Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords. I remind the Committee that, in the event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to ensure that providers of non-passenger micromobility vehicles referred to in this schedule also include those who provide these vehicles for delivery services.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for not being at Second Reading, but I care deeply about these issues. Amendments 104A and 105A seek to ensure that, when we talk about micromobility vehicles in this Bill, we do not inadvertently exclude those used for delivery services. These services are now a major and growing part of daily life, whether that is food delivered by bicycle, parcels carried by e-bikes or goods transported by small vans. These services are economically and socially important, but they also have a very real impact on our streets and pavements, which is already being felt.
For example, food delivery has nearly doubled since 2019—as have parcel deliveries by vans, albeit over a longer period—yet local authorities currently lack clear powers to manage how those services operate in public space, particularly where micromobility vehicles are concerned. The Government’s guidance on this Bill recognises that the regulatory framework may need to expand in future, for example to include e-scooters or pavement delivery devices if they begin to block pavements or disrupt shared space, but that future is already here. Local authorities and communities are experiencing these pressures today.
In Committee in the Commons, it was directly raised whether what are now Clause 23 and Schedule 5 could be broadened to cover delivery vehicles. The Minister acknowledged that similar vehicles are already causing problems on our streets and said that the issue would be taken away and considered. I would be grateful to hear the outcome of those considerations today. If we miss this opportunity now, it could be many years before Parliament returns to this topic. We need only look at pedicabs to see how long such delays can last. Transport for London first sought powers in 2005; even now, those powers are not fully in force.
With these amendments, any use of these powers would still require secondary legislation and, crucially, be entirely optional for local authorities. The intention is to ensure that councils can take action where problems arise. That flexibility matters. In city centres, licensing could be used to address issues such as illegal e-bikes, pavement obstruction, unsafe riding and polluting vans, which are now the largest source of air pollution in central London. In rural or sensitive areas, a different approach might be taken, such as permit systems to encourage consolidation of deliveries or to manage speeds on narrow rural lanes. There are also important issues around safety and workers’ rights. Research from University College London found that freelance delivery workers are three times more likely to feel pressured to take safety risks or dangerous risks compared with employed drivers. Giving local authorities the tools to shape how delivery services operate could help to address these concerns.
Ultimately, these amendments are about empowering local decision-making. They would ensure that delivery services using micromobility vehicles are not accidentally carved out of a framework that is designed precisely to manage competing demands on shared space. I hope that the Minister will accept them or, at the very least, give a clear assurance that delivery services will be brought within scope at the earliest possible opportunity. Without that, we risk leaving our local authorities powerless in the face of challenges that they are already struggling to manage. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Amendments 108 and 109 would place stronger requirements on traffic authorities with regards to parking and docking, and Amendment 113 would expand the duty to co-operate to Great British Railways and other relevant bodies. I am grateful to the charity CoMoUK for its advice in this area.
This Bill is a welcome opportunity to start the long-overdue management and regulation of micromobility schemes and to reduce any negative impacts. Any noble Lord who has sat through many of the Committee days of the current police Bill will have heard arguments made and concerns expressed about bikes and scooters cluttering our pavements and about the lack of regulation—that is seen in the number of amendments today. This Bill is an opportunity to deal with these issues.
Amendments 108 and 109 would require traffic authorities to provide parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the right level. The proposed legal duty for highways authorities to merely “co-operate” with strategic authorities is weak. There is a risk that authorities will fail to provide sufficient parking spaces for micromobility vehicles. I understand that there are existing cases of the relevant authorities refusing to provide any bike-share parking space at all. This will limit the potential of micromobility to serve the public and will risk micromobility vehicles becoming a public inconvenience through inappropriate parking, as we currently see across our cities.
In addition to the duty to co-operate, it is important that traffic authorities have a duty to provide parking at sufficient densities, with density standards defined by the licensing regulations and guidance that this Bill outlines. Guidance should emphasise that, where possible, parking should be on the carriageway—perhaps replacing a private car parking space—strengthening the role of micromobility in the shift away from private car ownership and supporting the Government’s goals around active travel, clean air and climate.
I will expand on this a little more. It is important that the Bill gets parking right as, on the one hand, the planning of parking locations has a huge impact on how convenient shared micromobility is to use and therefore how much the public can benefit from it. On the other hand, as we hear regularly, poorly planned parking can be the source of so many problems, such as obstructing pavements, that this Bill aims to resolve.
As the Bill is currently written, the authority that gives out licences is not the authority responsible for parking, which creates that risk of mismatch between the number of bikes licensed and the quantity of parking available. These amendments aim to ensure that traffic authorities work in a co-ordinated way with licensing authorities to provide that appropriate level of parking. Density and quality standards outlined in guidance would support those traffic authorities to understand what is needed. If we do not tackle this tension, we will continue the chaos that we see on our pavements and streets, which benefits no one.
Amendment 113 would require Great British Railways, National Highways and other public bodies to co-operate with the licensing authority on micromobility vehicles and the connectivity with other modes of transport. The creation of Great British Railways in particular is a huge opportunity to integrate between rail and other forms of transport. Parking at stations for shared micromobility would make connections easier for passengers. Research that CoMoUK carried out showed that 21% of active bike-share users combine their most common bike-share trips with a train ride.
Similarly, having shared micromobility parking near bus stations improves the potential for interchange, while parking at or near NHS sites—hospitals and the like—and schools can improve access for those travelling for health, education or employment in a public service. Co-operation between bodies is essential to fully realise these benefits and to enable more people to choose active travel modes for more journeys.
An amendment tabled to one of my amendments suggests removing the word “sufficient”. This would leave a gap in the legislation that would allow an authority to say, “Well, we’ve provided one parking space, and that is enough for the micromobility in our borough or area”. So “sufficient” is a crucial word that would allow a proper assessment of need and demand and allow proper provision. I hope that the Minister has been looking into this and I look forward to his response with interest, particularly as these are such delicate issues on our highways.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I start by apologising for not having spoken at Second Reading.
I will speak to a number of amendments in this group standing in my name and, with the indulgence of the Committee, I will speak also to Amendment 112 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who, unfortunately, cannot be in her place today. These amendments relate to Clause 23, which introduces Schedule 5, relating to new provisions in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, creating, in effect, a new local licensing framework for micromobility vehicles.
Let me say at the outset that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked some very interesting questions about the scope of what should be included here, and I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
Amendments 105 and 106 in my name also relate to the definition of “passenger micromobility vehicles”. As drafted, the Bill currently allows the Secretary of State to prescribe further categories of vehicle by regulation at a later date, as appears in Schedule 5 to the Bill, on page 139, in addition to an “electronically assisted pedal cycle”. So a “passenger micromobility vehicle” means
“a pedal cycle … an electrically assisted pedal cycle, or … a micromobility vehicle that … is designed or adapted to carry one or more individuals, and … is of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
The “and” there is crucial. We are all aware of micromobility vehicles that are not pedal cycles or electrically assisted pedal cycles, such as e-scooters and things of that sort. They would have to be designated by the Secretary of State in order to be included in the scope of the Bill.
I do not know why that has to happen. I do not see why the Government cannot be clear about what this covers and cover it from the outset, not by way of regulation later, which may or may not happen; the remarks made by the noble Baroness about pedicabs and how long these things take to happen are salutary in this respect. So my reason for tabling these amendments is to probe why those categories are not clearly and properly defined in the Bill at the outset and why we will have to wait for regulations later.
My Amendment 107 addresses the exemption provisions. Schedule 5 permits the Secretary of State, again by regulation, to create further exemptions from what may otherwise be criminal prohibitions. So criminal offences will be created by the Bill, or the Act when it comes into force. On the face of the Act, certain things will be exempt from those criminal provisions—that is fine; not everything has to be criminal, and you might want some exemptions—but the Secretary of State may want to add to them later. Thus, through regulation, not an Act of Parliament, there will be changing and meddling with the criminal law and criminal liability. Even though it is moving in the right direction, I do not think that regulation by the Secretary of State is an ideal way for the criminal law in this country to be changed. So the Government should be clear on what additional exemptions they are thinking of producing, and, if possible, those should be included in the Bill.
Amendment 110 is an amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, which requires local highways authorities to create sufficient space for micromobility vehicles. I have suggested the deletion of “sufficient”. This is probing, to some extent, but “sufficient” creates an unlimited obligation on the part of the local highways authority. What is sufficient? It is sufficient to meet demand. If the demand increases, more space must be produced. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seems to think that this might be quite attractive, because it would force out private motor vehicles, which would have no such prior claim on the highway.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on micromobility.
I will begin with Amendments 104A and 105A. The noble Baroness is right that delivery devices such as pavement robots are used—and in the future may well be used very frequently—in Great Britain. This framework is designed to license the provision of shared micromobility vehicles. It is not designed to regulate how they are used on the streets, but I reassure the noble Baroness that all the categories that she spoke about could be included in the category of “non-passenger micromobility vehicles” in future under the Bill’s existing drafting, as it is broad enough to capture vehicles used for different purposes, including delivery vehicles.
I turn to Amendments 105 and 106. The Bill sets out clear parameters for what could be considered a micromobility vehicle for the purposes of this licensing framework and Amendment 105 seeks to remove them. The framework will initially cover shared pedal and e-bikes, but it needs the flexibility to extend to other modes, such as e-scooters, once they have been regulated for under separate UK-wide regulation. The framework must be future-proof to be fit for purpose. We must retain flexibility or risk leaving our local leaders without the ability to effectively manage their streets every time a new technology enters the market. Retaining this flexibility without being overly broad is key and the parameters and definitions that we have set out in the Bill achieve this balance. These amendments would defeat this intention to the point of being prohibitive, leaving only cycles and e-cycles in scope.
Amendment 107 seeks to remove the power of the Secretary of State to create exemptions to the requirement to hold a licence. A future-facing licensing framework for shared micromobility is essential to ensure that local leaders have the powers that they need to maximise the benefits of these schemes and decisively tackle any negative impacts. However, these requirements must be proportionate. To ensure this, it has always been our intention to exempt schemes from licensing requirements based on their scale and nature. It is not right that a community-led scheme providing five or six bikes for shared use in a village should be held to the same standard as a commercial operator applying for a licence for tens of thousands of bikes—and that it could face criminal prosecution for doing so. This power has been created to ensure that such situations are avoided.
It is not possible to account in primary legislation for all the potential exemptions to licensing requirements that might be necessary to ensure proportionality, not least as this may differ by vehicle type and usage. Micromobility is a new industry, and new business models and technologies will continue to emerge. This framework is designed to account for the shared use of these future technologies on our streets. The impacts of different vehicle types on shared street space will be different and it is impossible to anticipate these future impacts with certainty right now. Therefore, the types of schemes that it is appropriate to exempt may vary by the type of shared micromobility vehicle or business model. For example, a scheme of 10 shared cycles may be small enough to exempt from licensing due to very limited impacts, but a scheme of 10 pavement delivery devices could have significantly different impacts that may make it appropriate to require a licence. That is why the flexibility to make further exemptions in regulations is essential to the effective future functioning of the framework.
On Amendment 108, while I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that parking density and standards are critical to the success of shared micromobility licensing, I believe that the framework as introduced already tackles this in the most appropriate way. The framework already contains regulation-making powers on what must be included in a licence. That includes the power to set specific licence requirements on parking, if deemed necessary following consultation.
On density, as with other traffic management measures, local authorities know their roads best and are best placed to consider what level of provision is appropriate and in what locations. However, we will set out statutory guidance following detailed consultation to help licensing authorities to make these decisions. Where the licensing authority and traffic authority are not the same, they will have a legal duty to co-operate on parking. I will be happy to discuss this subject, and Amendments 109 and 113, with the noble Baroness further after Committee.
On Amendment 109, regarding parking for micromobility vehicles, and Amendment 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, a key intention of the framework is to ensure the provision of shared cycle parking in the right spaces. So, while I appreciate the sentiment behind these amendments, I do not believe that they are needed. The licensing authority is intended to be the highest tier of local government to ensure that oversight of these schemes happens at the strategic level. However, traffic authorities are best placed to deliver effective parking solutions locally. The legal duty, as it exists in Schedule 5, has been drafted to facilitate collaborative working relationships between these bodies. These amendments would place the burden of resolving parking challenges entirely with traffic authorities, which could have the effect of making them junior partners in parking provision and would not be conducive to the genuine positive collaboration and partnership between authorities that is necessary to make schemes successful.
The proposed amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also would not add any further specificity to the duty, given the ambiguity of what is meant by “sufficient parking”. That could create further challenges and opaqueness for local authorities to navigate as part of a licensing process that is intended to make managing these schemes more straightforward and efficient. Local leaders know their areas best, and effective and constructive co-operation will look different in different places. We may well set out in further detail in guidance what constructive co-operation could look like, but it is important that that is done following in-depth consultation to ensure its effectiveness.
