English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

My noble friend thinks, and I certainly agree with her, that it is about time the Government grasped this. Her proposal is that these vehicles should be used only by people with an appropriate form of insurance. That may or may not be the right approach, but there has to be an approach that resolves these problems. The Government cannot be allowed to get through the Bill without coming up with one that is satisfactory to the Committee.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Has the Minister finished?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

No.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Okay—I will sum up when he has.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate, which goes to the heart of both public safety and the need for flexibility within our transport system. The proposed introduction of national minimum standards has an important role to play in delivering consistency across the country, but it is to be run alongside a system where local licensing authorities can add to those standards, as local flexibility and responsiveness is of course important. The Government’s responsibility in this context must be to ensure that such variations do not place unnecessary burdens on operators.

There is also the issue of cross-border services, which are essential for many passengers. While these services continue, they raise legitimate concerns about how they are to be regulated. In her report, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended more rigorous standardised statutory requirements across all licensing authorities in order to close the loophole whereby a driver can be licensed in one area but work exclusively in another. Ultimately, it is important that the Government recognise the need for a licensing framework that comprehensively deals with abuses, supports operators and keeps public safety at its core.

Regarding the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Borwick, he is right to point out that all London taxis are accessible. He has long been a consistent and principled advocate on this issue. Over many years, he has drawn attention to the importance of ensuring that those with disabilities are not left behind by our transport system. His work has helped keep accessibility firmly on the policy agenda. The case he advances appears to be both practical and fair. He makes a compelling argument: accessibility should be viewed not as an aspiration but as a standard that passengers across the country can reasonably expect. Although achieving this may present challenges in some areas, the progress made in London demonstrates what is possible in the right circumstances. As I say, my noble friend has made persuasive arguments as to why this requirement should apply more widely, strengthening independence for disabled passengers and promoting a more inclusive transport network. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to this important point.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for their amendments on taxi and private hire vehicle national standards, licensing authorities and enforcement powers, and all other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

For me, this is a bit of déjà vu because, as the commissioner of Transport for London 15 years ago, I personally, with others, worked very hard on the Law Commission’s work on taxi legislation, but, sadly, nothing was done as a consequence. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, remarked, the work is, sadly, substantially out of date, principally because, in those 15 years, the growth of the private hire sector of this market, which many users regard as interchangeable, has been enormous. I will come back to that.

I will begin with Amendments 235A, 235D and 260A. The Government recognise the pressing need to reform the regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles. The current legislation is archaic and fragmented. I am absolutely aware of the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, and of the huge variation in the supply and use of taxis and private hire vehicles across both urban and rural areas in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I can absolutely confirm to the noble Baroness that I will do exactly that. It is a very important subject.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

On taxi accessibility, is the Minister arguing that the local requirements of disabled people might be different in one area from those in another? Surely, that is completely wrong, because the whole purpose of this is to organise transport—that a disabled person in London should be able to travel to Penzance and know that in Penzance there are the same standards of accessibility. It is in the nature of travel that people change their location; therefore, they surely need to have the same standards. It is the job of the Government, as was put in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that they set the regulations that can be met by as many disabled people as possible. That I would approve of, but saying that we cannot do anything just in case there is a difference in the local arrangement seems to me more in the nature of an excuse than a plan for the future.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am certainly not arguing that the needs of disabled people are different in different areas, but—and some noble Lords have heard this in the course of meetings that we have already had on this Bill—I am expressing that there are extraordinarily different sets of local circumstances across the country and that what the park of vehicles in local areas consists of is very different in different places, and serves quite different purposes.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am beginning to feel slightly left out. I have not been the beneficiary of a large amount of correspondence from the Minister in the way other noble Lords scattered around the Chamber appear to have been. I do not have the advantage of his support and the wording that he might have supplied to help me make my speech.

I was very interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to them. I also had a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

I will just pause for a personal recollection about the Highway Code. Back in, I think, 1973 or 1974, I was part of the team representing my school, which was triumphant in the West Midlands competition on mastery of the Highway Code. It was a sort of quiz and we had to train for it, but it was sponsored by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. To this day, I still have a very detailed recollection of the contents of the Highway Code as it stood in 1974. The most devastating consequence of this afternoon’s debate is that I have learned only today, from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that it has become a very much larger document and that it is available only online. I have been living by the 1974 version very satisfactorily ever since.

