before that with my noble friend Lord Attlee. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this ought to be a no-brainer. We need consistency from police forces, and we have not seen that. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, rightly added that it is important that industry and all the sectors affected see that, where charges are applied, it is merely to cover legitimate costs and not a useful revenue stream for police forces, as many suspect it has become.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

370: Clause 137, page 179, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) a war memorial which has been listed under the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or scheduled under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment broadens the current definition of “specified memorials” to include any listed or scheduled war memorial, not just those which happen to be Grade I listed at present.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, as I explained in Committee, I support the aims that the Government are seeking to achieve through Clause 137, which creates a new offence of climbing on memorials. Although there is a long history of statues forming part of peaceful protest and standing in dialogue between past and present, there is something special about war memorials, which stand as sacred monuments to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms that we now enjoy. It is therefore a particular affront when they are dishonoured or desecrated, especially for the proud comrades, families and descendants left behind by the heroes that they commemorate. So I am glad to see the Government taking action in this area, but I am rather perplexed about the way they are going about it.

The Government have correctly identified a problem of principle—that war memorials are specially cherished parts of our public realm and should not be climbed on in this way. However, in translating that principle into this legislation, they have severely and illogically curtailed it. Rather than applying the power to all war memorials, they say it must only be ones specified by the Home Secretary, and have named just 24 in the initial list included at Schedule 14 to the Bill.

Reading that list, I was pleased to see some very fine memorials indeed, including The Response, Sir William Goscombe John’s splendid memorial to the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, who raised 52 battalions throughout the Great War, more than any other regiment. It stands in the grounds of St Thomas’s church in the heart of Newcastle city centre, by the Haymarket and the civic centre. It was commissioned by a local ship owner and Conservative MP, Sir George Renwick, to commemorate the raising of four of those “pals” battalions and later dedicated in thanks for the safe return of Sir George and Lady Renwick’s five sons from the Great War. Not as many families were as fortunate as they.

Similar stories stand behind each of the two dozen memorials specified in Schedule 14, Part 1, but it is a curious list both for what it does and does not contain. While the Government’s list has an admirable geographic spread, it does not include some of our most well-known national memorials, such as the Battle of Britain Monument or the Royal Air Force Memorial, to give just two examples from very close to here on the Victoria Embankment. Their proximity to Parliament makes them, sadly, a focus for protest and vandalism far more frequently than some of the memorials currently specified in the Bill, but they are not included. In Committee, we found out why. Schedule 14 simply specifies those monuments that are presently listed grade 1 in heritage and planning terms.

Although the listing system is a vital tool for preserving those assets that we most value as a society, applying it in in this way is fraught with problems. First, the Government have restricted themselves to those memorials that are presently given the highest designation, at grade 1. This misses many thousands of memorials that stand proudly in every parish of the kingdom, sacred to the memory of those who laid down their lives in combat and whose memory surely deserves to be honoured just as much as those inscribed on the memorials set out in Schedule 14. The Government have started with a problem of principle but addressed it only in part.

Secondly, the listing system is predicated on specific criteria. As Section 1 of the planning Act 1990 puts it, listing is for

“buildings of special architectural or historic interest”.

This means that a memorial can be given a higher grading for its sculptural accomplishment than for the subject it celebrates. In Committee, I gave an example of this—the Bill will protect Sir George Frampton’s grade 1 listed statue of Edith Cavell at St Martin’s Place but not Arthur Walker’s grade 2 listed memorial to Florence Nightingale round the corner in Waterloo Place. Is one of those wartime nurses really deserving of greater protection than the other because they happen to have been sculpted by different hands?

Thirdly, I worry that this approach will have a chilling effect on the listing system itself. If designating a monument grade 1 is accompanied by new restrictions and criminal sanctions, will that not deter Ministers and their advisers at Historic England from recommending those higher levels of protection? A better approach, I submit, is to follow what I have proposed in my Amendment 370 and specify any war memorial that has been listed, whether at grade 1, grade 2* or grade 2, or any that has been designated as a scheduled monument. This would avoid the practical problems that I have just set out and answer the problem of principle, on which the Government and I agree much more squarely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke in this short but important debate, particularly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who spoke very movingly about the power of memorials in every community and the hurt that communities feel when they are damaged or disrespected. Amendments 370, 372ZZA and 372ZZB, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, seek to expand the list of war and other memorials covered by the new offence of climbing on a memorial provided for in Clause 137. I am grateful to him for taking the time to meet with me and officials last week on this issue and for his thoughtful consideration of how best to achieve the Government’s aim, which I think is shared across the House.

As regards Amendment 370, I fully acknowledge that many of the listed and scheduled memorials covered in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 commemorate events and individuals of great national importance. The Bill intentionally sets out a clear and fixed list of memorials which provides certainty for the public, policing and the courts. By contrast, Amendment 370 would link the offence to memorials listed or scheduled under two separate heritage Acts. Those Acts encompass a far wider range of structures than the focused list in this measure and can change over time. Therefore, this would introduce an uncertainty about which memorials were captured at any given point, undermining the clarity and consistency that the measure is intended to achieve. For this reason, I cannot support the amendment.

The noble Lord, and perhaps the House, will be pleased to hear that I am much more disposed towards his Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB, which seek to add the monument to the women of World War II and the Holocaust memorial garden in Hyde Park to Schedule 14. Our aim is to ensure that memorials that have been deemed at threat in the course of a protest are covered by the offence. As the noble Lord has explained, these two memorials have been targeted in recent years. They are both culturally significant, and I agree with him that we need to protect them under this new offence. I am therefore happy to confirm that the Government support these two amendments.

The Holocaust memorial garden in Hyde Park is of course designed to be enjoyed as a garden and people are free to walk within it. I have given consideration to the practical issue of whether the police will be able to enforce this offence. The intention of the offence is to capture the action of climbing and I am confident it will not capture walking on an installation such as the Holocaust memorial garden. There are other memorials listed in Schedule 14 which have steps that may be sat on by members of the public, such as the Royal Artillery memorial in Hyde Park. I am content that, in enforcing this offence, police officers will use their discretion to consider whether an offence is committed.

As I have previously stated, the provision includes a power for the Home Secretary to add further memorials by secondary legislation. This might include the statue of Florence Nightingale in Waterloo Place, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. This Government will be able to add to the list of protected memorials should a site be identified that requires inclusion. I remain of the view, however, that not every memorial or every war memorial can be included. To do so would make the measure unenforceable due to the number of memorials and many, by their nature—for example, commemorative plaques—cannot be climbed on. That said, I accept we need a clear process for deciding whether to add further memorials to Schedule 14.

