English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments tackling some of the issues around taxi and private hire licensing and enforcement across the country. This is an issue I raised through a series of amendments in Committee, and in discussion with the Minister, and I am grateful for this action.

In Committee, I had suggested granting powers to all licensing authorities to take enforcement action on any private hire or taxi vehicle on their streets, wherever they are licensed. I felt this was a good way to help plug the safeguarding gap which the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, had flagged in her report, but it would also allow the Government time to review and research the other issues, such as cross-border hiring, ahead of any future legislation. We know cross-border hiring is a real issue and that the problem needs addressing, as soon as the Government are able to, but I welcome the Government listening carefully to my concerns and those of other Members across the House, including the noble Lords, Lord Bradley and Lord Hampton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who added their names to my amendments.

The Government’s amendments here ensure a duty to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas, to suspend those licences temporarily in the interest of public safety, and for the responsible licensing authority to respond and take action. These are a solid way forward. We on these Benches fully support these amendments to start to close the safety gaps in the licensing and enforcement of taxis and private hire.

There are a couple of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in this area: one to take out the temporary suspension of a licence and one on reporting. We do not support those amendments today.

I urge the Government to move at pace going forward on consultation and research around the issues of the taxi and private hire sector and to bring forward legislation, as soon as they are able, to ensure that passenger safety is consistent across every region. I put firmly on record our thanks to the Minister for his constructive work on this important safety area.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in general, we welcome most of these amendments. To deal first with those repetitive amendments that say “leave out ‘minimum’” all the way through, as I say, in general we are supportive of those. The art here is to get the right balance between having standards which are predictable, from the point of view of the operators of private hire services, and leaving sufficient scope for local variation to adapt to local circumstances. We want to avoid circumstances where we have what might be called only minimum standards nationally and then every local authority having lots of different standards of its own piled on top, which make it very difficult for large operators to manage a fleet. But we do not want to have purely national standards with no local variation, because that would strike the wrong balance and prevent appropriate adaptations where necessary. On the face of it, we think that the Government’s amendments come closer to striking that balance correctly than the Bill as introduced to your Lordships’ House, so we tend to support them.

We would like to know whether the Government are going to be issuing not only standards—of course, the Government will be issuing national standards in due course—but guidance on what is appropriate for local authorities to be issuing their own licence conditions on. Is that an area the Government intend to go into? That would be very interesting to hear, because, as I say, this is a question of balance. It is not necessarily easy to get it right, and we want the Government to be able to get it right. This might be better still, but it is better than what was here before; that is why we are willing to support those amendments.

On the question of the suspension, I think we need to be a little bit more forensic than perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, or even the Minister were. What we are discussing here is three different licences which are necessary for the operation of private hire vehicles. The first is a licence for the driver. This is not a driving licence as we normally understand it but a licence specifically for private hire, which is personal to the driver. The second is a licence for the vehicle: the vehicle has to meet certain standards that its local licensing authority has checked, ideally. But the third is a licence for the operator.

The operator is a very difficult thing to capture, in some ways. On one hand, the operator might be that booth at the end of the railway concourse that organises local minicabs and has done for years, in the way that we are all familiar with. On the other, nowadays it is equally likely to be a very large firm, such as an Uber or an Addison Lee, operating a practically national service. But it could be, as the Minister himself said, simply that the driver is his own operator: he takes the messages, he takes the bookings and he provides the service. So what constitutes an operator is a very wide range of things.

Imagine circumstances where a driver who is perhaps licensed in Birmingham has a passenger to take to Droitwich Spa, which is not in Birmingham, I might say, for those who are uncertain of the fact; it is not, I can assure them. He gets to Droitwich Spa and runs into an enforcement officer who has an objection to the driver. I completely understand why, smelling his breath and deciding that he is drunk, the enforcement officer should immediately suspend his licence temporarily, even though that licence was issued not in Droitwich Spa but in Birmingham. I completely understand that. I am entirely behind that provision of the new clause.

Equally, we are completely behind the second provision in the clause, which covers the situation where the vehicle is not in a fit state and it is necessary for public safety that it should be taken off the road immediately—the bald tyre mentioned by the Minister, but it might be something else. We are completely behind the idea that the local enforcement officer in Droitwich should have this new power to take the vehicle off the road and suspend the licence. I do not know that he can actually seize the vehicle, but he can suspend the vehicle licence immediately, so that the continued use of that vehicle for private hire purposes would become an offence. We are completely behind that.

But then we come to the question of suspending the operator, and here I have genuine difficulties in understanding what the Government envisage. At an extreme, one could envisage circumstances in which the officer in Droitwich Spa, looking at his checklist of powers, which has three powers, ends up inadvertently suspending Uber in Birmingham overnight, just like that, at the drop of a hat. Every driver operating for Uber in Birmingham is now technically illegal, in the whole city, as a result of the misapplication of this power.

What circumstances, I ask—and I did ask the Minister informally just before we started this debate—can one envisage in which one would want such a power, given that the local officer has the power, and we support this, to close down the driver and the vehicle? Why should he want to be able to take out the operator, which might be a very large operator in a large city close by? The Minister, to my disappointment, did not address that question as fully in his opening remarks; it is fair to say that he did not address that question at all, despite having a certain amount of notice of it. It is not for me to supply the circumstances in which he might do so, but even if I were willing to supply them, I have great difficulty in struggling to find the answer. Therefore, I have an amendment in this group, Amendment 280A, which seeks to remove the power to immediately suspend the operator licence on a temporary basis. Those are the factors: immediately and on a temporary basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, we completely understand the thinking behind these amendments and the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, around minimum taxi requirements and the Equality Act. We sense his frustration, and that of other Members of this House, at how long these changes are taking.

Let us be very clear that “taxis” in this amendment refers to hackney carriages—known more commonly, certainly to those of us in London, as black cabs. They are less than one in five of the whole taxi and private hire network. In cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester, they is already 100% accessibility, but, as we have heard, the picture elsewhere is less uniform and in many parts of the country the network is completely provided by private hire vehicles. So this amendment, as we have heard, would not address the wider network that serves most of the country and areas outside of big cities, which is a real issue.

It is important that every region has the right balance of vehicles available to meet local needs and demands, and that will of course change over time. We welcome plans to ensure that each licensing area will bring forward an inclusive service plan. We welcome the new national standards, which are important, and, we hope, in the not too distant future, as we talked about earlier, new legislation covering taxis and private hire too. Once we start getting that together, this issue will be tackled in a far more comprehensive way than is set out in this amendment.

We absolutely believe that we need an accessible taxi and private hire service, available to you wherever you live, so that you can get out and enjoy your life, and live your life fully. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, will consider this carefully and work with the Minister to find a way forward that works for disabled passengers across the country, not just in those areas where black taxis exist and are available. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borwick for his amendment. In preparation for this Bill, the amendment has taken up a lot of time and involved a lot of meetings with representatives of different bodies, including taxi drivers and private hire vehicles. The one that most struck me, which stays with me, and the only one I will refer to, involved a not-young gentleman who clearly had a taxi background and had risen to have some responsibility in an organisation. He had been in the business all his life, and I thought he was going to be very dismissive of this and would not be interested in this sort of thing going through because it would only disrupt the trade. He said to me, “Well, of course we’ve got to do something about this. These people deserve a service”. That is it. That is the case. They deserve a service. There is no need to make any further case. In my view, there is no answer to that case. They deserve a service.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

280A: Leave out subsection (3)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power in Government Amendment 280 for an enforcement officer to temporarily suspend a regulated private hire vehicle operator licence.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, an emergency power of suspension to be exercised in the middle of the night is perfectly appropriate when dealing with a drunk driver. It is perfectly appropriate when dealing with a bald tyre or a defective vehicle. To put an entire operation out of action and make that operation illegal immediately—overnight, in another city—is a completely disproportionate use of the power of enforcement. I believe my amendment to Amendment 280 is appropriate and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

If we are serious about devolving power, it is right that mayors get proper choices about which roads and what movements they want to prioritise. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has made his case with me, and we are all really aiming at the same thing, which is to improve public transport services. With my repeated thanks for the amendments on pavement parking, I support the ambitions of the Government in those areas.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 103 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. As he knows, transport in London is devolved, with the mayor responsible for managing the capital’s transport network. It is right, in line with the wider purpose of the Bill, that the mayor should be empowered to consent to operational land disposal applications from TfL. Both the Government and the mayor recognise the need to balance transport, housing and wider strategic considerations, and this clause rightly places responsibility for making that balanced judgment with the mayor, who is accountable for those decisions in London. This goes to the heart of what devolution is intended to achieve, and the Government reject the proposition that somehow the mayor is incapable of making a decision about the best use of land currently under TfL control that might be used for housing.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Moylan]

104: Schedule 9, page 159, line 28, at end insert—
“(1C) The key route network must consist only of classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the highways or proposed highways that constitute the KRN are genuinely strategic.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I heard the comments of the Minister in relation to guidance to be issued and, with that, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 104 not moved.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a very brief speech in support of the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Borwick in moving Amendment 235A, an amendment beloved in Committee: delete the word “may” and insert the word “must”.

