English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Lord Moylan and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I hope to be brief. I have two main topics to discuss here. No explanation has been given for including Clause 27, which has the effect of transferring to the Mayor of London powers, which currently rest with the Secretary of State, to give consent for the disposal of land owned by Transport for London.

I start by saying that I do not have a principled objection to giving more powers to Transport for London. In fact, when I think back to the pedicabs Bill, I was the one arguing against the Government’s initial proposal that the pedicab licensing regulations would have had to be approved by the Secretary of State in each case. That argument was eventually heard, so the Secretary of State has no say over the licensing of pedicabs in London; it rests entirely with Transport for London, which is the right place for it to rest. I only wish it would get on and do something about it, but that is another question.

I am not opposed in principle to transferring powers over Transport for London to the Mayor of London from the Secretary of State, but I am concerned about doing so in this case, because the land that belongs to Transport for London is very often necessary for operational purposes, although that is not always immediately apparent to the casual passer-by. The casual passer-by—that might include the mayor, who passes by occasionally—would see that land and perhaps see an opportunity for housing on it. If the mayor is responsible both for decisions relating to housing, as he is, and for decisions relating to the disposal of land by transport for London, he can be placed in a position that not only creates an inherent conflict but can create difficulties for Transport for London over time.

There is a further matter: sometimes the land owned by Transport for London is also accessible by Network Rail, and of course vice versa. We know that Transport for London runs services on a considerable amount of Network Rail assets, so the transfer of land that might be of value for operational purposes to another purpose—let us say housing, although it might be something different—could have an impact that is greater than simply one on Transport for London. It might be something to which Network Rail, for example, or Great British Railways in the future, had an objection—yet the Secretary of State, who would be the normal means through which they would articulate their objection, would not be empowered to take any steps. They would be left as simply one of a number of petitioners at the door of the Mayor of London, asking him to take their interests into account. So I am very cautious about this clause and I wonder whether it has been properly thought through. I do not understand the rationale for it, except in the general sense of, “We’ve got to devolve things, so here’s something we can devolve”. I am not sure this is something that should in fact be devolved.

My Amendment 119, and Amendment 118, which is consequential to it, would replace the duty on councils to implement local transport plans with a duty to have regard to them. This is inevitably a fine balance. I think we have all understood it and seen it in other contexts. But there is a real difference, in practice and in law, between being under a duty to implement and being under a duty to have regard. Being under a duty to implement is a very narrow, rigid requirement that will leave very little discretion for local transport authorities to take account of local circumstances. Again, I come back to what the Minister said a little while ago about local authorities being the people who know their area best. I think there is an argument at least—and this is a probing amendment—for exploring why the Government are not content with an arrangement whereby local transport authorities have a duty to have regard to the local transport plans rather than actually to implement them.

Finally, my Amendment 121 in this group relates to Schedule 10 and seeks to remove paragraph 14. As I understand paragraph 14, it effectively transfers responsibility for concessionary travel schemes from district and county councils to combined authorities, or combined county authorities once those bodies are established. There is an emotional bond in many cases between what I am going to call the bus pass and the local authority, which is of great significance both to local people and to the local authority. In fact, when I look at my own Freedom Pass, I see it says that it is funded by London Councils and HM Government. It used to say—not in my time but in years gone past—that it was funded by my local authority, which was named on the Freedom Pass.

That local link is tremendously important. It is one of the most important and valued services that local authorities supply to their residents. To remove the responsibility to the county authority and with it, no doubt, removing the name of the local authority from the pass, cutting that link, is very dangerous. It leaves in the air the question of who is paying for the Freedom Pass or bus pass that people have. Who is paying for it under these new arrangements? The reason why the local authority is entitled to have its name on it is because it is making a large financial contribution, sometimes the whole contribution. In London, the entire contribution comes from London local authorities. That is why they can have their name on it and is the basis of the bond that exists, but who is to carry that burden in the future? Who will be paying for it? Will that bond continue to be connected with the funder? These are important questions to explore. I would very much like to hear what the Minister has to say about them.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 118A, 118B, 119A and 119B in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I will come to Amendment 120F in a moment.

These four amendments look at how this Bill divides responsibility between strategic authorities and local highway authorities and the risk that that division creates if it is not handled carefully. As the Bill is drafted, strategic authorities are responsible for drawing up policy through local transport plans while responsibility for implementing most road-related measures remains with local highway authorities. On the surface, that might sound tidy; in practice, it risks creating confusion and delay. This concern is informed by last week’s judgment by the Court of Appeal, the first time that a court has examined equivalent provisions in Section 151 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which governs the duty of London boroughs to implement the mayor’s transport strategy.

The distinction between policies and proposals is important here. Local transport plans, such as climate plans, contain both. A policy might be to prioritise buses or to reduce speed limits in villages. A proposal is what turns that policy into reality: five miles of bus lane delivered each year or 20 miles an hour limits introduced in five villages annually. I would make it 10 miles an hour through villages, but I understand that people have to get to places.