We will commit to setting out the process through which the Government will add to the specified list of memorials through secondary legislation. We will ensure a methodical and structured approach to consider which memorials have a significant public interest in being included. We will set out the process shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As the Home Secretary has already indicated, this will include the national Holocaust memorial when it has finally been built. I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and that the combination of the addition of the two memorials specified in his Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB and the process I have outlined for considering the case for adding further memorials will persuade him to withdraw Amendment 370.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that response and I thank him again for the time that he and his officials gave me last week to discuss this in detail. I am grateful too to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for their support. As the right reverend Prelate said, these memorials stand very often on hallowed ground, but they are cherished and sacred to people of all faiths and none and inspire new generations to learn about the sacrifices of the past.

I continue to think that the solution in Amendment 370 is the more logical one, but I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said in support of my other two Amendments 372ZZA and 372ZZB, which gives an indication that the Home Secretary is willing to use the powers in Clause 137 where needed to make sure that these protections can be afforded to statues that are targeted by protesters and criminals. I will not press my Amendment 370. I look forward to seeing the two additions to the list and the vigilance of the Home Office and police in the years to come to see where others may need to be added, alas, if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 370 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

372ZZA: Schedule 14, page 348, line 20, at end insert—
“24A Monument to the Women of World War II, Whitehall, London.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the Monument to the Women of World War II to the list of war memorials in Part 1 of Schedule 14.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a paid adviser to the Metropolitan Police. My understanding is that the Government’s amendments simply create a legal level playing field, with deterrents currently available on the grounds of race and religion being extended to other protected characteristics. It is far more serious if you are targeted for attack because you are a member of a vulnerable group than if you are attacked at random, and the law should reflect that.

There has been debate today about free speech and non-crime hate incidents, but these provisions are about actual crimes targeted at vulnerable people. I completely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and those of the Minister.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the way he introduced these amendments. As he said, this is a government manifesto commitment, and it was evident in the pride with which he moved this amendment. However, I agree with concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and others—that it is regrettable that we are seeing the drafting of this provision at this late stage in this House. We have had long debates on the principle as the Bill has gone through, but in this particularly vexed area of the law, the devil really is in the detail, so it is regrettable that we are coming to it fairly late.

In his introduction, the Minister said with clear passion that he wants to level up the protections afforded to people under the law when it comes to hate crime. My concerns are slightly different from some that have been expressed so far in the paused debate: that this amendment as drafted in fact treats some groups of people differently from others and leaves a bit of levelling up still to do.

In part, that is because of the slightly uneasy settlement that we have because of the Equality Act 2010, which, as a Bill, went through Parliament in wash-up. I think it is ripe for a bit of post-legislative scrutiny; it is often prayed in aid in all directions without people fully understanding it. It used to be a bugbear of mine in government when people came to me with a submission talking about people with protected characteristics. I would say, “But that’s everybody”—anyone with an age, a race or a sex has protected characteristics. There is no such person as a person with no protected characteristics. But the way the Equality Act 2010 describes and applies them is not wholly equal, and when it comes to this area of the law, that causes some problems.

We all have a sexual orientation. Section 12 of the Equality Act defines that for us. We may choose different terms ourselves, but it tells us that we are attracted to “the opposite sex”, “the same sex” or members “of either sex”. Accordingly, that is reflected in the amendments that the Government have brought forward vis-à-vis hate crime and hostility on the basis of sexual orientation.

We all have a race or a religion. Again, the descriptions in proposed new subsection (6) talk about

“references to a racial group”,

which could apply to Black people, white people, Asian people, Welsh people—everybody is covered by that provision. In proposed new subsection (6)(b), the

“references to a religious group”

talk explicitly of a “lack of religious belief”. It does not matter whether you are an adherent to a certain religion, you are covered by that. The difficulty in this area comes when we start to apply it to disability or to people’s gender reassignment status, and that is where we start to see the problem in the descriptions in the government amendment. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) talks about

“hostility towards persons who have a disability or … hostility towards persons who are transgender”.

Does that mean that an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they are, for instance, deaf, could be treated as an aggravated offence, but that an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they were a hearing person could not be? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether that is the case and whether that is really what the Government are seeking to achieve here.

Similarly, when proposed new subsection 3(b)(v) specifies

“hostility towards persons who are transgender”,

and we have seen many horrible examples of crimes that are aggravated on that basis, does that mean that an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they are transgender, or presumed to be so, could be treated as aggravated, but an offence committed against somebody on the basis that they are cisgender—that they are not transgender—could not be? Again, it would be useful to have the clarification.

I am aware that both of those examples are less numerous and, arguably, far less likely to occur, but they are not implausible, and they should not be neglected by laws that we pass in the name of equality. I know this is a difficult area of the law when it comes to drafting—I think that lies behind some of the delay that the Government have had in bringing forward this amendment—but surely it would be possible to avoid these lacunae by stating, for instance, “a disability or lack of disability” or “a person who is transgender or who is not”. Surely that would allow this to be applied in other ways.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Can he give a practical example of when there has ever been a relevant criminal offence committed against a person because they are not deaf?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I cannot—not as a lawyer; I cannot refer to case law on this—but I would not rely on past example alone. If we are passing laws that seek to apply equality, we should seek to apply it on the basis of somebody’s disability status, whether they are disabled or not. It is not implausible—though I accept it is far less likely and far less numerous in past occurrence—for that to be the case. In some of the other areas in the heated debates that we see, it is not as implausible as many of us would like to assume. If it is possible to tighten this up in the drafting, I think it would do the job the Government are seeking to do in a complete way.

That would not prevent the Government fulfilling their manifesto commitment for delivering protections to trans people and disabled people; it would simply ensure that everybody was treated in this area of the law on the basis of protected characteristics in the same way. At the moment, there are greater protections for everybody of every conceivable sexual orientation and people of either sex, but there are not on each of the areas set out in the Equality Act. More pertinently, it would avoid fuelling what is already a very unhelpful public discourse about two-tier policing and laws, or some of the more charged debates that we have in the darker corners of the internet or from the more far-fetched foreign critics who have been mentioned previously.

On Amendment 336 from my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, while it is understandable that they are probing this area, I do not think that their amendment is warranted. It probes the question of whether protections for transgender people should apply to people who are “proposing to undergo” a process of gender reassignment. In fact, Section 2 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which has been the law of the land for 22 years, requires somebody applying for a gender recognition certificate to undergo that process to have

“lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years”

preceding their application. Signalling an intention to propose to go through that process is an important part of the law as it stands, and therefore Amendment 336 is not needed.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for raising the issue about someone who was not deaf. Unfortunately, he has forgotten that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 set out exactly why people with disabilities were disadvantaged in society—and, frankly, still are. That is why some people—whether we are talking about someone who is deaf, someone who is in a wheelchair, someone without sight or someone with severe autism—need some support to have equality. That is not what these amendments seek to do. What these amendments seek to do is to say that someone who is disabled should now be included with other people as someone who can be targeted simply because of their disability. I want to give two brief illustrations to explain why it is important.

