English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I am delighted to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is great that there is broad support across the House for this schedule. We have introduced this framework to tackle obstructive parking, so although I appreciate the sentiment behind the shadow Minister’s amendment, I do not believe it is needed.
In common with other traffic management measures, traffic authorities know their roads best and are best placed to consider what level of provision is appropriate and in what locations. The schedule already gives the Secretary of State the power to set what conditions must be in every licence issued and what additional conditions licensing authorities can set, as well as powers to fine operators or suspend or revoke licences where the licence holder does not comply with those conditions. We will publish guidance on best practice for deciding on parking provision and enforcement, but since we think that there are enough safeguards in our proposals, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I wanted to make a speculative point about schedule 5, although I have not tabled an amendment.
The Chair
If your point is specifically on schedule 5, you can make it when we debate the schedule. We are currently debating amendment 300 proposed to schedule 5.
Siân Berry
It is specifically on schedule 5, so I will bob during that debate, Chair.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise in support of amendment 300, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. It is important that we bring in more powers to tackle this issue. When I was leader of Broxbourne council, about six years ago, we were asked whether we wanted to be a trial area for e-scooters—we said no, thank goodness. My constituency is right next door to London, and we have had a number of issues with people parking on the outskirts of London and taking the vehicles out of where they are licensed. Walking around London—not just the Palace of Westminster, but the wider community—we see large problems with hundreds of scooters all in the same place, which I suspect are very popular locations for pick-up and drop-off.
We need more powers for local authorities to tackle the issue. I mentioned earlier that many of councils will want this power now, rather than having to wait for mayoral combined authorities to be set up. Amendment 300 would be important in holding these companies to account. They are getting away with far too much at the moment and it is putting people off walking, especially if someone is pushing a buggy or is disabled. There are lots of issues. I am sure there will be cross-party support, as we have all seen this problem when out and about. We really need to regulate this. I am not always in favour of more regulation, but the companies could have done much more without legislation and have failed to, so it is time for stricter regulation. The amendment would be important in solving some of these issues.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Schedule 5 sets out the details on giving the Secretary of State the ability to empower local authorities to license on-street micromobility services, such as dockless cycle schemes, operating in their areas. We have had a good, broad debate on this, and I think there is support across the Committee for the view that this area must be tackled.
All licensing regimes will contain mandatory conditions and additional local conditions, which will bring the consistency that all parties seek, while ensuring flexibility to meet the needs and priorities of different areas. The framework allows for new micromobility modes, such as pavement robots and e-scooters, to be incorporated in future, to ensure that our local leaders will always be able to manage their streets effectively.
The schedule sets out clear, consistent processes and powers for local authorities to feel confident that these services are operating safely and effectively in their areas, and are well integrated into the transport networks of the future. I commend schedule 5 to the Committee.
Siân Berry
As I indicated, I would like to make a rather speculative suggestion in relation to schedule 5, which is to ask whether Ministers have considered, or might consider, extending these kinds of provisions on the licensing of micromobility to also cover managed delivery services, many of which currently use micromobility-type vehicles, or vans. Those tend to cause similar problems, which could be solved in similar ways, and that would add up to helping to achieve the same goals as this schedule.
Essentially, Ministers could add delivery vehicles and managed delivery services to be licensed in the same way as micromobility vehicles. As with this schedule, the details of how that was done would come in guidance afterwards, so Ministers could choose between something relatively light-touch or something a bit more useful.
Reasons to consider this suggestion include traffic generation and the ability to speak regularly to, or regulate, the companies involved to allow for more consolidation, so that journeys are carried out more efficiently. Powers to regulate and license food delivery by bike might be very useful in relation to issues of safety and workers’ rights. We know that freelance delivery riders report huge time pressures and poor working conditions, and people who have problems with how some of the micromobility hire services are used by users also often report the same kinds of issues with delivery riders. Although I do not want to create a huge amount of bureaucracy, I think the issues are similar, and Ministers might look either now or in the future at widening the scope of these kinds of powers for the authorities that we are considering today.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair as usual, Ms Vaz. I want to make a quick remark, notwithstanding the fact that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, may want to speak to this. Briefly, I welcome that the Minister’s and the Government’s recommendations, contained in schedule 5. The Minister does not know those of us on the Opposition Benches too well at the moment—she will do by the end of this Bill Committee—but, if she can get my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to agree to extra regulation, that is absolutely good enough for me. He is well known as somebody with strongly held views about the role of the state in local government from when he ran his excellent local authority and administration. The Minister has managed to achieve something that I, as his Whip, have never managed to achieve.
I welcome this sensible piece of regulation. One of the things I welcome in the Bill is the assurance the Minister has given, and which is set out within the House of Commons Library paper, that it would grant strategic authorities and county or unitary authorities where a strategic authority does not exist. That is a sign that the Government are listening to the wants of local authorities—as the previous Government did when they licensed pedicabs, for example, with my former colleague Nickie Aiken getting that Bill through. I wanted to place on the record that I believe this is a welcome piece of regulation—but the Minister should not get too carried away and start making regulations everywhere willy-nilly.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I have nothing to add, apart from the fact that this is a good addition; but the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned pedicabs, and I cannot let that go by without asking the Minister to look again at that issue, because they are absolutely blighting the part of London where we work, making tourists’ lives utterly miserable, and contravening virtually every traffic law I have seen, with little enforcement. If there is any opportunity to go further on pedicabs, bring it on.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. It seems to the Opposition that this schedule is weaker than it would have been had the amendments been accepted. I know that when we have debated other areas of local government legislation, the issue that comes up time and again is the frustration that our constituents feel when they are unable to get what sounds like a perfectly robust regulation enforced in practice—whether that is fly-tipping, antisocial parking or the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion around delivery drivers, scooters and so on, which I know exercises many of my constituents.
We remain concerned that this is a missed opportunity to give local authorities the most robust tools that would put beyond doubt what the test that had to be met was, and create the appropriate legal path for effective and rigorous enforcement locally. None the less, the schedule broadly represents a step forward. Therefore we will not oppose it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and the support for the schedule. In response to the questions raised about additional types of vehicles on the road that are of a similar nature, obviously the scope of the schedule is on micromobility, but the points have been made well—they are also being made by local authorities and our communities. We are considering how we can respond so that mobility vehicles—of sorts—on our streets are not blighting our communities, and we will take that away.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 24
Arrangements to carry out works on highways
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to provide oversight of the construction and maintenance of the highways in their area. That is particularly likely to be the case when required works cross local authority boundaries. As such, the clause provides that all existing and future strategic authorities can, when asked to do so by the Secretary of State, carry out work on trunk roads on behalf of National Highways. The second measure in the clause allows strategic authorities to enter agreements with local authorities and National Highways regarding highway planning and maintenance.
The strategic authority is uniquely placed in that it has a transport planning role encompassing the whole authority area. This provision capitalises on that and would, for example, enable strategic authorities to enter agreements on the maintenance of cross-boundary roads. Both those powers would only be allowed with the consent of the relevant constituent authority. Together, those two measures will enable strategic authorities to oversee a co-ordinated approach to improvements to local roads, leading to less disruption and better outcomes for motorists.
David Simmonds
We understand the logic of this. Could the Minister set out for the Committee where the liability will sit for issues arising from the maintenance, standards or provision of those roads under the clause?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
In the end, this will only come into place where the constituent authorities support it. When it is the Secretary of State making the request, it would be with the Secretary of State; when it is constituent authorities coming together to do maintenance or works that they would do anyway, it would be shared among them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 25
Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 246, in schedule 7, page 138, line 22, insert—
“3 (1) After Paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, insert—
‘Exercise of functions relating to civil enforcement
11 Any functions related to civil enforcement described by this schedule must be exercised directly by—
(a) the elected mayor for the area of an authority, or
(b) a member of an authority who is an elected member of a constituent council.’”
This amendment ensures civil enforcement powers, when exercised by CAs and CCAs, must be under the direction of elected officials.
Amendment 348, in schedule 7, page 138, line 22, at end insert—
“3 (1) Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (4) insert—
4A ‘(1) There is a parking contravention in England if a person causes an obstruction which, without lawful authority or excuse, causes or permits a motor vehicle to stand on a pavement in such a manner as to wilfully obstruct free passage along the pavement.
(2) A parking contravention under subparagraph (1) is a civil offence which may be enforced by the local authority in which the contravention has occurred.
(3) The relevant local authority under subparagraph (2) may issue penalty charges for a civil offence under subsection (2).
(4) The amount for a penalty charge under subparagraph (3) shall be determined by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under subparagraph (4) may specify different penalty charge amounts based on—
(a) the obstructing vehicle class,
(b) the area of the local authority in which the obstruction has occurred, or
(c) any other relevant circumstantial consideration.
(6) In this paragraph—
(a) “motor vehicle” has the meaning given in section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and
(b) “pavement” has the meaning given in section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.
4B (1) Penalty charge amounts for parking contraventions under this Part may be set by the relevant local authority.
(2) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must align with provisions under section 77 of this Act.
(3) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must have regard to any regulations made under section 87 of this Act.
(4) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must be published by the local authority and may be revised from time to time.’”
This amendment would allow local authorities to enforce obstructive pavement parking within their areas as a civil offence and devolves the power to set parking penalty charge amounts for all parking penalty charge offences to local authorities.
Amendment 291, in schedule 7, page 138, line 23, at end insert—
“3 (1) Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) After subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) A qualifying CCA or combined authority may not make an order under subsection (1).’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In this section “qualifying CCA or combined authority” has the meaning given in paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement areas and enforcement authorities outside Greater London: bus lane contraventions).’
4 (1) Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1994 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) After subsection (9) insert—
‘(9A) A qualifying CCA or combined authority shall not undertake any activity provided for under this section.’
(3) In subsection (10), after ‘Greater London Authority Act 1999’ insert—
‘“qualifying CCA or combined authority” has the meaning given in paragraph 9 of schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement areas and enforcement authorities outside Greater London: bus lane contraventions)’”.
This amendment would prevent mayors of CCA from increasing charges for vehicle parking, and from using proceeds of those charges.
Schedule 7 stand part.
Amendment 368, in schedule 9, page 152, line 17, at end insert—
“16 In section 178 (Preliminary)—
(a) In subsection (1) leave out ‘workplace’;
(b) In subsection (4) leave out ‘workplace’;
(c) In subsection (5)(c), at end insert ‘by a combined authority or combined county authority’.
17 In section 182 (Workplace parking places)—
(a) In the heading, leave out ‘workplace’;
(b) In subsection (1) leave out ‘workplace’;
(c) In subsection (5) leave out ‘workplace’.