I turn to Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Licensing authorities will be able to set licence conditions on the parking of shared cycles and enforce these through the framework. The issues that the amendment seeks to address are largely ones that are likely to arise with illegal private vehicles rather than shared micromobility. Identifying the owner of a private cycle can be challenging but, in the case of shared e-cycles, it is commercially essential that the operator is clearly identifiable and engageable. The police and local authorities in certain circumstances already have powers to remove and dispose of broken-down, abandoned and obstructive or dangerously parked vehicles. For local authorities, the powers extend to cycles and other micromobility vehicles. Indeed, as the noble Lord observed, those very powers have been used by no less than the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to seize more than 1,000 obstructively parked rental e-bikes in 2025, according to the council’s own website. Similarly, concerns about inherently unsafe vehicles are generally focused on illegal electric motorcycles rather than shared e-cycles operated by legitimate businesses. The Government’s Crime and Policing Bill will strengthen existing police powers by removing the requirement for a warning to be issued before the seizure of vehicles being used illegally.
On Amendment 112, on which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, spoke, ensuring the safe use of shared micromobility vehicles is at the heart of this framework. We recognise the role that insurance plays in safety and accountability for operators, users and non-users of shared cycles. That is why we have taken powers that allow us to set out in regulations what insurance may need to be in place as part of a shared-cycle scheme. However, insurance is a commercially and legally complex area. Therefore, it is vital to first consult in depth to understand the full impacts of any potential requirements.
I understand of course how crucial it is that we get the insurance question right, and that the consequences of not doing so could have serious impacts on lives and livelihoods. It will be particularly important to strike the right balance of responsibility between operators and users, and it may not be reasonable or appropriate to place the burden of obtaining insurance entirely on the user, as this amendment would do. This approach would also deviate from existing approaches to insurance for other shared modes, such as rental cars or rental e-scooters. Insurance requirements will need to align with any related aspects of licensing which may be deemed necessary following consultation, such as potential processes for user identity or age verification. It is important that flexibility exists to ensure such alignment in secondary legislation and thereby that the framework is as effective and rigorous as possible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I think there were some pilots of privately owned e-scooters. Have the results of those come through? Have they been published?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
To answer the noble Baroness’s question, the original pilot e-scooter experiments were started in the days of the previous Government and there were no results. This Government have extended both the number and the length of the pilots, so there will be some results in due course that relate to current circumstances rather than the circumstances of several years ago.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his answers to my concern about micromobility delivery vehicles. I think I heard the conditional in his words about them, so “could” rather than “would”. I will read Hansard very carefully and then come back to him, perhaps in a Corridor somewhere or on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Parking charges and strategic authorities: restriction of powers(1) In section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (designation of paying parking places on highways), after subsection (1A) insert—“(1B) A combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority may not make an order under subsection (1).”(2) In section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1994 (financial provisions relating to designation orders), after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) A combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority may not undertake any activity provided for under this section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent mayors of CCAs from increasing charges or penalties for vehicle parking, and from using proceeds of those charges, to ensure local communities maintain control of these matters and cannot be imposed upon.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on Amendment 114A, which is genuinely probing. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that parking enforcement and the charges associated with it remain with the lowest-tier authority, as they currently are, and are not subsumed into a combined county authority or strategic mayoral authority and with them, presumably, the money that flows from them. A matter of minutes ago, the Minister said that local leaders know their area best, and it should be local leaders who are responsible for enforcement and the funding that comes from it.
If the Government’s intention is that that responsibility and funding stream should migrate away from local authorities that have had it in the past up to these new combined authorities, they should say so now. If that is not their intention, it would also be helpful to know that because, once we have established that clearly, it should be possible to return to the matter on Report with a proper conservative approach.
There are two other amendments in this group, one of which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and concerns pavement parking—a matter of considerable concern to people who are blind or mobility impaired in a number of ways. I look forward to hearing the case for that amendment, which I think it is going to be spoken to, and to the Government’s response.
Finally, there is an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which, putting it in blunt terms, seeks to extend civil enforcement powers for parking from London to the rest of the country. Again, I will listen very carefully to the proposal, but I am not unsympathetic to it in principle as I currently understand it, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 121A on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett who sends his apologies to the Committee this afternoon. He has a long-standing appointment that he could not cancel, so he asked me to speak to his amendment on his behalf. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has expressed, I suspect, a bit of sympathy towards this amendment, and so he should. The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust has provided a detailed briefing on this amendment which sets out a very good case.
Essentially, the amendment would provide the local transport authority or designated upper-tier local authority outside London with the power to prohibit pavement parking in its local area, and provide, where sensible, for exemptions.
The case is very straightforward. Essentially, pavement parking is a threat and a jeopardy to anybody with a disability, and in particular those who are partially sighted or blind, and anyone with a mobility impairment. Polling on the subject suggests that 73% of those with a disability would support local authorities enforcing against pavement parking. For those who are partially sighted, the percentage is even higher.
The truth is that barriers such as pavement parking put people off travelling. According to a national travel survey, disabled people take 25% fewer trips than non-disabled people because they fear the consequences of using pavements that have cars parked on them, so there is a real transport accessibility gap.
Some 41% of individuals who responded to the Government’s consultation on this subject felt that they would leave home more often if there was an end to pavement parking. Pavement parking affects us all, not just those who have disabilities. In particular, it forces people off footpaths or pavements on to the road, which of course can be very dangerous. Another problem that perhaps is not stated as much as it should be is that it damages pavements, causing them to be even less safe to use. Cars parking on pavements reduces walking and wheeling and we should take note of that and make our streets genuinely more accessible, free and easy for all to use.
In London, I understand, there is effective power to tackle pavement parking and Scotland has devolved powers as well, giving local authorities there a very clear steer in the way in which they enforce.
As I understand it, the Department for Transport conducted a consultation on this issue five years or so ago and the public have been waiting a long time for a response. In January this year, the department finally said that it would give these powers to English councils at the next legislative opportunity. I have discovered in my time in the House of Lords that these opportunities do not come along very often, and I suggest that this is probably one of those legislative opportunities. I therefore urge the Minister to give this amendment a positive response and perhaps, between now and Report, we can perfect the words so that the powers can work more effectively, not just for people in Scotland and London but across England as well.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, very much in the same vein of argument. One thing that shocked me, reading some of the background to this, was that local transport authorities do not have this power at the moment. It seems remarkable. Yet Scotland and London, as the noble Lord mentioned, already do.
The other group of people who should be mentioned are parents with young children who are trying to navigate pavements blocked by cars, vans or whatever. It seems absolutely obvious that this wrong, which is right in London and Scotland, should be put right immediately. I can see very few arguments against that.
Having said that—I hope Hansard will pause for a while—I am an offender, because my eldest daughter Jessica lives in Ivybridge on a 1960s estate where the roads are so narrow that when I visit her I have to park partly on the pavement. She is nowhere near public transport. I can see the noble Baroness looking at me disparagingly. There is no local public transport and so, in order not to block the road, you have to park partly on the pavement.
The amendment absolutely states that local authorities have the discretion to apply that exemption to certain streets, so I think it is right for the occasion. It is important for pedestrians, wheelers, parents, the disabled and us—the public.
I also say to the Minister—I do not know whether this is legislated for—that the other thing that really gets up my nose is people parking on cycle lines. That can be equally dangerous, as cyclists have to veer out into the main road. It is not related to this amendment, but I would be interested in the Minister’s comment as to whether that is also illegal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said and as I understand it, this is already government policy, so let us just get on and do it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 121A from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading, but a number of amendments have emerged in this Bill that fit my wider interest in accessibility.
I did not want to repeat myself, as some of the issues fall under the previous group of amendments, such as abandoned bikes causing a lot of difficulty for disabled people, which is a significant issue. I asked quite a large number of disabled people about their experiences and only one said that there might be a need for it where they lived, because local businesses rely on pavement parking to carry out their trade. However, there is a far more negative impact than that. A number of disabled people explained that they have to take very long routes around and that there is a lack of dropped kerbs. If you are pushing along the road at my height, behind cars, you cannot actually see what is on the road. Also, in lots of places, broken paving is a nightmare for wheelchair users and a lack of tactile paving makes it extremely difficult for visually impaired people, who might have to use routes that they had not realised they would need to use.
I spoke to one scooter user who said that, when they were trying to weave their way around a car, they could not see whether there was a driver in that car; there was, but the driver did not see them, so pulled out and knocked them into the road. This is really difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised parents with prams, for whom this can be horrendous. A mum who is a wheelchair user got in touch with me; she cannot use a pram, because she is a wheelchair user, so she trained her child to walk alongside her. I did that with my daughter and it is amazing how, from a young age, they learn what they should or should not do. But this mother found herself having to walk out into the road with a toddler and she felt very disconcerted about it.
Data from Cambridgeshire County Council shows that we spend about £234 million a year fixing pavements damaged by pavement parking. Data from Guide Dogs, admittedly from 2006 to 2010, showed that local authorities spend about £1 billion repairing kerbs and walkways because of pavement parking. This seems not just a ridiculous amount of money but incredibly dangerous.
Disability rights campaigner Judy Heumann suggested that, to be good allies to disabled people, non-disabled people should let the air out the tyres when people have pavement-parked. I do not think that is a very good idea, but this is such a challenge, not least when there is no other route that can be taken: you risk damaging your chair; you might not get through with your guide dog; or you risk damaging somebody’s car or van. A number of disabled people told me that they have experienced quite a lot of verbal abuse and high levels of threat by asking people to move, which is just not acceptable.
In researching this amendment, I watched a public service film from 1982 that says, “Leave the pavement for pedestrians”, but it seems that we have not moved on too much since then. I urge the Minister and his team to look at this issue. It is a real risk for disabled people and we should just be doing much better.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I support entirely what the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have said.
I am slightly confused by a comparison between what the Department for Transport said in a press release on 8 January and what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has said, which is that powers will be available when legislative time allows. He rightly pointed out that we do not know when that will happen. However, the press release on 8 January said:
“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.
That implies to me that it can do what is proposed by setting out guidance and that we can be under way by 2026. However, the briefing we have all had from the trust implies that the Government will resist this amendment because they want to narrow the scope and there will be a place for it at a subsequent date. Exactly what is happening this year? If it is not all going to happen this year, what will happen this year? The press release certainly implies something:
“The department will set out guidance to help local authorities use these powers in a proportionate and locally appropriate way later in 2026”.
I am sure the Minister will be able to shed some light on this issue.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
That is really interesting, is it not? I am sure the Minister will tell us exactly what all that means.
I am one of those people who challenge people who park on the pavement. Just recently, I saw a huge van parked all the way across a pavement. I went up to challenge the driver and found that it was an ambulance, so I did back off because I thought somebody needed some help. I totally agree that pavement parking means that the kerbside degenerates; it gets broken, which means yet another hazard for all of us, not just for people who are not particularly mobile, at night and so on.
I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but he should not be parking on the pavement. I do not care that the road is too small. He should park in a legal place and walk the rest of the way. It would be really good for his heart. The thing about pavement parking is that, if your car is too wide to park on the road, your car is too wide. Get a smaller car—do not take up space that pedestrians need. I see no rationale or excuse for that. It is just plain rude, and I loathe it.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 238, as she cannot be here today. Local authorities currently have civil enforcement powers which enable council officers to enforce parking contraventions on the highway, such as parking on a bend, across a driveway or too close to a junction. They have the power to impose penalty charge notices. This Bill will enable these powers to be taken by a mayor, which in my noble friend’s opinion will result in a less accountable system as mayoral authorities are likely to have populations of around 1 million.
This amendment seeks to achieve a retention of civil enforcement powers by local authorities and, more importantly, contains a provision to extend the powers to other highway infringements such as speeding on local roads—those which are not A or B roads. I understand that in the past my noble friend looked to table a Motion in the ballot to enable local authorities to enforce speeding problems on residential roads, which had huge support from the Local Government Association, London Councils and many boroughs. That is why she tabled this amendment, so I hope the Minister can respond to that point.
We have had a really interesting discussion about Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The noble Lord, Lord Young, made a really good point, to which I hope the Minister can respond. It is an anomaly. Outside London, while it is an offence to drive on the pavement, it is not a specific offence to park on a pavement in most instances. This amendment tries to resolve this.