But my noble friend makes a very serious point and she illustrates a degree of confusion and delay on the part of the Government. The uninsured losses that have been accumulating in the motor insurance system have fallen to the expense of responsible motorists, who pay their insurance. They are paying for all these uninsured losses and the Government will have to deal with that. If the Minister is not in a position to do so today, I agree with my noble friend that the Government will need to return to it urgently—certainly in the next parliamentary Session.

I do not object to the government amendments on pavement parking; I broadly welcome them. I find most attractive that they very properly make it a local decision, including on the exemptions required. It is very unlikely that there will be a blanket ban on pavement parking in any part of the country—there will have to be some exemptions in certain areas—but these matters should be decided locally and sensitively in consultation with residents.

That brings me to my Amendments 104 and 105, where I am motivated by a similar consideration of the sensitivities of local residents. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for indicating his support for these two amendments. Through this Bill, the Government are creating a key route network that I imagine is not unlike the red route network in London, but applied to other great conurbations. Unfortunately, there is no restriction on the roads in which that network could be created.

The purpose of my amendment, which we debated in Committee, is to prevent that network being created on residential and minor roads, in essence. The way that I have done that—and it is a slightly rough measure—is to confine the key route network to

“classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic”.

I realise that some of those roads may also be residential in character, but at least they are major roads at the moment, so the residents know where they stand. People need to be protected from the thought that their possibly quiet residential road could become an extension to an urban motorway, with very little say on their own part. The purpose here is to protect those people, and I think the Government could easily agree to this, because it is most unlikely that they would want those consequences to arise, and this would be a way of protecting from them. I give the Minister notice that, unless he is very accommodating on this point, I will test the opinion of the House.

Finally, my Amendment 103—again debated in Committee—would leave out Clause 27. The history of this clause is that, when the Greater London Authority was created, the Mayor of London was given the power to dispose of non-operational land belonging to TfL, but only with the approval of the Secretary of State. There would have to be permission from the Secretary of State before the disposal should take place. The effect of the Bill is to remove that requirement and to leave it entirely to the Mayor of London.

I emphasise that the comments I am making have no relationship to the current, or any other, incumbent. The remarks I am making arise because, since the Greater London Authority Act was passed, the mayor has had housing responsibilities added to his portfolio. Those responsibilities did not exist in 1999; I think it was the Localism Act 2011 that added them, but it was around that time that housing responsibilities were added. There is now, irrespective of the personality of the incumbent, an institutional conflict built into the mayoralty about the best use of land under his disposal: would it be for transport purposes or housing purposes? Depending on the political pressures on him at a particular time, poor judgment might be exercised in deciding on the disposal of that land.

The effect of my amendment in removing Clause 27 would be simply to maintain the status quo: the mayor may order to TfL to, or may on behalf of TfL, dispose of TfL land, as currently, but he would require, as currently, the approval of the Secretary of State. That is an important point for ensuring the proper integrity and responsibility over any decisions to do with the disposal of land given the potentially conflicting roles that the Mayor of London has in this regard.

I think this has been a very useful debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, since, at least in my case, it will be for the first time.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Shipley and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his contribution. I say in response to him that this Government are very much in favour of mobility, but it has to be subject to appropriate regulation. I would also be delighted to supply the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, with scripts for his future speeches in response to Bills such as this; my only condition is that he reads them as I give them to him. I will try not to shower him with more correspondence than he needs.

Government Amendments 245 and 265, on pavement parking, will enable the safe use of the pavement by all pedestrians, especially people with mobility or sight impairments and those with prams, pushchairs or luggage. On 8 January, my department published the response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for tabling an amendment in Committee on this subject, and I am sorry that he is unable to be in his place today, but I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Bassam has so clearly echoed his views.

Amendment 265 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to create a coherent and adaptable framework under which English local transport authorities could prohibit parking motor vehicles on pavements and verges in their areas. The prohibition introduced by regulations will be subject to civil enforcement. The regulations under the new clause will address matters including how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, which vehicles would be excluded, permissible exemptions for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area, and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition, among others.