18 In section 190 (Rights of entry—
(a) in sub-section (1) leave out ‘workplace’;
(b) in paragraph (1)(a) leave out ‘workplace’.
19 In section 198(1) (Interpretation of Part III) after ‘“local transport policies” has the meaning given in section 108(5),’ insert “and include the policies of an applicable local transport plan as defined in section 113.”
This amendment would extend the power to create parking levies to all strategic authorities. Where a strategic authority had become local transport authority and responsible for the local transport plan, it would deem that plan as forming the policies of any constituent authorities.
New clause 47—Road traffic contraventions: requests by Mayors—
“(1) The Mayor of a strategic authority may submit a request to the Secretary of State to make regulations providing that a specified traffic contravention relating to high occupancy vehicle lanes is subject to civil enforcement under Schedule 7 to the Traffic Management Act 2004.
(2) On receipt of such a request, the Secretary of State may by regulations amend the tables in paragraph 8A(5) of Schedule 7 to that Act to give effect to the request.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause allows combined authorities and combined county authorities to take on the responsibility for civil enforcement of contraventions of bus lanes and other moving traffic restrictions including banned turns, no entry and box junctions. Currently, English local authorities may apply to the Department for Transport for an order designating powers to take civil enforcement action against such traffic contraventions. The clause does not change the current arrangements, whereby constituent local authorities wanting civil enforcement powers must apply for a designation order. Instead, it enables joined-up enforcement across a combined authority or combined county authority area, conditional on each constituent authority giving its prior written consent. That means that motorists crossing over boundaries, including within large cities, who are otherwise likely to encounter different types of enforcement, will benefit from a joined-up and consistent approach across the region.
David Simmonds
We have tabled amendment 291 to schedule 7. I know that this is an issue of great contention; the major concern is, as we have seen to a degree in London, mayors choosing to use their powers to levy fines, largely as a way of generating income. That sits somewhat ill with the regulations for parking, which are treated separately and are a local authority matter, where the proceeds from fines and enforcement activity is part of a ringfenced parking revenue account that may only be used for purposes connected to parking and the maintenance of the highways and the roads. There is therefore already a measure, regarding local authorities, that ensures that those who are paying the fines, fees and charges can see that the contribution that they are making through those is used to improve the safety and quality of the environment in which they drive, walk or cycle.
We remain concerned about the implications of this measure; some of those mayors and combined authorities may see this as a very handy revenue raiser, and start to ramp up enforcement in a way that is unhelpful. As we have seen in the case of Greater London, policies that might work well in highly congested central London are simply totally inappropriate on the fringes, and a replication of that scenario could be seen across other parts of the country—a one-size-fits-all approach that we would wish to see avoided.
That is the motivation behind amendment 291, but I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how the Government will ensure that this is not simply a measure to use motorists as a cash cow.
Vikki Slade
Before I speak to amendments 246 and 348, I just want to reflect on the Minister’s comment about the ability of local authorities to enforce things such as yellow boxes, and the requirement to still obtain that consent from the Secretary of State. At Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, we were granted the rights to do that, but the council was incredibly limited in the specific locations in which it was able to apply for that right. There were a number of places that felt their yellow box junctions were ignored.
In my own ward of Broadstone, one such yellow box at the entrance to a parking area regularly caused extensive delays. For local people, if we could change one thing for them, it would be, “Get that damn yellow box enforced!” However, it was not seen as strategic enough for the local authority to apply for the permissions. Enforcement is therefore reliant on police officers, who are not going to stand there and patrol those sorts of things. I would therefore be interested to hear whether the Minister would be willing to devolve that power more truly, rather than retaining it at the centre.
Amendment 246 is a simple one that seeks to retain the decision making of those new civil enforcement powers to the elected persons, whether that be the elected mayor or an elected member of the authority. Elsewhere in the Bill, there are elements that are not allowed to be devolved to a commissioner. The amendment is about ensuring that these decisions are not devolved to a commissioner but are made by the elected person, as they will have that direct impact.
Amendment 348, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I have also put our names to, seeks not to change the law on pavement parking— as we have discussed in the Chamber on a number of occasions—but to harmonise the rules so that the existing law on obstruction of the pavement, which requires the police to enforce, can also be enforced by civil authorities.
We regularly have situations in which civil enforcement officers—traffic wardens to you and I, Ms Vaz—have to walk past a car or van, often a delivery van, parked on a pavement, blocking guide dogs and people with mobility scooters from getting past. There is nothing they can do. I know that colleagues in this room will constantly be emailed by people asking, “What are you going to do about it?” All we can do is say, “Call the police.” We may be getting more police officers, but I personally do not want to see my police officers having to spend their time ticketing.
Manuela Perteghella
My constituents are also quite confused about which public service to call. We have to explain, “If it is about parking restrictions, you have to call the county council; if it is about dangerous parking, you have to call the police.” But how do you define “dangerous parking”? Sometimes the police will then point people back to the council. We would really appreciate clarification—or harmonisation, actually—of civil enforcement on highways matters.
Vikki Slade
This is very much about clarification. We know that a decision will be made, apparently very soon. I believe “very soon” was used in a Westminster Hall debate only a couple of weeks ago—I am new at this, but I think that that might mean sometime in this Session, perhaps—and we will get the outcome of the consultation on general pavement parking. Our amendment 348 is about obstruction, which is an existing offence.
Paul Holmes
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, the Lib Dem spokeswoman, for her excellent speech. Will she acknowledge that—as much as she gets emails, every colleague across the country gets such emails—this is about making it easier for the end user, our constituents, to report stuff? Does she agree that Guide Dogs, which has been running an excellent campaign on behalf of the blind for many years, would be pleased to see the Minister accept amendment 348?
Vikki Slade
I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Guide Dogs. I have Guide Dogs written down on my notes, as well as the RNIB, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, of which I am a champion. They have been campaigning for the full change, but amendment 348 would certainly be a step along the way. I also understand that it would implement the Transport Committee’s 2019 report recommendations. A lot of work has already been done on the issue.
The second element of amendment 348 contradicts something that the shadow Minister talked about in connection with Conservative amendment 291, which relates to parking fines. As a councillor and former leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, I was delighted that over the summer a Minister gave permission for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole to have a trial of extended fines. That is not about councils trying to make money, but about councils trying to balance the books and local taxpayers not carrying the burden.
Let me give the Committee an example. A parking fine for someone who parks in the middle of a roundabout, on a grass verge or somewhere else dangerous—I am talking not about not paying in a car park, but about a dangerous piece of parking—is £70, reduced to £35 if paid within 14 days. For someone who has travelled down to Bournemouth for a day at the beach, parking will cost between £25 and £30. It will cost a similar amount to park in Brighton, Bath or Oxford—in most of our thriving places.
Someone might as well pay £35 between four adults in a large vehicle that can bump its way up the kerb and park right next to the beach, where it is really convenient. The vehicle will need to be ticketed and, at some later stage, probably towed away if it is causing a danger to ambulances or bus routes. Even if it is towed away, the fine that can be levied is £150, and yet for the council to have that vehicle towed away can cost up to £800. The difference is paid by the local council taxpayer. In a typical summer in somewhere such as Bournemouth, something like 1,500 tickets are given out. Members can imagine how much of a shortfall there is.
Amendment 348 seeks to give the ability that already exists in London to other places, so that they can apply a different parking fine where deemed appropriate, potentially in limited circumstances. The system is not working at the moment. So many people think that it is perfectly okay to turn up to places and do that, although I do not think it happens quite so much in Cornwall. When I visited there, people behaved incredibly well, but people who visit places like Bournemouth behave incredibly badly, and to have that freedom would be useful.
David Simmonds
I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady has said. In my constituency, people come from as far afield as Sheffield for a day out at the Ruislip lido, the only beach in Greater London. It is a huge cause of trouble for local residents, and I am glad that we have a local authority that is using its existing powers and is implementing measures such as towaway zones and higher parking fines to begin to address that. She probably feels, as I do, that we do not see mayors who do not know the local area, but the specific purpose of our amendment 291 is to ensure that this is not an opportunity to raise funds for them at the expense of the ability of the local authority to use its powers in a specific area to deal with the traffic management issues for which it is responsible.
Vikki Slade
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for clarifying the purpose of his amendment 291, and I will be happy to withdraw my comment that it contradicts amendment 348, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. The hon. Member is exactly right; the purpose of these parking fines is to ensure safe parking, and it is unreasonable that there should be shortfalls for the local council tax payer. Even if there was a surplus, that money should be rolled back into the experience and hopefully into encouraging people to use different forms of travel, such as park and ride, cycling, buses, and so on, all of which would seem to make the roads safer.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on what has been done, what could be done and how we might use these amendments to further those aims.
Siân Berry
I want to speak in support of my amendment 368, to schedule 9. It belongs in this debate because it would broaden the issues in schedule 9 beyond simply workplaces. I have been working on the amendment and on these proposals with Transport Action Network—I should declare that I used to work for a predecessor to that excellent campaign. There is a technical part to the amendment and a more forward-looking part, so I will talk about it in three parts.
First, we need to ensure clarity in the Bill about what counts as a local transport plan, in terms of the power to levy what are currently called workplace parking levies, but actually parking levies more generally. Section 179 of the Transport Act 2000 says that a local licensing scheme, which is what a workplace parking levy scheme is,
“may only be made if it appears desirable for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of local transport policies of the licensing authority.”
I believe that the Bill, however, moves the responsibility for setting such policies through a local transport plan from the local traffic authority to the combined strategic authority, and that other provisions requiring due regard to a strategic authority’s local transport plan do not fix this, as the condition in section 179 of the Transport Act 2000 relates to the authority’s own policies, not other policies it needs to pay regard to. Without an amendment, the Bill could inadvertently scupper proposals that are under development for new workplace parking levies or at least create new legal risks for them.
Many people will know that Nottingham has had a workplace parking levy since 2012, which has helped it to invest £1 billion in transport—not all of it came from the levy, but a lot did—which has made public transport relatively more attractive than driving to work. There has been a virtuous circle of improvements and investment as a result of that initiative. We know that Oxfordshire is considering introducing a workplace parking levy, and Leeds is considering introducing one too, again to invest in new tram infrastructure. Nottingham. Edinburgh and Leicester are also considering that in some detail, and there are definitely discussions in London between boroughs and the Mayor. Several mayors of the new combined authorities could make good use of these powers. It is up to local authorities to do this, and they should definitely be able to do it, which is what I am concerned about.