We have had briefings, as the Committee has heard, from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, and I have had a briefing from Guide Dogs about this issue. According to Guide Dogs, four in five blind or partially sighted people have said that pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week and over 95% have been forced to walk in the road because of pavement parking, so, as we have heard, this is a serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, refers to the fact that five years ago the Department for Transport conducted a consultation, and we had the results in on 8 January. I believe this is the legislative opportunity for the Government—that is, if they need one, and if they do not, I hope the Minister can clarify that—and it clearly has cross-party support. It is important that we look to resolve this anomaly as soon as possible.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendment 114A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Bill does not provide powers to combined authorities or combined county authorities in respect of parking provision. As parking restrictions inherently apply with localised variations, the same imperative for consistent enforcement does not arise across a combined authority and combined county authority area, as is otherwise the case for the enforcement of bus lanes and other moving traffic restrictions. Civil parking enforcement powers are not considered to be appropriate at combined authority and combined county authority level. The Bill provides combined authorities and combined county authorities only with the ability to take on powers to enforce on a civil basis contraventions of bus lane and moving traffic restrictions with the agreement of the constituent local authorities.
The amendment would have no effect because combined authorities and county combined authorities are not defined as local authorities under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That provision limits the power to make traffic regulation orders for paid on-street parking to specific bodies: county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils, London boroughs, the Common Council of the City of London and Transport for London. The use of any surplus revenue from the designation of parking places is strictly ring-fenced under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for local authority-funded environmental measures and public transport schemes. This important principle will apply equally to combined authorities and combined county authorities for bus lane and moving traffic contraventions, which is appropriate in the interests of consistency and already dealt with in the regulations.
I turn to Amendment 121A, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Bassam and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others. I welcome my noble friend’s interest in this matter and I share the concerns that the amendment seeks to address. Vehicles parked on the pavement can cause serious problems for all pedestrians, especially people with mobility or sight impairments, as we have heard, as well as those with prams and pushchairs and of course in wheelchairs.
On 8 January this year, my department published a formal response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking, summarising the views received and announcing the Government’s next steps of pavement parking policy. We plan to give local authorities power later in 2026 to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstructs the pavement. That offence already exists and can be enforced by the police, but making it enforceable on a civil basis can be achieved through secondary legislation and will clearly be welcome.
In addition, and I hope this answers the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the Government have announced our intention to make primary legislation to give powers to local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking in their area. That will allow the highest tier of local government in an area to prohibit pavement parking, with exemptions for vehicle classes and streets where necessary. This will ensure accessibility on pavements for all pedestrians, including, as we have heard, some of our most vulnerable pavement users.
This is a complex area. Due consideration needs to be given to a range of matters, including how local transport authorities enact a prohibition, which vehicles might be excluded, permissible defences for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his efforts to move this matter forward, and I agree that the amendment captures the overall intent of the policy to create new devolved powers to prohibit pavement parking in the interests of all pavement and road users. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to enable this at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that my noble friend’s amendment may need only small drafting changes to allow it to fully represent the Government’s position. I am happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this matter further.
In respect of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about parking on cycleways, it is already an offence to park on a cycle track.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
If it is the case that only minor amendments are needed to what is now before us, why can that not happen on Report?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
As I say, I am very happy to meet the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Blunkett to see whether we can move this forward.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sorry for sitting down prematurely.
Amendment 238, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would have no effect because there already exists a long-established and well-established civil enforcement regime in regulations made under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. That regime covers matters such as conditions for issuance and levels of penalty charge notices, rights of representation to the issuing local authority, and onward appeal to an independent adjudicator if representations are unsuccessful. The Secretary of State has also published statutory guidance, to which local authorities must have regard under Section 87 of the 2004 Act, to ensure that civil enforcement action is carried out by approved local authorities in a fair and proportionate manner.
With these assurances, I hope that noble Lords are able not to press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief because, on this occasion, the Minister has brought great clarity to a number of the debates that were initiated in this brief discussion. The sensible thing would be for us to take away what he said and consider, ahead of Report, whether there are any matters that we still wish to pursue. Indeed, I understand that there will be negotiations on at least one of the main topics that were the subject of this discussion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am rarely disappointed by the words of the Minister on matters relating to transport. I am delighted that he concedes that the Blunkett amendment is close to perfection; I think it is. I rather hope that, between now and Report, those of us who want to see Amendment 121A enacted will have a constructive, warm and friendly cup of tea with the Minister to resolve those few words that need to be sorted out so that, on Report, we can achieve a sublime amendment to which everybody signs up.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I hope to be brief. I have two main topics to discuss here. No explanation has been given for including Clause 27, which has the effect of transferring to the Mayor of London powers, which currently rest with the Secretary of State, to give consent for the disposal of land owned by Transport for London.
I start by saying that I do not have a principled objection to giving more powers to Transport for London. In fact, when I think back to the pedicabs Bill, I was the one arguing against the Government’s initial proposal that the pedicab licensing regulations would have had to be approved by the Secretary of State in each case. That argument was eventually heard, so the Secretary of State has no say over the licensing of pedicabs in London; it rests entirely with Transport for London, which is the right place for it to rest. I only wish it would get on and do something about it, but that is another question.
I am not opposed in principle to transferring powers over Transport for London to the Mayor of London from the Secretary of State, but I am concerned about doing so in this case, because the land that belongs to Transport for London is very often necessary for operational purposes, although that is not always immediately apparent to the casual passer-by. The casual passer-by—that might include the mayor, who passes by occasionally—would see that land and perhaps see an opportunity for housing on it. If the mayor is responsible both for decisions relating to housing, as he is, and for decisions relating to the disposal of land by transport for London, he can be placed in a position that not only creates an inherent conflict but can create difficulties for Transport for London over time.
There is a further matter: sometimes the land owned by Transport for London is also accessible by Network Rail, and of course vice versa. We know that Transport for London runs services on a considerable amount of Network Rail assets, so the transfer of land that might be of value for operational purposes to another purpose—let us say housing, although it might be something different—could have an impact that is greater than simply one on Transport for London. It might be something to which Network Rail, for example, or Great British Railways in the future, had an objection—yet the Secretary of State, who would be the normal means through which they would articulate their objection, would not be empowered to take any steps. They would be left as simply one of a number of petitioners at the door of the Mayor of London, asking him to take their interests into account. So I am very cautious about this clause and I wonder whether it has been properly thought through. I do not understand the rationale for it, except in the general sense of, “We’ve got to devolve things, so here’s something we can devolve”. I am not sure this is something that should in fact be devolved.
My Amendment 119, and Amendment 118, which is consequential to it, would replace the duty on councils to implement local transport plans with a duty to have regard to them. This is inevitably a fine balance. I think we have all understood it and seen it in other contexts. But there is a real difference, in practice and in law, between being under a duty to implement and being under a duty to have regard. Being under a duty to implement is a very narrow, rigid requirement that will leave very little discretion for local transport authorities to take account of local circumstances. Again, I come back to what the Minister said a little while ago about local authorities being the people who know their area best. I think there is an argument at least—and this is a probing amendment—for exploring why the Government are not content with an arrangement whereby local transport authorities have a duty to have regard to the local transport plans rather than actually to implement them.
Finally, my Amendment 121 in this group relates to Schedule 10 and seeks to remove paragraph 14. As I understand paragraph 14, it effectively transfers responsibility for concessionary travel schemes from district and county councils to combined authorities, or combined county authorities once those bodies are established. There is an emotional bond in many cases between what I am going to call the bus pass and the local authority, which is of great significance both to local people and to the local authority. In fact, when I look at my own Freedom Pass, I see it says that it is funded by London Councils and HM Government. It used to say—not in my time but in years gone past—that it was funded by my local authority, which was named on the Freedom Pass.
That local link is tremendously important. It is one of the most important and valued services that local authorities supply to their residents. To remove the responsibility to the county authority and with it, no doubt, removing the name of the local authority from the pass, cutting that link, is very dangerous. It leaves in the air the question of who is paying for the Freedom Pass or bus pass that people have. Who is paying for it under these new arrangements? The reason why the local authority is entitled to have its name on it is because it is making a large financial contribution, sometimes the whole contribution. In London, the entire contribution comes from London local authorities. That is why they can have their name on it and is the basis of the bond that exists, but who is to carry that burden in the future? Who will be paying for it? Will that bond continue to be connected with the funder? These are important questions to explore. I would very much like to hear what the Minister has to say about them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I will come to Amendment 120F in a moment.
These four amendments look at how this Bill divides responsibility between strategic authorities and local highway authorities and the risk that that division creates if it is not handled carefully. As the Bill is drafted, strategic authorities are responsible for drawing up policy through local transport plans while responsibility for implementing most road-related measures remains with local highway authorities. On the surface, that might sound tidy; in practice, it risks creating confusion and delay. This concern is informed by last week’s judgment by the Court of Appeal, the first time that a court has examined equivalent provisions in Section 151 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which governs the duty of London boroughs to implement the mayor’s transport strategy.
The distinction between policies and proposals is important here. Local transport plans, such as climate plans, contain both. A policy might be to prioritise buses or to reduce speed limits in villages. A proposal is what turns that policy into reality: five miles of bus lane delivered each year or 20 miles an hour limits introduced in five villages annually. I would make it 10 miles an hour through villages, but I understand that people have to get to places.
Under this Bill, local authorities are required to implement policies but only to have regard to proposals. We have also seen amendments that would weaken this even further, reducing the duty to have regard only to policies, not even proposals. That stands in sharp contrast to the position in London where boroughs are under a clear obligation to deliver the proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. Yet outside London, constituent authorities will have a vote on approving local transport plans, something that London boroughs do not have. Surely, if authorities help to shape and approve the plan, it makes sense that they should also be held to deliver what it contains. If proposals can simply be noted and then ignored, we risk gridlock, not only on our streets but in how decisions get made. Strategic plans will promise change while delivery stalls on the ground.
The pace of delivery now really matters. On climate alone, the Climate Change Committee has recommended a 7% modal shift by 2035 that requires major sustained investment in buses and active travel across most, if not all, local authorities. Electric vehicle sales are off target. Other sectors are falling behind. Transport remains the largest emitting sector. It will need to do more, not less. Reducing motor traffic is also essential for public health to cut pollution, much of which now comes from brake and tyre wear. We need to improve road safety and enable walking and cycling. There is also a strong economic case. All major parties now support denser towns and cities rather than continued building on greenfield land. That will not work without significant modal shift. Without it, congestion will worsen and quality of life will decline. These amendments would ensure coherence between strategy and delivery, reduce the risk of stalemate and give local transport plans the force needed to turn ambition into action.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, Amendments 120A to 120C. They are part of a theme that has been talked about before: the degree of devolution and centralisation of existing powers. In general, the Bill is a welcome move towards greater devolution, and my amendments were tabled in that spirit.
Amendment 120A relates to the approval of workplace parking levies by mayors. Back in 2000, the Transport Act was passed, which allowed mayors to implement workplace parking levies but left the final approval with the Secretary of State. The only occasion on which this appears to have been used was in Nottingham some 10 years ago. In the spirit of devolution, my argument is quite simple: we should try to remove barriers wherever possible and consider them where there is an appropriate level of democratic oversight. For example, Leeds City Council is apparently considering using the powers in the Transport Act 2000 in its city centre to support the funding of the West Yorkshire tram. The proposal in my amendment would give established mayors the power to approve a workplace parking levy in their area as part of genuine devolution. I do not understand why those powers require such a senior political level of clearance. That does not seem to be within the spirit of a greater devolved system of governance.
My Amendments 120B and 120C are in the same vein and would allow mayors to approve Transport and Works Act orders in their area. Transport and Works Act orders are the major planning approvals for schemes, such as new trams. All these must be centrally approved by the Secretary of State, whether it is a multimillion or multibillion-pound cross-country scheme such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade or a local tram service extension, and the requirement to go to the Secretary of State can add significant time to projects. It took over three years for the one-mile Birmingham Eastside extension to get sign-off from the department.
If we think about this and put it in perspective, other European countries can go from initiating a project to completion in around four to five years. We must do all that we can to speed these processes up. Clearly, there has to be some further oversight, but letting local areas get on with building and liberating central government from having to approve lots of different things seems a very sensible move.
Mayors are increasingly going to take powers away from the centre and will be running and responsible for large geographic areas, particularly the new county combined mayoral authorities—some, like Sussex, are going to be almost 100 miles long and 50 miles wide, which is a very large slice of the countryside. It seems to me that, if we believe in devolution, we should let them get on with the job and approve schemes in their area, as is the case in other countries. The change to Transport and Works Act orders would simply allow that, which will enable us as a country to grow, and grow our economy.
I think most of us in this room would agree that the economic benefits that flow from expanding and improving the quality of our transport connections are enormous. From the beginning of the development of rail networks, we have seen extensive benefits come about from expanding the network and moving into other areas, and I am sure that doing that quicker and faster will speed up improvements in our economy and economic growth.