These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament can examine and approve the detailed regulatory framework before it takes effect. In the meantime, we plan to give local authorities powers later this year to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstructs the footway. This can be achieved through secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It was not my suggestion that the mayor needed to be supervised: it was the suggestion of the Labour Party drafters of the 1999 GLA Act, which I am simply standing up for. So reject it by all means, but do not cast that upon me.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord that the successors of those people have changed their minds, so it is about time that he did, too. We have had the experience of three mayors, over 25 years, and there is no evidence that they have been incapable of taking these decisions. In 1999, there had not been a mayor, but the mayoralty has self-evidently been very successful.

We discussed Amendments 104 and 105 in Committee and I said that the powers in the Bill were based on the principle of devolution: that is, it should be for places to consider what is right for them. We plan to use the existing powers available to us in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act to provide concise guidance on the designation of key route networks, as well as on the use of the associated power of direction. This will assist combined authorities and combined county authorities in considering factors that should be important in designating a key route network road, including traffic levels, public transport—especially buses—and links to key employment or development sites. That balance will help places in their consideration of important factors on designating roads, as well as respecting principles of devolution and the fact that such choices are ultimately local. We intend to produce such guidance very shortly.

There are strong reasons why roads that are not classified numbered roads could be key routes under certain circumstances. They might well be roads with high levels of bus and public transport use, or linked to locally important employment or development sites. In both cases, the number of people carried, as well as numbers of vehicles, might be important in the designation. I hope that the commitment I have given to produce guidance on designating a key route network and using the associated power of direction will reassure the noble Lord that we have considered the reasons behind his amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his helpful intervention on that and for our recent discussions.

Amendments 107 to 113 relate to the duty to provide reports on traffic levels. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire to align duties with others in particular geographies, in this case with local transport plans. Any duty to make reports on traffic should be accompanied by meaningful powers to affect such reports directly. There should not be a duty to make a report without any power to affect it, but that is why there are changes elsewhere in this schedule to give mayors of combined and combined county authorities powers to direct highway authorities in the use of their powers on key route network roads. That aligns with the geography on which they will produce these reports. In contrast, these amendments would give combined and combined county authorities duties to make reports on traffic on non-key route network roads, but without any direct control of the traffic on them. As was noted in a similar amendment in the other place and discussed in Committee, this proposal is duplicative. Principal councils already have a duty to make such reports for local roads in their area and, as the highway authority with the relevant powers, are best placed to influence traffic levels on those roads.

Amendments 114 and 115 refer to local transport planning. Close working between strategic authorities and constituent councils is vital to support a successful local transport network. Clause 29 supports this close working by requiring the constituent council to implement the strategic authority’s policies set out in the local transport plan and to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This clause extends an existing duty placed on some existing constituent councils and aims to standardise arrangements for all constituent councils. The clause is intended to maintain a balance, encouraging close collaboration between strategic authorities and constituent councils, without giving the strategic authority excessive control over how councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to implement rather than have regard to proposals in a local transport plan, giving strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads.

Amendment 116 refers to reviewing and updating local transport plans. Adopting a local transport plan is a key strategic decision for non-mayoral strategic authorities. For existing non-mayoral strategic authorities, all constituent councils have to agree to adopt the local transport plan. This approach is in line with the Government’s commitment in the English devolution White Paper to ensure that all strategic decisions for non-mayoral strategic authorities would have the support of all constituent councils. Under existing legislation, it is up to local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and amend them to reflect local transport circumstances. The Government will produce updated guidance for local transport authorities on local transport plans. This will provide advice about when authorities should review and update their plans, and the mandatory intention of the amendment is therefore not needed.

Amendment 117 would remove the word “workplace” from the framework. Extending the levy-introducing power to spaces other than workplaces would be a significant extension, and not necessarily a desirable one. The aim of workplace parking levies is primarily to reduce congestion, which is greatest at peak commuting times. Furthermore, the definition of parking spaces to which this framework applies is set out clearly, so this part of the amendment would not have its desired effect. The amendment would also add strategic authorities to the list of bodies that can introduce a workplace parking levy.

I touched on this in Committee, in response to an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. As I said then, I am aware of calls for a greater role for strategic authorities and their mayors. The Nottingham scheme has been a success, and it is understandable that strategic authorities would like to play a greater role here. However, I know that a number of local traffic authorities are considering introducing schemes and we need to consider carefully the impacts of any changes on existing plans.