Secondly, the omission in the Bill of an extension of the power to create parking levy schemes to strategic authorities is odd. Indeed, it is an exception to the other powers that the Bill extends to them. It makes sense to combine this power with the body that in some cases also sets the local transport plan. That does not mean that a workplace parking levy would need to cover the whole of a combined authority area. Parking spaces, by definition, cannot move, so an intricate map of things that were being levied and not levied could definitely be put together. Strategic authorities have the scale to adopt the visionary approach of some of the larger areas making plans that I have already mentioned.
Thirdly, the amendment would do a big thing in extending the current law beyond workplace parking. There are many reasons why I want to argue for that. Since the pandemic, there has been a notable shift from the dominance of travelling to work to other purposes, particularly leisure. We see that on the roads, but we also see it on the railways. It is a general travel trend. It therefore makes sense to consider broadening the scope of levies such as this beyond simply commuting to workplaces, and include other trip generators, particularly when leisure travel makes up the majority of mileage. I want to say clearly that parking spaces on the public highway would be out of scope, no matter what. This would be for parking on private land, and I think the existing rules for workplace parking levies are very clear on that.
I will give a few examples of ways in which this could form part of a truly integrated set of transport policies, be beneficial in generating investment, change travel behaviours and make good applications to things such as safety and congestion. One fairly obvious example is out-of-town retail parking. This would help councils with struggling high streets to level the playing field between those high streets and sprawling out-of-town retail. We see councils around the country subsidising town centre parking, forgoing revenue to revitalise high streets. With this measure, they could instead charge a small fee for parking at out-of-town developments, and make that an incentive as an alternative to forgoing revenue that can be spent on sustainable travel. With new investment, those kinds of parking levies could unlock more reliable, cheaper bus services, improving access to town centres and, potentially, essential things in the periphery of the city for people who do not own a car. Car dependency is a genuine equalities issue.
There is also the question of big car parks. This is a land use question, really. Big car parks use up land. They are very profitable for the private landowners, but this measure could genuinely create a new incentive to convert unproductive land into much-needed homes. Big car parks are often near to city centres, and the higher-density social housing that could replace those car parks would be very desirable to many towns and cities. On a slightly smaller scale, it could nudge owners of under-used garages to redevelop those sites for housing as well, doing infill and increasing the density. I could go on for a long time about the potential benefits to land use planning of enabling local authorities and strategic authorities to make plans for parking that is an unproductive use of land into something better.
Then we have leisure. Leisure uses concentrate in cities and town centres, but in some rural areas, transport and traffic problems are caused by big attractors and tourist destinations. Having a way of raising revenue to improve sustainable travel to those places and disincentivise the promotion of car travel would be excellent. It would increase access to exciting, educational tourist destinations to people who live in urban areas and do not own a car. If attractions outside London or other cities cannot be reached by public transport, people are stuck if they do not own a car. It would potentially be a way of increasing visitors and helping to get investment for more access for visitors to some of these places if we can stop looking at them as places only to drive to.
That is essentially my case. The existing rules around workplace parking levies are extremely rigorous. There is a process for gaining consent, and there have to be public enquiries. There is a good process there that, if extended to other ideas—and the limits on that extension could be set out in regulations—could have a really beneficial impact on transport planning, traffic reduction, car dependency and could potentially increase the viability of towns, cities and rural areas right across the country.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are a few amendments to work through, so let me take them in turn. On amendment 246, although I share the desire of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to ensure that the general public can hold their authorities to account, particularly on something as important as parking, the amendment would limit the ability of combined authorities and combined county authorities to effectively discharge their functions. It would prevent the mayor and elected members from delegating functions to officers or commissioners—that is the intent of the amendment—but delegating those functions to individuals with the specialist knowledge and capacity to carry out those functions effectively is an important and long-standing feature of how those authorities operate.
I can absolutely reassure the hon. Member that officers are already accountable to the authority, and to its overview and scrutiny committee. The Committee yesterday debated commissioners, and their accountability to the mayor and the oversight committee. Likewise, where a combined authority or combined county authority exercises civil enforcement powers they may do so only with the written consent of relevant constituent authorities. We believe that sufficient safeguards have been put in place to address the important point that the hon. Member raises.
I share the concerns that amendment 348 seeks to address. I agree that vehicles parked on pavements can cause serious problems for all pedestrians, especially people with mobility issues or sight impairment, as well as for prams and pushchairs. All mums in the House, and indeed dads, could attest to that. The Government are already considering measures to address pavement parking. We know and have heard that it is an issue. As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole stated, the Department for Transport put out a consultation in 2020. We will publish a formal response to that consultation in due course. In the meantime it is worth saying that highways authorities may continue to introduce specific local pavement parking restrictions using their existing powers. We know that pavement parking is an issue. It is an issue that the Government and the Department will come to more fully.
On the specific matter of varying parking charges across different areas, local authorities already have the ability to vary charges within the levels set in national guidance. Obviously, they have to take the decision to vary carefully, and do it alongside public consultation.
Amendment 291 essentially seeks to prevent mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities from increasing charges for vehicle parking, and from using the proceeds of those charges. The Bill does not provide mayors with powers in respect of parking provision. Parking restrictions inherently apply with localised variations—we acknowledge that. Consistent enforcement across a combined authority and combined county authority area is therefore not appropriate. That is why the Government have determined that powers relating to parking provision should continue to be exercised by local authorities. Combined authorities and combined county authorities will not have powers to provide paid-for parking places. The Bill does provide combined authorities and combined county authorities with the ability to take on powers on civil enforcement of contraventions of bus lanes and moving traffic restrictions. Critically, any proceeds in any case are ring-fenced, in the way that they are with local authorities, for environmental measures and public transport schemes. The scenario would not arise in which parking charges could be used to fund something other than those narrowly defined areas.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause will make it easier for Transport for London to free up land for new housing and development in the capital. The Bill gives the Mayor of London the power to agree to Transport for London selling or leasing unneeded operational land. In most cases, this will remove the need for Government consent, which currently adds complexity and delay to the process.
To guard against the risk of Transport for London inadvertently disposing of operational land that is relied upon by the wider rail network in London, the Bill requires Transport for London to consult Network Rail before selling or leasing land involved in wider rail services. To reflect the Mayor of London’s geographical remit, and to mitigate against a democratic deficit, the Mayor’s powers to consent will apply only to Transport for London land within the Greater London Authority area. These changes will better enable the Mayor of London to unlock land for much-needed housing, supporting growth in the capital.
David Simmonds
The current Mayor of London clearly has a mountain to climb, given the distance by which he has fallen behind his housing targets. We remain concerned that some issues are sometimes seen as easy pickings, such as the disposal of TfL surface car parks, where we have seen a series of unwelcome planning applications that have risked creating congestion in town centres across Greater London. However, we recognise that the purpose of the clause is more about the technicality of the consultation process, and therefore we will not oppose this provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Key route network roads
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clause introduces schedule 8, which relates to key route networks in England. As we will discuss later, in the debate on schedule 8, combined authorities and combined county authorities take important roles in co-ordinating local transport networks. As I have just noted, schedule 8 sets out some of the roles for combined authorities and combined county authorities on local road networks. This will include agreeing a local key route network and power of direction, and the power to transfer a duty to make reports on traffic levels.
David Simmonds
Briefly, the Bill states, “including road traffic reduction”, and the Opposition’s concern is that when we consider our UK transport infrastructure, the one area in which we conspicuously lag a long way behind our peers is our provision of roads, particularly our motorways. We have about 20% less road capacity than peer countries, but we are in line with them on things like high-speed rail, trams and bus networks, where we have seen enormous progress in recent years. However, I recognise that these are plans that will be implemented subject only to that local democratic process, so we will not oppose this provision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Key Route Network Roads
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 87, in schedule 8, page 142, line 20, leave out from beginning to “that” in line 25 and insert
“under section 33 or 33A of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or under a permit scheme prepared under section 33 of”.
This amends the definition of “permit authority power” in relation to combined county authorities so that it conforms with the definition used in relation to combined authorities in section 89A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (as inserted by this Bill).
Under schedule 8, the mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities will have a power to direct local highways authorities in the use of their powers on these roads, including over traffic, highway, street and permit authorities. The power of direction will help mayors to deliver their local transport plans and assist places in developing more integrated transport networks.
The role of a permit authority is to provide permits for roads and street works. The amendment will make a minor adjustment to ensure that the definition of a permit authority is coherent throughout schedule 8. This is an important amendment to ensure that schedule 8 delivers on our aims of a consistent framework of powers across all combined authorities and combined county authorities.
Amendment 87 agreed to.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 328, in schedule 8, page 147, line 7, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 329 to 333 would apply the traffic reporting duty to all local roads within the area of a Local Transport Authority.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 329, in schedule 8, page 147, line 11, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 330, in schedule 8, page 147, line 16, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 331, in schedule 8, page 147, line 21, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 332, in schedule 8, page 147, line 25, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 333, in schedule 8, page 147, line 28, leave out “key route network”.
This amendment is related to amendment 328.
Amendment 334, in schedule 8, page 148, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) publication of reports, including the standardisation of data across reports”.
This amendment would enable guidance to cover the publication of reports and data, in addition to covering the preparation of reports.
Amendment 335, in schedule 8, page 148, line 4, after “preparing” insert “and publishing”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 334.
Siân Berry
These amendments all do the same thing. Amendments 328 and all the amendments up to 335 would simply remove the words, “key route network” from the part of the Bill that specifies traffic reporting duties. Essentially, they would apply the traffic reporting duties to all local roads within the area of a local transport authority, not simply the key route network.
When it comes to strategic transport planning and its informed scrutiny, I believe that requiring data collection and reporting only for the key route network makes no sense. We, the public, those doing the transport planning and those scrutinising it at all levels of government need to have better data about traffic on local roads, too. The strategic level is the right level at which to require that data to be organised and published, so as not to place new burdens on local authorities, but giving those authorities new tools to work with as well. Obviously, resources must be put in place to enable that, but the benefits—achieving good-value investments, effective policy that serves the public good, and benefits to public engagement and scrutiny—will be huge.
Strategic authorities do the strategic planning, setting the direction for where major developments go. Major developments affect not only key route networks, but local roads as well. Those authorities are also the ones more likely to be moving forward with things like demand management policies and congestion charges—I have already talked about workplace parking levies being able to be run at that level. All of those policies are needed to tackle traffic and congestion, but to be able to plan them, it is really important that good information about local roads is out there and collected. Local authorities have far fewer powers to tackle traffic, but they would also benefit from this kind of information when implementing policies such as safer speed limits and bus lanes. Bringing this duty all under the strategic authority would be a gift to local authorities, and would make transparency much easier as well.