I argue that we should have greater devolution for these sorts of decisions and not leave mayors having to scramble around and make sure they catch the wind with the Secretary of State at the right time to get final approval and sign-off for schemes that really do not need to have that degree of centralised control. I beg to move.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 236 in this group is on perhaps a slightly more niche issue than the others raised so far in this group, but it is a detail of relevance which raises some important wider issues. The crux of it is the centralised control over the installation of cattle grids due to the powers reserved to the Secretary of State. The powers are primarily derived from Sections 82 to 90 and Schedule 10 to the Highways Act 1980, although there are other powers, such as those under the New Forest Act 1964.
Sticking to the Highways Act as the principal issue, it rightly requires local councils to consult appropriately before making decisions about the installation of new cattle grids, but it also gives very significant powers to the Secretary of State to have the final decision on such things. It is a legitimate question to ask: what is it about decisions over cattle grids that requires the special attention of the Secretary of State to make a decision on them? I think it is hard to argue that there are great strategic issues at play when making decisions over cattle grids, and indeed the expertise and knowledge that is necessary to decide whether on, say, a particular road, it would be appropriate, dangerous or necessary is very much local expertise and local knowledge. No matter how impressive a Minister may be in their depth of geographic knowledge of the byways of the roads around the country, that expertise will always best sit locally.
The Government’s White Paper was very promising on this topic. I quote it approvingly:
“It is costly, inefficient and patronising that the Secretary of State for Transport has to agree to a new cattle grid”.
I could not have put it better myself. In fact, I think I probably would have been slightly more timid in my choice of language, but, alas, despite that pungent language, the issue then somewhat disappeared. It has not been followed through in the Bill. Listening carefully to the Minister’s comments at Second Reading, it is pretty unclear why this issue has disappeared. I feel there is a slight degree of shadow-boxing on my part, hence the breadth of the amendment that I have submitted, because it would be helpful to tease out what has changed the Government’s mind from that pungent language in the White Paper to the silence in the legislation.
Although in a way it is undoubtedly not the most important of issues when it comes to devolution or transport, it is one of those issues that has wider relevance. Sometimes, improvements in government or public services come from big, grand, sweeping, important measures, but often, the improvements come from relentless incrementalism, the accumulation of small steps. This amendment certainly would be one of those small steps, but a useful small step in properly decentralising power, empowering local councils, acting as highway authorities, to take responsibility and, perhaps, also rather usefully, reducing the workload on central government a little. After all, one of the most common comments that Ministers and civil servants make is how overloaded and overworked so much of Whitehall and Westminster is. Cattle grids on their own are not enough to crack those problems, but devolving power over cattle grids would be a helpful step forward. I look forward to the Minister telling us how the spirit of the White Paper is going to be restored to the Bill on this topic.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Although his amendment does not say so, I assume the noble Lord is talking about cattle grids on highways. The majority of cattle grids are on people’s private land. I think the amendment would be better if it was clearer that it relates to highways, if it does.
Lord Pack (LD)
The answer is largely yes, although the provisions under the Highways Act get into the use of adjoining land and the circumstances in which adjoining land might be used, particularly for bypasses related to cattle grids. However, the intent of the amendment is absolutely to tease out where the Government are on cattle grids on highways.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group, and I shall speak to just a few of them. The last two speakers have outlined that if this Bill is truly about devolution, it should be empowering local authorities to make decisions for their area without having to apply to Whitehall. From Amendment 236 from my noble friend Lord Pack about the decision to install a cattle grid in an area to the speeches we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about workplace parking levies or applying for a Transport and Works Act order, what is the best level for this? In many ways, these are small amendments, but they go to the heart of the Bill. Is this about genuine devolution and empowerment, or is it a little bit of decentralisation from Whitehall but still with the reins attached? That was one of the criticisms we made at Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has had to leave, but I shall speak on his behalf on Amendments 120D and 120E. He apologises to noble Lords for not having taken part before, due to working on other Bills at the same time that have been clashing. Noble Lords will remember the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, now the Bus Services Act. These amendments were tabled by the noble Lord at that time, and we were told:
“The Government will look to utilise these principles in their delivery of the forthcoming road safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership while providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 90.]
However, according to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the long-awaited road safety strategy is rather coy on bus safety, mentioning the Act and what TfL is doing and then saying:
“Safety measures could then be specified as part of franchising contracts”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is concerned that it seems as though local authorities might move forward in this safety area in some way only if they are minded to do so, whereas, in London, we see that TfL has the Vision Zero strategy, which aims to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries from the transport network by 2041 and to have no one killed on or by a bus by 2030. Surely these things should be baked into all future transport contracts nationwide. The noble Lord is right to flag up this issue. The road safety strategy is an excellent document in so many areas, but in this area of bus safety it has fallen short of what we all hoped for from the bus services Bill. I hope that the Minister can address our points about devolution and bus safety, as well as about making sure that we are tackling these issues.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
My Lords, please forgive me—this is my first time in Committee. I declare an interest as a local authority leader here in London, as the chair of the transport and environment committee at London Councils and as an executive of London Councils. I wish to speak to Clause 27 and to Amendments 118 and 118A to Clause 29; I shall speak to Amendment 120B later.
I have sat here and listened to what everybody has said. I believe it was mentioned that, in terms of Clause 27, there are questions around the devolution of power to the Mayor of London regarding Network Rail and land usage. What I can say from my personal experience, having worked closely with the GLA, the Mayor of London, Network Rail, Transport for London and other local authorities, is that they work together. There are often plenty of conversations between the different groups. We do not work in isolation. As anybody who is familiar with planning will know, you speak to and engage with those who have an interest in the land, and so on. I am in favour of the clause because, in London, we work closely with the Mayor of London, local authorities and the GLA. I do not see an issue with having this power devolved to the Mayor of London; it would make things quicker and easier just as much as, when we do anything, we reach out to the environmental authority, for example. This would make things speedier and more streamlined, especially as all the bodies mentioned work closely together.
I turn to Amendments 118 and 118A. I would like to address the fact that, as local authorities, we have local plans. We have to work closely with Transport for London, for example, on our transport plans, and they must have synergy between them. As I mentioned, we do not work in isolation. I believe that establishing local plans gives that freedom to work together, which is why I am not in favour of Amendment 118A.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned freedom passes. They are one of the recent topics of conversation at London Councils because local authorities put a considerable amount of money into them. As such, one of the discussions has been about whether we, as local authorities, should have our local authority on the cards so that residents know who is funding them. That is part of our conversations at the moment. I wish to highlight this because it is an ongoing, live conversation. I say this to noble Lords as somebody who is working hard at the coalface and having these discussions with multiple local authorities, where there is cross-party consensus. I just want to let noble Lords know that this matter is already under discussion in the place where it really matters for those conversations to take place.
Lastly, I am in favour of on my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment. I keep mentioning having those relationships. We are always having those conversations and not just as a mayoral authority. Whether in London or outside it, they speak to those local authorities that are contained within their areas and know the area best, and they have those relationships with other authorities across the border as well. I agree with my noble friend’s amendment. I wanted to speak to those amendments and Clause 27 as someone who is constantly in the rooms where those conversations are being had.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. I am interested in what she said. Unlike many noble Lords here, I am not into London politics at all, but that speech almost painted an ideal situation in London between different levels of local authority. I presume that Great British Railways will be very much a national organisation. I ask the noble Baroness: does politics not get in the way occasionally? I remember some years ago that, when the Mayor of London—it was still Sadiq Khan—tried to turn more of what used to be the British Rail commuter routes into London Overground services, the reaction of the Secretary of State in the Tory Government at the time was, “No way am I going to allow a Labour mayor to take over and have more power in this area”. I am delighted by the noble Baroness’s picture of London politics, but it does not read every way. We are trying to stop politics always getting in the way of improvements—but perhaps she will come back to me and tell me I am wrong, it is all sweetness and light and we do not need to be worried, and I will become a resident of London again. That would be great.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. I also work on the Local Government Association, where I have a broader purview. In some of the discussions we have heard today, I have been sitting here thinking, “We do that in London, and we need to make sure that other places do it too”. I find that, where local authorities are keen on Vision Zero and moving towards more sustainable active travel, they are going ahead and doing it. It is with local authorities that are not so keen that a bit of politics probably comes into it. You want everyone to be on the same page and acting the same way. I am not going to mention any local authorities that are not on the same page as Lewisham or, frankly, as progressive when it comes to our green agenda, sustainable travel and so on, but last Monday I had to reprimand someone from a local authority and say, “You’ve got to give people information and guidance so that they can decide. You can’t decide for them whether they want to be included in declaring a climate emergency”. In fact, we have moved past the climate emergency; we are on to a climate action plan now, so I had to inform them of that.
Sometimes there are those differences but, as I say, we work closely with the LGA. The noble Lord mentioned an example where we had a Tory Secretary of State and a Labour Mayor of London. There can be sticking points where we want to get ahead and do something. That is why I speak to my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment, because we need things to be speedier and we have more capacity in local government and know our areas. We need this to be more streamlined so that we can make those decisions more quickly, such as for a transport and works order, and have connections to be able to speak.
For example, with the Bakerloo line extension going out into Kent, we have those relationships and connections. They are not in the Mayor of London’s realm but outside. More locally, in Grove Park, in the south of my borough, we have a desire and an ambition to have an inner-city national park. There is a patchwork of land owned by Network Rail; we are getting it and other parties around the table so that we can drive it and work together. We have an ambition to have this park, where Edith Nesbit lived and wrote The Railway Children. No matter what part of government we are in, money and financing always seem to get in the way. But, where there is a meeting of minds and a desire to achieve our goals, we can try, incrementally and bit by bit, to work towards that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I congratulate the noble Baroness on succeeding me as chairman of the London Councils transport and environment committee. Does she agree that the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in relation to refusing the Mayor of London additional rail routes in London, is that that is the policy of the current Government, who as I understand it intend to maintain the devolved routes as they are at the moment but have a policy of creating no more? One does not need to look to a political explanation of these decisions at all. I assume that, because they are in the same party, there is only sweetness and light between the Minister and the Mayor of London.
Does the noble Baroness also agree that it surely cannot all be sweetness and light in London at the moment, because London Councils has a policy that the boroughs should replace the assembly and have a relationship with the mayor much on the national level being proposed in this Bill, whereby the mayor is chairman of a combined authority? It seems to me that they feel that they are not sufficiently in the room, if they would like to be a great deal more so through a mechanism such as that.
These points are very good. While I am on my feet, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that my experience of London Councils and of holding the position that the noble Baroness now does is that politics in the sense of pure party politics does not get very much in the way when boroughs are collaborating with each other, the mayor, Transport for London and so on. However, there are structural differences. The truth is that the interests of the boroughs and those of Transport for London, for example, are not always the same. That form of institutional politics is very apparent. Finally, I would say—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I think the noble Lord was making an intervention. Interventions have to be short, and his is not.
Lord Moylan (Con)
By the time I have finished, it will be short. I was asking the noble Baroness whether she agreed that none of these considerations is particularly relevant because the problem that I drew attention to in my amendment, with which she does not agree, is not because of a disagreement between the boroughs and the mayor, which could be sorted out by sitting in a room; it is about an inherently internal conflict of interest between the mayor as the person responsible for housing policy and the mayor as chairman of Transport for London now being given the power to dispose of property in place of the Secretary of State.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Can I just say to the noble Lord that interventions are supposed to be short and I think he is taking advantage of the Committee?
Lord Moylan (Con)
With respect, this is Committee and one is allowed to go on a little bit. Although it is in the form of an intervention, I could just as easily have stood up and made a second speech. I think the noble Lord should stop intervening on me quite so much.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their numerous comments. I will respond to just a few, because I think some might have been a bit rhetorical. As in any family, it is about communicating and having those discussions. My view is that there is room at the table for London Councils, but we do have those conversations with the Mayor of London and the GLA and invite them down to our boroughs, et cetera.
The other point I wanted to make is that we always work to make sure that we are moving in the right direction. We work cross-party as much as possible and when there is consensus, things can move forward.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin with the proposition tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on Clause 27. I will also say what a pleasure it is to hear my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham on this and other issues. Just deviating from the amendments for one moment, I will say that the noble Lord is incorrect about the devolution of rail, because the Secretary of State is currently considering the devolution of northern inner suburban trains to the Mayor of London from the national railway network.
Transport in London is devolved, with the mayor responsible for managing the capital’s transport network, so it is right that, in line with the wider purpose of the Bill, the mayor should be empowered to consent to operational land-disposal applications from TfL. The noble Lord referred to operational land and therefore it is necessary to consult Network Rail, and that is enshrined in the proposition. This will therefore simplify the existing process and better enable the Mayor of London to unlock land for much-needed housing, supporting growth in the capital. The Secretary of State does not need to get in the way of housing developments on land owned by Transport for London and suitable for housing.