Two years ago, a man launched a racist tirade at passengers on a packed London train. He started shouting extreme racist abuse at a woman in her 70s, using language that I could not possibly repeat in your Lordships’ House. When passengers tried to intervene and support this elderly lady, they were then shouted at and attacked and became scared. Indeed, one person left the train. The police were able to use aggravated charges because the words he used to describe her were clearly racist. She was chosen because of the colour of her skin. It was not because she was just sitting there.

Contrast that with last autumn when comedian Rosie Jones was attacked on a train from Brighton to London Victoria. She was hit with a wine bottle—luckily, it was only plastic; she said that only a comedian could do that. She was hit only because of her cerebral palsy and probably, she thinks, because she is well known to be LGBT. At the moment, those people could not be considered for an aggravated sentence—and that is what these amendments seek to do. That is the point. Therefore, I have no problem whatever in saying that we should support these amendments.

I have reported in your Lordships’ House before that people have said to me on a train, when I have been commuting in the rush hour, “Why are you taking up space? People like you don’t work”. That is not an aggravated offence. But when someone tried to kick me on a platform because they felt I should not be there because I was in a wheelchair and in her way, that would have been an aggravated offence if they had caught her.

I am really struggling with all these debates going on at the moment. Yesterday, the leader of the Conservative Party made a big announcement about getting rid of equalities, and everyone is talking about identifiers. I do not have an identifier; I am disabled—and sometimes people take it out on me. I can live with most of it, but sometimes it goes beyond the right place. Frankly, members of our judicial system should be able to make up their minds about whether it is an aggravated offence. That is the subject of the amendments we are debating today.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, if I needed persuading—and I am not sure I did—the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and her supporters have certainly persuaded me that there is a serious problem here. As legislators who spend hours in this Chamber, we all know that law without enforcement is a dead letter in a sealed book, and not what anyone wants to be spending their lives on. If, as it seems, there are gaps of responsibility and agency between coroners, the police, Ofcom and, dare I say it, the great big untouchable tech imperium that monetises our data and effectively monetises our lives, those gaps need to be dealt with.

Just as I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not just for her commitment but for her expertise on online harms, I will say that my noble friend the Minister is probably one of the most expert and experienced criminal lawyers in your Lordships’ House. If these precise amendments are too broad and too onerous for catching children who, for example, were too young to have a device, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be able to address that. Between these noble Baronesses and other noble Lords of good faith, something can be done.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and I am glad that my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Morgan of Cotes have signed them on behalf of these Benches. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and, of course, to all the bereaved parents and family members who are campaigning still to tighten and enforce the law in this important area, based on their terrible experiences.

We know that there are some gaps in the law. The noble Baroness’s amendments address, first, implementation and making sure that coroners are aware of the powers that the Online Safety Act has given them. Very sensibly, her amendments are about spreading knowledge and awareness so that, on behalf of the families of young people who have lost their lives in these terrible ways, coroners can find out the truth and hold that to account. In some ways, that is the easier problem to solve. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, the coroners are not technical experts: there is always a generational gap. The apps and the social media that are second nature to the young people using them can be mystifying to the parents, the coroners and the police who have to look into them in the most terrible circumstances. We need to make sure that everybody is aware of how the apps work and how the Online Safety Act works too.

The noble Baroness pointed out a trickier problem, which is the extraterritorial effect, particularly with relation to the law in the United States of America. She is right that the previous Government spoke to the previous US Administration about things such as the Stored Communications Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, raised in our debates on the Bill. It was a problem that we were aware of and, as the noble Baroness noted, there has been a change of government on both sides of the Atlantic.

Perhaps when the Minister responds, or perhaps later in writing, she will say a bit more about the changing dynamics and the discussions that are being had with the present US Administration. It is clearly having an effect on these cases; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned the inquest into the sad death of Leo Barber, when the Schedule 5 notice was unable to be brought into effect. I would be keen to hear from the Minister, either today or later, about the more recent discussions that His Majesty’s Government have had with the US Administration on this important aspect.

Overseas Musicians Touring in the UK

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. Anybody who looks at the cultural sector will know that it is a significant earner for the UK economy. We are world leaders in every sector of musical accomplishment, as well as in drama, cinematography and television production. That is a major earner for the UK taxpayer, which brings revenues that we can spend on health, education, transport and other matters. It is vital that we make the work of that sector as simple as possible without regulation.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the arts have long been internationally mobile, and musicians are often needed at short notice to plug a gap in an orchestra or a West End production in order for that to go ahead; I saw this as Arts Minister as the sector bounced back from Covid. What work is the Minister’s department doing with orchestras, concert promoters, theatres and others to help explain the visa requirements that are needed, and to make sure that those decisions are made in a timely manner?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. It is vital that people get that because there can be need at short notice, and potentially the need to put on additional concerts or gigs due to greater demand that might overrun certain times and certain sectors. The point he has made is valid.

In the European context, which I think is where the noble Lord is mainly focused, this forms part of our examination on the reset. We currently have the best regime of any European country for allowing movement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. However, if there are any difficulties, I would welcome discussion with him on what they are, how we can iron them out and how we can make sure that that big revenue earner for the UK continues to earn that level of revenue.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 25, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and to which, as he set out in opening the debate on this group of amendments, I added my name. I did so because this amendment sits very well alongside the other amendments that he has brought forward on behalf of the heritage rail sector and which we debated earlier in Committee. As with those amendments, it applies to a huge range of organisations, well beyond heritage rail or indeed heritage alone. It follows the thoughts that we expressed previously in Committee, and as many noble Lords did at Second Reading, about the importance of volunteers to so much of the cultural, sporting and heritage voluntary sector that we are championing and have very much in mind as we look at the Bill.

I am very glad that noble Lords have had smaller venues in mind as they have looked at this amendment. They are particularly reliant on volunteers—some of them all the more so since the changes in the Budget to national insurance contributions, which have made organisations that are run on a very tight margin more reliant on people who give their time freely.

There are so many barriers to people being volunteers. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned briefly the cost of transport: if you are travelling to a heritage railway, you often travel many miles at your own expense, filling the car with petrol in order to get there. There are many barriers that put people off volunteering and enriching our lives, and we must make sure that this does not become another of them.

The people who volunteer and look after the public in these venues are no less diligent, professional and concerned about the safety of those who come to enjoy those venues, but they certainly need the help, assistance and training that the noble Lord envisages through his amendment. It must be provided in a different way from the way in which is mandated and applied to full-time employees. As the noble Lord says, many volunteers are seasonal and sporadic, so it is important that they are able to refresh their training—for example, students who have volunteered, gone away to university and come back, will need a way of being trained up again and refreshed in these responsibilities.