Under this Bill, local authorities are required to implement policies but only to have regard to proposals. We have also seen amendments that would weaken this even further, reducing the duty to have regard only to policies, not even proposals. That stands in sharp contrast to the position in London where boroughs are under a clear obligation to deliver the proposals in the mayor’s transport strategy. Yet outside London, constituent authorities will have a vote on approving local transport plans, something that London boroughs do not have. Surely, if authorities help to shape and approve the plan, it makes sense that they should also be held to deliver what it contains. If proposals can simply be noted and then ignored, we risk gridlock, not only on our streets but in how decisions get made. Strategic plans will promise change while delivery stalls on the ground.

The pace of delivery now really matters. On climate alone, the Climate Change Committee has recommended a 7% modal shift by 2035 that requires major sustained investment in buses and active travel across most, if not all, local authorities. Electric vehicle sales are off target. Other sectors are falling behind. Transport remains the largest emitting sector. It will need to do more, not less. Reducing motor traffic is also essential for public health to cut pollution, much of which now comes from brake and tyre wear. We need to improve road safety and enable walking and cycling. There is also a strong economic case. All major parties now support denser towns and cities rather than continued building on greenfield land. That will not work without significant modal shift. Without it, congestion will worsen and quality of life will decline. These amendments would ensure coherence between strategy and delivery, reduce the risk of stalemate and give local transport plans the force needed to turn ambition into action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Schedule 9 of the Bill amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Its effect is to require mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities to prepare, publish and maintain a designation of a key route network within their area. I am not raising profound objections in principle to this, but I have some detailed questions.

Amendment 105 relates to the first paragraph of the schedule. Why must there be at least one road designated, even if nobody wants it? That appears to be the effect of 1(2)(1A)(c) of Schedule 9, Part 1, which states that

“if there is no highway or proposed highway in the CCA’s area that is designated as a key route network road, the mayor must prepare a proposed designation in relation to at least one highway or proposed highway”.

I hope that the Minister can explain why that should be, as it is not at all apparent.

Amendments 115A and 115B work together, seeking to define more closely what the key route network should consist of. At present, the term lacks a firm statutory definition. I assume that, when we discuss a key route network outside Greater London, the Minister has in mind, to some extent, the Transport for London road network in Greater London. That in itself was effectively taken over wholesale from the red route network that was established in the 1990s before the creation of the Greater London Authority and TfL. There has been amazingly little adjustment to that network since it was established. It has been the same roads, more or less, ever since.

There is no limit in this Bill on what roads could be designated. When the red routes were established in London, it was clearly the Government’s intention and practice that they should be the main roads. In this case, the key route network could be any road that the mayor and combined authority choose to designate—even side streets. These amendments, Amendments 115A and 115B, are probing because they are limiting the network to classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic. That seems to be sensible.

There is a related and minor issue, a subset of that. The Transport for London road network carries round the corner into side streets to an extent. That is what it was allowed to do when the red routes were established. It was possible to negotiate with the traffic director for London whether they should take the full amount of their entitlement in those side roads—I think it is 30 metres—or not.

These are important matters of local interest, because you might find that side streets with local parking and other local amenities that residents were used to become the equivalent of red routes, and you have very little say about it as a local authority. That is not good enough. We need this clarified in advance. There two levels of that: why not limit it to the main roads, and what are the Government going to do about the side road issue if they have that in mind, going round the corner?

Amendment 117 is intended entirely to be helpful to the Government. It seems that there is a clash here with the Road Traffic Reduction Act, in which principal local authorities are required to provide the information and do the forecasting and monitoring that the new combined authorities will do in respect of the key route network. The principal authorities are required to do it for roads in their area and, unless they are relieved of that obligation, they will do it for the key route networks as well. So, there will be two levels of authority carrying out the same monitoring, forecasting and reporting functions. That cannot be entirely what the Government intend, but, if it is, it is as well that we should know about it. I beg to move my amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will speak to Amendments 116 and 117A to 117G in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Amendment 116 probes the Government’s intentions around these powers, particularly in relation to key route networks and traffic regulation orders. As drafted, the Bill would allow mayors to be given a power to direct the exercise of certain road-related powers, including in relation to roads that are not part of the key route network and that therefore remain under the control of local or constituent authorities. The Secretary of State would then be able to issue guidance about how those powers are to be exercised. That raises some obvious questions. In what circumstances do the Government envisage these direction powers being used? What safeguards will exist to prevent them cutting across local decisions that have been made for reasons of safety, public health or community well-being?

Traffic regulation orders are often the mechanism by which councils introduce bus lanes, safer speed limits, low-traffic neighbourhoods or restrictions to protect residents. They are subject to consultation, legal tests and democratic accountability. There is understandable concern that new strategic powers could be used deliberately or inadvertently to undermine these local decisions. This amendment is about clarity and reassurance. Will the Minister confirm that the traffic management 2004 guidance will be revised to include guidance on key route networks? Will the Minister also ensure that such guidance prevents misuse by mayors, such as using KRN powers to undo traffic regulation orders made by local councils?

