English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I also declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As a passionate localist, someone who strongly believes in devolving power to the lowest possible level, I was rather excited to hear that there was a devolution White Paper and subsequent Bill. But sadly, as for many of my noble friends, the excitement evaporated pretty quickly. The Bill is not about subsidiarity; it is Whitehall giving out a few goodies but with strings and budgets very much attached and controlled from the centre. This is not devolution in my book.

Compared with other OECD countries, the UK remains one of the most fiscally centralised countries. Data from the OECD’s revenue statistics shows that in recent years, no more than 6% of the UK’s total tax revenue has been raised locally. This is about half the OECD average. Whitehall needs to let go and devolve far more funding and services to local and regional government. Fiscal devolution—as we see in cities and localities around the world—alongside a fairer voting system, would allow local innovation and creativity and would help reset politics. Sadly, these are all absent from the Bill.

I will focus my concerns on a few specific areas. The Bill provides insufficient scrutiny of strategic mayors and authorities. The mayoral model is being rolled out across the country without the strong check and balance that is needed. In the Commons, the Minister said:

“I assure the Cttee we will consider how to strengthen the scrutiny of strategic authorities, because I completely agree that as they acquire more powers, it is right we have accountability and scrutiny frameworks that are robust and fit for purpose, to ensure they are held to account for how they use the powers we confer on them”.—[Official Report, Commons, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, 28/10/25; col. 521.]


Perhaps the Minister could update us on the work to strengthen the scrutiny of these new mayors.

There is also an assumption that London has had devolution through the 1999 Act and the amendment Act—tick, job done—but that is not the case. The reality is that the mayor has been given increasing areas to oversee over many years and now has a budget well over £21 billion. Yet the London Assembly, the other half of the Greater London Authority, has not seen an appropriate increase in its powers, and the Bill proposes even more powers to the mayor.

Having been an assembly member for 16 years, I know at first hand that some additional powers are needed to strengthen the scrutiny of the Mayor of London and partner agencies, and ensure that services are being delivered effectively and efficiently. I therefore ask the Minister: what engagement did the Government have with the London Assembly ahead of the Bill? It is clear that the assembly needs stronger powers, such as a wider power of summons and a change to the threshold for the budget. I will bring forward amendments in Committee to address these concerns.

The other areas to which I wish to draw attention at this stage are related to transport. Over recent years we have seen the explosion in micromobility, e-bikes and scooters, covering our pavements and streets. They are a lifeline for many who use them to get about our cities at pace and convenience but are a nightmare for those with mobility issues or visual impairments or for young families having to negotiate routes around these obstacles dumped all over the pavements. Local authorities are unable to license or manage these bikes or set safety standards for them.

While it is welcome that the Bill covers this area, neither the Bill nor the accompanying guidance includes explicit requirements on mayors or strategic authorities to engage with constituent authorities on the development of micromobility schemes. An upfront duty would ensure that engagement at all stages is robust and covers all instances. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on this matter.

My final issue, which has been raised a number of times, relates to private hire and taxi licensing and regulation. While welcome, the amendment introducing national minimum standards does not go far enough, and it feels as if this issue is being kicked into the long grass.

I have been talking to transport authorities across the country; they are all concerned about out-of-area licensing. This is a safeguarding issue. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her June 2025 report on group-based child sexual exploitation, as the Minister mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended that the Government

“should take immediate action to put a stop to ‘out of area taxis’”.

Noble Lords might be wondering why this is an issue. Different authorities have different standards in their licensing regimes, and if you want to operate in an area, you should be licensed for that area.

As we have heard several times, in Manchester 49% of drivers are currently licensed in Wolverhampton. This means that Manchester local authorities have no say over the standards of drivers and vehicles in the city, nor the resource and right to carry out inspections. This is a huge safeguarding issue and a loophole that needs closing. Will the Minister work with me and Members across the House to close this dangerous safeguarding gap?