I commend in passing the moving speech made by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I have a paternal interest in this in that when the Disability Discrimination Act was put on the statute book in 1995 by my noble friend Lord Hague, I was Secretary of State for Transport and therefore had responsibility for taxis. My department was responsible for Section 32 of the DDA which, as my noble friend said, made provision for regulations that taxis should be accessible to wheelchair users and that they should be carried safely. It is interesting to see what happened in London. In 1989, the then Transport Minister Michael Portillo said that all new London taxis had to be wheelchair accessible. We were actually the first capital city in the world to take that step. By 1 January 2000, all licensed London taxi cabs—some 20,000 of them—were wheelchair accessible. That gives an indication of the timescale in which it is reasonable to expect the taxi trade to make the transition from where it was to where it is now.

As we know, Section 32 was repealed and replaced by a similar provision in the Equality Act. I wanted to see what Members of your Lordships’ House thought would happen when that section of the Bill was debated. The Minister at the time was Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish. Reading his speech, it was quite clear that he did not think that 30 years later we would be where we are today. He said,

“more accessible taxis will be a boon for more than just wheelchair users”.—[Official Report, 22/5/1995; col. 890.]

At the time, the Opposition spokesman was the late Lady Hollis. She said this:

“My Lords, we on this side of the House broadly support the Government’s position on taxis. We believe that they are public service vehicles. Taxis are an important ingredient of public service transport and, therefore, they must be accessible to disabled people on a flexible and realistic basis. We believe, as the Bill lays down, that new vehicles introduced must be fully wheelchair accessible”.—[Official Report, 20/7/1995; col. 442.]


They would both be surprised at the position that we are now in. One cannot possibly blame the Minister for any inaction on his part, but what we are entitled to on Report is some timescale by which the rest of the country will be brought into line with what has already happened in London. I hope that when he replies, the Minister will give us some reassurance that that will be the direction of travel and that there might even be a date at which we reach the destination.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am not a London councillor, nor am I a vice-president of the Local Government Association, so I suppose I have a bit of an independent view here. I am just a provincial councillor from Norfolk. However, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It is time to have a look at governance in London, because 32 plus one is quite a lot. There is also an assembly and a mayor—arguably, London is over-governed.

It is time to have a look at this, because it is out of kilter with elsewhere. Outside the M25, the Government are proceeding on the basis that all local authorities must be half a million people or more, covering huge territories. Norfolk, where I come from, has over 900 parishes. It is 85 miles wide and 40 miles long. If you were to start here in Westminster and then travel down to the south coast, the width of Norfolk would take you 30 miles past Brighton and out into the English Channel before it ran out. That is the size and scale of the territories we have in the shires. In Norfolk, over 9,000 electors are needed to elect a councillor. In Essex and Kent, it is between 12,000 and 15,000. In London, just 3,108 electors are required to elect a borough councillor—and of course there are other representatives too. These London boroughs are much smaller territories and much more tightly defined—they do not have 900 parishes. As a result, not only is democratic representation diluted to an unacceptable extent outside the M25, but we end up with the nonsense of the borough bike wars. If you ride a Lime or a Forest, there is an inexplicable invisible line in the middle of the road that applies the brakes as you ride up the King’s Road.

London is overrepresented; there are more councils and more councillors. In fact, there are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. This review should happen. I associate myself with the remarks of the London councillors who have spoken. You cannot reorganise local government everywhere else and leave London to sit it out. That is not good for democracy, councils, governance or the country, and it certainly is not good for the principle of equality of democratic representation.

In the other place, all the constituencies have been equalised, plus or minus 5,000, so that there is an equality of representation. The value of everybody’s vote is the same, wherever you are in the United Kingdom. In London, because of the excess number of councils and councillors, the vote representation is up to five times greater than it is outside the M25. That alone should be an example and a reason to go into a governance review. London cannot just sit it out any more while, elsewhere, there is wholesale reorganisation.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I too have a history in London local government, though nothing like as illustrious as that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill or the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I was a councillor for 28 years, in a borough that has been Conservative for 60 years. I am looking forward to it continuing to be Conservative for another four, or indeed 40, years, so that it reaches its centenary as a Conservative-held borough. I was a member of the executive of London Councils, and chairman of the transport and environment committee of London Councils for a number of years.

That is probably half my speech, and I only felt obliged to make it so as to keep up with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and all the others who have recited their credentials for participating in this brief debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My understanding is that discussions are with the GLA, but I will double-check on that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing.

We are putting in place a robust system of overview and scrutiny for the combined authorities. We are also considering, as we discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, the other day, whether a system of local public accounts committees might also be relevant.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

There is a certain sleight of hand going on. The noble Baroness referred to scrutiny arrangements and, of course, the London Assembly is largely a scrutiny body; that is what it spends most of its time doing. But when it comes to budget setting, it is a co-decision-maker. That is a crucial difference. Setting and amending the budget is not a scrutiny activity by the London Assembly; it is a co-decision-making function with the mayor, which strengthens democratic oversight of the mayor’s expenditure of what are now very large amounts of money—£20 billion-plus—on the people of London.

The question is what an appropriate position and appropriate balance of power for the assembly is in that co-decision-making role—not its scrutiny role, but its co-decision-making role. We are now into 26 years of existence of the London Assembly. The fact that that threshold has never once been met illustrates that it is not allowing the assembly to function as intended, as a co-decision-making body. It needs to be adjusted. One might say that the mayor’s executive functions would be hampered if democracy were improved, but of course the mayor’s executive functions would be further unhampered if there were no democracy at all. The London Assembly is meant to be a democratic body. Why is it not allowed to function as a normal democratic body in this one area where it has a co-decision-making power?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I was referring to the difference between the combined authorities and the combined county authorities, which are made up of the constituent members from the local area. The GLA does not work like that, as we all know. It is not a body that represents the London boroughs; it is a different, directly elected body and it has a different scrutiny function. I was not trying to engage in sleight of hand; I was just pointing out the difference between the two bodies.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. It is a difficult thing to do in the wake of the very learned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but there are sometimes occasions when things do not work in theory but work in practice. In Gibraltar, where a similar measure has been introduced, the population of swifts has stabilised, as I understand it. In the Duchy of Cornwall estate, where this requirement is made of builders, the occupancy rate of the cavities created by the swift bricks is 97%, not in every case by swifts but by other cavity nesting birds.

While I perfectly accept that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, may be right—possibly there is something in the atmosphere in Oxford, I do not know—at the cost of the measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, it is worth an experiment and going ahead and making this requirement. I do not think it will happen, despite the good will of the builders, unless it is passed into law.

I am always against new and excessive regulation, but there are good and bad regulations. Good regulations impose a very small burden on economic actors and have a direct outcome that is intimately and obviously related to the regulatory measure. Of course, bad regulations tend to impose very high burdens and produce all sorts of unintended consequences. Granted, this measure may not produce the intended consequence to the full degree hoped for, but it is very hard to see what poor unintended consequences it could have, and the cost of introducing it would be very small.

Think, for those houses where it works, of the sheer joy of the children of those households in being able to look out of the window and see swifts not only nesting but flying to and fro, maybe even catching those insects in full sight of their bedrooms. It is a very pleasing thought. We should all support this, rally round and make the leap of faith that may be required but is fully justified in this case.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I did say not to trust any more amendments from this side, but this is one I will vote for if the noble Lord puts it to the House. It is worth repeating that there is no downside. Secondly, there are eight species that use these swift bricks, four of which are red-listed. So this is a much bigger issue than swifts—sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. It is for our native birds, and we should keep that in mind when we vote.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

47: Clause 33, page 48, line 39, leave out “possession or”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to remove the Secretary of State’s right to compulsorily acquire possession of highway land.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 47 relates to Clause 33. We debated this in Committee at some length, but the result of that debate was not in any sense satisfactory from my point of view. I wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks for the letter written to me by the Minister after the Committee debate, which covered a number of points, including this, but added only to the veil of obscurity surrounding this issue rather than clarifying it.

Perhaps I could just explain the political background to this, which gives rise to concern. As a conservative party, we are the party of property rights, and when we see clauses coming forward that appear to extend the rights of compulsory purchase on behalf of the state, we wish to explore and understand them and see whether they are absolutely necessary—especially when they appear, effectively, as a one-line clause at the bottom of a left-hand page in a Bill that appears to be largely about other matters. As I said in Committee, this issue could well deserve a Bill in itself; it certainly deserves proper scrutiny and clarity about what the clause is doing.