On Amendments 118 and 119, on local transport plans, constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. Clause 29 is intended to support close working between constituent councils and the strategic authority by requiring the constituent council implementing the policies in the local transport plan to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This duty already applies to some constituent councils and this clause will extend that duty to all constituent councils.
The clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working between authorities while not giving the strategic authority undue control over how constituent councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by weakening the duty placed on constituent councils to implement policies and instead substitute “have regard to” them. As members of the strategic authority, constituent councils have a key role in the development of the authority’s local transport plan. As set out in other parts of the Bill, this includes a vote on whether to approve the local transport plan.
I turn to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B. Constituent councils of strategic authorities with responsibility for managing local highways have a crucial role in supporting the delivery of the strategic authority’s local transport plan. As I said earlier, Clause 29 is intended to support close working between the constituent councils and the strategic authority, by requiring the implementation of policies in the local transport plan and having regard to the proposals. As I said, the clause aims to strike the right balance between supporting close working and not giving the strategic authority undue control over the way that constituent councils manage their local highway network.
These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to “implement” rather than “have regard to”, and would therefore give strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads. However, we recognise that there are benefits to strategic authority mayors having levers to implement agreed plans. Clause 28 and Schedule 9 therefore give mayors a power to direct constituent councils in the exercise of their functions on the key route network of the most important local roads, helping mayors to implement their local plans.
On Amendment 120A, I know that workplace parking levies can be effective in delivering local transport priorities, as demonstrated—as my noble friend Lord Bassam observed—by the successful scheme in Nottingham, the only such scheme currently in operation in England. It has both reduced congestion in the city and provided funds to support the operation of the light rail system. We therefore hear the arguments for a greater role for strategic authorities, and for mayors to make decisions such as these in their area, but we need to take time to consider the issue fully before making changes to the framework. We need to be certain that any changes are the right ones. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue, but I urge him to withdraw his amendment, while reassuring him that my department is giving this matter careful consideration.
I turn to Amendments 120B and 120C. Transport and Works Act orders can be used as a single process to obtain the majority of powers to construct and/or operate a range of both transport and waterway schemes. As observed, the Secretary of State is the decision-maker for schemes applied for under the Act across England, operating within a well-established and legally robust framework. The procedure is set out in legislation and would need to be followed regardless of who the decision-maker is. Powers granted through these orders are wide ranging and can apply or disapply legislation. They have significant legal and practical implications. Creating multiple new decision-making bodies would risk introducing inconsistency in the interpretation of policy and the use of powers, creating uncertainty, causing delays and potentially increasing the risk of challenge to the schemes.
However, the new Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 recently introduced changes to this regime to improve the efficiency and predictability of delivering new schemes via this route and, in particular, to address the need for taking decisions quickly where necessary. Secondary legislation will drive further efficiencies. Very careful consideration would be necessary if such powers were to be devolved so that the benefits of the recent improvements that I have just referred to are not undermined and the necessary protections are in place for all parties.
I turn to Amendment 120D on Vision Zero. Noble Lords will remember that bus safety was discussed at length during the passage of the Bus Services Bill. The contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, helped highlight this important issue and ensured that bus safety is included in the recently published Road Safety Strategy. Published on 7 January, it is the first such strategy for 15 years. It sets out the Government’s vision for a safer future on our roads for all road users, not only buses. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that the whole strategy is based on the internationally recognised safe system approach, a core component of Vision Zero. The safe system principle accepts that human error will happen but ensures that all road users, roads, vehicles, speeds and post-crash care work together to prevent fatalities. It is a shared responsibility. It is right that local areas, including Greater Manchester, Oxford and London, which has also been mentioned, are adopting Vision Zero. The Government welcome other local areas doing so in respect of buses, but it must be right for them.
On Amendment 120E, buses already provide one of the safest modes of road transport in Britain and we remain committed to increasing that safety further. During the passage of the Bus Services Bill, we discussed adherence to the highest standards of safety, monitored by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and regulated by traffic commissioners. This subject was exhaustively discussed then. There is already collection of data by the department, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the police, carried down to local authority level through the STATS19 framework. Data is also collected from PSV operators who must report incidents to the DVSA thanks to their operator licensing requirements. These datasets already provide a comprehensive picture of bus safety and, as observed during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to require more frequent or richer data would increase the burden on drivers, strategic authorities and the police. I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on this issue and I hope he will be reassured that we remain committed, as we were during the passage of the Bus Services Bill, to increasing bus safety and are taking real action to do so.
On Amendment 120F, tabled by the noble Baroness, the Government committed in the English devolution White Paper to ensuring that, for non-mayoral strategic authorities, key strategic decisions will have the support of all constituent councils. Adopting a local transport plan is one of those decisions, and the Bill therefore requires the consent of all constituent councils. Existing non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities already have provisions in their constitutions that require local transport plans to be agreed by all constituent councils. We know that those provisions provide reassurance to prospective constituent councils. There is already a duty on local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and alter them if they consider it appropriate to do so, and the Government are committed to providing updated guidance to local transport authorities on local transport plans, which will provide advice to authorities about when they should review and update their local plans.
On Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the moment concessionary travel is managed by travel concession authorities, which are also the local transport authority for their area. This means that one authority does local transport planning, secures the provision of public transport services and manages concessions. Reverting to the approach taken before 2011, as the amendment would do, would make travelling locally more difficult due to a range of concessionary travel frameworks as one moves from one area to another. Since that point, combined authorities and combined county authorities have all become both the local transport authority and the travel concession authority for their area, following a period of transition. This has proven effective, with local transport managed at the strategic level across the broader geography. With travel concessions managed alongside local transport functions, there are also streamlined benefits that would not be possible were these two separated at two different levels of local government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for his Amendment 236. The vast majority of applications to install cattle grids are decided by local highway authorities. Only when there are unresolved objections, or objections following the consultation stage, does the Secretary of State get involved, or where the Secretary of State, via National Highways, is the highway authority. There were no appeals in the years from 2016 to 2025 and only one in 2025, so it is scarcely a huge burden on either national government or the Department for Transport. There were two in 2014 and one in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, so I submit that this is not a huge problem for government and it would resolve only the unresolved issues arising from the primary consideration by local government. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am mildly astonished that the Minister has not addressed the perfectly serious question I raised about the potential for internal conflict between the Mayor of London, acting with regard to his housing responsibilities, and his responsibility as chairman of Transport for London. No doubt we will have an opportunity to come back to that later. However, for the rest of it, the Minister has set out the Government’s position relatively clearly. We will have an opportunity to reflect on it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my proposition.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Before we move on, I point out to the Committee that the finishing time is not 8.45 pm but 7.45 pm. There was an error on the daily note.
Schedule 9: Key route network roads
Amendment 115
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why the mayoral CCA is required to have at least one road designated as a key route network road.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Schedule 9 of the Bill amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Its effect is to require mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities to prepare, publish and maintain a designation of a key route network within their area. I am not raising profound objections in principle to this, but I have some detailed questions.
Amendment 105 relates to the first paragraph of the schedule. Why must there be at least one road designated, even if nobody wants it? That appears to be the effect of 1(2)(1A)(c) of Schedule 9, Part 1, which states that
“if there is no highway or proposed highway in the CCA’s area that is designated as a key route network road, the mayor must prepare a proposed designation in relation to at least one highway or proposed highway”.
I hope that the Minister can explain why that should be, as it is not at all apparent.
Amendments 115A and 115B work together, seeking to define more closely what the key route network should consist of. At present, the term lacks a firm statutory definition. I assume that, when we discuss a key route network outside Greater London, the Minister has in mind, to some extent, the Transport for London road network in Greater London. That in itself was effectively taken over wholesale from the red route network that was established in the 1990s before the creation of the Greater London Authority and TfL. There has been amazingly little adjustment to that network since it was established. It has been the same roads, more or less, ever since.
There is no limit in this Bill on what roads could be designated. When the red routes were established in London, it was clearly the Government’s intention and practice that they should be the main roads. In this case, the key route network could be any road that the mayor and combined authority choose to designate—even side streets. These amendments, Amendments 115A and 115B, are probing because they are limiting the network to classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic. That seems to be sensible.
There is a related and minor issue, a subset of that. The Transport for London road network carries round the corner into side streets to an extent. That is what it was allowed to do when the red routes were established. It was possible to negotiate with the traffic director for London whether they should take the full amount of their entitlement in those side roads—I think it is 30 metres—or not.
These are important matters of local interest, because you might find that side streets with local parking and other local amenities that residents were used to become the equivalent of red routes, and you have very little say about it as a local authority. That is not good enough. We need this clarified in advance. There two levels of that: why not limit it to the main roads, and what are the Government going to do about the side road issue if they have that in mind, going round the corner?
Amendment 117 is intended entirely to be helpful to the Government. It seems that there is a clash here with the Road Traffic Reduction Act, in which principal local authorities are required to provide the information and do the forecasting and monitoring that the new combined authorities will do in respect of the key route network. The principal authorities are required to do it for roads in their area and, unless they are relieved of that obligation, they will do it for the key route networks as well. So, there will be two levels of authority carrying out the same monitoring, forecasting and reporting functions. That cannot be entirely what the Government intend, but, if it is, it is as well that we should know about it. I beg to move my amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will speak to Amendments 116 and 117A to 117G in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Amendment 116 probes the Government’s intentions around these powers, particularly in relation to key route networks and traffic regulation orders. As drafted, the Bill would allow mayors to be given a power to direct the exercise of certain road-related powers, including in relation to roads that are not part of the key route network and that therefore remain under the control of local or constituent authorities. The Secretary of State would then be able to issue guidance about how those powers are to be exercised. That raises some obvious questions. In what circumstances do the Government envisage these direction powers being used? What safeguards will exist to prevent them cutting across local decisions that have been made for reasons of safety, public health or community well-being?
Traffic regulation orders are often the mechanism by which councils introduce bus lanes, safer speed limits, low-traffic neighbourhoods or restrictions to protect residents. They are subject to consultation, legal tests and democratic accountability. There is understandable concern that new strategic powers could be used deliberately or inadvertently to undermine these local decisions. This amendment is about clarity and reassurance. Will the Minister confirm that the traffic management 2004 guidance will be revised to include guidance on key route networks? Will the Minister also ensure that such guidance prevents misuse by mayors, such as using KRN powers to undo traffic regulation orders made by local councils?
Amendments 117A to 117G seek to move the duty to report on traffic levels from the local and constituent authority level to the strategic level, on the basis that the latter has the greater responsibility and power to reduce traffic. As the Bill is currently drafted, the traffic reporting duty is tied to the use of key route network roads. This amendment would remove that limitation, so that the duty applies to all local roads within the area of the local transport authority. In doing so, it aligns the reporting duty with the full scope of the local transport plan.
The underlying issue here is one of responsibility. These amendments reflect the simple reality that strategic authorities, not individual constituent authorities, hold the main levers for reducing traffic across an area. Strategic authorities set and monitor the local transport plan. They determine the overall policy for all modes of travel. Through spatial development strategies, they decide where major development goes—decisions that fundamentally shape whether traffic is generated or avoided in the first place. They also promote and deliver the big-ticket transport schemes—trams, busways and other major public transport investments—and, increasingly, they will hold powers over enforcement and demand-management measures such as congestion charging. These are the tools that shift traffic levels at scale.
By contrast, local authorities have far fewer powers. Even where they do have powers, such as in implementing bus lanes or safer speed limits, those decisions are meant to flow from the strategic authority’s policies as set out in the local transport plan. Given that reality, it makes little sense to place on constituent authorities a fragmented traffic reporting duty that is limited to certain categories of road while the strategic authority is responsible for the policies and decisions that affect traffic across the whole network.
Of course, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. The proposed split would create a perverse incentive for constituent authorities to resist roads being designated as part of the key route network. Why agree to that designation if it means that a strategic authority acquires a traffic reduction duty for those roads but not for others? The danger is that this could lead to traffic being pushed off major routes and on to less suitable residential streets, which is exactly the opposite of what most communities want.
I am concerned that there is a coherent approach. Surely that means placing the responsibility for traffic reporting at the strategic authority level, covering all local roads in line with the scope of the local transport plan.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name appears on two of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan: Amendments 115A and 115B. However, I also subscribe to the principle of Amendment 116 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which was just discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do so because it is very important indeed that highways, or proposed highways, that constitute key route networks are both genuinely strategic and accepted as such by local councils and local authorities. As it stands, the Bill is unclear on where the powers around and responsibility for traffic management—and, indeed, for the allocation of resources—lie. It is important to clarify these matters in the Bill.