I look forward to working to improve the Bill to ensure local empowerment, genuine devolution and safer transport for all.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak initially to my Amendments 70 and 71 in this group. It is a pleasure being here with noble Lords; it feels like a reunion of assembly or London Councils meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I know is not able to be here today, for adding his name to Amendment 70, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for adding his name to Amendment 71. Both noble Lords have direct experience of the GLA and London government as a whole. Like other noble Lords, in drafting these amendments I bring 26 years’ experience as an assembly member and a London borough councillor.

Amendment 70 is about the power of summons. The law as it stands means that the assembly has relatively limited powers of summons over individuals and documents. It can summon the Mayor of London only in his or her role as chair of one of the functional bodies. For example, you could summon the mayor to a meeting as chair of Transport for London, but you could not summon them to come to a meeting if there was a huge failure or difficulties in their housing or solar programme and you wanted a detailed discussion. That makes no sense.

Furthermore, the assembly is prevented from summoning those delivering services in London. Noble Lords might well think that that does not matter because people will go and give evidence, so we do not need this power, but I will give the Committee a concrete example. Many years ago, I led an investigation into High Speed 2—then an initial programme that was going to have a huge impact in west London. High Speed 2, admittedly at that time under different management, refused to come before the assembly to give evidence to our inquiry. Despite huge amounts of correspondence, including the Department for Transport trying to put direct pressure on this body that was accountable to it, High Speed 2 refused to give any evidence at all. Yet it was delivering a project affecting London with huge amounts of public money.

Similar bodies, including the Environment Agency, the Port of London Authority and even London Councils, may attend if requested, but they, too, have at times decided not to. That cannot be right when we are trying to look at services delivering for London. This power would strengthen the assembly, allowing it to fully carry out its scrutiny role. It sits well with Amendment 72, which proposes a London local authorities joint committee, because there would need to be scrutiny of that body and this new power would allow the assembly to carry that out.

As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, is unable to be here today, but in correspondence last night he said that he was happy for me to explain his support for this. He comes at it from a different point of view. He used to work for the former Mayor of London and he said that, although we come at this from different angles—he would brief the mayor ahead of scrutiny and I would be there as a scrutineer—he feels that these scrutiny sessions are serious, healthy, important and substantive and he does not see any potential for these powers to be abused because you would use them only in exceptional circumstances. He feels that, ultimately, if the mayor turns up, they may not answer the questions put to them, but at least you would have that opportunity—so he was keen to support this amendment. This issue has had cross-party support on the assembly for years, so I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this amendment.

Of course, if more powers are given to the mayor, as was discussed at the start of this group, the assembly should be strengthened alongside this. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned London being up on a pedestal but, actually, Manchester has more power than London in certain areas, such as health, and it feels as though London potentially needs to catch up.

Amendment 71 would remove the anomaly that, to amend the Mayor of London’s budget, a two-thirds majority is needed at the final stage. For many years, this has meant us, as assembly members, sitting there and rejecting the mayor’s budget and then it still going through at the final meeting because the threshold has not been reached. Such a threshold does not exist in any other part of local government, and I do not understand why it is needed here for London. I ask the Government to remove this requirement so that any mayor has to work with the assembly to ensure that a budget has majority support.

The other amendments in this group cover the establishment of a London local authorities joint committee and the power to pay grants to it. This would, as we have heard, put in place formally what is already taking place through other means. I am happy with these amendments. They have cross-party support and support from the London Assembly. As I said, they complement my amendment on the power of summons for the London Assembly, because I think that this joint committee should be subject to scrutiny as well.

Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, makes a reasonable point—the noble Baroness and I exchanged some correspondence at the weekend about it. As many of us have said, reviewing how the London system works and what lessons there are for other areas does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. I come at this from a different point of view. I am really keen to increase the powers of the London Assembly and to look at stronger scrutiny arrangements across the country with the rollout of mayoral and combined authorities. For me, that is the gap in the model that is being rolled out.