I have tabled further amendments that ask for similar data collection and publication at the strategic authority level, which I will speak to later. In concept, this mirrors the new planning data-related transparency requirements that have come from the same Department that has introduced this Bill. More generally, the system of outcomes frameworks proposed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government currently has big gaps in it—this is just one of them. That system needs to be looked at again. In its consultation on outcomes frameworks, MHCLG recently admitted that transport was a unique area and that the Department had work to do with DFT on reporting. This particular example seems like one where the Department would benefit from thinking things through again and potentially doing exactly what this amendment suggests—if not now, then at a later stage of the Bill’s passage.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will speak to amendment 328 in particular. As the hon. Member has set out, the amendment would expand the duty of combined and combined county authorities to make reports on traffic levels to all roads within their area, rather than just key route network roads.
I believe that any duty to make reports on traffic should be accompanied by meaningful powers to give effect to such reports directly. That is why, elsewhere in the schedule, mayors of combined and combined county authorities are given a power to direct the highways authority in the use of its powers on such roads. These amendments would give combined and combined county authorities duties to make reports on traffic on such roads, but without any direct control of the traffic itself.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Schedule 8 will provide mayors with a power of direction on key route network roads and transfer duties to make reports on these roads to them. Combined authorities and combined county authorities have an important role in co-ordinating local transport networks, including local roads.
Although local highways authorities will rightly continue to manage local highways, mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities will be required to propose a key route network. This will allow places to work together at the appropriate level to manage traffic and ensure that there is effective traffic planning. To this end, mayors will gain a power to direct highway authorities on these roads, helping them to deliver their local transport plan. The powers balance the important role of local highway authorities in maintaining the road network while helping mayors to co-ordinate and lead transport planning at a strategic level. I commend the schedule to the Committee.
David Simmonds
I will speak to amendment 287. We understand the point that the Minister is making about a need to ensure that there is strategic oversight of what is going on. Our concern is that, as we have seen in London, where a version of this already exists, there is sometimes a conflict between what a mayor seeks to do and the views of a local authority—in particular, the elected mandate of that local authority.
We have heard a lot of evidence and had a lot of lobbying as constituency Members of Parliament about issues such as the impact of floating bus stops on people who are partially sighted, and the conflict that the use of bus lanes can sometimes introduce with cyclists. Rather than a duty to implement whatever the mayor decides, there clearly needs to be a duty to “have regard to” it, so that those two things can operate constructively together. That is the thinking behind the amendment, which we intend to push to a vote in due course.
Sam Carling
The schedule contains comprehensive provisions around the designation of key route network roads, but I am conscious that we have not defined key route networks in statute. I am a little worried, therefore, about the potential for mayors to designate inappropriate roads as key route networks for political purposes.
I was struck by the evidence the Committee received from Mill Road 4 People, a Cambridge-based campaign group I was familiar with when I was a councillor there, although I was not involved with them in any way. The group is concerned that mayors could use key route networks to undermine or remove bus gates or low-traffic neighbourhoods that councils have introduced, in an attempt to gain votes by whipping up tensions around the so-called war on motorists. That could seriously undermine councils’ ability to bring in such schemes, very much against the Government’s commitments to active travel.
The group’s concerns are based on a local situation, as that is exactly what is likely to happen in Cambridge if the incumbent mayor gets his way over Mill Road, which is semi-pedestrianised through the use of a bus gate. Will the Minister consider introducing safeguards to prevent such issues by more clearly defining what criteria a road should meet to be eligible for designation as a key route network road? Should it perhaps have to be an A or B road, or else be subject to more detailed justification?
On a related note, has the Minister considered requiring the designation of key roads to be for a specific purpose? On page 139, schedule 8 requires that for the mayor to designate a key route network road, the combined authority has to pass a resolution approving it. However, when the mayor comes to give directions, proposed new subsection 23A of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not require the passing of a resolution, and the power is vested in the mayor alone.
That could create a loophole whereby a mayor could get the combined authority to pass a resolution to designate a road for some reason, and a future mayor with different plans could use the designation for a completely different purpose without the combined authority board having to vote again. One option for solving that could be that when they create a designation, the mayor has to set out its purpose and broadly what powers they envisage exercising. I wonder if the Minister could consider whether that is an issue.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I think, in my enthusiasm for the proceedings, I made reference to the amendments that we will be dealing with in the next grouping. I shall not repeat my observations, but I am sure the Minister will hold my comments in mind and be desperate to respond to them when she makes her introduction to the next group.
Siân Berry
This seems the right point to bring this up. The Minister has talked about how the schedule creates powers to make directions in relation to roads that are not on the key route network. The Minister will have many decisions to make about regulations, and the complexity is coming out in our debates. Are discussions taking place in Cabinet about replacing the Office of Rail and Road with something broader to capture more of this area? The Office for Rail and Road only covers National Highways roads—the strategic road network. I wonder whether the key route network would benefit from being included in the work of the office, which could be named the Office for Integrated Transport and could also cover local roads, buses and active travel. Has the Minister had discussions with the Department for Transport about that?
Vikki Slade
In general I am supportive of the schedule, but I want to raise a slight concern. Proposed new section 2A of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 makes quite a few references to “local road traffic” and “key route networks”. That seems to be a clash of two different terms. It refers to local road traffic using local roads but also to the key network.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new section refers to producing a report to specify targets to reduce the levels of
“local road traffic using key route network roads”.
The impact of that will probably be that that local road traffic will use non-key networks, but there is nothing in the Bill that says where that traffic will go. As much as we would all like it to disappear, it generally does not, and that takes us back to the comments from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about a report on all roads. That feels potentially cumbersome, and I worry about the costs. There seems to be a mismatch here; there is a requirement to produce something, but nothing is said about its possible implications and impact. I do not expect the Minister to have the answer now, but I am sure she can come back with it to help me understand what the impact of the reports might be. I would hate to see local authorities having to deal with the impact of something done in good faith at a strategic level.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to the questions that were asked. The key question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire concerned the designation of key route networks and its potential inappropriate use by mayors. The mayor will not be able to do that unilaterally; they will be able to do so only alongside their constituent authorities and with their support. We think that that will fundamentally mitigate that risk, but he is right to raise it, and we will keep it under review to ensure that the Bill does not operate differently from the intent behind it.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that we should move beyond having an Office of Rail and Road to having an office of integrated transport. I endeavour to write to her to inform her of the Department for Transport’s considerations.
On the wider question of key route networks versus local road networks, we are trying to strike a balance between conferring strategic power on the mayor, and the ability not just to request reports from the highways authority, but to direct it to respond to them. The principal authority has the ability to put those requests, but also the ability to respond to them. We think we have the balance between those things right, because, in the end, they interact in a place. Although we do not want to confer too much power on the strategic authority, neither do we want to denude the local highways authority of the power that sits with it.
Question put, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
David Simmonds
I beg to move amendment 287, in clause 28, page 36, line 12, leave out “implement” and insert “have regard to”.
This amendment, and Amendment 288, would ensure that councils had to have regard to local transport plans, rather than be under a duty to implement them.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 288, in clause 28, page 36, line 33, leave out “implement” and insert “have regard to”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 287.
Clause stand part.
David Simmonds
Mindful of your invitation to repeat my earlier remarks, Ms Vaz, I am none the less going to risk your displeasure by refraining from doing so.
Lewis Cocking
I am in favour of the two amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I have served on a district council and a county council. Some of the powers to do with highways will sit with the constituent authorities and some will sit with the mayor, so we could end up in a scenario in which a person is elected as mayor with one thing in their manifesto, a council is elected on another manifesto and the two things contradict each other. I was leader of Broxbourne council, and we have the A10 going through the entirety of my constituency. That was not a priority for Hertfordshire county council, which had some highways authority powers over it, and that caused a lot of tensions about where we were going to have growth and where the investment was going to go.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have some sympathy for the point that has been raised. What I would say in response to amendments 287 and 288 is this. Strategic authorities are the local transport authority for their area. We are very clear as a Government that in performing that role, strategic authorities must work closely with their constituent councils, which are responsible for managing local highways. Indeed, that is the way things are operating at the moment in places where the mayoral strategic authority is the local transport authority.
Clause 28 supports this by placing a duty on all types of constituent council to implement the strategic authority’s local transport plan when carrying out their functions. That does not undermine our expectation that strategic authorities work in co-operation with constituent councils. Instead, I hope, it will ensure that local transport planning is consistent across strategic authority areas. This duty already applies to metropolitan district councils. The purpose behind clause 28 is to create consistency between different types of constituent council.
Amendments 287 and 288 would undermine clause 28 by weakening the duty placed on constituent councils. That would reduce the proposed alignment between constituent councils and their strategic authorities. I reassure the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner that constituent councils, as members of the strategic authority, have in themselves a key role to play in the development of the authority’s local transport plan. As set out in other aspects of the Bill, that includes a vote on whether to approve the local transport plan. Therefore, I think that there are enough checks and balances, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 88, in schedule 9, page 149, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
“(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here ‘constituent council’ has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority),”.
This clarifies when a county council or a council of non-metropolitan district will not be a local transport authority for the purposes of the Transport Act 2000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 89 to 97, 99 and 100.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Government amendment 88 ensures that the combined authority or combined county authority is the only local transport authority for the area with the associated powers and duties once it has completed its first full financial year. That includes having responsibility for local transport planning, bus partnerships and bus franchising, and is in line with its role as the strategic decision-making authority for the area, with other responsibilities such as producing the local growth plan. Constituent councils sometimes need to retain certain local transport powers to continue the operation of, for example, a local authority-owned bus company. That will still be possible through bespoke arrangements provided for in secondary legislation.
Turning to Government amendments 89 to 97, 99 and 100. Paragraph 4 of schedule 9 currently sets out the voting arrangements for adopting local transport plans for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities. These amendments extend the provision to cover all types of combined authorities and combined county authorities. This will provide standardisation and clarity for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities about the requirements for adopting their local transport plans.
Regarding Government amendment 92, there are currently no provisions in schedule 9 for the type of vote needed to adopt a local transport plan in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. The amendment provides a clear voting arrangement: a simple majority vote of constituent members. That is in line with the approach taken for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities in the schedule. It ensures that a majority of the constituent members agree with the decision on top of the consent requirement provided for in Government amendment 96.
Government amendment 94 provides detail on how votes to adopt the local transport plan occur in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities. In line with the existing provisions in schedule 9 for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities, the amendment ensures that each constituent member has one vote. Unlike mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities though, no member of a non-mayoral combined authority and non-mayoral combined county authorities will have a casting vote. In the event of a tie, the resolution would not pass. A clear majority would be needed. This amendment is important to bring clarity to how votes to adopt local transport plans are taken in all types of combined authorities and combined county authorities.