I want to ask the Minister two questions as clearly as I can. First, who will decide on the traffic calming measures proposed for residential roads? Will it be the local authority, the mayor or, in practice, a commissioner making recommendations to the mayor? Secondly, who will hold the budget for such measures? Will the money for the whole area of a strategic authority be transferred from Whitehall to the mayor, or will local authorities have their own budgets for such traffic management schemes? The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said a moment ago that it is important to clarify these matters in advance. I agree with him: it is absolutely essential that these matters are clarified in advance because mayors must not undermine the powers of local authorities.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to Amendment 115 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. By requiring mayors to propose at least one road to be part of a key road network, this measure would ensure that all mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities can adopt a key route network. By establishing and agreeing these priority links across an area, authorities can work together to manage improvements and maintenance to make a difference to people’s lives. It is also important that combined authorities and combined county authorities have a consistent set of transport duties. This amendment would create an inconsistency where combined authorities had this duty but county combined authorities did not.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for again making his position clear. I suspect we will be coming back to some of these issues on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Rail devolution: passenger rail servicesA mayoral combined authority has the power to provide, or secure the provision of, passenger rail services within, or within the surroundings of, its area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives mayoral combined authorities the power to provide or secure the provision of passenger rail services within or within the surroundings of its area.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. I have only one amendment in this group. There is also an amendment by my noble friend, Lord Lansley, which, as I understand it, has a similar effect to my own, or at least points in the same direction.
The reason I raise this—I refer to my local government experience—is that anyone with local government experience is seized of the question of vires. We are always worried about whether we actually have the power to do that which we want to do, because, as is well known, if you do not have the power in law, you are probably acting outside your responsibilities and can be held liable for it, and all sorts of terrible things can ensue from that.
Here I am thinking ahead to the Railways Bill, which we intend to amend when it comes to your Lordships’ House so as to give certain rail responsibilities to mayors in certain cities at least. At the moment, that Railways Bill merely gives them the opportunity to be consulted and to request, and we think devolution could go a little further. Thinking ahead to that, one wonders whether the response to that from the Government might not be, “Ah, yes, but even if we were willing to give them such powers, they don’t have the vires to do it. They do not have the legal power to operate a passenger railway service, and it would be inappropriate to bring that into the Railways Bill, where it would be out of scope”. But of course it would not be out of scope of this Bill, which is about exactly that question: the devolution of powers to local authorities. So I thought we would fend off that difficulty if it arose later by making it explicit in the Bill that those local authorities had legal power to run passenger railway services.
Of course, it would not follow at all from this measure alone that they would be able to run passenger railway services. If you want to run a passenger railway service, you have to have a railway and some trains. This Bill would not change that situation at all, but it would give them the legal power should it be made possible for them to have access to trains and to rail in the future. For that reason, I think it is a very sensible measure to include here and I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the opportunity to contribute on this. I fear that those of us who participated during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, such as the Minister and my noble friend Lord Moylan, will be having our Groundhog Day moment on this group because we will be examining, as my noble friend said, the question of whether it should be possible for passenger rail services to be operated by mayors.
My amendment is different from my noble friend’s because I am setting out to examine whether the legislation needs to change to enable that to happen. There has been something of a pre-emption of this debate by the exchanges that took place on the group before last in relation to exactly this question of whether TfL and the mayor should be able to take responsibility for the Great Northern inner suburban services. It raises exactly the point that is the burden of my amendment. So I want to start by asking the Minister: is it possible, as he suggested on the earlier group, for passenger transport executives, accountable to mayors, to run passenger rail services? The Minister is nodding. I shall just explain why I think it is possible and then examine whether that is the case. Maybe we do not need to amend either this Bill or the Railways Bill in due course, but we might need to look at those issues when they come up.
It seems to me that, in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, it is provided that the Secretary of State, as the franchising authority, when he or she—it is a she—wishes to procure passenger rail services, must do so only by a direct award of a public service contract to a publicly owned company. A publicly owned company, as we then proceed to discover under Section 30C of the Railways Act, as amended by the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, is a company owned by the Secretary of State. We know what this now means: it means that Great British Railways will effectively be the franchising authority in the fullness of time—I think we are looking two years ahead or so—of all the passenger railway services other than those outside the present franchising agreement, such as open access operators.
How then could Great Northern inner suburban services be handed to the mayor in any practical sense? The answer is that, under Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005, passenger transport executives may enter into agreements. Section 13(4) says:
“A Passenger Transport Executive … in England may enter into agreements for … the provision, by a person who is a … franchise operator … of … services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area”.
So TfL could enter into an agreement with Great British Railways to provide passenger railway services extending beyond London. “How far?” noble Lords may ask. Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 gives us the answer: “within the permitted distance”, which is 25 miles from the boundary of TfL’s area. That takes us out to Stevenage—yes, Stevenage, no less.
I am looking to the Minister to say whether any of this train of thought is not correct. Is it possible for mayors to be given not the franchising authority for the delivery of passenger services in their area but an agreement for the operation of passenger services, to the extent that that is negotiated with Great British Railways and approved by the Secretary of State under Section 13(5)? That operational control, of course, is subject to what we will discuss, no doubt, in due course: the directing mind of Great British Railways. The nature of the operational activities undertaken by TfL must therefore be entirely constrained by the agreement that Great British Railways and Transport for London will enter into. But it seems to me that it is possible to do it now. If it is not possible to do it now, the Bill should be amended so as to enable this to happen, which is what my amendment was originally intended to do.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I want to be absolutely clear in my own mind and check that my noble friend is as well. It is very easy, in London, to think that Transport for London runs those services, partly because they are branded to look like Transport for London, and that therefore, Transport for London is in roughly the equivalent position of a train operating company, but that is not its position. With those services, the Secretary of State’s role as franchising authority has been transferred to Transport for London—Transport for London is not the train operating company, but the franchising authority. All the services are run by train operating companies, which are invited to bid for them. I am not sure that that system applies in other conurbations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. What I am describing and think is now legal is not the arrangement that he describes as applying to TfL as it stands. TfL cannot be made the franchising authority, because that has to be the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can procure passenger railway services only by a direct award of a public service contract to a publicly owned company and only the Secretary of State can own that company.
However, I am suggesting that this is a different arrangement. The franchising authority remains the Secretary of State, who makes a direct award of a public service contract to Great British Railways, which, under Section 13(4) of the Railways Act 2005, enters into an agreement with Transport for London as a passenger transport executive. I am agnostic as to how Transport for London delivers those services. I suspect that we may find only in the fullness of time precisely who the operators are which are accountable to Transport for London for doing this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Under the arrangement that is struck, is it not likely that the only potential operating company that would be acceptable for such an agreement would be Great British Railways? Great British Railways would be agreeing with a mayor, “You can pay us to run services”, which is more or less exactly what the Bill envisages and which many of us find objectionable. What my noble friend is describing may be accurate and permissible—we will find out from the Minister in a moment whether it is—but it does not take us beyond the Railways Bill, which many of us would like to do. That is the purpose of my amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. If the Secretary of State were to ask Great British Railways to enter into that agreement with Transport for London, I do not know who would be the operator of the passenger rail services concerned. It might be Great British Railways, because Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 clearly envisages payment for this. That could be to GBR, in exactly in the same way as it has been in the past to Great Northern or any other operator.
The point is that the agreement under the 2005 legislation enables passenger transport executives to enter into agreements with the franchise operators to run those services. As far as I can see, that is not being taken away, as long as the legal authority is not transferred to the mayor. What my noble friend Lord Moylan is correctly saying about the current legal status of TfL is not what can be reproduced in relation to Great Northern in suburban services, as far as I am aware.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, these amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, are really testing the provision for rail devolution for passenger rail services and its legal status. It has been a really interesting discussion.
The Government’s White Paper said:
“Mayors will be given a statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network. In addition to partnerships with Great British Railways, Mayors of Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will have a clear right to request greater devolution of services, infrastructure and station control where it would support a more integrated network”.
I am not sure that anything before us today goes that far. When we debated the public ownership legislation, I kept talking about Manchester being really keen to extend the Bee Network. I was doing my weekly reading of the rail press earlier today and there was a picture of a lovely branded Bee Network train up in Manchester. They are keen to move forward with that. In response to my amendments on rail devolution on Report of that Bill, the Minister said,
“this Government are absolutely committed to strengthening the role of local leaders and local communities in shaping the provision of rail services in their areas … I can reaffirm to your Lordships’ House that the railways Bill will include a statutory role for devolved governments and mayoral combined authorities”.”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1543.]
Yet when I look in the Railways Bill and at what is before us today, I am not sure that the Government have gone as far as they promised at that stage of that earlier legislation. What has changed? Can the Minister assure us that they are not rowing back on rail devolution? Has there been a change of heart or are we all slightly misinterpreting it and will we see far more rail devolution across the country, whether to Manchester, London or other regions?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendments 120 and 120EA, via provisions in the Transport Act 1968, mayoral combined authorities with passenger transport executive functions already have the appropriate powers as envisaged by Amendment 120. These are the combined authorities of West Yorkshire, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, North East England and South Yorkshire. They either have passenger transport executives acting on their behalf in relation to rail functions or have had the powers of passenger transport executives transferred to them.
Other mayoral combined authorities do not have these powers. Instead, via the Transport Act 1985, they can secure and subsidise services where the public transport requirements in their area would not otherwise be met. The Government have the powers to confer new functions on strategic authorities, individually or as a class. This includes the powers in Schedule 25 to this Bill, which enable the Secretary of State to confer new functions on strategic authorities on a permanent or pilot basis. Therefore, should an authority require these powers, there are mechanisms in place to achieve it.
Amendment 120EA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would not be an appropriate mechanism to enable further devolution to establish mayoral strategic authorities. The heart of the matter is that, for example, where services have been devolved, such as Merseyrail in the Liverpool City Region, this has been achieved by the exemption of services from designation by the Secretary of State under Section 24 of the 1993 Act. After the Great British Railways Act is passed, the Secretary of State will not be the franchising authority, so Section 13 of the 2005 Act will not be the appropriate mechanism. I hope that this answers the noble Lord.
It is anticipated that Great British Railways and mayoral strategic authorities will deliver a new place-based partnership model to deliver on local priorities. This will bring the railway closer to communities, enable collaboration and shared objectives and improve multimodal integration and opportunities for local investment. The depth of partnership will vary depending on local priorities, on capability and also, very significantly, on the geography of the railway, which seldom accords with local government boundaries.
The Government are open to considering further devolution of rail responsibilities should an authority make the case for it. I referred earlier to the Mayor of London’s proposal to take over the Great Northern inner suburban services. If operations are devolved, mayoral authorities will have a choice on how the operations are performed—either through Great British Railways or another operator. The Department for Transport recently published guidance on this topic. In making a decision in response to a request for devolution, key considerations will include the financial and commercial implications, the capability and the geography. The impacts on neighbouring services and communities beyond the combined authority boundary will also need to be factored in. I hope that this is clear and enables the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion—at least, a very small number of us found it fascinating, others perhaps less so. This is an important topic, as everyone on all sides has acknowledged. Having listened to the Minister, I am sure that we will want to come back to it at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ravensdale
“Preventing youth unemploymentIn their delivery of functions under this Act, strategic authorities must work in partnership with local businesses and education (including further education) providers to prevent and reduce local youth unemployment.”
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, for now, I am going to steer us away from transport and on to a no less important topic: social mobility. I thank the noble Lords who have signed these amendments and the Social Mobility Commission, with which I worked to develop them.
Social mobility has been a continued focus over the years across all Governments. All noble Lords would agree, I think, that a person’s life chances should not be prescribed by their backgrounds—either their place of birth or their family—and that all should be allowed to develop their talents and interests through education and work. It is to the benefit of individuals, society and the economy that opportunities are open to all.
We have made progress here in recent years. A school friend of mine in Nottingham skipped A-levels and went on to do an apprenticeship at Mercedes-Benz as a car mechanic. He told me that, when one of his teachers heard that he was applying for an apprenticeship, he told him that he would never amount to anything. My friend is now a director of a company that runs a network of garages across the Midlands and is a great example of social mobility. Of course, anyone can point to a story about someone who has defied the odds and succeeded, but I tell this story because it illustrates progress in that the perception of apprenticeships has completely changed; they are now seen the best way to go for many young people.
However, there are some concerning trends in social mobility. In particular, relative income mobility in the UK—the strength of the link between parents’ income and their children’s income—is poor when compared internationally. We consistently rank near the USA among the least mobile developed nations. So social mobility needs continued focus from the Government, as they have recognised through their opportunity mission.
I submitted the successful special inquiry proposal for what became the Social Mobility Policy Committee, which has now reported. One of the key areas we looked at was the regional nature of social mobility; indeed, the report is entitled Social Mobility: Local Routes, Lasting Change. It is all about the move away from a top-down view of social mobility—looking at, for example, broad educational initiatives or early years—to recognising that each area has its own unique determinants and that, therefore, a regional and local approach is needed to drive mobility and improve things. The Social Mobility Commission highlighted this in its recent State of the Nation report, highlighting the facts that prosperous areas in London and the surrounding regions consistently provide better conditions for social mobility than, for example, the Midlands and the north; and that extreme regional differences persist.