I will give the Government something for free: the National Farmers’ Union strongly supports this clause. I will briefly read out its reasoning for doing so and its account of the clause. It says:

“This is a positive step for landowners as, presently, National Highways can only apply for powers of compulsory acquisition to enable to it to use the land needed for a scheme. Under the Bill”—


that is, as a result of this clause—

“developers using the Highways Act for a project will be able to temporarily use and possess land rather than acquire it”.

That is a much clearer and better account of what the clause is doing than any I have heard from the Minister or the Government so far. But the first question one has to ask is whether the National Farmers’ Union’s understanding of the clause is correct. Can the Government say what it is doing? For example, in the letter that the Minister sent to me, he said that the clause “put beyond doubt” the department’s “existing power”, but the National Farmers’ Union believes that this is a new power, not a matter of putting something beyond doubt. Legal advice that I have formally taken outside the Chamber suggests that it is indeed a new power and not simply putting something beyond doubt. Can the Government state clearly and crisply what the clause is doing and what is new about it? That is the first question.

The second question relates to the issue of whether the clause can be used for the temporary acquisition of the ownership of land—that would be something akin to requisitioning in the Second World War, and it would be totally new—or whether it relates to the possibility of occupying land, traditionally done by means of a licence, a way leave or something of that sort, so that you have rights over somebody else’s land for a period but the land remains their property throughout. It is unclear which of those two it allows—or is it both?—because the clause refers specifically to “possession or occupation”, suggesting that there is a difference in the minds of the drafters between possession and occupation.

That question is tested by the wording of my amendment, which would leave out the words “possession or”. That would test whether this is tautologous or there is a genuine distinction. If there is a genuine distinction, could the Government explain what it is and whether it includes the temporary acquisition of the title to land in some fashion or other? That would be completely new and definitely worth closer scrutiny. If they are tautologous and there is no distinction, could the Government accede to the proposal in my amendment that one of them be left out, so that we have one that is operative and works?

The third thing is that there is no promise of any guidance to accompany this. In creating this new power—I assert, on advice, that the power is new and does not put something that exists beyond doubt—questions of a practical character arise that should be covered by guidance before it becomes operative. For example, how long can somebody temporarily acquire land for? How long beyond completion of the works are they allowed to keep occupation of the land? It might be as simple as: how long can construction huts be left on the land beyond the point when they are actually needed? What is the state in which the land is to be returned if it is temporarily acquired? That would all be useful to know in strong guidance from the Government that would accompany this new power. Again, that is all completely absent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, that is a good start to today’s debate. It is a rather arcane topic with which to start the day. I wondered, when I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whether he had actually read the original section in the Highways Act 1980, which the Government intend to—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that I have done so.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Excellent. I am pleased that he has, though I wonder whether he has, therefore, understood it. It is surprising that he has chosen to create legal uncertainty, which is what would happen with his amendment. Its consequence appears to be that developers needing a temporary use of land have in the past had to use compulsory acquisition powers if the landowner was not prepared to provide a temporary use. The Bill provides more assurance for both landowners and those improving or constructing new roads. For us on these Benches, the amendment makes no sense except as a tool to frustrate road improvements, and we will not support it.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for the amendment, which seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s ability to grant powers to an acquiring authority to compulsorily possess land necessary to facilitate delivery of highway schemes. The purpose of the measure is to allow acquiring authorities to temporarily possess land when needed for highway works to the exclusion of others without resorting to permanent acquisition.

Permanent acquisition of land or acquiring the freehold or long leasehold title of the land would mean that the acquiring authority would own the land outright and permanently. This is unnecessary and disproportionate when the land is needed only temporarily. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, this clause would enable an acquiring authority to compulsorily acquire the right to temporarily possess and occupy the land needed to facilitate the delivery of a highway scheme.

The rights of an applicant to temporarily possess or occupy land are routinely granted in development consent orders and Transport and Works Act orders. Furthermore, the power would use the same land compensation provisions as apply to compulsory purchase, adapting them as necessary to effect the temporary nature of the interest being acquired.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the National Farmers’ Union. It is not a new power; it is an implied right to take land temporarily that already exists and is already used, but the Government’s Bill makes it explicit.

Temporary possession is a well-established legal concept. It provides certainty and practical powers essential for the safe, efficient delivery of infrastructure works. Temporary possession would offer an acquiring authority—being a local highway authority or National Highways—a safe and proportionate route to exclude others from the land temporarily. This is critical when the land is needed for highways works. It could involve storing equipment and construction materials or manoeuvring large construction vehicles, as well as creating temporary routes to keep works traffic off the highway.

Temporary occupation, on the other hand, as the sole remaining power under the amended clause, would not confer the right to exclude others. This would pose serious safety risks and could undermine project delivery. Without clear powers, authorities would be unlikely to use the amended provision. It would risk introducing legal uncertainty, prolonging negotiations, leading to an increase in objections and public inquiries, all of which would increase costs and could delay delivery.

The Highways Act 1980 already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land. Clause 33, as I have said, would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession. Clause 33, as currently drafted, provides the legal certainty, operational clarity and safeguards necessary for the safe and timely delivery of infrastructure projects. It does not create a new power; it is about ensuring that highways infrastructure can be delivered safely and proportionately.

Having, I hope, clearly defined the difference between possession and occupation, I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that this is not an attempt to own the land. In fact, it is clearly designed not to own the land, so that the title to the land would not change; it would be a right to occupy the land.

Finally, the noble Lord raised the question of how long it would be after works finish that the land can be possessed and whether there would be a need for guidance. That clearly is a subsidiary matter; I will take that subject away and write to him on it afterwards. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. However, I thought I asked some fairly precise questions, and I do not feel that he has answered the questions with the precision that I was hoping for. Therefore, at the appropriate moment, I will seek to test the opinion of the House.

Division on Amendment 47 called. Tellers for the contents were not appointed, so the Division could not proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am in the rather frightening position of agreeing with Amendment 48 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—no doubt they are as concerned about my support for them as I am. However, they have raised some very good points here.

I am in complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and his desire to delete Clause 41 in its entirety—now with the Government's amendment—but the noble Baronesses who have tabled Amendment 48 deserve some praise. We can all look at buildings, monuments or parts of the countryside and think that they are wonderful and should not be built on or destroyed, but we do not have our valuable heritage determined by such random means. As the amendment makes clear in proposed new sub-paragraph (b),

“structures and sites are designated for protection only where they are of special or particular historic or cultural significance”.

That is the key point. These protected sites are not based on the subjective opinions of us or local people, but on an objective determination using nationally approved criteria on what qualifies a building for listed building protection, or to be a scheduled monument or conservation area. Proposed new sub-paragraph (c) merely asks that due regard be given to conserving the historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. The question is, how long will that new infrastructure last?

I did a Google search, and this is what I got on typical building lifespan expectations. Standard residential buildings often have a design life of 50 years, with a possible maximum of 100 years. Commercial buildings can vary widely: some modern commercial properties may be constructed with a short design life of just 20 or 30 years, while others, such as high-quality concrete and steel structures, are built to last 100 years or more. Historical and monumental structures can, with constant care, last hundreds or even thousands of years, as seen with some Roman structures.

We destroy our history at our peril. It was Sir Winston Churchill who said:

“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”. —[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; col. 403.]


On the one hand, we have the magnificent House of Commons next door and this marvellous Palace here. On the other, we have some of those appalling—but, no doubt, award-winning at the time—1970s tower blocks, which we are now flattening as quickly as possible because of their destructive effect on the people forced to reside in them. No Government would dare to demolish Stonehenge or Hadrian’s Wall, nor to drive a road through them, but there are thousands of ancient buildings that, although not as famous or sexy as Stonehenge or Hadrian’s Wall, are a vital part of our history and deserve protection—or, at the very least, special consideration—before they are demolished for some new construction.