Finally, this amendment would add the local transport plan to the definition of local transport policies, which a workplace parking levy must support, under the Transport Act 2000. As I know the Minister set out in the other place, the 2000 Act already defines local transport policies with reference to the local transport plan, so this change is unnecessary.

Amendment 118 would have no effect, I am afraid. Local authorities outside London already have powers under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to direct surplus parking revenue towards highway improvement projects. These include maintenance under certain circumstances within the meaning of Section 62 of the Highways Act 1980.

I turn to the environmental improvement element of the amendment. Adapting the highway to future resilience needs is an established part of highways maintenance best practice and is therefore already included under the Act. Likewise, improvements to the natural environment within a highways context support pollution reduction and are also included. The definitions in the Act are already broad enough and do not need to be expanded further. I therefore ask all noble Lords not to press their amendments, and I beg to move the amendments in my name.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a typically thoughtful and comprehensive response to a very large and complex group of amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in debating this group. I also join other noble Lords in celebrating government Amendments 245 and 265. I have been in your Lordships’ House for more than six years and I have heard much talk of doing something about pavement parking. At the weekend I happened to be in Chorley, where people were pointing out to me particularly egregious examples of such. I know from Sheffield that there was quite a phase of social media having daily “awful piece of pavement parking” posts, so I think this is really encouraging.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

266: Clause 64, page 65, line 26, leave out “minimum”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to making travel by taxi or private hire vehicle as safe as it can possibly be. We are committed to the reforms needed as a result of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and regard the taxi and private hire vehicle elements of the Bill as the first step ahead of wider engagement, which is starting to take place now, and possible future primary legislation. That is why in these amendments we are seeking powers for the Secretary of State for Transport to set in regulations the national standards that must be met to obtain, retain or renew any taxi or private hire vehicle driver, vehicle or operator’s licence, and why, having carefully listened to the views expressed in Committee, we are seeking further changes to improve regulatory oversight.

Government Amendments 266, 269 to 278 and 300 are intended to use language that more accurately reflects the intent of the standards. Licensing authorities will still be able to supplement them to address specific local needs if they consider it necessary, but the standards themselves will not be minimal. Once set, national standards will prioritise safety and accessibility so that passengers can be confident that, wherever they live or travel in England, the taxi and private hire vehicle services that they use will be subject to robust licensing standards.

On Amendment 279, we have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that national standards alone are not enough to address the challenges created by out-of-area working whereby taxi and private hire vehicle drivers license with one authority but operate mainly in another licensing authority’s area. Following the noble Baroness’s amendments in Committee and subsequent discussions, the Government have brought forward amendments that will strengthen existing enforcement powers and ensure that enforcement officers can take immediate action against any licence, irrespective of which authority issued it, which is a key aim of the noble Baroness’s previous amendments.

National standards will be enforced through licensing processes, both by applications being refused where the standards are not met and through the suspension and revocation of licences if standards are breached during the duration of the licence. Government Amendment 279 will introduce a duty for licensing authorities to report any breach of national standards by a driver to the authority that issued the licence, building on the existing requirement for safeguarding, road safety and equality discrimination concerns to be reported.

The licensing authority that receives such a report must, within 20 working days, decide whether to suspend or revoke the licence and inform the reporting licensing authority of its decision. To enable the use of this reporting requirement to be measured, the clause will enable the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations enabling data about its use to be collated and published. This will provide transparency and reassurance that licensing authorities are meeting their obligations and that licensees they suspect are unfit are being reported.

--- Later in debate ---

Briefly, I also have Amendment 287A, which seeks to oblige the Government on the face of the Bill to collect statistics about the exercise of this power to cancel licences cross border. I understand both from an informal message and from the remarks made by the Minister that he is entirely in sympathy with that principle and that he will be able to give undertakings that this will be done without the need for it to be in the Bill. So I am not minded to divide the House on Amendment 287A. I will give the Minister one last chance, but unless he comes up with something, I think it would be fair to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 280A.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their contributions. Before I respond on Amendments 280A and 287A, I will briefly address the guidance question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The department has for many years issued guidance related to safeguarding, accessibility and the appropriate regulation of the sector, and that will continue. That would include guidance about the two local authorities and about local standards to be applied, as well as the national standards.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 280A would remove the power that we seek for all licensing enforcement officers to have the ability to temporarily suspend with immediate effect any driver, vehicle and private hire vehicle operator licence, if the licence relates to the operation of a vehicle being driven in the enforcement officer’s area. I start by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, from her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. She said that most taxi drivers, and by extension most operators,

“are law-abiding people providing an important service to the public”.