At the moment, there is little to no real scrutiny of billions of pounds-worth of expenditure across the country. This is a huge deficit in these new mayoral models. This scrutiny must be carried out by members who are not conflicted through other roles, such as being leaders of authorities. This is probably where I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord John, because I think that council leaders can be conflicted. They want to secure funding for their borough, and that can cause tension—they may not want to get into the bad books of a mayor. That is where the benefits of the GLA model, with scrutineers who are directly elected, comes in. They can look at things more independently, ask the tough questions and, sometimes, produce very tough reports.

I disagree with the suggestions we have heard in the debate on the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Harris, about reducing the number of London boroughs. I do not think that that would be right. The amount of work, including casework, that borough councillors have to do in London is unbelievable compared to their colleagues elsewhere. That would not be a realistic option.

I look forward to the Minister’s response with interest. I hope we can start to see some movement to strengthen the powers of the assembly and to support London Councils on this matter.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their amendments relating to London devolution. As a mere veteran of what the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, described as provincial local government, I feel a little hesitant about sticking my head into the lion’s den of London local government—but it is my job, so I will do it anyway.

I start with the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which would remove Clause 15 from the Bill. It is vital that the devolution framework works for the unique circumstances of London’s governance. Clause 15 must stand part of the Bill in order to signpost to Schedule 25 to the Bill and the GLA Act 1999. This enables the Government, among other things, to confer functions on the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies. Contrary to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about putting London on a pedestal, the provision enables us to confer powers on the mayor and the GLA. If the GLA was excluded from Schedule 25, it would then be the only strategic authority that would require primary legislation for the conferral of functions, and there is no rationale for creating a divergent approach just for London. Schedule 25 will ensure that the Greater London Authority benefits from the devolution framework and can deepen its powers over time.

The noble Baroness asked a question about consultation. Ahead of the Bill being introduced, the Government engaged the mayor, the GLA and London Councils on proposals in the devolution White Paper.

I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for bringing his wealth of experience and knowledge of London to our debates on this Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Moylan and Lord John. I have not yet been able to add up their joint years of London experience, but it is of significant breadth and depth, and it is welcome to have that informing our discussions on the Bill. For the record, my local council was formed in 1971 and has been a Labour council to this day. It does not quite meet the 60 years mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but we are not far away, and we are a new town.

We are currently engaging positively with London Councils and the Greater London Authority on this matter. In the context of that ongoing work and the need to continue to work jointly towards a constructive resolution, I do not feel that it would be appropriate to rush in a legislative change for the unique arrangements for London governance through this amendment. I am very happy to meet my noble friend Lord Harris and other London partners, if he feels that that would be helpful before Report, because I understand the points he has made.

On Amendment 70, in the English devolution White Paper the Government committed to strengthening scrutiny in strategic authorities. As the noble Baroness knows, London is unique among strategic authorities, in that the mayor’s work is scrutinised by the directly elected London Assembly. It is my understanding that the mayor is committed to appear before 10 sessions each year for scrutiny. If he does not do so, or misses more than a number of those sessions, he can be sanctioned by the GLA.

As the Government consider the best way to strengthen scrutiny in strategic authorities, it is right that we tailor our approach to the arrangements in London. We will engage the GLA and the London Assembly on any potential changes. I have much sympathy with the frustration about key partners and providers that spend public money and then refuse to come before scrutiny bodies. I will not go into my particular pain over bus companies, but I understand the point that the noble Baroness was making there. This amendment would significantly alter the powers of the London Assembly and preclude the Government’s ongoing work on this issue, which is being taken forward in close discussion with combined authorities and the GLA.

Similarly, on Amendment 75, London’s model is unique among strategic authorities and has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years—I think the noble Lord, Lord John, referred to the successful part of London governance. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, the Government want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities. We hope to build on these where possible. Therefore, we do not believe that a formal review is necessary.

