English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

114A: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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)]

I have withdrawn my amendment.

Amendment 114A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 27 should stand part of the Bill.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Clause 27 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

115: Schedule 9, page 157, leave out lines 22 to 25
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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 115 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

120: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
“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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

Amendment 120 withdrawn.