Finally, on Government amendment 96, the standard voting arrangement for making decisions in non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities will be a simple majority vote, as is provided for in clause 6. However, in the English devolution White Paper, the Government committed to ensuring that key strategic decisions would have the support of all constituent councils. Adopting a local transport plan is one of those key decisions. 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 these provisions provide reassurance to prospective constituent councils, which is why the amendment introduces a requirement for non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to get the consent of all their constituent councils before adopting a local transport plan. I commend all the amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 88 agreed to.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 265, in schedule 9, page 149, line 37, at end insert—
“(4D) In preparing or revising a local transport plan, a local transport authority must have regard to the air quality guidelines established by the World Health Organization.”
This amendment requires all local transport authorities, including mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities, to have regard to the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines when preparing or revising their local transport plans.
This is a simple amendment that I worked out with the Healthy Air Coalition and my good friends who campaign on air pollution, such as Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah who works in memory of her daughter. The health burden of air pollution falls hardest on those with the least choice—children, old people and low-income communities living near congested roads and industrial corridors—yet the current legal limits for nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter are four times higher than the World Health Organisation recommends.
The latest figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may show improvements in some cities. Areas such as London and Nottingham are now technically compliant with the legal limits, but compliance with outdated legal limits does not mean the air is safe to breathe. The Bill gives combined authorities a crucial opportunity to align transport planning with public health outcomes and the correct goals.
Combined authorities have shown some real willingness to act, but their ambition can be constrained by national standards that lag far behind the World Health Organisation’s evidence and guidelines. The Bill is a chance to change that by ensuring that local transport plans are designed not just to meet the legal minimum but to deliver genuinely clean and healthy air for communities.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 98, in schedule 9, page 152, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert—
“14 In section 146 (mandatory concessions: supplementary)—
(a) the existing text becomes subsection (1);
(b) in that subsection, in the definition of ‘travel concession authority’, after paragraph (c) insert—
‘(cza) a combined authority,
(czb) a combined county authority,’;
(c) after that subsection insert—
‘(2) A county council or a council of a non-metropolitan district is not a travel concession authority for the purposes of this Part where—
(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here “constituent council” has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority), and
(b) the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year.’”
This removes joint functions as a travel concession authority from constituent councils of a combined authority or CCA once the authority has completed its first full financial year.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Under schedule 9, all combined authorities and combined county authorities will hold powers and duties over travel concessions. This includes the duty to provide concessionary fares for older and disabled people, as well as a power to provide concessionary fares beyond those that are mandatory.
Government amendments 98, 103 and 104 provide for a transition period for all recently established authorities, during which time they will hold these powers and duties concurrently with constituent authorities. That transition period will extend until the end of the first full financial year following the establishment of the authority, at which point the combined authority or combined county authority will become the sole travel concession authority for the area.
These are important amendments that mean that schedule 9 delivers on our aim to have a consistent framework of powers across all combined authorities and combined county authorities. That will streamline the management of travel concessions, making better use of local government resources. Having only one travel concession authority in an area means a uniform approach for passengers, who can rely on their concession passes working across their local area.
I now move to Government amendments 101 and 102. It is essential that newly established strategic authorities can staff themselves and establish robust decision-making procedures—for example, before exercising certain vital transport functions. That is why amendment 101 introduces a transition period, so that newly established combined authorities and county authorities do not have to secure the provision of passenger transport services on day one.
Until the end of the combined authority or combined county authority’s first full financial year, their constituent councils can continue to exercise that duty to ensure that bus services, for example, are provided for local residents. The transition period allows the combined authority or combined county authority to build up capacity and capability, and to agree a suitable approach to taking on the exercise of these functions. That will support a smooth transfer that minimises disruption for passengers and supports the continued delivery of services.
Finally, Government amendment 102 introduces a transition period for powers to make agreement with Transport for London specifically regarding paying for public transport services, in line with similar transition periods for other local transport powers and functions already provided for in the Bill. Proportionate transition arrangements are essential to support the smooth transition of transport powers from constituent councils to newly established combined authorities and combined county authorities. That will be particularly relevant for councils that border London if they form new strategic authorities. Any agreements that they have made with Transport for London to pay for public transport services can remain in place for the transition period, which gives the combined authority or combined county authority time to negotiate agreements during that period, rather than having to do so on day one.
David Simmonds
We have some concerns about the real-world impact of the measures outlined in these amendments. We all recognise that there is a logic in bringing consistency to concessionary travel, but public transport is commonly not uniformly available across all parts of single existing and combined authority areas. If we think of the footprint of Greater London, there are places such as Harefield in my constituency and Orpington on the opposite side of London that are essentially rural villages that do not have access to trains and are not on the tube network. They are entirely reliant on buses and their transport connections are frequently outside the boundary of Greater London. The value to people who live in those places of the transport network for which they are paying is therefore significantly less than it is to people who live in the centre of the city.
It certainly feels like this set of measures will benefit people in urban areas at the heart of some of these new combined authority areas, but leave people in areas on the fringes paying but not seeing much benefit in terms of access to transport. We know that in many rural parts of the country, access to bus services, for example, is infrequent. Such services are certainly not fit for purpose in terms of providing school transport and transport for medical appointments or similar purposes.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. One is around how existing settlements—whereby local authorities that will become constituent authorities are already, in effect, levied through the local government finance settlement to pay into a centrally co-ordinated concessionary travel scheme, which is what operates in London—will be managed.
The London boroughs effectively forgo a part of their budget in return for free public transport being paid for children of school age. The Freedom Pass also operates for older people, alongside a variety of other concessions—for example, for people with disabilities. How will that be managed so that we do not see a situation where the mayor takes control of it but has no responsibility for that element of the financial impact, or indeed chooses to redeploy resources away from the things for which that resourcing was originally provided?
Secondly, how will that issue be addressed in areas where this factor is newly established? When the end of that first financial year comes into effect, the constituent authorities, which may have a variety of schemes—for example, because one has a particular priority around access to apprenticeships and may have set up a concessionary travel arrangement to enable people to access that—might find themselves at risk of losing them because the combined authority does not have the same priority? It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how those arrangements, many of which are designed to take account of specific local circumstances, will be accounted for in the provisions.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will write to the hon. Member on the specifics of that. I will say that the mandatory concession scheme is determined by the Department for Transport and would operate in that way, and then there is the ability for greater flexibility for additions on top of that. The way that is applying at the moment is that it varies between different strategic authorities in the approach that they are taking, both in terms of who is eligible and the way that they implement it. On the details of how the provisions in the Bill are mitigating against the scenario that he sets out, where the strategic authority wants an additional concession and it has a financial impact on constituent authorities—
David Simmonds
If the Minister can give us an assurance that she will provide that in writing before the conclusion of the Committee, I am happy not to press these amendments to a vote.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am very happy to give that assurance. I think the hon. Gentleman can accept my word: in a previous sitting, I assured hon. Members that I would come back in writing, and I think we did that within a day.
Amendment 98 agreed to.
Amendments made: 99, in schedule 9, page 152, line 15, leave out “place insert” and insert—
“places insert the following definitions”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 90.
Amendment 100, in schedule 9, page 152, line 17, at end insert—
“‘non-mayoral CCA’ means a combined county authority that is not a mayoral CCA,
‘non-mayoral combined authority’ means a combined authority that is not a mayoral combined authority,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 90.
Amendment 101, in schedule 9, page 152, line 30, leave out from “are” to the end of line 31 and insert “—
(a) where the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year, references to the combined authority or combined county authority (instead of to the council), and
(b) until that time, references to the combined authority or combined county authority as well as to the council.”
This provides for combined authorities and CCAs to have joint transport functions with county councils within their area until they have completed their first financial year, and thereafter to hold those functions alone.
Amendment 102, in schedule 9, page 153, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert “—
(a) where the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year, references to the combined authority or combined county authority (instead of to the council), and
(b) until that time, references to the combined authority or combined county authority as well as to the council.”
This provides for combined authorities and CCAs to have joint transport functions with county councils within their area until they have completed their first financial year, and thereafter to hold those functions alone.
Amendment 103, in schedule 9, page 153, line 13, at end insert—
“19A In section 93 (travel concession schemes), after subsection (8) insert—
‘(8A) A county council or a council of a non-metropolitan district is not a local authority for the purposes of this section where—
(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here “constituent council” has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority), and
(b) the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year.’”
This removes certain jointly held travel functions relating to travel concessions from constituent councils of a combined authority or CCA once the combined authority or CCA has completed its first full financial year.
Amendment 104, in schedule 9, page 153, line 18, at end insert—
“(d) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(4) The power under subsection (1) does not apply to a county or district council where—
(a) the council is a constituent council of a combined authority or a combined county authority (and here “constituent council” has the meaning given by section 104(11) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in relation to a combined authority and section 10(11) of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 in relation to a combined county authority), and
(b) the combined authority or combined county authority has completed its first full financial year.’”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This removes the power in the Transport Act 1985 of constituent councils of a combined authority or CCA to provide travel concessions once the combined authority or CCA has completed its first full financial year.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Transport Authority functions: funding and support—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that relevant authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of those authorities in relation to their transport functions, taking into account the scale and complexity of those functions.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act’ means—
(a) functions of a local transport authority as described in Schedule 9, and (b) any other functions reasonably connected with the transport.”
This new clause creates a requirement for regular reviews of the financial and administrative needs of authorities to carry out their transport functions.
New clause 17—Total transport authority powers for strategic authorities—
“(1) Every strategic authority is a total transport authority for its area.
(2) In any case where an area is covered by more than one strategic authority, the total transport authority for that area is the strategic authority that covers the largest overall area.
(3) ‘Total transport authority’ means a local transport authority (as defined in section 108 of the Transport Act 2000) with the additional responsibilities, powers, and functions provided by this section
(4) The additional strategic responsibilities of total transport authorities are—
(a) the integration of public, private, and community transport within its area;
(b) modal integration of all public transport within its area, including integrated ticketing across all modes of public transport;
(c) integrating the procurement and delivery of transport services with those provided by other public services in its area, including NHS trusts, local authority social care providers, and school transport;
(d) integration of local transport plans with local strategic priorities, including landuse planning and local growth plans; and
(e) entering into cross-border transport agreements with neighbouring transport authorities where the total transport authority or a neighbouring authority consider it appropriate for the purpose of discharging their duties under section 108 of the Transport Act 2000.