The Government echo those sentiments. We agree that the vast majority of the trade, whether it is drivers, vehicle operators, owners or private hire vehicle operators, are hard-working and law-abiding people who take pride in their work. But we want to keep passengers safe while protecting the good reputation of the trade from a minority who are irresponsible and/or potentially dangerous to their individual passengers and customers. We can do that now by giving the right tools to licensing authorities.

We often hear about the inconsistent patchwork of licensing regulation, and the noble Lord’s amendment, regrettably, would create another example of it. Why would we grant a power to licensing authorities to take action to prevent drivers and vehicles that pose an immediate risk or have caused harm to public safety from working but not provide the same powers for operators if there are urgent safety concerns to justify doing so?

Private hire vehicle operators come in all shapes and sizes. We have large operators, as the noble Lord says, that work in many local authority areas, working with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of drivers and taking millions of bookings. But we also have much smaller operators that work with only a handful of drivers, and we have one-man bands where a private hire vehicle driver licence holder also holds an operator’s licence so that he or she can take their own bookings. Context is the key to the use of these powers and is a determining factor when considering offences under the current legislation.

We recognise that the facts of the case will need to be determined at the time, but I can imagine that what might be reasonable and necessary to safeguard the public immediately may be different where the driver is also the operator compared with when they are not. It is an offence knowingly to use an unlicensed vehicle. It would seem a perverse situation where a one-man band that knowingly used an unlicensed driver and/or vehicle could have those licences suspended but could continue to accept bookings and dispatch other drivers and vehicles to carry the public when they have shown no regard to one of the fundamental requirements of the legislation that protects the public. Suspending the operator licence at the same time as the driver licence would seem a proportionate and reasonable use of these powers.

For larger operators, an example of what might trigger a suspension would be the discovery of the deliberate use of unlicensed drivers and/or vehicles which an enforcement officer judged to be a deliberate action on the part of the operator. Surely in that case, the noble Lord would want the operator suspended, if only principally for reasons of public safety, unless noble Lords think that that might be so far-fetched as to be unlikely. In my career, I have come across private hire vehicle operators in London who have deliberately used unlicensed vehicles and drivers; in the bus and coach industry, with which I am familiar, it has been the case that licensed operators have been found deliberately to use unlicensed vehicles and drivers. This is not so far-fetched as to be beyond making regulations about.

Anyway, we do not expect this power to be exercised frequently nor with impunity. The threshold for its use will be high, just as for driver and vehicle suspensions, and it is certainly not intended to be used as a means of punishment. These powers are to be used only if it is necessary in the interests of public safety to suspend a licence immediately, and certainly operating a private hire vehicle or taxi outside the area of the authority which issued its licence to fulfil a prebooked journey is not of itself a risk to public safety, and it will be a misuse of these powers to suspend a driver, a vehicle or operator solely for that reason. So—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is very kind of the noble Lord to give way. I appreciate it is late, but there are not many speakers in this debate so perhaps I can take a little time. The noble Lord said that context is important, and he is absolutely right. The context is that, if the driver is drunk, he is drunk in front of you now. The bald tyre, for example, is there present in front of you and you can see it. However, any evidence that the operator is operating by, for example, using other drivers can only ever be partial at a particular moment for a single law enforcement officer at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa. If it is true that the operator is operating in that way, then the evidence should be and would be given to its licensing authority—in my case in Birmingham—for the licensing authority to investigate. No doubt, if the case stacks up, they will remove the operating licence, but they should not do so on the basis of partial evidence at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa.