I listened to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about issues around boroughs neighbouring London, Lee Valley park, the London grants scheme and so on. I will reflect on those. A meeting might be helpful, because I did not quite understand the balance between “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix” and there being things that need to be fixed that we should have a look at to see what changes would be necessary. It would absolutely not be right to interject a legislative knee-jerk into this space without the work that is needed between all parties to determine a way forward. I hope that we can move that forward before Report.

Amendment 71 seeks to introduce simple majority voting for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s final draft budget. This Bill includes measures to unblock mayoral decision-making. Primarily, this is by stipulating that most decisions in combined authorities and combined county authorities require a simple majority including the mayor, but also by making some functions, such as those concerning police and fire, exercisable by the mayor only.

--- Later in debate ---

As I said, London’s devolution settlement has served Londoners well for 25 years, striking the balance between the executive authority of the mayor and the scrutiny of the assembly. However, I look forward to working further with Members before Report on anything that we need to do as far as the Bill is concerned. With these explanations, I ask that these amendments are not pressed at the moment.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

We talked about a review of the scrutiny arrangements of other metro mayors, if you like—mayoral and strategic authorities. Is the Minister able to give us a timescale for that? We also talked about discussions with the GLA; the GLA is made up of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. Is the department talking to officers and members of the London Assembly, because the Civil Service often uses the term “GLA” when it means just the mayor’s office.

[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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for not being at Second Reading, but I care deeply about these issues. Amendments 104A and 105A seek to ensure that, when we talk about micromobility vehicles in this Bill, we do not inadvertently exclude those used for delivery services. These services are now a major and growing part of daily life, whether that is food delivered by bicycle, parcels carried by e-bikes or goods transported by small vans. These services are economically and socially important, but they also have a very real impact on our streets and pavements, which is already being felt.

For example, food delivery has nearly doubled since 2019—as have parcel deliveries by vans, albeit over a longer period—yet local authorities currently lack clear powers to manage how those services operate in public space, particularly where micromobility vehicles are concerned. The Government’s guidance on this Bill recognises that the regulatory framework may need to expand in future, for example to include e-scooters or pavement delivery devices if they begin to block pavements or disrupt shared space, but that future is already here. Local authorities and communities are experiencing these pressures today.

In Committee in the Commons, it was directly raised whether what are now Clause 23 and Schedule 5 could be broadened to cover delivery vehicles. The Minister acknowledged that similar vehicles are already causing problems on our streets and said that the issue would be taken away and considered. I would be grateful to hear the outcome of those considerations today. If we miss this opportunity now, it could be many years before Parliament returns to this topic. We need only look at pedicabs to see how long such delays can last. Transport for London first sought powers in 2005; even now, those powers are not fully in force.

With these amendments, any use of these powers would still require secondary legislation and, crucially, be entirely optional for local authorities. The intention is to ensure that councils can take action where problems arise. That flexibility matters. In city centres, licensing could be used to address issues such as illegal e-bikes, pavement obstruction, unsafe riding and polluting vans, which are now the largest source of air pollution in central London. In rural or sensitive areas, a different approach might be taken, such as permit systems to encourage consolidation of deliveries or to manage speeds on narrow rural lanes. There are also important issues around safety and workers’ rights. Research from University College London found that freelance delivery workers are three times more likely to feel pressured to take safety risks or dangerous risks compared with employed drivers. Giving local authorities the tools to shape how delivery services operate could help to address these concerns.

Ultimately, these amendments are about empowering local decision-making. They would ensure that delivery services using micromobility vehicles are not accidentally carved out of a framework that is designed precisely to manage competing demands on shared space. I hope that the Minister will accept them or, at the very least, give a clear assurance that delivery services will be brought within scope at the earliest possible opportunity. Without that, we risk leaving our local authorities powerless in the face of challenges that they are already struggling to manage. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. Amendments 108 and 109 would place stronger requirements on traffic authorities with regards to parking and docking, and Amendment 113 would expand the duty to co-operate to Great British Railways and other relevant bodies. I am grateful to the charity CoMoUK for its advice in this area.