Amendments 117A to 117G seek to move the duty to report on traffic levels from the local and constituent authority level to the strategic level, on the basis that the latter has the greater responsibility and power to reduce traffic. As the Bill is currently drafted, the traffic reporting duty is tied to the use of key route network roads. This amendment would remove that limitation, so that the duty applies to all local roads within the area of the local transport authority. In doing so, it aligns the reporting duty with the full scope of the local transport plan.

The underlying issue here is one of responsibility. These amendments reflect the simple reality that strategic authorities, not individual constituent authorities, hold the main levers for reducing traffic across an area. Strategic authorities set and monitor the local transport plan. They determine the overall policy for all modes of travel. Through spatial development strategies, they decide where major development goes—decisions that fundamentally shape whether traffic is generated or avoided in the first place. They also promote and deliver the big-ticket transport schemes—trams, busways and other major public transport investments—and, increasingly, they will hold powers over enforcement and demand-management measures such as congestion charging. These are the tools that shift traffic levels at scale.

By contrast, local authorities have far fewer powers. Even where they do have powers, such as in implementing bus lanes or safer speed limits, those decisions are meant to flow from the strategic authority’s policies as set out in the local transport plan. Given that reality, it makes little sense to place on constituent authorities a fragmented traffic reporting duty that is limited to certain categories of road while the strategic authority is responsible for the policies and decisions that affect traffic across the whole network.

Of course, there is a real risk of unintended consequences. The proposed split would create a perverse incentive for constituent authorities to resist roads being designated as part of the key route network. Why agree to that designation if it means that a strategic authority acquires a traffic reduction duty for those roads but not for others? The danger is that this could lead to traffic being pushed off major routes and on to less suitable residential streets, which is exactly the opposite of what most communities want.

I am concerned that there is a coherent approach. Surely that means placing the responsibility for traffic reporting at the strategic authority level, covering all local roads in line with the scope of the local transport plan.

Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Moylan and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was so quick to assume that I was going to say something with which she would disagree. I hope, in fact, to disappoint her: she might be able to agree with what I am about to say. I added my name to the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 52. I am not sure that I necessarily agree with every detail of her amendment; the reason I added my name, now and in Committee, is that I strongly believe that we need greater clarity about the purpose of prison.

Other noble Lords have given some very good arguments and reasons as to why the right reverend Prelate’s amendment deserves support. I am not going to repeat those. I am just going to make one comment of my own—and I will try to be very brief—which is that there has been a very big change over the past 50 years. There was a notion—it was certainly current when I was young—that the purpose of prison was based on a classical notion of justice; that is, that the perpetrator had incurred a debt to society, a debt which was to be discharged by a fixed period of imprisonment, after which that perpetrator was free to go. Nowadays, we do not hear about that form of justice. The rhetoric and the argument we hear—it appears across all parties; it is not an accusation against this Government or this Minister—are that the purpose of prison is the protection of the public.

Now, that is a hopeless case. It is hopeless, first, because its logic ends with every prisoner being subject to an indefinite sentence. We are back to the thinking about IPP prisoners, to whom we are going to come later this evening. If the protection of the public is what you are aiming at, that is the logic of where you are going. Secondly, it says nothing about the prisoner; it is entirely outward looking towards the public. It leaves the prisoner there in prison, but to what purpose as far as their activity, their purpose while they are there, is concerned? That is why some of the suggestions made in the amendment, and the suggestions made by other noble Lords in this debate about activities for prisoners and facilities, are so important.

Thirdly, it has been one of the contributing factors to longer and longer sentences, because if you are constantly under pressure to think about protecting the public, and you have a huge 25 year-old man in front of you who has done something very violent and you are going to have to think about protecting the public when you send him down, you are going to have to think about quite a long sentence. I think that adds to the longer sentences which are at the root of the problem that we are facing and which this Bill is to some extent intended to address. We will not complete this task in the course of this debate, obviously, but at some stage we need to have serious thought about trying to get back to some notion of justice and querying this idea that the purpose of prison, and the purpose of the criminal justice system, is the protection of the public, because of the dangers I think that involves. It has crept into our thinking without a proper debate as to its consequences, and I think it deserves some challenge.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister has probably been in your Lordships’ House long enough to understand how rare it is that we are getting a degree of unanimity around the House on the amendments that we have debated so far. I am the first to admit that I am not particularly socially savvy when it comes to how people run the country, because I do not get the idea that we put people in prison for their own protection, when prison is a really dangerous place for vulnerable people to be. Also, as I have told the Minister before, I am extremely anxious about people being put in prison on remand for many months, because people on remand face the poorest access to healthcare and the highest rates of self-harm and are routinely held in the most overcrowded and unstable parts of the prison estate. Courts have no control over which prison they go to and for how long.

It seems that we are here trying to correct an injustice: that vulnerable women and children are put into a prison where they are clearly not safe is horrendous. I know that there is an inquiry about this, but the Minister is seeing and hearing from people who know where the problems lie, so I urge him to take this back to the Ministry of Justice—I am sure he will. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment, through the Mental Health Act, that remanding people for their own protection on mental health grounds is wrong, but this power has to be removed completely. It really does not fit with a decent society, and I would be very happy to vote for quite a few of these amendments if they went forward.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Moylan and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

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.