It is important to note that, because of the serious nature of these new duties on people who look after our cultural venues, they might appear scary. It is important that the training disabuses volunteers of such notions. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, rightly says, we want to avoid the sort of panic and chaos that come if people are not prepared mentally and practically for how they will deal with the sorts of scenarios that we envisage as we look at the Bill but hope do not come to pass.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, says, the alternative, if there is not the provision that the noble Lord sets out in his Amendment 25, is the snake-oil salesmen that we heard about at Second Reading. They are already offering their views on how to implement the provisions in the Bill before it is an Act of Parliament, and charging small venues huge amounts of money to do it. They are leaving them worse prepared and more frightened about the scenarios that they have to think about.

The noble Lord, Lord Falconer, has been very modest in his amendment: it is a “may” and not a “must” duty. There is much to commend the amendments in this group from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, but those are “must” amendments while that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is a “may”. It would make the voluntary job of people who look after these venues a lot easier, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have an interest to declare, in that I have 250 or 300 church buildings in my diocese that will come under the terms of the Bill when it is enacted.

I turn first to the provision of training. When, about 20 years ago, I first became a trustee of a large defined benefit pension scheme, it was quite scary, but I found that the Pensions Regulator provided me with training, which, as far I could work out, was free for me at the point of access. The principle that training should be provided and not just left to the private sector—to the snake-oil sales men or women, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, just referred to—is important, so that the state can provide good training or enable it to be provided. Similarly, back in 2000, I was involved with a group of friends when the asylum seeker dispersal scheme first began. I set up and won the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber to prove that this could be done morally and effectively, and not simply as a rent-seeking exercise at the expense of the asylum seeker.

State provision, ideally of a good standard that would drive up the quality of standards provided by alternative providers—the amendment does not say it all has to be done through the state—is much to be welcomed.

I recall the difference between volunteers and paid staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said, for something that might be covered by one full-time staff member, it takes quite a number of volunteers, each giving small amounts of their time, to make happen. In my churches I have many volunteers—probably several thousand in the diocese of Manchester—who require DBS clearance for their work with children or vulnerable adults. The law is that those who are volunteers get the DBS clearance process for free; I have to pay for clergy and other paid staff of the diocese, but for volunteers it is provided free of charge. It is a good idea to find ways to help the many volunteers who enable small organisations, whether they are churches, heritage railways or small football clubs. My football club, Salford City, is in a rather lower league than the top two, but, again, there are many volunteers on duty to make sure that things are carried out properly.

I support the amendments in this group and hope that we can find some way of ensuring that good-quality training is provided that will avoid voluntary organisations in particular falling into the hands of those who will either charge them so much that they give up or exploit them for their own ends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for tabling the first of this group of amendments and to the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Udny-Lister, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Suttie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Mann for their contributions.

I would like to just stand back for a moment. All the amendments and comments are about making sure that somebody in a responsible position understands what the provisions of the Bill are so they can make sure that the people who are with them, on a voluntary or professional basis, are seen to understand and are able to implement the legislation in the event, which we hope will never happen, of a further terrorist attack.

The specific question of training is an important one, but I remind noble Lords that there is no requirement in the Bill currently. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, that was a step back that the Government took to ensure that we carry out specific training on any particular issue. It is essential that we have those public protection measures in place and that people understand them, but is it essential for all the issues that have been raised today to be fully put down and for those “burdens” to be put on to voluntary organisations and organisations in the higher tier?

In Clause 5(3) we are asking for public protection measures, which include invacuation, assessing windows and a whole range of issues about a particular site; and in Clause 6 there are some more detailed observations for the larger premises. What my honourable friend Dan Jarvis in the House of Commons and I are trying to do with the Bill is establish good practice. Accordingly, as has been mentioned in the Chamber tonight, training and instruction will vary according to the types of premises and workers—whether it is a professional building or a small village hall with amateur individuals being trustees and responsible for those areas. The Government consider that the focus should be on how to ensure that people can carry out their roles effectively, rather than requiring the completion of generic or, indeed, one-size-fits-all modules or courses. If no one working at a qualified premises has been informed how to carry out an evacuation procedure, the procedure is, self-evidently, not properly in place and the requirements under this legislation have not been met.

The Government recognise the vital importance of proper instruction, and, as such, the Bill will require some form of guidance and strategy, but I would suggest it does not require prescriptive training along the lines that have been discussed in the range of amendments brought before the Committee today.

Under this legislation, the Secretary of State, the right honourable Yvette Cooper, and any future Secretary of State, must provide guidance under Clause 27 and lay it before this House and the House of Commons so that there is public scrutiny of what that guidance will be in the event of this Bill becoming an Act and Clause 27 passing into law. That guidance will be produced with the specific purpose of helping those in scope in the standard or enhanced tiers to understand the requirements that are required of them and to understand how to comply with them.

Moreover, in Clause 12, one of the functions of the Security Industry Association will be to provide the appropriate advice to those in scope of the requirements. Where provided, such advice cannot replace, but may be complementary to, the statutory guidance produced by the Secretary of State. It is intended that the Security Industry Association will support and guide those who are responsible for the premises and events and will seek to educate rather than enforce in the first instance. Through the process of implementation, the Home Office is intending—I hope I have given reassurance previously on this—to support the SIA, to ensure that the advice it provides and the guidance it produces assists those who fall within scope, drawing appropriately on relevant stakeholders. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that the SIA brings in the right people with suitable qualifications and expertise to ensure effective performance.

I hope that that reassures the Committee. It does not set down a template for training because training is not required, but it will set down guidance for organisations in the standard or enhanced tiers to ensure that they know what is required of them, and the legislation is clear in Clauses 5 and 6 as to what that is.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Has he given more thought to the sector-specific guidance, as we have touched on previously in Committee? He relies on the guidance that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will have to bring forward but, as this debate has shown, the application for a heritage railway association or a small football club varies hugely. If he and his department were willing to look at sector-specific guidance that would take in all the specific situations that volunteers and staff in those organisations face, that would go some way to helping.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a valuable point. But consider, for example, that the provisions were for a standard-tier building. The standard-tier building under Clause 5(3) requires “public protection procedures”: evacuating individuals; moving individuals; preventing individuals from entering or leaving; and providing information to individuals on the premises. Those requirements in Clause 5(3)(a) to (d) apply to a heritage railway, a village hall, a small football club, or a small church—they apply to any particular premises. What that clause and therefore what the training/understanding is about is making sure that, be it a railway, church, village hall or football club, those provisions are understood by the people who, in the event of an attack, would be in the building and would be directed by the responsible person, or their delegated named person, to understand—if this building were a village hall—which entrances they need to lock or open, which windows to shut or not, and what the evacuation procedure for the building is.