The other difficulty that the Minister has is that the test for these three immediate sanctions is the same test, which relates to a threat to public safety. The officer sitting there might say, “I have identified a threat to public safety. Now why shouldn’t I put all three of these into operation at the same time?” There is nothing in the statute that says that the one for the operator is to be used only in really difficult, dangerous or odd circumstances. So, why would you not use all three? The truth is the Minister is in a real difficulty over this. No doubt he might want to force it through on votes, but what he has put together makes no sense at all. I think he knows it, and he should be a little bit more generous in responding to this so that we might reach some agreement, because in terms of trying to protect public safety we are entirely on the same page.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My response to the noble Lord is this: let us use his example of an enforcement officer at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa—though it might equally be 2 am in some dark and unfriendly place with a vulnerable passenger. If an enforcement officer were to come across real evidence that the vehicle and driver were unlicensed and had been used deliberately by an operator, the context in which these amendments are framed is that suspension of the operator’s licence is, I think, warranted in that case. A big operator ought to take enormous care to make sure that it does not behave in such a manner, as it would be a threat to a big operator. But if it were found to be true of an enormously large operator, then it is a matter that ought to be immediately addressed. The public would expect it to be immediately addressed. The public would not say, “Oh, they’re big enough that the licensing authority can take a leisurely look at this”. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me that, in a similar case in the bus industry, the DVSA can discover the most flagrant breaches and it takes months to get those people in front of somebody who can deprive them of their operator’s licence.

Here, I think we are doing the right thing, and we are doing the right thing for the right reasons, which is that there is a genuine concern about public safety in taxi and private hire vehicles. Although it is an interim move, because the whole legislation is, frankly, outdated and needs to be fixed, this is an example of something which would be proportionate. If the action taken was not proportionate, it could be quickly reversed by the processes that are embodied in this amendment. So I reject the noble Lord’s proposition. I have thought it through, and I am not the least bit embarrassed in promoting it. I think I am rather more on the side of public safety than the noble Lord is. To accept his amendment would leave a gap in public protection and would perpetuate the inconsistencies in licensing and enforcement.

Quickly on the noble Lord’s Amendment 287A, the noble Lord heard me say that the Government have every intention of monitoring these arrangements very carefully. We will use all our powers to ensure that we collect the right data, that local authorities collect the right data and that, as a result, we understand what the effects of these amendments are when they pass into law, and we are willing to alter the way in which the arrangements operate in the light of the evidence that we get. I hope that I have said enough, without using all the words that I have been given, to persuade the noble Lord not to press Amendment 287A, because the Government have every intention, short of putting it on the face of the Bill, to collect exactly this for the most obvious reasons, which is that we need to know how it works and individual licensing authorities need to know how this will work in order that they can monitor and, if necessary, change their own behaviour.

Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press either of his amendments.

Amendment 266 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

267: Clause 64, page 65, line 28, leave out subsection (2)
Member's explanatory statement
The definition of “regulated licence” would be added to clause 72 by another amendment in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

We will support my noble friend’s amendment as a matter of principle. I am fully aware that there might be improvements made to its drafting, and there might even be changes made to the timelines in it. If the Government were to come back at an appropriate stage with some changes, then we would be open to discussing them. We are not tying ourselves to the detail of my noble friend’s amendment, but we are absolutely there. We say that disabled people deserve a service, and we will be in the Lobby with him.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his commitment and contribution to accessibility for disabled people in taxis over many years. Without him, the iconic London taxi would not be the accessible vehicle it is today and the lives of many would be significantly curtailed. He is right to say that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, carried over into the Equality Act 2010, have never been taken up by the numerous Governments that have come and gone, and he says that it is time that they were. I cannot account for previous Governments’ behaviours. He was inclined in his speech to blame the department, but in fact the department is the Government of the day, but we are here.