(5) A strategic authority may discharge its functions and duties as a total transport authority through either—
(a) the strategic authority itself, or
(b) delegation to a functional body of the strategic authority.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the powers and duties of total transport authorities.
(7) Schedule 23 (Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors) applies to regulations made under this section.”
This new clause would create total transport authorities from existing local transport authorities and provide them with new powers and responsibilities relating to integration of transport.
New clause 18—Report on strategic authority financing of transport projects and schemes—
“(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the potential merits of—
(a) providing to strategic authorities additional borrowing powers for transport projects or schemes; and
(b) the establishment and operation of tax increment financing schemes for transport projects.
(2) A report under this section must consider—
(a) options for a standardised model for tax increment financing to enable strategic authorities to fund infrastructure;
(b) which revenue streams could be provided to strategic authorities for use in tax increment financing arrangements; and
(c) the potential for revenue generation resulting from infrastructure investment under any such scheme.
(3) A copy of a report published under this section must be laid before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on the potential merits of enabling strategic authorities to levy a tax increment for the purposes of transport development.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Local transport is a key responsibility of strategic authorities, which will continue to be the local transport authority for the area. These authorities will be responsible for local transport planning, the duty to secure the provision of local passenger transport services such as buses or trams, and other relevant powers for bus partnerships, bus franchising and travel concessions. This will allow them to make strategic decisions to support growth and placemaking across their areas through improved transport outcomes.
Currently, combined authorities and county authorities hold varying local transport powers under diverse governance arrangements. The Bill gives authorities certainty and clarity about these powers by standardising them. I commend schedule 9 to the Committee.
Vikki Slade
I rise to speak to new clause 11 on funding for transport authorities. There is a lot of merit in harmonising and simplifying the way that transport authorities work. Having borders between different systems can cause huge complications for people crossing them. Obviously, such borders will still exist, but hopefully they will be fewer and farther between.
The purpose of our new clause is to address the elephant in the room. The legislation adds a healthy set of new transport functions for combined authorities, set out across the various measures we have already heard about, and many of them are very positive, but the reality is that those transport authorities that are currently local authorities receive a lot of central Government funding, while the strategic and combined authorities sitting at the higher level do not. Their money is not coming from the magic money tree; it is coming from levies and precepts.
Additional responsibilities are great, but given the additional work involved in all this transport reporting that we have heard about, and the additional functions at a higher level, I am greatly concerned that we may be setting some of these organisations up to fail from the start. Through new clause 11, I am seeking assurance that the Secretary of State will continue to assess and review whether authorities have sufficient support and capacity to carry out these functions, and ensure that they are not too onerous given the source of their funding—levies on the authorities beneath them and precepts directly on the taxpayer.
This Bill is a move away from how we have been funding local authorities; yes, some local authorities are on zero revenue support grants, but many are still quite heavily reliant on central Government funding, and this is the first opportunity for me to say, out loud: are we sure this is a good idea? We are creating a whole framework of legislation and a whole set of local authorities, that have no real central funding. New clause 11 provides the first chance to ask that question and get assurance from the Minister about precisely where the money is coming from. If the money is coming directly from our residents through precepting, we should say that out loud, so that they understand what they have let themselves in for.
Sam Carling
I have a brief, technical question. I might be mistaken in my reading of the provision, but I seek clarification about the arrangements for local transport plans. On Tuesday, the Committee agreed to clause 6, which amended the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to introduce a standard of simple majority voting on combined authority boards. However, we included a grandfathering provision to allow some distinctive governance arrangements at existing authorities to continue.
Schedule 9 makes a similar amendment to the Transport Act 2000, specifically for the adoption of local transport plans, as we have heard, but this amendment does not have the grandfathering provision. Thinking of my own combined authority in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, where local transport plans require a two-thirds majority, I wonder whether the Bill could create legal ambiguity that could lead to judicial reviews or legal challenges. According to clause 6, setting out the general arrangements of boards, the existing arrangements stand once this Bill comes into force, but according to schedule 9 they are overturned. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s intention there? Then we can find a way to remove that ambiguity.
Siân Berry
I support the arguments made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. We seem to have a lot of new responsibilities, and in transport we lack clarity about where the money is coming from. I agree with the idea of integrated settlements, but will transport continue to receive what it currently does? Will the new authorities be well funded? With austerity so entrenched in local authorities and all this reorganisation happening, will any of that start to be reversed?
With that in mind, I have put forward two new clauses with ideas to solve some of those issues. I will briefly outline why Members might consider supporting new clauses 17 and 18, which are closely related.
New clause 17 is an attempt to put together so-called total transport authority powers for the strategic authorities, to help them to be more of an integrated transport authority than would be achieved by simply transposing local transport plan powers over from the Transport Act 2000. It would add strategic responsibilities around planning and integrating different modes and transport providers in a total transport authority’s area. To be clear, it is not necessarily about providing all those things; many are provided by different parts of the public sector. It is about having responsibility for integrating them.
New clause 17 is also about bringing in integrated ticketing. That is crucial, not just for the convenience and benefit of passengers on public transport, but as a way—particularly at the scale of a strategic authority, which is where these kind of total transport authority responsibilities sit—of achieving the ability to cross-subsidise different modes of travel. This is a good way of making efficiency work in terms of funding, raising money and making the most of the ability to use revenue to create borrowing for investment.
The Department for Transport conducted a viability trial of total transport solutions in 2019 . It was focused on rural areas, and found that local authorities made savings—relatively modest, but they were at the local authority level—and services could be improved without additional costs. This saves money at the wider Exchequer level. If we are talking about the providers of public services listed in the new clause—NHS trusts, local authority social care providers and school transport provision in the area—strategic authorities are asked to look at better integrating those obviously integratable types of transport, and make them more efficient.
The new clause would also enable cross-subsidisation between profitable and non-profitable streams of transport provision. We see that in the London budget, with which I was intimately familiar for many years. The tube network is able to make a profit, which helps to subsidise bus journeys, and that is to everyone’s benefit. That is worth Ministers’ consideration in more detail, and I hope the new clause will prompt them to do that.
It was not my intention to go over the top with this, so I tabled a second new clause—new clause 18—which asks Ministers to look again at tax increment financing, instead of attempting to amend powers already in the Bill. There are clear benefits from tax increment financing. The ability to add a levy to, for example, business rates, as has been done in the past, or potentially on VAT in an area, and to use that to borrow for significant investment, is potentially really powerful. It was used in part for the Northern line extension to Battersea, for example—a glimmer of new tube line that suddenly happened because of that kind of initiative. New clause 18 asks Ministers to look at this issue again and to consider the power for strategic authorities.
We are all wondering where the money might come from. We can see the potential benefits of this level of organisation, but the new clause would put some more powers in place and prompt further reviews of what might be done to help these bodies stand on their own two feet. As we discussed earlier in relation to precepts, powers to raise money will not necessarily lead to a lot of new taxes and levies; they are self-regulating via the process of democracy and are therefore not to be feared.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire and then turn to new clauses 11, 17 and 18.
I assure my hon. Friend that grandfathering arrangements apply. Existing local transport plan voting arrangements for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough that have already been brought into their constitution will apply, and the amendments in the Bill will not override them.
I welcome the intent behind new clause 11 and completely agree with the principle that we need to ensure that the local transport authorities we are creating, which have an vital role to play in our areas, have the resources and funding to do that well. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole asked whether we have thought this through. We actively have, but more important is that places have thought it through; there is a clamour to move in this direction and to put in place strategic transport functions, because the huge opportunities are recognised.
We already have a mechanism through the spending review by which we can judge and calibrate whether individual local transport authorities have the resources to do the job required. All local transport authorities will make a judgment about the demands versus their funding as part of the spending review decision.
It is worth noting for the Committee that funding for local transport increased in the spending review settlement, with £15.6 billion put in place for transport for city regions, £2.3 billion for areas outside of city regions and £1 billion for buses. That was in addition to local transport funding provided through the local government settlement. That is both proof and an example of how conversations about what is needed are being matched by resources provided.
Alongside that, we are creating as much flexibility as we can through the local government finance settlement, where we are moving to more consolidated multi-year funding, but also through the Department for Transport giving local leaders greater funding certainty and flexibility, again with multi-year funding settlements, which allows them to plan better.
Finally, as we discussed on Tuesday, there is the question of capacity. We must include capacity to ensure that combined authorities and combined county authorities are doing the job that is being asked of them by their respective constituent authorities, voters and us. That is why we are committing to include funding for capacity building.
On new clause 17, I share the desire of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for transport integration. Strategic authorities have been created to seize the opportunities to come together across a larger geography on transport, economic development and regeneration. However, the new clause would duplicate many of the existing powers and actions of strategic authorities, as well as the new powers already being introduced by the Bill.
In addition to the new powers over planning, clause 21, in part 2 creates a new power for mayors to convene other public bodies to assist with their aims. This power could be used to bring these bodies together without creating a new class of authority. Strategic authorities already undertake significant work to bring together transport modes and functions in their areas, and already have wide-ranging public transport powers. We encourage authorities working on these plans to engage with providers, including those of community transport.
I recognise that new clause 18 is well intentioned and well reasoned, but I do not believe that it is necessary. Existing mayoral strategic authorities possess borrowing powers for all their functions, including transport, which enables them to invest in projects and infrastructure. Through the Bill, we are also enhancing the opportunities for mayors to raise revenue so that they can invest more in local transport. This includes enabling the existing mayoral council tax precept to be spent on the full range of growth levers, including transport, and giving mayors the power to charge a mayoral community infrastructure levy. If mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities wish for changes to existing powers, they will be able to express this through the statutory right to request process. For all those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to push their new clauses to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
The Chair
We have to do a little bit of procedure. I am sure you all noticed that we missed the decision on clause 29 stand part. We can remedy this with an amendment to the programme motion that changes the order of consideration, meaning that clause 29 can be taken after schedule 9, which is now.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 16 September be varied as follows—
In paragraph 3, leave out “Clauses 28 and 29; Schedule 9; Clause 30;” and insert “Clause 28; Schedule 9; Clauses 29 and 30;”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Adult education
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 30, page 38, line 3, leave out “adult”.
This would be consequential on Amendment 108.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Strategic authorities are uniquely placed to understand the sustained demand for education and training places in their areas. In line with the rest of the Bill, the clause places duties on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils to plan provision locally and ensure that enough education and training is provided in their areas. This will ensure that the needs of those aged 16 to 18, and those aged 19 or over with an education, health and care plan, are met. Some strategic authorities already have these duties. This provision creates uniformity across all areas and provides the legal basis for the allocation of funding to meet such duties. All areas should benefit from strategic authorities working with their constituent councils to deliver essential education and training for young people.