This Bill is a welcome opportunity to start the long-overdue management and regulation of micromobility schemes and to reduce any negative impacts. Any noble Lord who has sat through many of the Committee days of the current police Bill will have heard arguments made and concerns expressed about bikes and scooters cluttering our pavements and about the lack of regulation—that is seen in the number of amendments today. This Bill is an opportunity to deal with these issues.

Amendments 108 and 109 would require traffic authorities to provide parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the right level. The proposed legal duty for highways authorities to merely “co-operate” with strategic authorities is weak. There is a risk that authorities will fail to provide sufficient parking spaces for micromobility vehicles. I understand that there are existing cases of the relevant authorities refusing to provide any bike-share parking space at all. This will limit the potential of micromobility to serve the public and will risk micromobility vehicles becoming a public inconvenience through inappropriate parking, as we currently see across our cities.

In addition to the duty to co-operate, it is important that traffic authorities have a duty to provide parking at sufficient densities, with density standards defined by the licensing regulations and guidance that this Bill outlines. Guidance should emphasise that, where possible, parking should be on the carriageway—perhaps replacing a private car parking space—strengthening the role of micromobility in the shift away from private car ownership and supporting the Government’s goals around active travel, clean air and climate.

I will expand on this a little more. It is important that the Bill gets parking right as, on the one hand, the planning of parking locations has a huge impact on how convenient shared micromobility is to use and therefore how much the public can benefit from it. On the other hand, as we hear regularly, poorly planned parking can be the source of so many problems, such as obstructing pavements, that this Bill aims to resolve.

As the Bill is currently written, the authority that gives out licences is not the authority responsible for parking, which creates that risk of mismatch between the number of bikes licensed and the quantity of parking available. These amendments aim to ensure that traffic authorities work in a co-ordinated way with licensing authorities to provide that appropriate level of parking. Density and quality standards outlined in guidance would support those traffic authorities to understand what is needed. If we do not tackle this tension, we will continue the chaos that we see on our pavements and streets, which benefits no one.

Amendment 113 would require Great British Railways, National Highways and other public bodies to co-operate with the licensing authority on micromobility vehicles and the connectivity with other modes of transport. The creation of Great British Railways in particular is a huge opportunity to integrate between rail and other forms of transport. Parking at stations for shared micromobility would make connections easier for passengers. Research that CoMoUK carried out showed that 21% of active bike-share users combine their most common bike-share trips with a train ride.

Similarly, having shared micromobility parking near bus stations improves the potential for interchange, while parking at or near NHS sites—hospitals and the like—and schools can improve access for those travelling for health, education or employment in a public service. Co-operation between bodies is essential to fully realise these benefits and to enable more people to choose active travel modes for more journeys.

An amendment tabled to one of my amendments suggests removing the word “sufficient”. This would leave a gap in the legislation that would allow an authority to say, “Well, we’ve provided one parking space, and that is enough for the micromobility in our borough or area”. So “sufficient” is a crucial word that would allow a proper assessment of need and demand and allow proper provision. I hope that the Minister has been looking into this and I look forward to his response with interest, particularly as these are such delicate issues on our highways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

That is really interesting, is it not? I am sure the Minister will tell us exactly what all that means.

I am one of those people who challenge people who park on the pavement. Just recently, I saw a huge van parked all the way across a pavement. I went up to challenge the driver and found that it was an ambulance, so I did back off because I thought somebody needed some help. I totally agree that pavement parking means that the kerbside degenerates; it gets broken, which means yet another hazard for all of us, not just for people who are not particularly mobile, at night and so on.