There is a training element in that, but it is really in the understanding. The guidance that the SIA and the Home Office will produce downstream—it is downstream because this is not yet an Act and there is a two-year implementation period—will be designed to make sure that whatever the circumstances, individuals who are responsible people under the legislation understand what their responsibilities are. I am acutely aware that there are, as there are now, a number of individuals offering types of training before this Bill is even legislation and has Royal Assent.

Do we, as the noble Baroness says, produce a Home Office list of “supported individuals”? Our aim is to try to simplify and de-bureaucratise this, as far as possible, so that it is easily understood by those who are “responsible individuals”, and the costs are not excessive. The requirements in the legislative amendments being discussed today would add potential layers of bureaucracy and would not achieve the fundamental objective, which is, “What do I have to do in the event of a terrorist attack in the premises that I am responsible for, whatever size those premises are?”

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

I commend these amendments to the Committee, hope that they will have support across the House, and beg to move.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has tabled and has set out very clearly in his contribution. I was glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has added her name to them too.

This issue was touched on at Second Reading. The noble Lord was vigilant in seeking assurances from his noble friend the Minister, and I am grateful for his tenacity in ensuring that we have this tested properly in the way that these amendments seek. He is right to be tenacious on behalf of a sector which is still in many ways bouncing back from the pandemic and which brings a great deal of pleasure to people across the country and is in many areas a linchpin of the local visitor economy, which is so important for restaurants, hotels and so much more.

This year, the sector is marking an important anniversary, Railway 200, which is the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington. I have said before in your Lordships’ House that the railways were a gift from the north-east of England which have transformed the whole world. This important bicentenary is an opportunity to inspire new generations to learn about our railway heritage and to see how they can contribute to the future of the sector and the innovation that it needs.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has said, the heritage railway sector, like so many heritage and cultural organisations, is reliant on what he described as an army of volunteers. That is an important reminder, as we look at this Bill and the duties that it imposes, for us to consider how those duties, including the training of staff, will be applied in organisations which are reliant on a higher number of volunteers. We do not want the new duties, important though they are, inadvertently to deter people from volunteering in the heritage sector. There are already too many barriers, including, as I know from discussions with the Heritage Railway Association and others, the cost of petrol for volunteers who drive many miles to give generously of their time to ensure that these organisations are run—and run well.

It is important that we look at the implications for volunteers—not just in the Heritage Railways Association but across the whole heritage and cultural sphere—of the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 which are granted to the Secretary of State to specify further procedures or measures required for a premises or event to be compliant with this new law. There is also the provision in Clause 32 for the Secretary of State to amend the qualifying attendance number at a premises or event. These are things that businesses and organisations will have to grapple with and could be a particular burden to those that are heavily reliant on the army of volunteers that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly mentioned.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 12 relates to Schedule 1 to the Bill, specifically paragraph 11, which deals with the railway. We should be equally mindful of paragraph 5 in Schedule 1, which relates to libraries, museums and galleries et cetera. In that paragraph, it says a museum or gallery includes

“a site where a collection of objects or works … considered to be of scientific, historic, artistic or cultural interest is exhibited outdoors or partly outdoors”.

That certainly applies to much of the heritage railway sector.

Earlier, I noticed in his place the Minister’s new friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—it was a pleasure to see him introduced to your Lordships’ House today. He is the chairman of English Heritage; I had the pleasure of working with him when I was a Minister at DCMS, and I know he will be a valuable addition to discussions on heritage in your Lordships’ House. I am sure that that definition of “outdoor or partly outdoors” cultural and heritage sites will be of interest to him and many other heritage organisations.

Others have raised the question of whether a ruined building, which of course relates to an awful lot of heritage in the care of English Heritage and others, would count. I do not know whether the Minister would, tonight or subsequently, be able to give a bit more clarification about what the implications would be for something that was a building and is now a ruin but attracts a great deal of visitors. Of course, that sheds light on the fact that heritage buildings, by their very nature, have unique physical characteristics and in many cases have special protections under existing legislation, so it is worth considering the definitions that we are seeing in this Bill and the schedules to it to see what implications that would have for buildings which enjoy protections under, for instance, the planning Act 1990 and the listing regime for scheduled monuments. These are important questions to bear in mind.

The amendments in this group relate to mobile heritage, and while I was very glad to add my voice to the cross-party interest in that and hope the Minister can say a bit more to set our minds at rest in relation to railway heritage, I would be grateful if he could also, tonight or subsequently, provide some reassurances about our static and built heritage. Many of the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has drawn attention to through these amendments apply to much more. I know the Minister has a great interest in history as well, and I hope that he can provide some of those reassurances. I was very glad to support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to Clause 2. These amendments seek to clarify that, in determining the number of individuals reasonably expected to be in the premises of a railway station, the capacity of railway vehicles used for the conveyance of passengers should not be included in that calculation. These are sensible and necessary amendments that will help ensure the effective and proportionate application of this legislation. Railway stations are fundamentally distinct from other types of qualifying premises covered by the Bill and, like entertainment venues, shopping centres or other high-traffic locations, railway stations are dynamic environments where the number of people present fluctuates significantly throughout the day based on train schedules, peak travel times and unfore- seen delays.

As I have mentioned in some of my remarks already today, there is a need for flexibility in this Bill if we are to get the right balance with appropriate protection of premises without prohibitive and overburdensome measures that actually make it difficult for businesses, charities, sports clubs and events to operate effectively. Flexibility is something we will be exploring in Committee, and I hope the Minister will engage with us constructively to deliver a Bill that gets this balance right.

I support Amendment 10. Including the capacity of railway vehicles in the threshold calculation would be both impractical and potentially misleading. Railway vehicles operate as transient spaces that are distinct from the physical station premises. The fact that a station services trains with a large capacity does not necessarily correlate with a high concentration of individuals on the station premises at any given time. This distinction is critical for ensuring that security measures are proportionate and targeted to actual on-the-ground risks.

Moreover, including railway vehicle capacity would create undue complexity for station operators. They would be required to factor in varying train schedules and seating configurations, which could lead to fluctuating security obligations that are difficult to predict and manage. Such an approach risks creating administrative burdens without delivering meaningful improvements in public safety. Of course, our new publicly owned passenger railway operators will be able to bear the burdens of additional protective requirements but, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly pointed out, the Bill may hit smaller organisations that will be much less able to implement these measures.

It is also worth noting that security requirements for railway vehicles are already subject to separate regulatory frameworks. The focus of this Bill should remain on the physical station premises, where crowd management, access control and other security measures can be more effectively implemented. By clarifying that railway vehicle capacity is excluded from the threshold calculation, this amendment would ensure that resources were directed where they were most needed—on the station premises where passengers congregate and interact.