In England, there are 9,320 grade 1 listed buildings and 21,782 grade 2 listed buildings. It is estimated that more than 1,000 of these buildings are over 1,000 years old. I cannot imagine any new development that would justify the destruction or damage of one of these buildings —except, possibly, a runway extension at Heathrow. Very few projects would justify it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has amendments in later groups on protecting heritage trees. In Committee and in HS2 Bills, we have debated saving ancient woodlands. Once they are gone, they can never be replaced. The same applies to conservation areas. Amendment 48 does not call for a complete ban; it calls merely for regard to be had to the need to conserve our historic environment alongside the need for future infrastructure. I commend the noble Baronesses for tabling that amendment and bringing it to the attention of the House.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot resist a brief anecdote. When the inner ring road was being built around Birmingham’s city centre in the 1960s, the highways department at Birmingham City Council approached the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham and said that, unfortunately, both the Pugin-designed Catholic cathedral and the Pugin-designed archbishop’s House next door to it would have to go to make way for the road. When the archbishop entered a modest word of protest against this loss, querying whether it was entirely necessary, the result was that the courteous gentlemen of the highways department went away and rethought the plans somewhat and the archbishop was given a choice: he could lose either the Pugin-designed cathedral or the Pugin-designed house. That explains why, to this day, the cathedral still stands but the house has long since gone. Happily, that approach to heritage is not something that we would see today.

At this point, I wish merely to congratulate those Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken so clearly and valiantly against the original proposal in the Bill. I also thank the Government for listening, because what was originally proposed really was unsustainable; what we have now is a great deal more acceptable.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 48 and 50, I shall later move government Amendments 49, 51, 66, 258 and 260. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Bennett, as well as the other noble Lords who have raised this issue during the Bill’s passage. I also thank Peers for their time during the recess, when we discussed this matter at length.

As I have noted previously, the Government have no interest in loosening heritage protections; indeed, we see this country’s heritage assets as a vital part of our built environment. We are clear that these assets should be conserved and enhanced for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

Amendments we have laid to the Bill on heritage and the Transport and Works Act order process will ensure that there is no loss of heritage protection while achieving the Government’s goal of streamlining the process to get on with delivering the infrastructure that this country needs.

Through these amendments, we have introduced a new power for the Secretary of State in England to direct that listed building consent is deemed to be granted in relation to Transport and Works Act order projects. This new power follows the same model as the existing long-established power for them to direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted for these projects. This means that, in practice, applicants for a Transport and Works Act order can apply for deemed listed building consent at the same time, rather than having to apply separately to the local planning authority. This will streamline the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Amendments 52 and 57 aim to make it easier for people who do not have driveways to switch to an electric vehicle and install the necessary infrastructure so that they can charge from their home, thus benefiting from VAT-free electricity charging. Amendment 52 allows for cross-pavement solutions to be considered as public charge points to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for people to move to electric vehicles at home. Amendment 57 then extends permitted developments related to electric vehicle charge points where there is an agreed cross-pavement charging solution and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15 centimetres.

Up to 40% of UK households do not have access to off-street parking. They therefore rely on public charge points, which can cost up to 10 times more than charging at home. A recent survey by the Electric Vehicle Association England highlights that, generally speaking, drivers without off-street parking are more likely to rent, earn less and live in concentrated urban areas; they are less likely to switch to an electric vehicle and those who have are generally less confident in electric vehicle ownership and more concerned about the costs. This amendment would help to democratise access to electric vehicles and reduce inequalities.

As I highlighted in Committee, cross-pavement solutions have real potential to help to tackle this challenge, but the current costs of installation can be around £3,000 and it can take 12 to 15 months for a decision from a local authority. Only this month in Northern Ireland, residents can now apply for cross-pavement electric vehicle charging channels. Through just a simple online form, residents can apply for the channels that would allow residents with electric vehicles to reduce charging costs there from £25 at a typical charge point to just £3. We need to make it as simple and easy to access in the rest of the country too. These amendments seek to make the transition to electric fair and easy. I have been encouraged by discussions with the Minister about this issue since Committee and look forward to hearing whether any progress can be made to help people without driveways to transition to electric vehicles more easily and affordably.

While I am on my feet, on the other amendments in this group, Amendment 55 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has come late in the day. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister on this important area of accessibility and charge points. I shall not waste the time of the House on the new amendments that would add more bureaucracy in the transition to green vehicles. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 53 and 54 in this group, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, disdains to address—so that leaves it to me to explain what they would do. Amendment 53 would require local authorities to conduct and publish a parking impact assessment before permitting EV charge point works that may displace general use parking to ensure that the wider motoring public is not disproportionately affected by the transition to electric infrastructure. Amendment 54 seeks to ensure that residents and businesses can request a review where proposed EV installations reduce access to conventional parking.

My concern is that the Government do not appear to appreciate the practical and societal risks of their current approach. Across the country, residents, particularly in towns and suburbs, are finding that parking spaces they have relied on for years are being removed or repurposed for electric vehicle charging bays without consideration of local needs. Of course, the argument is that this is all in the service of the transition to electric vehicles, although that transition appears to be stalling, if we take note of the number of electric vehicles being sold and what the take-up is. But for many people—and there is a class element to this—especially those who cannot afford an electric vehicle, dependency on a petrol or diesel-driven vehicle for getting to work, fulfilling the requirements of daily life and making a living is absolutely essential, and provision has to continue for those. We are in danger of pushing out from parking access poor people, on low incomes, who desperately need a car to make space for the better-off family’s second Tesla for the nanny to use. That cannot be equitable, can it?

What is proposed here is an impact assessment—no prohibition—and the opportunity for people to ask for a review. As I say, the benefits flow directly in one direction. The Minister said in Committee that we must ensure that the regulatory framework is enabling rather than encumbering. I agree, but I ask for whom it is enabling, and at what cost. The transition that we are aiming at has to be fair, balanced and practical, and these amendments would simply introduce a modest, reasonable safeguard to ensure that the wider motoring public is not unduly disadvantaged as infrastructure for electrical vehicles is rolled out.

Amendments 52 and 57—I am willing to address the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, even though she cannot be bothered to address mine—raise the same issue that I have highlighted. By allowing private charging points to extend into the public sphere, these measures would in effect reserve and privatise particular road space for the benefit of particular residents and exclude the general public from parking in those bays even when they were free. Perhaps some means could be found whereby the general public could park in them when they were free, but nobody has proposed what this mechanism is.

It is incumbent on the noble Baroness to address this question. In a world where there was limitless parking space, these issues would not arise, but her amendments aim specifically at those places where there is relatively high density. Places where properties do not have their own driveway or on-site parking space tend to be those with higher levels of density—those are the ones she wants to address—and often they are more mixed economically. As I say, that question of equity is important too.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interests as a taxi proprietor and driver of a wheelchair-accessible taxi. The reason why it is wheelchair-accessible is that I introduced that feature into the manufacture of taxis when I ran that business. I also introduced bus ramps to make low-floor buses accessible, and for some years ran the powered-wheelchair finance business Motability. I was also an electric vehicle entrepreneur, making an electric delivery vehicle— a business I started in 2004. I also declare that my wife and I have an eldest son who is disabled with learning difficulties.

The reason for my Amendment 55 follows the statistic that, in this country, fewer than 3% of public electric vehicle charging points are considered safe and reliable for drivers with accessibility needs. Without the protective measures I am putting forward, drivers with disabilities will likely see no end to the struggle of charging their car safely and reliably. This is an essential activity; it should not be yet another barrier for disabled individuals to carry out their day-to-day lives.

This amendment is modest in scope but vital in purpose. It would surely give the Government the power, if needed in the future, to make compliance with existing accessibility standards obligatory. It is an enabling measure, not an immediate imposition. Many EV drivers rely on the public network to charge their car. We know that around 40% of UK households do not have a driveway, for instance, and therefore have no easy access to home charging. We also know that disability and poverty are strongly correlated, meaning that drivers with disabilities are even less likely to own a private driveway and a home charger. It is therefore deeply troubling that most of the public network is unable to meet even basic accessibility needs.

According to EVA England, nearly half of all drivers, with or without disabilities, have experienced problems using public charge points. They cite heavy cables, high kerbs, obstructed bays and payment terminals that are too high or awkwardly placed. For many disabled drivers, these are not small irritations but complete barriers to participation. In July, electric vehicles made up around 25% of new sales, but in the Motability scheme, which supports drivers with disabilities, they represented 12%—less than half. Why are disabled people not choosing electric vehicles? It is because they cannot recharge them. Indeed, a full quarter of Motability drivers say that they entirely avoid public chargers because of accessibility issues. That is not a future issue but a crisis of access now.