Government amendment 107 will ensure that at least one full academic year has passed between the establishment or designation of a new strategic authority and its ability to exercise the six adult education functions. It also ensures that the strategic authority delivers those functions from the beginning of an academic year, thereby mitigating disruption for learners and providers. The full academic year gives strategic authorities time to build their adult skills teams, develop their skills strategies and plan how they will fund and procure adult skills provision in their areas, thereby maximising the chances of effective delivery. This approach is in line with that taken for strategic authorities that already exercise such functions. Strategic authorities that already exercise adult education functions will continue to do so uninterrupted.
Amendment 105 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Devolving adult education functions, such as the duty to secure the provision of education and training for persons aged 19 or over, will provide strategic authorities with an essential tool to drive regional economic prosperity. As I have said, adult education functions are already devolved to 21 strategic authorities and delegated to the Greater London Authority, but the arrangements are currently ad hoc and patchwork. Clause 30 will allow the automatic conferring of adult education functions on new and existing strategic authorities, to create a more consistent and coherent model of devolution. It establishes a standardised framework—a key objective of the Bill—so that devolved powers, duties and functions are taken up by all strategic authorities.
Schedule 10 amends the Apprenticeships, Schools, Children and Learning Act 2009 to confer education-related duties to strategic authorities. The manner in which those duties are conferred is in line with the approach for the 13 authorities that already have adult education functions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 106, in schedule 10, page 153, line 22, after “this” insert “Part of this”.
This would be consequential on Amendment 108.
Amendment 107, in schedule 10, page 157, line 37, at end insert—
“10A After section 120A insert—
‘120B When functions become exercisable by strategic authorities
The Mayor of London
(1) The functions conferred on the Mayor of London by this Part are exercisable by the Mayor in relation to—
(a) the academic year beginning with 1 August 2025, and
(b) each subsequent academic year.
Combined authority or CCA already exercising the functions
(2) Subsection (3) applies to a combined authority or CCA if functions conferred on it by this Part are also pre-commencement functions.
(3) The functions continue to be exercisable by the combined authority or CCA on and after the commencement day (but as functions conferred by this Part).
Other combined authority or CCA
(4) Subsection (5) applies to a combined authority or CCA—
(a) if functions conferred on it by this Part are not pre-commencement functions;
(b) whether the combined authority or CCA was established before, or is established on or after, the commencement day.
(5) The functions conferred on the combined authority or CCA by this Part are exercisable by it in relation to—
(a) the second academic year to begin after the academic year during which it was, or is, established, and
(b) each subsequent academic year.
District or county council already exercising the functions
(6) Subsection (7) applies to a district council or county council that is a strategic authority if functions conferred on it by this Part are also pre-designation functions.
(7) The functions continue to be exercisable by the district council or county council on and after its designation (but as functions conferred by this Part).
Other district or county council
(8) Subsection (9) applies to a district council or county council that is a strategic authority if functions conferred on it by this Part are not pre-designation functions.
(9) The functions conferred on the district council or county council by this Part are exercisable by it in relation to—
(a) the second academic year to begin after the academic year during which its designation takes effect, and
(b) each subsequent academic year.
Interpretation
(10) In this section—
“academic year” means each period—
(a) beginning with 1 August, and
(b) ending with the next 31 July;
“commencement day” means the day on which the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025 is passed;
“designation”, in relation to a district council or county council that is a strategic authority, means its designation as a single foundation strategic authority;
“pre-commencement functions” means functions which were exercisable by a combined authority or CCA immediately before the commencement day by virtue of—
(a) an order under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(b) regulations under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
“pre-designation functions” means functions which are exercisable by a district council or county council immediately before its designation, by virtue of regulations under section 16 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.’”.
This would specify when the education functions dealt with by Schedule 10 become exercisable by a strategic authority. If a strategic authority does not already have the functions, or is established or designated after commencement, the functions are exercisable in relation to the second academic year after establishment or designation.
Amendment 108 in schedule 10, page 158, line 36, at end insert—
“Part 2
Education for 16-19 year olds etc
13 The Education Act 1996 is amended in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
14 (1) Section 15ZA (duty in respect of education and training for persons over compulsory
school age: England) is amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1), for ‘local authority in England’ substitute ‘relevant authority’.
(3) In the following provisions, for ‘local authority’ substitute ‘relevant authority’—
(a) subsection (2);
(b) subsection (3), in the words before paragraph (a);
(c) in subsection (4), in the words before paragraph (a);
(d) in subsection (5), in the words before paragraph (a);
(e) in subsection (9).
15 In section 15ZB (co-operation in performance of section 15ZA duty), for ‘Local authorities in England’ substitute ‘Relevant authorities’.
16 In section 15ZC (encouragement of education and training for persons over compulsory school age: England), in subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a), for ‘local authority in England’ substitute ‘relevant authority’.
17 In section 579 (general interpretation), in subsection (1), after the definition of ‘regulations’ insert—
‘“relevant authority” means—
(a) a local authority in England,
(b) a combined authority established under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, or
(c) a combined county authority established under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.’”.—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This would confer on strategic authorities additional functions relating to education and training for persons over compulsory school age.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31
Planning applications of potential strategic importance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Mayors will be given new powers in relation to planning applications of strategic importance, in order to help them to shape the strategic development in their area. The Secretary of State and the Mayor of London have long had the power to intervene and call in planning decisions; we want to ensure that mayors across the country have the opportunity to do the same. This will help to decentralise decisions away from Whitehall—something that I know all Committee Members are keen on.
Clause 31 introduces schedule 11, which works alongside schedule 12, which is inserted by clause 32. The schedules expand existing Mayor of London powers in sections 2A and 74(1B) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to give mayors outside London the ability to call in or directly refuse applications. Schedule 11 also amends section 2A of that Act to allow call-ins when the local planning authority is a mayoral development corporation.
The powers will apply only to the most significant developments that have the potential to raise genuine strategic planning issues—for example, large-scale housing and commercial developments, or significant development on protected areas such as the green belt, which could have a bearing on the implementation of the area’s adopted spatial development strategy. Mayors will be able to intervene only where applications meet thresholds set out in secondary legislation.
The Government have made clear the importance of getting a spatial development strategy in place, so we will legislate so that a spatial development strategy must be in place before the powers can be used. We will consult on legislation before bringing the powers into force. I strongly emphasise that local planning authorities will continue to make decisions on the vast majority of applications without recourse to the mayor.
Finally, the new powers will not affect the well-established arrangements that have been in place in London for more than 15 years. We are, however, engaging with the Mayor to improve the process in order to support greater housing delivery in London, which I know the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is very keen on.
David Simmonds
I rise to ask some brief questions of the Minister, perhaps starting with the last point, about where there is a conflict. London is a good example. The Mayor’s total failure to achieve the housing targets set by central Government is creating a knock-on pressure at local authority level. We know that, in trying to unlock developments, the Government are currently engaged in discussion about significantly reducing the target for affordable housing. There is the potential for call-in powers to create a conflict with the housing duties of the local authority against its overarching objectives. I can think of places in or close to my constituency—a good example is Hendon circus, where 27 years ago I chaired a planning committee that granted consent. That is still a derelict site, despite multiple interventions with the Mayor of London, because it has basically been ping-ponging between developers. We need to make sure that this legislation has rigour and will actually deliver.
Will the Minister provide some assurance that an effective mechanism will be in place? It is all very well talking about mayoral powers to direct planning authorities, but we often see a mayoral failure to progress developments, to the frustration of a planning authority. How will we ensure that there is that rigour, so the homes for which planning consents are granted actually get built?
Siân Berry
I, too, have much experience of the London system of planning—of putting together the London plan and its implementation through strategic planning applications. I have a couple of things to say.
First, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, we have heard alarming reports today that the well-worked-through, evidence-based requirements that were put into the London plan may be undermined by an unclear process. We would like assurance that once the processes are carried out—once local people have engaged and many local authorities have given evidence in respect of a plan and some policies—the policies are kept in place and used by the mayors who have gone to so much trouble. We hear rumours of CIL holidays and other really worrying things. I will not ask for answers on that now, but we will discuss the community infrastructure levy later.
The issue I want to raise is the transparency and clarity of the online information that accompanied the Mayor of London carrying out his strategic planning responsibility in respect of individual planning applications. As an expert user of that online information in the past, I know it is vastly worse than what is commonplace and very good from most local authorities. One does not get easy access to the accompanying documents or other people’s comments as they come in; they can be incredibly useful in local authority planning applications. By contrast to the national infrastructure planning process, the documents associated with the planning application are not published and the timetable is not necessarily available. I had endless trouble while trying to scrutinise and take part in the process.
I beg the Minister to look at putting in place a more standardised way of making the planning applications that are intervened on by mayors, and the process that happens, more transparent. It should match either of the other two planning levels we have. At the GLA end of things, it has not been very good.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We all share the desire to see housing built. I will not make the political point that the last Government, of which the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner was part, categorically failed to do that. The challenges faced by the Mayor of London are the function of systematic failure over 14 years and a housing market that is in a very difficult position.
We absolutely want to see house building at pace. First, we are putting in place a requirement that there has to be a spatial development strategy that sets out how the mayor will deliver housing needs—a core document that will ensure that it bites. Mayoral call-in powers can be used only once that spatial development strategy is in place. Once house building has been granted permission, we want to see it built out effectively. Obviously, we will keep this under review to ensure that the duty to direct comes alongside the call-in and that the spatial development strategy works effectively to deliver the outcome we want to see.
On the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion’s point about the transparency of the process, residents across the piece often find the planning process, whether at the strategic or local authority level, pretty opaque and hard to navigate. We will continue to look at that, because it is important that when strategic or local planning decisions are made, residents understand why, how, and how they can fully engage in the process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 32
Development orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Clause 32 expands existing Mayor of London powers in relation to mayoral development orders and directions to all mayors of strategic authorities. It will allow the mayor to be consulted on and to direct the refusal of certain planning applications, and it makes consequential changes to other legislation. We will discuss the effects of the schedules that the clause introduces in greater detail later. For now, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12
Development orders
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 58, in schedule 12, page 162, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
This amendment would remove provision for the Secretary of State to have the power to approve a Mayoral Development Order where a Local Planning Authority has not approved it by the end of the period.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 59, in schedule 12, page 164, line 1, leave out subparagraphs (9) and (10).
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 58.