Finally, the amendment would provide much-needed clarity to station operators and regulators alike. It would remove the ambiguity around how thresholds are calculated and help ensure a consistent and practical approach to security across the rail network.

I will also speak to Amendments 16, 17 and 18. These clarify important aspects of the Bill concerning railway premises, particularly heritage railways, the rail network in Northern Ireland, and open-air or partially roofed railway stations.

Amendment 16 addresses the position of joint stations shared by heritage railways and the national rail network. Heritage railways are an invaluable part of our nation’s industrial and cultural heritage. They not only provide a vital link to our past but serve as tourism hubs that contribute significantly to local economies. These heritage stations often operate under light railway orders or orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and are distinct in their function and operations from the national rail network.

The amendment would ensure that these joint stations were not inadvertently caught up in burdensome security requirements that may be inappropriate for their specific operational contexts. Many heritage railway stations are small, community-focused operations run by volunteers who simply do not have the resources or capacity to implement the same security measures as major national rail hubs. The amendment provides much-needed clarity, helping heritage rail operators focus on maintaining their services without undue regulatory burdens.

Amendment 17 seeks to avoid the inclusion of Translink, Northern Ireland Railways, within the scope of the Bill. As noble Lords will appreciate, the railway system in Northern Ireland operates under a different legislative framework; namely, the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. Including it within the provisions of this Bill risks creating confusion and inconsistency between jurisdictions. By making it clear that Translink is excluded, the amendment helps to respect the distinct legislative and operational framework in Northern Ireland while allowing for a more coherent and targeted application of the Bill.

Finally, Amendment 18 addresses the scope of the Bill concerning railway stations and premises. It rightly clarifies that the Bill applies to buildings and not to open platforms or those covered by canopies with open sides. This is a crucial distinction. Open platforms and partially roofed stations present different security challenges compared to enclosed buildings. They are inherently more accessible and often lack the physical infrastructure required to implement comprehensive access control and security measures. Attempting to impose building-specific requirements on such premises would not only be impractical but be unlikely to yield meaningful security benefits.

In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a thoughtful and nuanced approach to the complex and varied nature of railway premises in the United Kingdom. They strike an important balance between enhancing security and recognising the operational realities of heritage railways, the Northern Ireland rail network and open-air railway stations. I urge the Government to accept the amendments and commend the noble Lords who have tabled them for their diligence and foresight. The amendments offer a pragmatic and proportionate solution that enhances the clarity and effectiveness of the Bill without compromising security. I urge the Government to accept them and recognise their importance in supporting the safe and efficient operation of our railway stations.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front-Bench spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions to this debate. My noble friend first drew my attention to his concerns during the pre-discussion of the Bill, as well as at Second Reading. I wrote to him on his concerns prior to Christmas. I hope that I can again assuage his concerns expressed in the discussions we have had this evening.

Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that railway vehicles, such as trains, that are temporarily stopped at a station are excluded from the assessment of the number of individuals that it is reasonable to expect from time to time at railway stations. I hope I can give my noble friend some assurance that a train that stops at a station as part of its journey does not form part of the station premises. Clause 2(2), which sets out what a qualifying premises is, states that the site must consist of

“a building or a building and other land”.

If I can put it this way, the train has a temporary interaction with the station as it passes through—rather like it does when I travel through Crewe on a regular basis—but the passengers on the train are not “present on the premises” for the purposes of the definition of qualifying premises. The train and the building are completely separate. A train in use as a train is a vehicle, which is not a building, so the train will not form qualifying premises in its own right either. I therefore hope that Clause 2 is sufficiently clear on what constitutes a premises.

Amendment 12 looks at the definition of a railway station in Schedule 1, which has been drawn from Section 83 of the Railways Act 1993—on which I served at the time; that takes me back 32 years, which is a long time ago—which in turn stems from Section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. A station may include some or all parts of the premises that this amendment appears designed to remove. Furthermore, the words that the amendment would remove are a non-exhaustive list. These areas are already capable of falling within the definition if they are used in connection with the station.

I hope my noble friend will understand why I do not think it appropriate to change the definition for the purposes of this legislation, as it may remove some parts of a station which may form part of its premises. Where there is not already a legislative requirement comparable to the Bill, it is the Government’s intention to include such of those parts within scope where they properly form part of the premises for the purpose of the Bill’s objectives. Again, the building and the rail are separate entities.

For station premises which fall under Clause 2, the parts that the amendment seeks to exclude may form part of the premises and therefore may be relevant to taking forward public protection procedures or public protection measures, as far as is reasonably practicable. I know from previous exchanges I have had with my noble friend that this amendment seeks to exclude the specified parts of a station premises in order to provide greater clarity that these would not feature in an assessment of the numbers of persons it is reasonable to expect at a station premises. Locations such as a forecourt or a car park are usually transient locations. It would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby a car park would have great significance to an assessment of the number of individuals present on the premises.

Therefore, I recognise the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment, but I do not consider it an appropriate approach. I therefore hope that I have assuaged his concerns.

It may be helpful if I put Amendments 16, 17 and 18 in context by setting out the Government’s approach to the application of the Bill to transport premises. Where a transport premise satisfies the Clause 2 premises criteria, it is considered that it is comparable to other publicly accessible premises that the Bill captures, and it is appropriate and necessary, therefore, to include it within the Bill’s scope. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule 1, therefore, include definitions of relevant transport premises for this purpose.

It is expected that, for example, some airports, railway stations and bus stations will, under the definition in the Bill, be qualifying premises required to take forward the Bill’s requirements. This is considered appropriate, given that the security of the public at those premises is of equal importance to that of the public at, for example, an entertainment centre or a large retail premise. However, paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 excludes those transport premises that are already subject to existing requirements to consider and mitigate terrorist threats. To do otherwise would confuse and duplicate burdens on operators and give no additional public protection benefits. Excluded premises therefore include airports, national rail and underground premises, international rail premises and port facilities, as described in the schedule.

I turn to Amendment 16 specifically, which I know is of concern to my noble friend. Where there are premises that are shared—for example, where a national rail and a heritage railway station are concurrent or form part of the premises—there may be parts of those premises that are subject to legislative requirements related to mitigating terrorist threats, and parts that are not. If there are premises, or parts of premises, that meet the Clause 2 criteria and are not subject to existing legislative requirements, it is considered that they should meet the requirements of the Bill.

I want to pay tribute to the volunteers and those who run heritage railways. The Llangollen heritage railway is not too far from where I live. The Government consider heritage railways, as described by my noble friend, as primarily visitor attractions that help support tourism and the local economy rather than necessarily means of transportation in themselves. They are, by their definition, very different from the rest of the rail network, which is already required to have appropriate security procedures and measures in place.