The Department for Transport took an important step in 2022 by publishing an accessibility standard, PAS 1899, designed to address these issues. However, as of today, hardly any public charge points meet that standard, largely because the parts and design requirements have yet to be fully adopted by industry. A revised version is being developed, with input from consumer groups and manufacturers. It is expected to offer a workable compromise between what industry can deliver and what disabled drivers need but, when it comes, it will again be entirely voluntary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important issue: the huge frustrations around roadworks, in particular utility works. As mentioned, lane rental schemes exist in places such as London, and other highway authorities are also setting them up in England. For our Benches, though, this is an issue of localism. Although the Government can always share best practice, we think that it is for local and regional areas to develop schemes that suit their locality and their needs. We do not see the need for this amendment at this point, but we await the Minister’s response with interest.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. As I said when we discussed this matter in Committee, it seems perfectly obvious that the powers of Transport for London in relation to lane rental should be available to highways authorities in the rest of the country. There is no objection to their operation in London. They work reasonably well; nothing works perfectly, of course, and there will always be roads that are blocked. Speaking from my own experience, I think there have been continuous highways works on Knightsbridge, including the tunnel, for the whole of the past 12 months, including at the moment. None the less, I am sure they would be even worse if we did not have a lane rental scheme in London. It should be available to the rest of the country. My noble friend Lord Jamieson is speaking common sense; I hope the Minister will agree with him and accept the amendment.

High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it was a great privilege to chair the committee during this inquiry and I am grateful for the kind remarks that have been made by noble Lords. The process must have addled my brain to some extent because I had absolutely convinced myself that I had put my name down to speak in this debate, only to realise too late that I had not, so I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution in the gap. I would like to use part of it, of course, to thank the clerks and officer support that we had during the inquiry, in particular our clerk Kate Wallis, our policy analyst Andrea Ninomiya, Sarah Carrington, who organised the committee operations so very well, and Dervish Mertcan, who reached out to our global press audience. I should mention the people we take for granted to some extent: the engagement team and, particularly, the technology team. I have now realised after three years, nearly, of chairing the committee that we take for granted the fact of all these wonderful people organising our room, our technology and everything, and we never thank them, so I would like to do that today. Of course, our external specialist adviser Dr Lucy Montague is an expert on this subject and made a real difference to our deliberations.

This is only a short contribution. The contents of the report and of the Government’s response have been aired thoroughly in the course of the debate, so perhaps I can turn myself briefly to a slightly different topic. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred to the degradation of the high street consequent on the presence of so many betting shops. I was watching BBC News only a few weeks ago when it did a report, spread over several bulletins, of even greater degradation on the high streets. This involves the takeover of many of our high streets, not necessarily in pleasant county towns, but in many of our cities, by so-called barber shops, which never have any customers, and mini-markets that never sell anything, or they do because if you want to get some illegal cigarettes, with no tax paid, obviously—that is taken for granted—often imported cigarettes with no recognisable branding, which could contain anything at all, then that is the place to go. You will get them for a couple of pounds a packet, way below the price that you would pay for a legitimate packet of cigarettes. That is their main business —that and money laundering. The fact that they are so inherently profitable on the proceeds of criminal activity means that no legitimate business can compete with them in terms of paying rent.

We see this in the heart of London. You see premises of this character even in Oxford Street, which is meant to be our showcase high street—our showcase retail street—for the nation. The news bulletin on the BBC showed raids being carried out by local trading standards officers, but I think behind them were His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency to some extent, so the authorities are aware. These are only the surface—the epiphenomena—of a network that brings crime and misery internationally. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to say that the Government are cognisant of what is now a serious threat to many of our high streets and that action will be taken across a broad front, not simply occasionally for the benefit of TV cameras, although I do not mean to deprecate in any sense the effort that was made to bring enforcement on that particular occasion. I hope that this will be carried out on a broad front, because it is a profound threat to our high streets and one that, sadly, the committee did not have an opportunity to explore, so I am glad to mention it now.

Housing: Modern Methods of Construction

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham for introducing this debate, especially when I had to withdraw due to a change of circumstances. It was a privilege for me to chair the short inquiry into modern methods of construction, undertaken by the Built Environment Select Committee. I add a word of thanks, although time precludes me from naming them all, to the clerks and the team that supported that inquiry when we undertook it.

Ten years ago, modern methods of construction were the future, particularly the top level of MMC, which is modular construction, where a whole unit—a whole home—can be built off-site, more or less, and be delivered to the site. However, in the last couple of years, most of the firms engaged in that activity have either withdrawn from the market or closed. The purpose of our inquiry was to try to find out why.

Time precludes me from explaining at great length why that is, but we certainly found disarray at the heart of government. The policy was good, but the implementation was almost totally absent. Reference has been made to the committee that never met. I also refer to the strange attitude of Homes England, which claimed that it had a strategy in the shape of the five Ss—five words that all began with S—but when we asked for the document that underlaid the strategy, it was not able to produce it. I hope that the new Government will look very carefully at that.

What is the role of government in this? It is very important for the Government to have a regulatory role that unblocks some of the things identified by my noble friend when he introduced the debate. I would be very cautious on one matter: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that you cannot switch a factory on and off. Many of these firms are demanding a pipeline but, as he said, every factory needs a pipeline. Why is it that the Government should supply the pipeline in this case, rather than encouraging these firms to go out and find and create their own market?

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The problem is evident and not disputed, but the solutions are clearly debatable.

We support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, as we share his concerns. The insurance scheme in the Bill, without the permitted insurance payment being set at something nominal such as £5 or £10 a year, could become another cost centre for freeholders. We know how difficult it is for freeholders, especially on larger developments, to get like-for-like quotes. Often, brokers will not even quote, which makes challenging at tribunal very difficult, especially when the freeholder claims that their fees are for works done and not pure commission. It is good for there to be a backstop in the insurance scheme in the Bill, so that brokers are fairly remunerated, while ensuring that other parties in the distribution chain, including freeholders, are banned from profiteering from the captive leaseholders who pay but do not get to choose the policy.

Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and signed by my noble friend Lady Pinnock,

“would prohibit landlords from claiming litigation costs from tenants other than under limited circumstances determined by the Secretary of State”.

Clause 60 puts limits on the right of landlords to claim litigation costs from tenants. When the Bill was in the Commons, the Minister said that

“unjust litigation costs should not be incurred”—[Official Report, Commons, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill Committee, 25/1/2024; col. 347.]

by leaseholders—and we agree—but the Bill as drafted does not go far enough in preventing that happening. There will be circumstances in which it is appropriate for leaseholders to bear those costs, but we believe that Amendment 82 makes provision for that. The presumption should be that the costs are not borne by the leaseholder, unless in circumstances specified by the Secretary of State.

My noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 80 would require the Financial Conduct Authority

“to report on the impact of the provisions in the bill around insurance costs in order to monitor progress on reducing costs passed on to leaseholders”.

I am pleased to say that the Law Society also supports the amendment. Rising insurance premiums have sent service charges soaring in the last few years, mostly due to the costs associated with remediation works following the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire. That means that even the leaseholders who can access funding to help them pay for vital works to their buildings are still paying the price to remedy a problem that they did not cause.

Clause 57 places a limitation on the ability of landlords to charge insurance costs to leaseholders. This is a very welcome step in the right direction. It is essential that this provision works as intended to protect leaseholders from extortionate costs. The Financial Conduct Authority’s report into insurance for multi-occupancy buildings, published in September 2022, found not only that premiums were rising, with mean prices increasing by 125% in the period from 2016 to 2021, but that the level of commission rates for brokers was

“an area of significant concern”,

with eye-watering rates of up to 60% being seen.

The FCA also found that brokers were sharing commission with the freeholder or the property management agent, meaning that they were unfairly profiting from leaseholders. Commission—and not cover or costs—was therefore the driving factor in the choice of policy. The provisions in the Bill to limit the ability of landlords to charge insurance costs to leaseholders, alongside the Bill’s increased transparency requirement, should—one hopes—go a long way to protect leaseholders. We also note that as of 1 January this year, the regulator will force insurance firms to act in leaseholders’ best interests and to treat them as a customer when designing products. They will be banned from recommending an insurance policy based on commission or remuneration level. It is clearly very early days, but we hope to see some improvement from that.

There is, of course, the argument that the Government should go further. A cap on service charges for leaseholds, especially at a fixed amount rather than as a percentage, has been suggested as a way to properly protect leaseholders from unreasonable costs. We would, therefore, want to place a requirement on the FCA, whose thorough report provided the impetus for these provisions, to assess whether it has had an impact in reducing costs for leaseholders and preventing freeholders and managing agents profiting off them. We hope that the provisions of the Bill will provide the necessary relief for leaseholders, who are clearly facing exorbitant costs. It will, however, be essential that the Government keep a close eye on the impact of Clause 57 and take action if it is not going far enough.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, does have some amendments in this group—I looked very worriedly at this point. On the surface, they appear to be about making the process simpler and easier, which is probably a good thing and worth consideration. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I had assumed that the noble Baroness had risen to speak to the amendment standing in the name of her noble friend Lady Pinnock. I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group. Although there are eight of them, they fall into three broad topics, so I hope to dispose of them fairly quickly.