I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but he should not be parking on the pavement. I do not care that the road is too small. He should park in a legal place and walk the rest of the way. It would be really good for his heart. The thing about pavement parking is that, if your car is too wide to park on the road, your car is too wide. Get a smaller car—do not take up space that pedestrians need. I see no rationale or excuse for that. It is just plain rude, and I loathe it.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 238, as she cannot be here today. Local authorities currently have civil enforcement powers which enable council officers to enforce parking contraventions on the highway, such as parking on a bend, across a driveway or too close to a junction. They have the power to impose penalty charge notices. This Bill will enable these powers to be taken by a mayor, which in my noble friend’s opinion will result in a less accountable system as mayoral authorities are likely to have populations of around 1 million.

This amendment seeks to achieve a retention of civil enforcement powers by local authorities and, more importantly, contains a provision to extend the powers to other highway infringements such as speeding on local roads—those which are not A or B roads. I understand that in the past my noble friend looked to table a Motion in the ballot to enable local authorities to enforce speeding problems on residential roads, which had huge support from the Local Government Association, London Councils and many boroughs. That is why she tabled this amendment, so I hope the Minister can respond to that point.

We have had a really interesting discussion about Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The noble Lord, Lord Young, made a really good point, to which I hope the Minister can respond. It is an anomaly. Outside London, while it is an offence to drive on the pavement, it is not a specific offence to park on a pavement in most instances. This amendment tries to resolve this.

We have had briefings, as the Committee has heard, from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, and I have had a briefing from Guide Dogs about this issue. According to Guide Dogs, four in five blind or partially sighted people have said that pavement parking makes it difficult to walk on the pavement at least once a week and over 95% have been forced to walk in the road because of pavement parking, so, as we have heard, this is a serious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, refers to the fact that five years ago the Department for Transport conducted a consultation, and we had the results in on 8 January. I believe this is the legislative opportunity for the Government—that is, if they need one, and if they do not, I hope the Minister can clarify that—and it clearly has cross-party support. It is important that we look to resolve this anomaly as soon as possible.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, on Amendment 114A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Bill does not provide powers to combined authorities or combined county authorities in respect of parking provision. As parking restrictions inherently apply with localised variations, the same imperative for consistent enforcement does not arise across a combined authority and combined county authority area, as is otherwise the case for the enforcement of bus lanes and other moving traffic restrictions. Civil parking enforcement powers are not considered to be appropriate at combined authority and combined county authority level. The Bill provides combined authorities and combined county authorities only with the ability to take on powers to enforce on a civil basis contraventions of bus lane and moving traffic restrictions with the agreement of the constituent local authorities.

The amendment would have no effect because combined authorities and county combined authorities are not defined as local authorities under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That provision limits the power to make traffic regulation orders for paid on-street parking to specific bodies: county councils, unitary authorities, metropolitan district councils, London boroughs, the Common Council of the City of London and Transport for London. The use of any surplus revenue from the designation of parking places is strictly ring-fenced under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for local authority-funded environmental measures and public transport schemes. This important principle will apply equally to combined authorities and combined county authorities for bus lane and moving traffic contraventions, which is appropriate in the interests of consistency and already dealt with in the regulations.

I turn to Amendment 121A, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Bassam and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others. I welcome my noble friend’s interest in this matter and I share the concerns that the amendment seeks to address. Vehicles parked on the pavement can cause serious problems for all pedestrians, especially people with mobility or sight impairments, as we have heard, as well as those with prams and pushchairs and of course in wheelchairs.

On 8 January this year, my department published a formal response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking, summarising the views received and announcing the Government’s next steps of pavement parking policy. We plan to give local authorities power later in 2026 to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstructs the pavement. That offence already exists and can be enforced by the police, but making it enforceable on a civil basis can be achieved through secondary legislation and will clearly be welcome.

In addition, and I hope this answers the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the Government have announced our intention to make primary legislation to give powers to local transport authorities to prohibit pavement parking in their area. That will allow the highest tier of local government in an area to prohibit pavement parking, with exemptions for vehicle classes and streets where necessary. This will ensure accessibility on pavements for all pedestrians, including, as we have heard, some of our most vulnerable pavement users.