As such, it is not considered appropriate that parts of the heritage railway premises at shared or joint stations should automatically be excluded from the scope of the Bill where equivalent safety provisions are not already in place. To do so would mean there would be no requirement for parts of these premises to consider appropriate security procedures and measures, and the security of the public at heritage railway centres is just as important as at any other premise within scope of the Bill.

In previous discussions and exchanges with noble Lords, I have emphasised very strongly that the measures required for the above-200 premise in Clause 5 are important but not onerous measures, and ones that volunteers at railway stations or elsewhere would wish to adopt as good practice, as well as being a legal requirement under the Bill. Evacuating individuals, moving them to a place of safety, preventing them from entering or leaving premises and giving them information, is all good practice, but with the legislative back-up of the Bill.

So I hope that the distinction between trains as trains on the move, and buildings as buildings, is one where my noble friend can understand where the Government are coming from and accept. I hope that is sufficient to persuade him and the triumvirate of noble Lords who raised these concerns not to press the amendment. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, wishes to contribute, so I will certainly let him.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Is he able to say anything on the points I raised about the secondary powers that the Bill brings about and grants to the Secretary of State to vary some of the conditions, and particularly how that would relate to organisations such as those in the heritage rail sector that are reliant on a large number of volunteers? Would he accept that there is a difference between a business that has an employee who has an ongoing responsibility for following changes in the law that the Secretary of State makes through secondary powers and the burden that is imposed on organisations where volunteers have to keep abreast of changing laws? They may be following closely the deliberations on the primary Act, but the Act provides for a number of secondary powers that would be more difficult for them to follow than an organisation with full-time employees.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that there will be requirements for guidance. Again, the purpose of the Government is to ensure that we have that guidance in place, and that will be circulated via the Security Industry Association in due course. I hope that will help. The Secretary of State’s powers will be subject to further amendments and discussion later on. Hopefully, I will be able to give some assurances on that.

I thought my time was over, which is why I was sitting down, but instead I shall turn to Amendment 17. By virtue of Section 119 of the Railways Act 1993, such requirements as requested in Amendment 17 apply to railway stations in Great Britain. However, as my noble friend said, Section 119 of the Railways Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore, where there are stations within the Northern Ireland Railways network that meet the Clause 2 criteria, I consider it appropriate that the Bill is applied to those stations accordingly.

On Amendment 18, I understand from my noble friend’s explanatory statement that the intention behind it is to exclude stations or parts of stations that are not buildings. There are some important factors to consider regarding that intention. First, to be a qualifying premise within the scope of the Bill, the premises must consist of a building or buildings or the land, and if there are stations or indeed premises that do not meet this condition, they would not be qualifying premises. The formulation of the Bill at Clauses 2 and 3 is to capture premises where there is control and ownership of that venue, not to capture freely accessible open spaces. However, there are obviously many premises that are constituted of a building or of the land that fall under premises defined in Clauses 2 and 3. Where that is the case, it is our intention that those parts of premises that constitute land with a building should be in scope. To exclude those premises at stations or other premises would have a detrimental effect on the aims of the Bill.

Again, I draw all noble Lords back to the basic premise of the Bill, which is to provide a basic floor for conditions for premises over 200 and over 800 where we have the appropriate requirement to ensure that we put in protections in the event of an attack on those premises. I hope my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Ritchie, if she is here, will see the consequences of what I have said. As such, I cannot support the amendment, but I hope I have explained the reasons why.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, in respect of Amendment 14, which is in my name, I have to say that Schedule 2 is rather tortuous. Having considered it carefully, I am not sure that my amendment, combined with Amendment 19, achieves what I want it to in light of paragraph 3(5)(b) of Schedule 2.

I am involved in helping to run several outdoor sporting and cultural events in rural England which, needless to say, are all run on a shoestring. Suffice it to say that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am seriously concerned that they will be rendered unviable by the provisions of the Bill because of the significant costs of the requirements that will arise as a result of them—for example, putting in place training, barriers and searching equipment. However, because I now doubt that my amendment would achieve what I want it to, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not pursue it today but return to it later.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord De Mauley just said about pursing his amendment later, I support the sentiment behind it.

In another Bill before your Lordships’ House, the Football Governance Bill, we are looking at the implications for football clubs, particularly those at the lower end of the pyramid. I was therefore attracted to what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said and what his amendment seeks to do by looking at venues with a capacity of under 10,000—the sports grounds and stadia which attract a smaller number of people but still have sizeable crowds. As we discussed in the previous group, they are run by volunteers as much as, and indeed often more so, than full-time staff, with all the implications of that.

My noble friend, in talking about the London Marathon and the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, brought a number of important examples of sporting events which take place in both private establishments and in public. The growing interest in the parkrun movement springs to mind as another example. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more about whether those more informal but regular sporting events which attract large numbers of people would be covered by the Bill, and if so, how.

I certainly agree with what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said in his concluding remarks. It will be very important to have some guidance here. I said at Second Reading that some more sector-specific guidance is needed. My noble friend’s suggestion of working with DCMS, on behalf of the many and varied sectors which that department has the pleasure of working with, would be very valuable because that can get us into some of the minutiae that my noble friend’s speech just set out. Those minutiae are very important, as the organisations and volunteers that run events are grappling with the duties the Bill will impose upon them.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I wish to ask the Minister two questions that arise on this topic that I have found in the impact assessment.

At paragraph 68, there is a description of the enforcement regime in relation to the provisions in the Bill:

“Enforcement will be delivered via a mainly civil sanctions regime”.


In respect of a standard duty premises, we can see that there is a fixed penalty and an ability for the regulator to impose a fixed penalty of £500 per day from the date on which the

“penalty is due until the date the contravention is rectified or the notice is withdrawn by the Regulator”.

There is furthermore a power, in the most “egregious cases” according to the impact assessment, of a criminal prosecution of the relevant person. My first question picks up on a theme in an earlier group. To what extent does the Minister think this will have an impact on volunteering and the willingness of people to take on roles where they would be responsible for facing such enforcement?

My second question is in relation to the funding estimates in the impact assessment. One can see, in paragraph 98 on page 23 of the impact assessment, there is a description of how it is that the civil servants have reached their valuation of what the Bill is going to cost. In the previous paragraph, they discuss the impact of outdoor festivals, but in paragraph 98 they say that outdoor events other than festivals

“have not been included in the analysis. These events are not included due to the absence of specific and accurate data about the number of events and their respective capacities. This lack of a comprehensive list of these events means that a reliable estimate of the number of events could not be made. Therefore, outdoor events other than festivals have been excluded from the appraisal analysis”.