The first are Amendments 81 and 81A. These relate to the ability of right-to-manage companies to bring legal proceedings and charge the costs to the service charge. The effect of the Bill is that freeholders will not be able to charge legal costs to the service charge unless they obtain a ruling from a tribunal. In the case of right-to-manage companies exercising the functions of the freeholder, they have no source of income apart from the service charge. If they are not able to charge their legal costs to the service charge, then they will not be able to bring legal action at all. In fact, without that ability, they would not even be able to initiate legal action unless the directors of the company were willing to fund the preliminary legal activities from their own pockets. If they were willing to do that, and they proceeded to court, they might find that the court or tribunal did not find that they were entitled to recover their costs or find that they could recover only part of their costs as a result. Again, they would have no recourse to any source of funds apart from their own individual pockets in such circumstances.

The second amendment, Amendment 81A, would extend this provision not just to right-to-manage companies but to residential management companies. Right-to-manage companies were established under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, but there are other residential management companies that exist that are not right-to-manage companies under that Act. These two amendments are alternatives; they are both probing.

I have heard that the Government are aware that this is a problem and are willing to do something to address it, so I hope that this particular probe will find a positive response from my noble friend on the Front Bench, because it cannot seriously be the Government’s intention to make it virtually impossible for anyone to become a director of a right-to-manage company without having to face serious personal financial risks that were never envisaged when RTM companies were established in 2002.

Amendments 81B, 81C, 81D and 81E all work together. They relate to a different problem, which is that the Bill allows a court or tribunal to award costs to a freeholder in certain circumstances specified in the Bill. However, if these costs are not paid, the only recourse the freeholder has is to go back to the court and seek a new judgment to have the costs awarded to them, whereas the normal method of dealing with such a matter is to make a simple online claim for a judgment in default. That course of action is precluded, as I understand the Bill, in the case of freeholders seeking to recover the legal costs that have been awarded to them. All this will do is burden the courts with more applications, which can and should be, and are normally, dealt with through an online process that takes a few weeks to go through. That surely should be available to freeholders.

The third topic in this group relates to Amendments 82A and 82B. These, again, are probing amendments to understand why the Government are extending the protection in relation to legal costs to all leaseholders, when surely the intention must be to extend it to those leaseholders who are home owners—that is, who own the property that is the subject of the legal dispute. The Bill has the effect of giving this protection also to investor leaseholders—those who hold the property entirely as an investment. I do not understand the Government’s logic in doing this, and these amendments probe that by suggesting that it should benefit home owners only.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for introducing this group, setting the context for this debate about insurance payments and asking for clarity in relation to his amendment, which I am sure was also the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in asking for clarity with one of his amendments and probing efficiency in his other amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about the extortionate increases in insurance charges passed on to leaseholders. We found that the risk price that insurers charged between 2016 and 2021 pretty much doubled. The brokerage charge increased by more than three times. The service charges added on increased by about 160%, so they more than doubled, and those charges were passed on to leaseholders.

I will quickly speak to Amendment 82, in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This new clause would prohibit landlords from claiming litigation costs from tenants other than in limited circumstances determined by the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Moylan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for their amendments in this group. I will take them in turn.

Amendment 79, moved by my noble friend Lord Bailey, aims to ensure that insurance brokers’ remuneration is linked to market rates. It also aims to prevent wrongdoing. We share the intent of this amendment and are committed to introducing a fair, transparent and enforceable approach to insurance remuneration. We also recognise that insurance brokers are an important party in the provision of insurance. Given that, this amendment pre-empts the content of secondary legislation. Following Royal Assent, we will consult on what would constitute a permitted insurance payment, then lay the necessary secondary legislation before Parliament. This will clarify what remuneration will be permitted by those involved in the arranging and managing of insurance. My noble friend Lord Bailey spoke with his customary passion. We continue to welcome his views and the Minister remains keen to meet. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 80 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. I assure all noble Lords that this Government are committed to banning building insurance commissions for landlords and managing agents and replacing these with transparent handling fees, to address excessive and opaque commissions being charged to leaseholders. The amendment seeks that within one year of the day on which Clause 57 comes into force, the FCA conducts a report into the impact of this clause in reducing instances of unreasonable insurance costs being passed on to leaseholders.

We agree in principle with monitoring the impact of the clause and, more widely, that insurance costs must be reasonable. The FCA has been closely monitoring the multi-occupancy buildings insurance market in recent years, has strengthened its rules on fair value, and provides regular updates. The most recent update to the Secretary of State was published on 29 February. We will continue to work closely with the FCA and other stakeholders to develop our secondary legislation and in monitoring buildings insurance. Please be assured that this is an area on which we, and the FCA, are keeping a close eye. I hope that with this reassurance, the noble Baroness will not move this amendment.

Amendments 81 and 81A were tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan; I will take them together. Amendment 81 seeks to exempt right-to-manage companies from the requirement for landlords to apply to the relevant court or tribunal to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders through the service charge. This amendment would apply where the right-to-manage company is exercising the functions of the landlord. Amendment 81A seeks to exempt “non-profit entities” from the requirement for landlords to apply to the relevant court or tribunal in order to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders through the service charge. The amendment provides examples of types of “non-profit entities”, including resident management companies and right-to-manage companies.

Clause 60 seeks to protect leaseholders from being charged unjust litigation costs from their landlord. It does this by requiring landlords to successfully apply to the relevant court or tribunal in order to recover their litigation costs, either through the service charge or as an administration charge. The court or tribunal will make an order that it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.

We understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments. The Government recognise the position of resident-led buildings. That is why the reforms also include provision to set out in regulations those matters which the relevant court or tribunal must consider when making an order on an application. The Government will carefully consider the detail of these matters with stakeholders and the tribunal, including where a building is resident-led. We would be concerned that the exemption provided by Amendments 81 and 81A would leave leaseholders with little protection from paying unjust litigation costs where a resident management company or a right-to-manage company is in place. I ask my noble friend not to move his amendments. However, it goes without saying that this is a complex area of reform and we are considering the issue carefully.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is unsatisfactory if this is to be left to secondary legislation. Bearing in mind that the directors of the right-to-manage company are elected by the leaseholders, and can be replaced by them, and that they are really one entity, what is to happen if the tribunal decides not to make an award of costs? How are the directors to recover that money and who would become a director in those circumstances if they did not have that assurance in advance?

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I will have to pick that up at a later date. There are a number of variables in that circumstance. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for not having an answer to hand. I will certainly take this up with the department, rather than saying something that is incorrect at the Dispatch Box. My noble friend is absolutely right to raise it as an issue. It is under certain circumstances that those individuals find themselves in that situation, but I am more than happy to take that away and then write to my noble friend.

I turn to Amendments 81B to 81E, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. As I have previously said, Clause 60 seeks to protect leaseholders from unjustified litigation costs by requiring landlords to successfully apply to the court or tribunal to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders. This replaces the right that leaseholders currently have to apply to the courts to limit their liability for landlords’ litigation costs. The relevant court or tribunal will make an order on a landlord’s application that is just and equitable in the circumstances.

Amendments 81B and 81D seek to amend the provision that allows the court or tribunal to make a decision on the landlord’s application for their litigation costs that it considers

“just and equitable in the circumstances”.

Instead, the amendment stipulates that where a landlord is successful in relevant proceedings, the court or tribunal will allow the landlord to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders—unless the landlord has acted unreasonably. We understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments—to minimise the amount of court or tribunal hearings. However, the Government have a few concerns with the amendment.

The amendment would mean that the court or tribunal would always need to make an order that the landlord can recover their litigation costs from leaseholders where the landlord had been successful in proceedings in whole or in part. The only exception is where the landlord has acted unreasonably. Of course, where a landlord is successful in bringing or defending a claim, we would expect that the court or tribunal would allow them to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders. However, there may be a range of variables and nuances that occur in disputes which need consideration on a case-by-case basis.

The Government think the relevant court or tribunal is best placed to assess applications for costs, taking into account the circumstances of each case. In addition, the measures currently provide for regulations to set matters which the court or tribunal will consider when making a decision on costs applications, which we will consider carefully with stakeholders and the tribunal.

Amendments 81C and 81E seek to allow landlords to recover their litigation costs, where allowed under the lease, without needing to make an application to the relevant court or tribunal in certain circumstances. These circumstances include where proceedings before the county court are subject to a judgment in default, where litigation costs have been incurred in relation to forfeiture proceedings or where proceedings against a landlord have been struck out or are settled before the first hearing. Again, the Government have concerns about these amendments. For example, if a landlord is unsuccessful in proceedings of forfeiture against a leaseholder, this amendment would allow them to recover their litigation costs from a leaseholder regardless. These amendments would also make the provisions more complex, with different rules applying to different scenarios. We completely understand the intention behind my noble friend’s amendments. However, for these reasons, I ask that he does not press them.

Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Pinnock, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, seeks to prohibit landlords from recovering their litigation costs from leaseholders apart from in excepted circumstances to be set out in regulations. Clauses 60 and 61 already seek to rebalance the litigation costs regime for leaseholders in an effective and proportionate way. As I have previously noted, Clause 60 will require a landlord to successfully apply to the relevant court or tribunal in order to recover their litigation costs from a leaseholder. This applies whether the landlord is seeking to recover their litigation costs as a service charge or an administration charge. I also note that Clause 61 gives leaseholders a new right to apply to the relevant court or tribunal to claim their litigation costs from their landlord. For both landlord and leaseholder applications, the relevant court or tribunal will make a decision on costs in the circumstances of each case. Taken together, these measures will rebalance the litigation costs regime and remove barriers to leaseholders challenging their landlord. We believe the Government’s approach strikes the balance of being robust but proportionate. Therefore, I respectfully ask that they do not press this amendment.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 82A and 82B from my noble friend Lord Moylan. Currently, in the tribunal and for particular court tracks, leaseholders can claim their litigation costs from their landlord only in very limited circumstances even when they win. This may deter leaseholders from being legally represented or from challenging their landlord in the first place. As I have previously said, Clause 61 gives leaseholders a new right to apply to the court or tribunal to claim their litigation costs from their landlord where appropriate. As with the landlord application for costs, the court or tribunal will make an order that it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.

Amendments 82A and 82B seek to amend the new leaseholder right so that it applies only to home owners rather than investor leaseholders. Amendment 82B provides the definition of a “homeowner lease” so that the leaseholder right applies only to a leaseholder of a dwelling which is their only or principal home. Exempting certain leaseholders from this right would restrict access to redress where we are seeking to remove barriers. For example, there may be instances where a leaseholder who privately lets their flat needs to take their landlord to court because they are failing to maintain the building, which is impacting their property. In these circumstances, we would want the leaseholder to feel able to hold their landlord to account. Providing leaseholders with rights, regardless of whether they are home owners or investors, is in line with the approach we have taken throughout the Bill. Such an exemption would be out of step and will add complexity to the measures. Therefore, I ask my noble friend not to press his amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

May I ask the indulgence of the Committee? I should have declared when I spoke—as I did earlier in debate—that I live in a building which is run by a right-to-manage company of which I am a director, as is shown in the register of interests. I should have said that in my opening remarks, but I hope I will be forgiven for adding it now.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, our amendment in this group refers to the fact that the Bill currently makes an exception to litigation costs being borne by landlords in the case where right-to-manage claims have been withdrawn or otherwise ceased early and the right-to-management company has acted unreasonably in bringing the right-to-management claim, allowing the landlord to apply to the tribunal for any reasonable costs.

The key arguments for the amendment are that, first, leaseholders should not be put at risk of having to pay costs simply for exercising statutory rights, in this case the right to seek to acquire and exercise rights in relation to the management of premises in which one has a leasehold interest. There is also concern that unscrupulous landlords might use the rights provided for in new Section 87B of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 as a means of recovering costs from right-to-manage companies that act reasonably and in good faith and, by implication, that it would discourage right-to-manage companies from initiating a claim because of the financial risk it still entails for individual participating leaseholders. Put simply, the fear is that new Section 87B will incentivise unscrupulous landlords to fight claims on the basis that they are defective in the hope of recovering costs by means of it. Our main concern regarding Clause 48 is that the use of the words “reasonable fee” and “reasonable costs” would not allow either of the above situations to occur. I ask the Minister: who will determine the definition of “reasonable”, and how?

I will comment on other amendments. We think that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, are very reasonable, and we support his aims here. In fact, colleagues in the other place submitted similar amendments in Committee.

I also look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, introduce his amendments, which would incorporate local authorities and their properties, both within the HRA and without, but I ask whether he had discussions about this proposal with the Local Government Association or local authority stockholders. Most good local authority landlords already have substantial arrangements in place for liaison with leaseholders and tenants around the management of property, and there is certainly no issue with improving that through more effective right-to-manage arrangements. However, as much local authority property will be occupied by a mixture of local authority tenants and leaseholders, it would be important to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. I urge that that level of consultation takes place before any proposal such as this proceeds further. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will forgive me if he has already done that consultation, but it was not clear from the amendments. With that, I beg to move Amendment 60.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness. I will come to answering her question. To give a blunt answer, I have not undertaken the consultation that she refers to, but I will explain when I get to that part of my introduction why I think that this stands on its own.

As I said at Second Reading, I strongly support those parts of the Bill which facilitate the exercise of the right to manage on the part of leaseholders in residential blocks. There are several measures in the Bill which do that. The right to manage is, in some ways, the crucial key to unlocking the levels of dissatisfaction which some leaseholders have with the way in which their blocks are managed. I strongly support it.

There is a particular issue which the Bill does not address. As a consequence of my general support for this—contrary to my remarks in earlier debates— I hope that the Government will give me a softer and more welcoming answer. As a result of my proposal, perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will even give me one of those answers which invites me to attend a meeting. In fact, I have had a meeting with my noble friend about this, though she may not recall it. We met last summer to discuss this issue with officials, and she was very sympathetic to it. That gives me additional reasons for thinking that this might be a welcome amendment.

The amendment arises from a particular case, but it raises questions of general importance. I shall refer to the case later, but I want to address the question of general importance first. When the right to manage was introduced through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, certain exceptions were placed on it. The Government intend to ease some of those restrictions, and I welcome that. One restriction was that the right to manage did not apply where the landlord of the building was a local housing authority.

I have tabled two alternative amendments—this is my point about consultation. Both amendments would reverse that assumption. One would eliminate it entirely. It would bring within the ambit of right to manage all blocks where the local housing authority was the landlord, including those within the housing revenue account. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said that this could raise certain difficulties in cases where a block had so many long lease holders that it could exercise the right to manage but would be left with certain local authority tenants in the block. I have experience of local government, as does the noble Baroness. I recognise that she is correct in saying that there might be certain sensitivities about this. I think it could be managed. Indeed, it would be liberating for all the tenants of the block in many ways. The local authority tenants would also have a say in the management of the block. They would not be excluded from it simply because they were local authority tenants.

Recognising that this is a slightly daring proposition, I have suggested an alternative which would simply take out of the provision local housing authority-owned blocks where they were owned simply as an investment. I have left it vague as to whether that is a commercial investment or one held in the local authority’s pension fund. These are probing amendments. I should be happy to discuss these issues with my noble friend the Minister.

I come now to a particular case. There are blocks where local authorities have acquired property as an investment. Doing so immediately extinguishes the right of the long lease holders to exercise their right to manage—there are no local authority tenants. I think that is wrong. The case I am thinking of concerns a block acquired by a London local authority from a commercial property investment trust, bought at market value as an investment. The local authority, the new owner, was dissatisfied with the accounts inherited from the previous manager—it had their own manager for the block. As a result, it has not been able to put satisfactory accounts together for the last three years. As a consequence, it has not had the legal standing to issue invoices to its tenants for its service charges. It has been running the building’s operating costs out of the capital sums that had been set aside as a sinking fund to pay for future improvements to the building. It is all very unsatisfactory.

That is a classic situation in which long leaseholders would normally exercise the right to manage but, completely arbitrarily, are precluded from doing so. That is wrong. We should facilitate this.

At the very least, my noble friend should welcome my second amendment, Amendment 62, and say that where a local authority acquires a property for commercial purposes—not for the housing of its tenants but as an investment, either in its own name or as part of its pension fund—the right to manage would be restored. The financial interests of the local authority would be preserved, as they are under the current arrangements. It is simply that the right to manage the building would be taken over by the long leaseholders, as elsewhere, and they would manage it in just the same way as in all the other right-to-manage arrangements we are so much in favour of.

I will stop at that point because I have simply made my case, but this is a strange omission from the current arrangements, and one that we now have an opportunity to correct. I would be very happy to attend the meeting.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 65A and 65B. The Government should be applauded for their ambitions as laid out in the Bill. Let us hope that we can achieve them all. I put on record that I am pleased with the Government’s direction of travel, because some of my interventions up until now may have seemed slightly belligerent, but can my noble friend the Minister provide some reassurance around the Government’s stated aim of a revolution in the right to manage? That would help to address what, for me, is at the heart of what I consider the leasehold scandal, which is really about control. Leaseholders in England and Wales are unique in the lack of control that they have. Worldwide, leaseholders and those with commonhold and many other types of tenure have much more control. I believe that is something the Bill can address, and the Government have to demonstrate that they want to deliver on it. Indeed, it was our own Secretary of State who said that he wants to see a revolution in the right to manage.