This is a complex area. Due consideration needs to be given to a range of matters, including how local transport authorities enact a prohibition, which vehicles might be excluded, permissible defences for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition.

I am grateful to my noble friend for his efforts to move this matter forward, and I agree that the amendment captures the overall intent of the policy to create new devolved powers to prohibit pavement parking in the interests of all pavement and road users. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to enable this at the earliest opportunity, and I believe that my noble friend’s amendment may need only small drafting changes to allow it to fully represent the Government’s position. I am happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this matter further.

In respect of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about parking on cycleways, it is already an offence to park on a cycle track.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

The answer is largely yes, although the provisions under the Highways Act get into the use of adjoining land and the circumstances in which adjoining land might be used, particularly for bypasses related to cattle grids. However, the intent of the amendment is absolutely to tease out where the Government are on cattle grids on highways.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group, and I shall speak to just a few of them. The last two speakers have outlined that if this Bill is truly about devolution, it should be empowering local authorities to make decisions for their area without having to apply to Whitehall. From Amendment 236 from my noble friend Lord Pack about the decision to install a cattle grid in an area to the speeches we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, about workplace parking levies or applying for a Transport and Works Act order, what is the best level for this? In many ways, these are small amendments, but they go to the heart of the Bill. Is this about genuine devolution and empowerment, or is it a little bit of decentralisation from Whitehall but still with the reins attached? That was one of the criticisms we made at Second Reading.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has had to leave, but I shall speak on his behalf on Amendments 120D and 120E. He apologises to noble Lords for not having taken part before, due to working on other Bills at the same time that have been clashing. Noble Lords will remember the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, now the Bus Services Act. These amendments were tabled by the noble Lord at that time, and we were told:

“The Government will look to utilise these principles in their delivery of the forthcoming road safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership while providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 90.]


However, according to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the long-awaited road safety strategy is rather coy on bus safety, mentioning the Act and what TfL is doing and then saying:

“Safety measures could then be specified as part of franchising contracts”.


The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is concerned that it seems as though local authorities might move forward in this safety area in some way only if they are minded to do so, whereas, in London, we see that TfL has the Vision Zero strategy, which aims to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries from the transport network by 2041 and to have no one killed on or by a bus by 2030. Surely these things should be baked into all future transport contracts nationwide. The noble Lord is right to flag up this issue. The road safety strategy is an excellent document in so many areas, but in this area of bus safety it has fallen short of what we all hoped for from the bus services Bill. I hope that the Minister can address our points about devolution and bus safety, as well as about making sure that we are tackling these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend makes a good point. If the Secretary of State were to ask Great British Railways to enter into that agreement with Transport for London, I do not know who would be the operator of the passenger rail services concerned. It might be Great British Railways, because Section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 clearly envisages payment for this. That could be to GBR, in exactly in the same way as it has been in the past to Great Northern or any other operator.

The point is that the agreement under the 2005 legislation enables passenger transport executives to enter into agreements with the franchise operators to run those services. As far as I can see, that is not being taken away, as long as the legal authority is not transferred to the mayor. What my noble friend Lord Moylan is correctly saying about the current legal status of TfL is not what can be reproduced in relation to Great Northern in suburban services, as far as I am aware.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Lansley, are really testing the provision for rail devolution for passenger rail services and its legal status. It has been a really interesting discussion.

The Government’s White Paper said:

“Mayors will be given a statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network. In addition to partnerships with Great British Railways, Mayors of Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities will have a clear right to request greater devolution of services, infrastructure and station control where it would support a more integrated network”.