I suggest to the Committee that this is simply not good enough. This is an impact assessment which tells us on its first page that the possible financial impact of these measures is somewhere between £1.8 billion, which is the best case, and £4.9 billion. To simply exclude the valuation from outdoor events because no attempt can be made to assess how many people may attend is simply not good enough. We can see this is a policy that has been developed without the needs of the kinds of small sports grounds that my noble friend has identified. Would the Minister agree that the common-sense position would be to consider excluding completely these kinds of small sporting venues from the operation of the Bill?

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who made some very wise points based on his considerable experience in this area. I, too, very much support this Bill. Like other noble Lords, I remember all too well the night of the Manchester Arena attack during the 2017 general election, as well as the generous and defiant response of the people of Manchester, as the right reverend Prelate rightly reminded us in his contribution. We all remember today with admiration Martyn Hett and his mother, Figen Murray. As the briefing note from Survivors Against Terror puts it, Martyn was living his best life—as were the other 21 victims who lost their lives that evening and the more than 1,000 people injured in that appalling attack.

It will not surprise noble Lords to know that I associate myself with everything that my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead said, or that I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the diligent and dedicated way in which she reacted to evil acts such as this, and how she and others worked with the brilliant men and women of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent others like it.

While the Prevent and Pursue elements of the Contest strategy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, alluded, receive considerable attention sometimes, it has always seemed to me that the Prepare and Protect elements receive comparatively less, especially when one considers that these are the elements in which so many more of us can play our part. We need a whole-society response to countering the ever-present and evolving threat of terrorism. The owners and operators of cultural and heritage venues want to play their part in that solemn task, and they take their responsibility very seriously. My purpose in speaking in this debate today is to reflect some of the points they have raised with me and other members of the shadow Culture, Media and Sport team regarding how they can do that most effectively. In particular, I am grateful to those who took the time to join my right honourable friend Stuart Andrew, the shadow Secretary of State, and our colleagues for a round-table discussion about the Bill last month, as well as the cultural and security professionals I had the pleasure of speaking to at the International Arts and Antiquities Security Forum in County Durham in October.

It is clear from talking to those people that there is nervousness about the Security Industry Authority’s ability and capacity to act as the new regulator in this area. The role envisaged by the Bill, as noble Lords have noted, is quite a departure for that organisation, which already has a mixed reputation in the sector. Is the Minister satisfied that the authority has the resources and expertise—and indeed the confidence of the sectors it will be regulating—it will need to succeed? Has it begun its engagement with the people who are on the front line in each of the varying sectors it will be regulating? This Bill has been long in gestation, as noble Lords have reminded us; the authority does not need to wait for Royal Assent to begin engaging with the people who have the practical knowledge about how it can best be implemented.

In the absence of that sort of engagement, as my noble friend Lady May said, these organisations will be bombarded with consultants. Indeed, a number of those whom we spoke to in our round-table discussion said that they are already being contacted by what one described as “snake oil salesmen” purporting to advise them on how to implement a Bill that has not yet become law. Of course, many of those organisations have dedicated professionals who have worked out detailed and well-considered plans to maintain the safety and security of those who visit them. Those plans are, by necessity, sensitive and confidential documents, and many are wary of sharing them externally, even with a new regulator, potentially opening them up to new vulnerability. Therefore, it is vital that the new regime that this Bill brings about enjoys the confidence and support of those with whom it will work.

A number of speakers mentioned the tiers that the Bill sets out. A capacity of 800 or more tips a venue into the enhanced tier, so a moderately sized theatre such as the Lyric or the Noël Coward becomes in the same category as Wembley Stadium or the Glastonbury festival. I welcome the exemption that the Government have introduced for churches and other places of worship, but there may be a case for more granular tiering, or perhaps a super-enhanced tier for the very largest venues and events.

The seasonality of venues is also worth considering. A venue which is extremely busy for only one day, or one part of a year, such as a live music festival or an annual sporting event, would stay in the enhanced tier for 365 days of the year. There is also the complexity of multi-event venues. For instance, a conference or exhibition hall, such as the ExCel centre, which has been mentioned already, might stage a number of different events, of different sizes, all at the same time. Are these to be considered separately or counted cumulatively?

The Bill defines the premise operator as the freeholder or leaseholder, and the event organiser as the entity overseeing the delivery of an event. As the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre have pointed out, a number of theatres operate within multipurpose venues, such as university complexes—Northern Stage in Newcastle is one example. The Society of London Theatre and its members can provide useful insights into these operational differences and how they might be overcome; how can we make sure that the SIA takes account of this practical, first-hand advice?

A number of speakers raised concerns about physical thresholds—the grey areas or “zone Ex” as people leave venues. Where do the boundaries of a venue’s responsibility begin and end? The Bill seeks to enhance security measures in what it refers to, but does not define, as “the immediate vicinity”. The vicinity of an event space, including transport routes and the public realm, is, by definition, beyond a venue’s perimeter and control. As LIVE, the body representing the live music industry, has set out in the briefing noble Lords will have received, event organisers and security personnel have no jurisdiction over crime and disorder in the public realm; only the police do. That needs to be reflected in the Bill. In particular, LIVE argues that the SIA should not be allowed to serve a notice requiring action outside the premises or outwith the control of the person who is being served the notice.

UK Theatre also raised the concern that external measures, such as bollards, should not get in the way of the essential operations of our cultural venues. The public space around a theatre can be essential for its operation. The changing of sets, where equipment for one show is dismantled and another installed, is critical, particularly for plays in repertory or an opera, where a number of productions are staged simultaneously.

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, set out, we need to ensure consistency with existing legislation, such as the Licensing Act 2003, and data protection laws. Many venues have seen the burden of complying with subject access requests relating to the use of closed circuit television rise exponentially. If they are being encouraged to make greater use of CCTV, which can provide protection to the people who come to their venues, or indeed facial recognition technology, as we have just heard, what support will they be given to comply with data protection regulation and the potential burden there?

Many venues operate as franchises. On whom do the new duties fall? Will these be on the parent company or on the franchisees? Who ought to pick up the bill for compliance? All this speaks to a need for sector-specific guidance but, as the sectors understand it, that is not currently planned. Is that the case? If so, will the Minister urge the SIA to reconsider that? I echo the very reasonable request of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that the guidance that it is minded to prepare should be made available before Committee.

Finally, we must be mindful of the burden on the venues and organisations that will play their part in this important new law. Many are run not for profit while others are very small businesses in which profit margins are extremely tight: 43% of grass-roots music venues in the UK made a loss in 2023, to give just one example. They are reliant on a mixture of their own full-time staff, contactors and volunteers. They are squeezed already by the additional burdens of the new and higher national insurance bills that the Budget brought. For this Bill to work and to make the difference that we all want it to, the duties that it places on businesses and venues need to be practicable, effective and proportionate. I hope that these are aims we can keep in mind as we scrutinise the Bill further.