The question that has to be asked is: why can I and the Government not support his amendment now? My answer is that the circumstances have changed. Thirty-odd years ago, the now two very closely aligned industries of the taxi industry and the private hire industry were in an entirely different place. Private hire vehicles were not licensed and illegal in many places. Now, the taxi has been joined across England by much increased numbers of licensed private hire vehicles, about which the noble Lord is not concerned, but I am. Some 82% of the combined fleets of taxis and private hire vehicles across England—more than 300,000 vehicles—are the latter, and in the modern age of apps, mobile phones and technology, for many people and in many places the two services are very nearly completely interchangeable.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, we now know that disability is about not only people in wheelchairs but people with many other characteristics too, and one size fits all for the accommodation of people with disabilities is not now what this large market is all about. Indeed, a wheelchair-accessible vehicle for some is one that is not suitable for others. Across England, circumstances differ enormously, which I hope the noble Lord will recognise from the round table that we had some weeks ago and from the views of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee that he heard more regularly when he came to visit me in my office. In many places in England, especially in rural areas, the taxi fleet is generally smaller, sometimes virtually absent, especially in places that do not have a large town centre or transport hub, such as a railway station where a taxi rank would generally be placed, and most journeys are by private hire vehicles. This long-term growth in the number of private hire vehicles is a trend we cannot ignore. In rural areas, where the amendment would mandate an all-wheelchair-accessible taxi fleet, private hire vehicles hugely outnumber taxis and, crucially, the noble Lord’s amendment would not apply to those vehicles. Disabled passengers, including wheelchair users in those areas, would therefore not benefit.

As I said in Committee, the department’s independent Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee’s view is that mixed fleets of wheelchair-accessible vehicles and non-wheelchair-accessible vehicles provide a more inclusive service that supports both wheelchair users and ambulant disabled passengers than one that consists only of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. As I have also previously said, the cost of mandating every taxi in England to be a wheelchair-accessible vehicle would be extremely high. The noble Lord is right that new vehicle prices are not the same as second-hand vehicle prices, but if his vehicle is worth only £1,000, it would not be in service as a taxi for much longer in virtually any town or city in England. There would be a significant cost of some magnitude for thousands of self-employed drivers who are not able to call on reserves of funding to make this change. This requirement would run the risk of taxi drivers being forced to license as private hire vehicle drivers to avoid a cost they could not afford or even to leave the industry completely. Indeed, the traders raised exactly those concerns in response to the mandating of an all-wheelchair-accessible taxi fleet.

To summarise, if accepted and implemented, this amendment would realistically result in fewer taxi services being available across the country for all passengers, including disabled passengers, particularly in rural areas, meaning at best longer wait times for all who wish to travel by taxi and at worst no supply and no independent travel. The Government’s position is that we should use the powers to set national standards for licensing to mandate the completion of disability equality training for all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and staff who take bookings and dispatch vehicles for private hire vehicle operators. This will ensure that every driver and staff member has the knowledge, skills and confidence to support disabled passengers appropriately. National standards will be subject to public consultation, but we intend to use the regulations to drive greater accessibility for all.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that the integration of taxis into wider public transport is very important. The Government’s integrated transport strategy will be published shortly. Her example of the unavailability of accessible taxis in any areas outside London, particularly in school hours, is germane to the real solution to this. My department already recommends in its best practice guidance that licensing authorities should assess the demand for wheelchair-accessible vehicles in their areas. They should set out the actions that they will take to meet that demand as part of a mixed fleet by publishing these in an inclusive service plan, and we will reiterate this.

Throughout this process, we have been clear that the measures being taken through this Bill are just the beginning of a broader package of reforms for taxi and private hire vehicle regulation, which is thoroughly out of date, as I think noble Lords would generally agree. My department is carrying out engagement with stakeholders to look at the broader issues, including a consultation just closed on changing licensing authorities to the significantly lower number of local transport authorities, and on accessibility for disabled passengers, looking to build consensus about what the best mechanisms are to tackle them.

In conclusion, the noble Lord’s campaign to see the execution of what has been promised for a very long time through previous legislation is not in vain. I understand perfectly well the symbolism of these amendments, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Holmes, but we need to translate it into the reality of today’s position across England, where over four-fifths of vehicles used in this way are not taxis and the demands of everyone, including ambulant disabled and disabled people in wheelchairs, need to be met. The Government intend to do just that through the application of mandatory national standards on local transport authorities, as I have described, and thus I hope he will be able to consider that his objective will be achieved at last and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. To correct one of his points, the reason that my taxi is worth only £1,000 despite its very low mileage is because of the emissions standards in London, not because it is useless outside London. It would be useful in a market which does not have those same emissions regulations, but in London it is not worth more than £1,000.

The Minister said at the beginning that circumstances have changed. That is the basis of my problem, because circumstances have not changed in 31 years but they should have done. The Minister has the opportunity to change the circumstances, and I think he should do so. I am pressing this amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.