One of the key issues is where leadership lies. Initiatives to tackle barriers to social mobility are not one size fits all; they must be built with an understanding of the characteristics of the particular area. The Government need to ensure that local authorities and partners are empowered to lead and to come up with the right policies for their areas. Where does that lead us? In the Bill, there is an excellent opportunity for the Government to ensure that social mobility is embedded in their approach to devolution. It is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to change how local authorities and strategic authorities deliver on this long-standing problem and enable a step change in progress to deliver opportunity for all.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the cosignatories of this group of amendments. The points I will make will be very similar to those for the next group, which we will reach in a moment. The issue is important. I had not thought that immediately after Covid, the rate of those not in education, employment or training would rise. It has risen since Covid. There is something right at the heart of the way in which youth unemployment is addressed that is causing us not to solve that problem and give young people aged 16 to 24 the opportunities that they ought to have.
Looking at the areas of competence in the Bill that mayors will be engaged in, this one seems to be an acid test of whether devolution works. It is one thing to transfer powers from one person or body to another person or body, but it is a different matter when an objective is set, which is, simply stated, to reduce the level of youth unemployment and get more young people into education and long-term employment. The aim of the Government in driving devolution to the mayoral strategic authority system is, I think, to drive growth. From growth, you will have more jobs, and from more jobs you will have a lower level of those who are not in education, employment or training.
The clear ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and, when we get to the next group, of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, is to drive social mobility through the enabling parts of the Bill. It is not just a question of moving transport powers from one body to another; it has to relate to helping young people get themselves from one place to another with the right transport systems and support for travelling to enable them to engage with education, training and employment.
There are several amendments in this group and the next one. We ought to take a step aside to look at how we can deliver the ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has set because if this fails and the level of those not in education, employment or training stay stable or gets worse, that would be a failure of devolution. If you were to ask me which is the most important test in the several days in Committee so far, I would say that it is driving a reduction in the number of those who are in not in education, employment or training. This is something that would make a material difference to the lives of many people.
I hope that the Minister will not reply by saying that the Government have everything under control because I fear they do not. If they had everything under control, the number of NEETs would have gone down, not up. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and, when we get to the next group, to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. These amendments are central and material to the aim and ambition of devolution.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Benches opposite for allowing me to speak. I was trying to sort out my timing on the Statement, and I messed up there, so I thank noble Lords for their understanding.
The amendments in this group are all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I agree 100% with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that this is one of the most serious issues that we face. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for the time, care and seriousness with which he has addressed social mobility within the Bill. Place-based solutions to social mobility are essential, and devolution gives this Government a genuine opportunity to act in a way that national policy alone never can. It allows local authorities to design policies that are properly matched to their local labour market, their economic strengths and the needs of their communities. In doing so, it offers the prospect of moving beyond one-size-fits-all interventions towards approaches that genuinely expand opportunity and improve outcomes on the ground.
If the noble Lord will forgive me, and for the sake of brevity, I will focus on just a small number of these amendments. Noble Lords in the Committee will know that this area is close to my heart. I spent more than 32 years working with young people, helping them into employment and, more importantly, helping them to stay in employment. I promise noble Lords that I have seen what works and what does not.
I remember getting a young girl who never had any opportunities into the Unipart business in Oxford. We worked with her, and she got the job of booking travel for all the executives. She was so excited it was not true, and she turned up on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, but on Friday she did not show up. We went round to her house. She came down in her PJs and I said, “What on earth are you up to?” She told us that she never went to school on Friday and that nobody ever talked to her about it, so she thought she would not come to work. We sent her upstairs to get dressed and took her to work. The next week, the same thing happened. Again, we went round to her house and sent her upstairs. On the third week, she turned up, and again on the fourth week and the fifth week. Sometimes it is not anything deeply interventional that works; it is just a matter of knocking on the door and saying, “Come on now, get yourself together”. There is no one size fits all; it is all about individuals. I have seen what can work, and I hope that, with this devolution Bill, we can make more things happen for people like that.
I will begin with Amendment 123, which would require strategic authorities in the delivery of their functions under the Act to work in partnership with local businesses and education providers, including further education providers, to prevent and reduce local youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is rising, and the figures are deeply concerning. In the most recent data available, 729,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed, which was an increase of 103,000 on the previous year. The youth unemployment rate stood at 15.9%, up from 14.4% the year before.
These figures are frankly scandalous. We could have a big debate about whose fault it is, but I would rather we did not do that. It is important that we agree how we are going to solve the problem and stop it happening in future. This trend cannot be reversed through centralised schemes designed in Whitehall with the political choices this Government have made. It requires local solutions and place-based approaches shaped by the realities of local labour markets. Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to bring together employers, colleges and training providers to intervene early, which is critical, align provision with demand and need and prevent young people falling into long-term worklessness. This amendment would give them both the responsibility and the impetus to do so. I completely support it.
Amendment 124 would require strategic authorities to consult further education colleges when identifying where skills challenges are most acute within key sectors. I know I speak often about skills shortages, but I do so because the evidence is overwhelming. Official figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there are almost 1 million young people in the United Kingdom who are not in education, employment or training, and this is the highest figure for more than a decade. At the same time, employers across the country are struggling to recruit and, due to some of the changes that have been made by the Government, vacancies are dropping. It is a right car crash, however you look at it.
We face shortages in some vital occupations, including biological scientists, bricklayers, care workers, carpenters, graphic designers, laboratory and pharmaceutical technicians, and roofers—what a mixture. This mismatch is economically damaging and can be socially corrosive. Further education colleges sit at the heart of any solution. They understand local demand, local learners and local barriers. Failing to involve them systemically in skills planning is a structural weakness. This amendment would help ensure that skills policy is grounded in the reality of local communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendments before us, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy and the opposition spokespeople for dealing with the transport groups. They are very technical areas, and I was very grateful to them and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their contributions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for amendments relating to social mobility, socioeconomic disadvantage, local growth plans, skills, education and health determinants.
Economic growth and breaking down the barriers to opportunity are two of the driving missions of this Government. Amendments 137 and 143 go right to the heart of that work. They recognise that supporting business, promoting innovation and increasing productivity are central to growing the economy and, by extension, to addressing socioeconomic disadvantage. This is a core purpose of local growth plans, increasing productivity and attracting investment to grow local economies for the benefit of those living and working there.
We are already seeing local growth plans emerge that recognise the importance of tackling ill health, youth unemployment and child poverty very much as part of growing the economy, and I really welcome that. It is because mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities understand the challenges affecting their areas and how to solve them. They do not need the Government to require the detail of this through primary legislation. Instead, we have set an expectation via our guidance on the contents of local growth plans, which specifies that they should set out an ambitious long-term vision for making the region they cover more productive. That includes by identifying actions across a range of areas aligned to their competences and powers, including housing, planning, skills and transport. Mayoral combined and combined county authorities are encouraged to build on this to ensure that their plan properly identifies and addresses local needs and opportunities, and that they respond with the right solutions for their area.
I completely understand the impulse of noble Lords to prescribe everything in the Bill—it has happened in every Bill that I have taken part in, in this House—but it must be up to mayoral combined and combined county authorities to determine what is best. Otherwise, we risk being too prescriptive and stepping back from the spirit of devolution, which is the only way we are really going to solve some of these embedded challenges.
Local growth plans should provide an overarching and guiding strategic framework for growth in a region. Other, more focused plans will then provide the detail on specific areas such as transport and skills, with those plans developed in consultation with local communities and other organisations. Our published guidance already expects mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities to engage a range of stakeholders when developing and delivering their plan, and we know that they are already doing so ahead of the requirement to have regard to that guidance following the passage of the Bill. It is our view that clear guidance is proportionate in this case and that the noble Lord’s amendments are not necessary.
I turn to the noble Lord’s amendments that would seek to require strategic authorities to consult with the Social Mobility Commission on how to collect evidence of social mobility outcomes as a result of devolution arrangements, and to require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on action taken by strategic authorities. We fully appreciate the intent of these amendments and recognise that the policies and interventions that strategic authorities deliver have a significant impact on the public and the opportunities available to them. Central and local government will continue to work together to ensure that outcomes delivered by strategic authorities align with national and local priorities, including the design and delivery of effective and equitable local services.
Additionally, the newly formed Mayoral Data Council will join up senior local data leaders with central government decision-making on data issues that affect them. Strategic authorities under the public sector equality duty are already required to work towards advancing the equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. Adding a statutory duty is unnecessary and risks creating an additional administrative burden on strategic authorities that could potentially distract them from the very delivery that we all want to see.
I turn to the noble Lord’s amendments that seek to embed social mobility principles in the Bill’s provisions relating to skills and education. Strategic authorities already consider a wide range of local factors, including provision in areas of deprivation, how their provision aligns to local growth objectives and how to tackle the challenge of people not in employment, education or training. This local insight is their great strength, and I think the noble Lord would agree with that. Schedule 11 to the Bill, which states that strategic authorities will be under a duty to secure appropriate adult education provision in their areas, already allows them to secure the provision prescribed in Amendment 123 and indeed to consider wider objectives as needed.
Local skills improvement plans provide an ongoing mechanism through which local employers, strategic and local authorities, providers and other stakeholders come together and identify skills needs and issues. Local growth plans, which set out long-term opportunities for economic growth in a place, are led by mayoral strategic authorities and will inform the development of local skills improvement plans and engagement with employers on their specific skills needs. The existing framework delivers on the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment and we therefore believe that it is unnecessary.
As set out in the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, reducing the number of young people aged 16 to 24 who are not in employment, education or training is a national top priority—I agree with all that noble Lords said about that. In all areas of England, mayoral strategic authorities have been asked to establish partnerships as part of developing their local Get Britain Working plans. This will bring together local government, employer representatives, education and skills providers, Jobcentre Plus and the NHS. These partnerships will consider a range of local labour market challenges, including youth unemployment, and how they can work collectively to tackle them.
The story that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, told us reminded me of a youth training scheme run by our local fire service in Hertfordshire. They introduced us to a young man whom they had had some difficulties with, in the early days of the scheme, about his approach to whether he turned up on time. He had started to make some progress but, when he did not turn up on the second or third Friday, they were worried that he had slipped back again. What had actually happened was that his bus had not turned up, so he turned up about half an hour late, having walked the seven miles from Hitchin to Stevenage because he was so keen to carry on participating in the scheme. He eventually passed the scheme with flying colours, so we must never make assumptions. The scheme really worked for him.
Strategic authorities have a key role to play in tackling the NEET rate, which is why we are delivering eight strategic authority-led youth guarantee trailblazers. These are testing how best to join up services and offer targeted support to young people who are NEET, or at risk of becoming NEET, through those localised approaches. We fear that putting a rigid statutory requirement in place at this time could stifle the innovative, locally tailored solutions that arise during the piloting phase, reducing local labour market flexibility and limiting our opportunity to learn from these pilots and innovations.
As set out in the skills White Paper, we will update local oversight and accountability for young people who are NEET, with an enhanced role for strategic authorities. This means working in partnership with local areas to explore how to bring strategic authorities into the statutory duties that local authorities already have. These duties require them to support young people to remain in education until their 18th birthday by identifying and tracking young people not in education or training, involving partnership with local education providers. This Government are already taking steps to empower strategic authorities and leverage their local knowledge and relationships to reduce local youth unemployment, so we believe that Amendment 122 is not necessary.
On Amendment 124, further education colleges are a critical stakeholder with which strategic authorities already have close relationships—I know the key role they play in my area. Further education colleges that provide post-16 technical education and training are already under a statutory duty to work with employer representative bodies to develop the local skills improvement plan. The views of FE colleges and other providers are readily reflected. It is also the case that strategic authorities can draw insight on skills needs from a number of sources, including employers, local jobcentres and Skills England. We want strategic authorities to plan adult education provision that is right for their areas, drawing on stakeholders and insight that can inform their decision-making. This Bill and the existing legislative framework, including local skills improvement plans, already put the structures in place for that. Therefore, we believe that Amendment 124 is not necessary.
On Amendment 125, statutory entitlements to free courses of study are set out in the legislation and are long-standing, broad and universal to each strategic authority to ensure consistency of access. Learners who are eligible for statutory entitlements to free minimum qualifications will have access to a free course of study irrespective of whether they are from an area of high deprivation or are experiencing long-term unemployment. Amendment 125 would not be appropriate, as we do not need to qualify access to statutory entitlements and believe that eligible learners should have free literacy, numeracy, IT and level 2 qualifications to ensure that they have the skills for employment and everyday life.