I put on record my colleagues Nickie Aiken and Barry Gardiner, who brought a very similar amendment in the other place. Amendment 65A seeks to ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use property who would otherwise qualify for the right to manage because 50% or more of the floorspace is residential, but because of a technicality—a boiler or an underground car park—are prevented from having that management given to them, still have that right. The current test means that you have to demonstrate that your building is self-contained or that the residential part is partly self-contained, but the layout of the building might suggest that it is not self-contained due to an underground car park or boiler room, when actually it is.

The Law Commission saw these two tests as too strict. It suggested that a third test could be set whereby, if it could be demonstrated that people are reasonably capable of managing the residential area fully independently, they should be given access to this power. As I have stated in most of the debate, the thing that most drives me is the potential for the abuse of service charging. Giving residents control over their assets is clearly the answer to that.

The amendment does not mean that leaseholders can take over the management of shops, hotels or commercial premises. That is not the idea of the amendment. The right to manage applies exclusively to the residential parts, such as corridors and lift lobbies —parts of the building used only by residents. The amendment does not seek to change that position.

At Second Reading, I made the point that even the leading freeholder lobby group pointed out that free- holders own, at best, only 2.5% of the capital interest in the buildings they have the freehold of. That leads me to my other amendment, Amendment 65B. We must lower the threshold at which a group of people can take over the management of that lease. It is currently at 50%. I suggest that it should be at around 35%—again, to help the Government achieve their stated aim of a revolution in right to manage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I have asked to speak to the amendments in this group, which is a bit shorter than it would have been had the Clause 47 stand part notice remained. That was certainly something on which I would have urged the Government to stand firm.

We strongly support Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Anyone who has done a bit of googling on the right to manage can see that right-to-manage claims by leaseholders are often fiercely opposed by freeholders. What is meant to be a so-called no-fault process can involve costly and stressful litigation for leaseholders, as freeholders drag the right to manage claim into the tribunal system. Freeholders gameplay and try to block RTM bids, because the right to manage signifies loss of their control and ability to rip off leaseholders in perpetuity.

Against this backdrop of right-to-manage cases going to tribunal and becoming the subject of “lawfare” by freeholders, it is surely reasonable to ensure that right-to-manage companies cannot incur costs in instances where claims cease. The way things stand, it is clearly intended to be a disincentive to leaseholders to seek the right to manage, and that imbalance cannot be right. Some noble Lords may remember the Canary Gateway case: it took an outrageous four years for the shared-ownership leaseholders to secure their right to manage, with the freeholder-driven litigation going as far as the Court of Appeal.

Turning to Amendments 61 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we on these Benches would support them in principle as they are increasingly sold as access to the right to manage. However, they stand in stark contrast to the noble Lord’s other amendments, which sought to reduce leaseholder access to collective enfranchisement and right to manage.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I hesitated and thought about cutting that bit out, but go on.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The noble Baroness could not expect to get away with that. Any attempt to cast me as a as a poodle of freeholders and opposed to leaseholders is bound to be foiled because it is untrue. I have made it clear throughout that I strongly support the right to manage and its extension. This is very different from expropriation of somebody else’s property. This is simply a technique for managing a building and managing it well.

I should also say while I am on my feet that when we exercised the right to manage in the block in which I live, many years ago, the freeholder was highly supportive because they were sick to death of the managing agent as well, and realised that their building would be managed a great deal better by us, as it has been. They have an interest in the building being well managed: they want the roof to be repaired; they want the facade not to fall off in chunks in the street because, after all, they, too, whatever else is said, have a long-term interest in the building.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My comments were not about right to manage. That was a good segue into another short speech by the noble Lord.

However, we are conscious that expanding right to manage to leaseholders under local authority landlords was never considered by the Law Commission, nor put out to public consultation. We are unsure whether the Government have done policy work in this area. It is a whole other ball game and will be challenging. But, in principle, given that many local authorities have been guilty of significant and tragic failures of service, to put it mildly, this should be a right of local authority tenants too. But it will be complex, for many of the reasons that were well outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.

It is also worth reminding ourselves that local authority leaseholders have, since 1994, been able to take over management through tenant management organisations. I do not believe any work has been done regarding their success or otherwise. But such a review could ignite and inform this topic on another occasion. We welcome the probe by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and also the subtleties of his alternative proposals, and will certainly attend the said—and very popular —meeting.

Finally, I come to Amendments 65A and 65B, in the name of Lord Bailey of Paddington. The aim of Amendment 65A is a good one: to ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use buildings can avail themselves of the right to manage. At the House of Commons Public Bill Committee in January, MPs heard that many leaseholders in mixed-use buildings would still be unable to benefit from the reforms in the Bill to take over management—because, as the noble Lord said, of the existence of, say, a shared plant room or car park, under rules regarding structural dependency and self-containment. The existence of a plant room or other infrastructure is something decided by the original developer and leaseholders have no control over these factors, so it feels unfair to exclude them from right to manage based on the way a block has been designed, especially if they qualify under the new 50% non-residential premises limit.

Amendment 65B would put rocket boosters under the right to manage, opening it up to far more leaseholders. We on these Benches support the amendment and the intent behind it. Members in the other place have raised concerns that the 50% trigger is too high. The 50% participation limit on right to manage was also flagged as an issue by leaseholder campaigners at the Commons Public Bill Committee in January.

There may be concerns about 50% being less than a majority, but, as the noble Lord said, many leaseholders will never be able to obtain 50% support because of the high levels of buy to let in their block. But ultimately the Committee was persuaded of the case to bring down the 50% threshold. It is not right that just one person—the freeholder or landlord—has such control over leaseholders and can impact almost at will on their finances. As the noble Lord’s amendment suggests, 35% of leaseholders triggering a right to manage, with a right to participate for remaining leaseholders who did not originally get involved, is a far better situation than rule by one freeholder, whose interests, as the Law Commission concluded, are diametrically opposed to that of the leaseholder. Leaseholder self-rule with right to manage and a 35% participation threshold is a much more democratic state of affairs. Let us be honest: many councillors and MPs are elected to govern on much less than 50% of the vote—in fact, usually around 35%.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for Amendment 60, which would leave new Section 87B out of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. This is a new power, inserted into the 2002 Act by the Bill, for the tribunal to order the repayment of a landlord’s process costs for right to manage claims which are withdrawn or cease to have effect in circumstances where a right to manage company has acted unreasonably.

The noble Baroness asked who would decide what was reasonable or unreasonable and the level of reasonableness. The costs will be determined by the tribunal, as is the case with other kinds of litigation or court proceedings.

While we strive to reduce costs for leaseholders, we do not believe it is right to do so where the right to manage company acts unreasonably in bringing a claim and the claim also fails. For example, landlords should not have to meet their own wasted process costs where leaseholders clearly make an unfeasible claim or fail to bring the claim to an end at an earlier stage.

The noble Baroness should be assured that the new power for the tribunal does not automatically entitle landlords to repayment. If the tribunal does not consider that costs should be payable, it can decline to make an order. Removing new Section 87B would expose landlords to unfair costs. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw her amendment.

I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 61 and 62. The amendments seek to remove or amend the existing exception to the right to manage for local authority premises so that the right can be used by their long lease holders. I should explain that there is a separate right to manage scheme for local authority secure tenants and leaseholders under the Housing Act 1985 and its relevant regulations. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 therefore excepted local authority leaseholders from the long-leasehold right to manage to avoid creating conflicting schemes.

The Bill delivers the most impactful of the Law Commission’s recommendations on the right to manage, including increasing the non-residential limit to 50% to give more leaseholders the right to take over management, and changing the rules to make each party pay their own process and litigation costs, saving leaseholders many thousands of pounds.

An alternative route to management is available in some local authority blocks that contain a mixture of tenants and leaseholders, where a prescribed number and proportion of secure tenants are in support of exercising the right. This involves setting up a tenant management organisation. It would complicate a system that we are trying to simplify if two separate routes were to apply to a single block, and the Law Commission made no recommendations on local authority leaseholders.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have some familiarity with the Housing Act 1985 from my time in local government. I am reasonably well aware of the obligation to create tenant management organisations, which are often not block-specific but estate-wide or, in many cases, spread across the entire local authority council housing stock. It seems a strange way to go about trying to exercise the right to manage if we are discussing a block held as an investment that has no local authority tenants. Can my noble friend assure me that the Housing Act 1985 is an effective means for leaseholders in the circumstances I describe to exercise their right to manage, when in fact it is an obligation on a local authority rather than a right granted to long lease holders?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We believe this is the correct way of doing it. I would be very happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this further but, with the evidence we have, we agree this is the correct way forward. But I really am very happy to meet with the noble Lord.