I am not sure that anything before us today goes that far. When we debated the public ownership legislation, I kept talking about Manchester being really keen to extend the Bee Network. I was doing my weekly reading of the rail press earlier today and there was a picture of a lovely branded Bee Network train up in Manchester. They are keen to move forward with that. In response to my amendments on rail devolution on Report of that Bill, the Minister said,

“this Government are absolutely committed to strengthening the role of local leaders and local communities in shaping the provision of rail services in their areas … I can reaffirm to your Lordships’ House that the railways Bill will include a statutory role for devolved governments and mayoral combined authorities”.”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1543.]

Yet when I look in the Railways Bill and at what is before us today, I am not sure that the Government have gone as far as they promised at that stage of that earlier legislation. What has changed? Can the Minister assure us that they are not rowing back on rail devolution? Has there been a change of heart or are we all slightly misinterpreting it and will we see far more rail devolution across the country, whether to Manchester, London or other regions?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, on Amendments 120 and 120EA, via provisions in the Transport Act 1968, mayoral combined authorities with passenger transport executive functions already have the appropriate powers as envisaged by Amendment 120. These are the combined authorities of West Yorkshire, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, North East England and South Yorkshire. They either have passenger transport executives acting on their behalf in relation to rail functions or have had the powers of passenger transport executives transferred to them.

Other mayoral combined authorities do not have these powers. Instead, via the Transport Act 1985, they can secure and subsidise services where the public transport requirements in their area would not otherwise be met. The Government have the powers to confer new functions on strategic authorities, individually or as a class. This includes the powers in Schedule 25 to this Bill, which enable the Secretary of State to confer new functions on strategic authorities on a permanent or pilot basis. Therefore, should an authority require these powers, there are mechanisms in place to achieve it.

Amendment 120EA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would not be an appropriate mechanism to enable further devolution to establish mayoral strategic authorities. The heart of the matter is that, for example, where services have been devolved, such as Merseyrail in the Liverpool City Region, this has been achieved by the exemption of services from designation by the Secretary of State under Section 24 of the 1993 Act. After the Great British Railways Act is passed, the Secretary of State will not be the franchising authority, so Section 13 of the 2005 Act will not be the appropriate mechanism. I hope that this answers the noble Lord.

It is anticipated that Great British Railways and mayoral strategic authorities will deliver a new place-based partnership model to deliver on local priorities. This will bring the railway closer to communities, enable collaboration and shared objectives and improve multimodal integration and opportunities for local investment. The depth of partnership will vary depending on local priorities, on capability and also, very significantly, on the geography of the railway, which seldom accords with local government boundaries.

The Government are open to considering further devolution of rail responsibilities should an authority make the case for it. I referred earlier to the Mayor of London’s proposal to take over the Great Northern inner suburban services. If operations are devolved, mayoral authorities will have a choice on how the operations are performed—either through Great British Railways or another operator. The Department for Transport recently published guidance on this topic. In making a decision in response to a request for devolution, key considerations will include the financial and commercial implications, the capability and the geography. The impacts on neighbouring services and communities beyond the combined authority boundary will also need to be factored in. I hope that this is clear and enables the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

I confess that I am not entirely certain how this would work in practice, but the underlying principle is surely right: if we are serious about empowering communities to protect what matters to them, we must also equip them with the resources to do so. The question does not end at purchase; we must also consider how community engagement is sustained once an asset is acquired—how we ensure that ownership translates into genuine stewardship and that these assets remain living, active parts of local life rather than burdens that communities struggle to maintain. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting group and discussion. I will raise a couple of points. Amendment 235, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, would remove the hope value from playing fields when being sold under the community right-to-buy process, enabling community groups to buy the land without paying an inflated price—something we very much support.

I am cautiously supportive of Amendment 235ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. My slight concern is that it says that the relevant local authority “must” use its power to acquire compulsorily the relevant asset of community value. I am not sure that that would be right. The authority could be required to do so—it should be a power—but I am not sure that it “must” be forced to do so.

I wanted to put on record our thoughts on those two amendments. It has been a very interesting discussion, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Debate on Amendment 222A adjourned.