Manuela Perteghella
I will speak mainly to amendment 58, because amendment 59 is consequential on amendment 58, which seeks to decentralise even further planning decisions from Whitehall. It would remove the power of the Secretary of State to step in and approve a mayoral development order when the local planning authority has not given its approval within the set timeframe.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but we cannot accept it. In any planning process, constituent authorities will be fully consulted and engaged. Ultimately, the implementation of a local transport plan or of transport decisions that are made through a mayoral development order will require engagement and work with the constituent authority, so the process will be one of consensus. In the broad majority of cases, we expect to see that consensus. Indeed, where we currently see collaboration across boundaries, consensus is what is driving decisions across those boundaries.
However, we recognise that there will be occasions when consensus cannot be reached. It is absolutely right that mayors can then refer the case to the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate, to be assessed on its planning merits. The ability to make a referral to the state and the Planning Inspectorate is a standard feature of the planning process, even for local authorities, and we think it is right that it operates. I come back to the point that, ultimately, to implement big schemes, constituent authorities need to be brought in and to be part of the implementation. Finding consensus is not only what happens in practice but the spirit in which we expect mayors to work. This provision is but a backstop.
David Simmonds
I listened carefully to the Minister. We have great sympathy with the amendment. One of the concerns that has run throughout this debate and that on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, with which this legislation interacts, is that it complicates the planning system still further. My earlier example illustrates that well: a developer applies to the local authority and gets consent for something; it comes back for something larger, but is refused; it goes to the planning inspector, gets consent for something else; it puts in another application, going to the mayor and getting the chance of going to a Secretary of State call-in; and then the developer sells the site, and the whole process starts again. No homes are built and no infrastructure is delivered, but value is added from the developer’s perspective, because it has traded the site on.
There is clearly a risk to introducing that extent of mayoral call-ins as well. They will provide massive incentives for a developer at every stage to second-guess the decision maker, whether that is the planning committee at the local authority, the mayor, the planning inspector or the Secretary of State, continuing the merry-go-round of the 1.5 million planning permissions in England at the moment where development has not commenced. In many cases, that is because of that trading process.
We are minded to support the amendment. I appreciate that the Government have the numbers and we will be defeated, but the point is well made: we need to streamline the system, not add to its complexity and bureaucracy in this way.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Government agree that we need to streamline and simplify the planning process, making it much quicker and smoother. I will again put on the record that the previous Government had 14 years to do that, but they absolutely, categorically, failed to do so. We are now getting on with it, and my colleagues in the Department have taken the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through the House. Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches should not want to be talking about their record, because they should be ashamed of it.
On the key point about adding another level of complexity, I point hon. Members to the fact that the measure applies only to strategic sites. The planning system will operate as usual, with local planning authorities having the key remit to drive things forward. This provision is for strategically significant sites, partly because of their scale or because they are critical to the strategic development plan.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Manuela Perteghella
I beg to move amendment 252, in schedule 12, page 163, line 19 at end insert—
“(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert—
‘(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure—
(a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and
(b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area’.”
This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 304, in schedule 12, page 164, line 33, at end insert—
“61DCB Density requirement
(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—
(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,
(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or
(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.
(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation
(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”
This new clause would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.
Manuela Perteghella
The amendment would require mayors to ensure that planning approvals are consistent with the strategic spatial energy plan and the land use framework for their area. I want to tell the Minister that this is a friendly and collaborative amendment. We want development to be coherent with energy policy and land use. That is important, especially in rural areas that are off grid, or in areas vulnerable to flooding or with protected landscapes, for example. Without the amendment, decisions about housing, infrastructure and new settlements can be made without proper reference to energy needs, grid capacity, or wider environmental and land use priorities. In our view, that would be a great mistake. We have the chance to improve the Bill here.
The strategic spatial energy plan and the local area energy plans set out how an area intends to meet its energy demands and, most importantly, to decarbonise its supply and deliver the infrastructure needed for the transition that we all want to see to net zero. The land use framework also provides a strategic view of how land is allocated to balance the needs of housing, agriculture—in my constituency—and businesses. Education and skills are also important, including adult education, as are transport and so on.
By requiring mayors to check that development applications are consistent with the strategic frameworks and any strategic visions, the amendment would ensure that short-term decisions are made with a strategic mindset and a long-term vision, taking into consideration our national commitments to sustainable growth, sustainable energy, net zero targets and local priorities in a given area, which could be the visitor economy, agriculture, business and so on.
Like the other amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled, the amendment would strengthen local voices in decision making. Our local energy plans and land use frameworks are documents and visions that are made by consulting local people. The frameworks have been developed through public consultation and partnership with local councils, businesses, residents and, as I have mentioned before, town and parish councils. Those efforts should be recognised and embedded in the Bill.
The amendment is pragmatic and constructive. It would not remove any powers from mayors, but only ensure that those powers are used in a way that respects local frameworks and national targets, and supports the needs and interests of our communities.
David Simmonds
I shall speak to amendment 304, which stands in my name. I would like to think that it is one of those amendments that the Government will adopt, if they are wise, because it would do something practical towards the delivery of a higher level of housing through the Bill.
Despite the provision of very large amounts of capital funding by the previous Government, the Mayor of London has been a case study in the failure to deliver. There will be complex reasons in the wider market why it has been a challenge, but the previous Government delivered just shy of a net additional 1 million new homes over the life of the previous Parliament, in line with the target. Since then, house building has collapsed. Partly that seems to be because operators in the market—big developers and house building companies—are looking at the Bill and seeing opportunities to increase the potential value of their sites by arbitraging between all the different layers of bureaucracy, rather than delivering homes.
However, many of our constituents look at areas that have good PTAL—public transport access levels—scores, and so an ability to access effective public transport, as offering a high degree of opportunity. The Opposition’s view is that we should prioritise sites like that, which in some cases are quite close to securing planning consent, because of their ability to densify our urban centres. In London and other big cities, such as Manchester, where we had our recent party conference, we see examples of this approach delivering large amounts of additional housing in city centre areas. It contributes to growth, to housing delivery and to the economy of those local areas.
For all those reasons, the amendment is positive, so I hope that the Government will accept that it would add significant value to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Paul Holmes
I echo some of the words of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, and I want to talk briefly about one of the things I feel particularly passionate about in planning: the densification of our urban centres. I spoke at a number of events at Conservative party conference where I advocated for it, as my hon. Friend has, as well as speaking about where we did not get it quite right when we were in government.
I am the first to say that we did not come down as hard as we should have on many speculative developments on green spaces, both in my constituency and across the country. We lost a lot of the ability to regenerate some of our urban centres, which is a fortunate and necessary by-product of unlocking some of the sites in our urban centres, as amendment 304 is intended to do. Our urban centres are where many of our younger people want to live. There is a connectivity already. The infrastructure exists, although I am the first to say that much of the infrastructure in our urban centres needs to be improved. That is where our younger people, our more mobile people, our entrepreneurs and those who want to make a success of their life, particularly in tech centres and economic centres, want to live; but, unfortunately, that is where the higher-priced properties are.
Siân Berry
I endorse the amendment. It is extremely sensible to have this kind of priority in place. It is extremely reminiscent of planning policy guidance note 13, which was abolished by the coalition Government in 2011 and was originally put in place under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2001, if I recall correctly. It was part of an integrated transport policy, making sure that homes and transport were planned in concert and that there was a sequential test for focusing first on areas that were already developed—areas close to urban centres—and then allowing for sequential use of greener areas.
That is something that we lack in planning policy at the moment. Having a policy that is entirely either/or, or where we free up things completely or not at all, without a sequential test, has led to a lot of conflict in planning policy lately. Something that sets a sequence of priorities is much more sensible, and I think the Minister should look at it.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for her constructive and helpful amendment 252. In principle, the ability to integrate a land use framework and energy plan at the strategic level obviously makes sense. Regarding the amendment as drafted, the Government have consulted on a land use framework but have not yet provided a response, so the land use framework is not a tangible thing that strategic authorities can hinge their plans on.
Similarly, strategic spatial energy plans, which I have a lot of support for, and which I hope to see across the country, are at an embryonic stage. We do not know how high level they will be. The principle—that as strategic authorities are thinking about their strategic plans they should think about a whole host of things—holds, but we do not think that the amendment is appropriate because of the frameworks that it hinges on.
Vikki Slade
I wish to clarify the purpose of raising the issue of strategic spatial energy plans. There is a real risk that people confuse local area energy plans with net zero and climate change, but there is a possibility for us all to agree that it is far easier to put the role of the strategic authorities to think about the future of energy, from grid capacity to how we get things done, in those terms than to risk it becoming a net zero football. I would love to see, as the Bill goes through Parliament, a way for this measure to be inserted, because there are some real risks coming down the line, with potential leaderships that may try to drive things in a different direction.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I agree with the hon. Lady’s broader point. There is absolutely a piece for us to think about regarding energy infrastructure. Having served as Minister for energy consumers, thinking about how we drive warm homes and the interaction with the grid, there is clearly a big piece of work that needs to be done there, and a role for strategic authorities to play in thinking about that planning in an integrated way.
The frameworks that amendment 252 refers to are nascent and likely to be quite high level, but the principle is that as strategic planning authorities think about their spatial energy plan they should think about both how they effectively use the land and the energy and transport infrastructure that is in place.
I agree with the intent behind amendment 304. I refer hon. Members to the national planning policy framework, which rightly places greater emphasis on the use of previously developed land, and we want to see mayoral development orders used to support urban regeneration. On those points, we are completely aligned. However, we should not over-constrain mayors. We want legislative flexibility to allow a mayor to use a range of land types across their area. Where an urban extension or a new town is the appropriate thing, we do not want to bind the hands of mayoral strategic authorities and stop them being able to use the right land for the right development.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is right to say that the NPPF outlines previously developed land, but it does not include density, so it is not necessarily relevant to this amendment. We seek an incentivisation of densification: does she agree with that policy basis?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the national planning policy framework, which tries to encourage and incentivise the use of previously developed land, and to make sure that within our urban centres we are building out as much as we can. That is an issue for the NPPF and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It would not be right, in the context of mayors specifically, to constrain them and say, “You can only use one land type.” We must allow the flexibility but use national planning policy to encourage urban regeneration and urban densification.
Manuela Perteghella
I will not press the amendment, but I would like a reassurance from the Minister on the frameworks. Although they are nascent and in their embryonic state, they are really important. By the time the Bill becomes law, we will be consulting on these frameworks and applying them. Will the Minister write to tell us how this issue will be resolved? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment proposed: 304, in schedule 12, page 164, line 33, at end insert—
“61DCB Density requirement
(1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which—
(a) will deliver greater density in urban areas,
(b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or
(c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4.
(2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation
(3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”—(David Simmonds.)
This new clause would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land.
Question put, That the amendment be made.