This Government are on a mission to create an apprenticeship and skills system that drives growth and leaves no place or person behind, and are committed to working with mayoral strategic authorities to achieve this. However, it would be extremely complex to devolve the levy funding to local areas, as it would be hard to administer and make it more difficult for employers that operate across regional boundaries to access funding. Employers hire apprentices, choose their training providers and direct funding to meet their skills needs, with funding coming directly from the national apprenticeship budget to meet employer demand where it arises. Devolving the levy is unlikely to be achievable without significantly constraining employer choice and adding complexity for the large number of employers operating across local boundaries. Therefore, the Government have no plans to devolve growth and skills levy funding and see no merit in publishing a report of this kind.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed response. I should have declared my own interest in the cost of childcare, as a father of twins; it is a subject that is close to my heart too. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for their support on this group.
I will certainly reflect on the detail of the Minister’s response, but I hope she will also reflect and have some further engagement with me between Committee and Report. A lot of this comes from the comprehensive work that your Lordships’ House has done on social mobility over the past year through the Social Mobility Policy Committee. We have done a thorough investigation into this with many stakeholders and there are many areas that are not working or are working in a haphazard way, as the various local authorities and combined authorities are not joined up, which is why these amendments have tried to get a partnership approach going.
This is of such importance that it needs to be driven through primary legislation. We come back to that debate we often have on what should be guidance and what should be legislation. I look forward to engaging further with the Minister and her team between now and Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness moves her amendment, I remind noble Lords, because some were not here earlier, that we are finishing at around 7.45 pm, not 8.45 pm as outlined in today’s list. There was an administrative error. We should be finishing in around 40 minutes.
Amendment 122A
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“Use of adult skills and employment funding(1) Any allocation of funding made to a strategic authority under this Act for the purposes of adult skills, education, or employment support may be used only for activities which—(a) support adult education or skills development, or(b) improve access to employment, progression in work, or participation in the labour market for persons aged 19 and over.(2) Allocations of funding under this section must be made on a non-ringfenced basis, and strategic authorities must retain discretion as to the design, commissioning, and delivery of programmes funded under this section.(3) Expenditure under subsection (1) may include, but is not limited to—(a) adult education and training provision;(b) skills development, retraining, and upskilling programmes;(c) employment support, careers guidance, and work-readiness initiatives;(d) engagement with employers to support workforce development;(e) outreach activities to increase participation among under-represented groups.(4) Funding under this section may not be used for purposes unrelated to adult education or adult employment outcomes, including but not limited to—(a) highways, transport infrastructure, or road maintenance;(b) general capital projects not directly connected to adult skills or employment provision;(c) activities whose primary purpose is economic development unrelated to workforce participation.(5) Each strategic authority must publish, at such intervals as the Secretary of State may specify, a statement setting out—(a) how funding under this section has been used, and(b) how such expenditure supports adult education or adult employment opportunities in its area.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this group on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She apologises profusely because she has had to go into the Chamber as they are talking about possibly bringing forward dinner break business. As noble Lords have heard, this is an area close to her heart. These amendments reflect her considerable knowledge and expertise while inviting us to consider how we might improve the Bill from an adult skills, work and welfare perspective.
As we have heard already in Committee, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spent more than 32 years working to help young people into employment, and I am grateful for the support and insight that she is providing for this debate. I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend would probably have spoken for another hour on everything that she has gained from working for those 32 years in the area.
This is an area about which we feel strongly, yet, in our view, the Bill as it stands lacks the framework and conditions that are required to deliver a truly meaningful impact. As we said, unemployment is rising. That is not a party-political point—it is just a fact. At the same time, we face a persistent skills mismatch in many parts of our country. If we are serious about reversing this trend, we must work together to ensure that the Bill delivers real and lasting change. That is working together at the top but locally.
I begin with Amendment 122A, tabled by my noble friend. Beyond the legal entitlements set out in the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, strategic authorities will enjoy significant local discretion in how they exercise these functions and deploy the adult skills fund. We understand that allocations to strategic authorities will be made on a non-ring-fenced basis, with minimal conditions attached to that funding.
This amendment is deliberately simple and proportionate. It provides that any funding given to a strategic authority under the Act for adult skills, education or employment support must be used to achieve one of those two purposes—first, to support adult educational skills, and secondly, to help young adults into work, stay in work or progress in work. In doing so, it anchors the funding clearly to adult skills and employment outcomes rather than allowing resources to drift into loosely related priorities. At the same time, strategic authorities retain full discretion over programme design, commissioning and delivery. Nothing in this amendment constrains local innovation or responsiveness.
The amendment also sets out what counts as valid spending. This is a non-exhaustive list and includes adult education and training, retraining and upskilling, employment support and careers guidance, employer engagement and outreach to under-represented groups. This provides legal cover for modern preventive and locally tailored interventions.
Crucially, it also makes clear what this funding cannot be used for. It cannot be diverted into roads, highways or transport infrastructure. You often hear, “This will fund new jobs”, but they are not always long-term jobs. It cannot be used for unrelated capital projects, nor can it be absorbed into generic economic development activity that has no clear link to workforce participation. This is designed to prevent the sort of argument that employment outcomes have been improved simply by building a bypass.
Finally, the amendment would require authorities to publish statements explaining how the money has been spent and how it supports adult education and employment locally. This introduces public accountability, creates a clear paper trail for Parliament and applies gentle, but important, pressure on authorities to demonstrate outcomes. I hope noble Lords across the Committee will agree that this is a sensible, focused and necessary amendment that would materially strengthen the Bill in an area of growing national importance.
I will speak briefly to the new clause that would be introduced by Amendment 196EA. This clause would allow responsibility for delivering the youth guarantee to be devolved to strategic authorities, giving them the flexibility to tailor provision to local labour markets while preserving the youth guarantee as a national entitlement. I heard what the Minister said, but I think we will still be pushing this point. It should be underpinned by minimum standards and parliamentary oversight. I know that this Government are rightly proud of this programme, but, if they truly believe in the model, it should be delivered as close to local labour markets as possible. Local authorities are far better placed to understand employer demand, skills shortages and the specific barriers that young people face in their areas, and to align support with real jobs rather than abstract national assumptions.
The new clause that would be inserted by Amendment 196EB, along with Amendments 124A and 124B, follow the same theme. I will focus on the new clause, which in essence summarises the rationale for the expansion of Schedule 11 and is reflected in later amendments. Fundamentally, they all seek to achieve the same objective. This clause would give mayor-led strategic authorities the power, where they choose to request it, to design and run youth employment programmes or pilot schemes. It would enable mayors to work directly with employers, education providers and voluntary organisations to offer targeted support, such as training, apprenticeships, wage subsidies and work placements, for young people, particularly those at risk of long-term unemployment. The Secretary of State would be able to provide funding for this purpose, which must be used to support youth employment or labour market participation. The clause would also allow for time-limited pilots, evaluation and the sharing of learning, all subject to full parliamentary scrutiny.
During my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott’s time at Tomorrow’s People, she ran employability programmes that addressed the challenges of young people not in education, employment or training and delivered close to local labour markets. Simply put, they worked. They drove real impact on the ground by working with colleges, schools and local businesses. Devolution can provide targeted outreach, tailored support and genuinely high-impact interventions, which is precisely what these amendments seek to enable.
As I mentioned briefly on the previous group, the challenge of young people not in education, employment or training has rarely been so acute. In the most recent data available, 729,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed. As we have said before, that is an increase of 103,000 on the previous year. Of course, tackling this problem requires the right national economic policies. I accept that, but there is also so much that cannot be changed from the centre. In the meantime, mayors can act now. They can work directly with local businesses, design and run pilot schemes and tailor support in their areas for specific labour markets that they understand far better than Whitehall ever could. I hope the Minister will take these amendments seriously. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has just said that she hopes the Government will pay detailed attention to the amendments in this and the previous group, because the importance of this issue is so great that Governments need to act. We cannot go on with the rising number of young people who are unemployed. I support the amendments in this group, as I did those in the previous one.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her amendments on welfare and work. I also thank her for her service in this area; I am sorry that she is not in her place.
Amendment 122A is unnecessary because the Bill and the English devolution accountability framework already ensure that there is discretion for strategic authorities when using their adult skills funding and that there is accountability for their delivery of skills outcomes. The Bill already places a duty on strategic authorities to secure the provision of education or training appropriate to their area, which means they will fund such provision accordingly.
Strategic authorities use adult skills funding to meet the growth and employment needs of their local areas and to ensure that they meet their duty to offer statutory entitlements for eligible learners in their region. They are also subject to strong and wide-ranging transparency and accountability requirements. Under the English devolution accountability framework, strategic authorities should publish annual assurance reports on their adult skills delivery and undertake a stocktake with Skills England. This amendment is therefore not needed. We already have an approach that ensures local flexibility combined with transparency and accountability for adult skills delivery, while empowering strategic authorities to make choices that benefit learners and drive economic growth.
Similarly, Amendments 124A and 124B are unnecessary. The existing legislative framework has the right balance, providing support and guidance to strategic authorities while allowing them to shape provision that is right for their area. Strategic authorities have flexibility in the use of their adult skills funding, and can use it to support employment and growth in their areas and to link up to other employability-focused programmes. Strategic authorities already consider a wide range of local factors when planning and securing adult education provision, including how adult provision will lead to sustained employment outcomes.
Strategic authorities will also draw on their Get Britain Working plans, which will focus on reducing unemployment in their areas. As I have set out, the Bill provides for strategic authorities to secure education for adults across the skills system. This could include the Government’s free courses for jobs and skills training camps, which are designed specifically to provide pathways into employment. We want strategic authorities to secure adult education to meet local labour market needs. However, these amendments are of no further benefit in relation to this objective.
Finally, let me respond to Amendments 196EA and 196EB on youth employment. Supporting young people into education, employment and training is a top priority for this Government. The Secretary of State already has powers to devolve funding to strategic authorities—and they are using them. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That is why the Government have recently announced more than £1.5 billion of investment in young people through the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy. This investment will provide young people with support to find a job, training or an apprenticeship, and involves close partnerships between the Government, strategic authorities and local authorities.
As set out in the skills White Paper, we will update local oversight and accountability for young people who are not in education, employment or training, with an enhanced role for strategic authorities. This means working in partnership with local areas to explore how to bring strategic authorities into the statutory duties that local authorities already have. As I set out in the discussion on the previous group, these duties require them to support young people to remain in education or training until their 18th birthday, including identifying and tracking those who are not in education or training, as well as working in partnership with local education providers to help them to re-engage with the system.
Strategic authorities are also central to wider local planning. All areas of England, including mayoral strategic authorities, have been asked to establish partnerships to bring together local government, employers, education and skills providers, Jobcentre Plus and the NHS as part of the Get Britain Working plans. Furthermore, as part of the local skills improvement plan process, strategic authorities, businesses and providers are already working together to consider how to boost skills, which will help address youth unemployment.
Strategic authorities already have powers to deliver services to support the youth guarantee and deliver youth employment programmes and pilots. The Secretary of State already has the powers to fund strategic authorities to deliver these services, either with or without ring-fences. Using these powers, the Government have been able to fund and enable eight mayoral strategic authorities to develop and deliver the youth guarantee trailblazers I mentioned earlier; they are receiving two years of funding to test those innovative approaches.
In December 2025, we also announced £140 million to pilot the new approaches with mayoral strategic authorities, which I mentioned during the discussion on the previous group. An evaluation, commissioned by the Government and launched in January 2026, will provide evidence to inform the future roles of strategic and local authorities in supporting the youth guarantee. As noble Lords can see, the Government are already taking steps to empower strategic authorities to deliver youth employment support and to determine their future role in the youth guarantee. Therefore, these amendments are not appropriate while that work is ongoing.
With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank all those who have contributed to this debate. These issues are close to the heart of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and appreciate the funding that the Government are putting into this important issue. We will consider carefully what the Minister has said, and we may well return to her with some specific questions to ensure that we collectively get this right, both nationally and locally.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to meet with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, in between now and Report to take her through some of the work that has been happening in more detail than we can in Committee. Perhaps the noble Baroness could take that back to her.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend would be delighted to meet the Minister and I will certainly tell her.
I think we still believe that the Government could go further and perhaps take the opportunities that the Bill provides to do that. I remain convinced that, with the right focus and the appropriate safeguards, the Bill can do more to address the realities of unemployment and skills mismatch on the ground. I know that my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott established a number of successful pilots and that they worked, and I think that it would be useful to also discuss that with the Minister.
I therefore hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the points that were raised today as the Bill continues its passage. Decisions on adult education and employability programmes are best taken as close to the local labour markets as possible. Each labour market is different, each region distinct and each opportunity shaped by local needs. If we are serious about improving outcomes, our approach must reflect that reality. But at this point I wish, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, to withdraw her amendment.