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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, there are a number of issues in this group on taxis and private hire, but I will explain my Amendments 235BA, 235CB and 235CC. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bradley, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for adding their names to them.

Out-of-area working, also called cross-border hiring, allows drivers and vehicles licensed in one area to operate entirely in another. The scale of this is highly significant and is a major feature of the private hire sector nationally. It is estimated that more than 11% of all private hire vehicles nationally are licensed by just one licensing authority: the City of Wolverhampton Council. Let us put this into some context. Back in 2023, TfL was aware of at least 300 private hire vehicle drivers licensed by Wolverhampton but with a London residential address. Data from Greater Manchester shows that 49% of private hires operating in Greater Manchester are licensed by authorities outside of their current 10 local licensing authorities.

Why does this matter? It undermines the ability of local licensing authorities to regulate effectively and creates serious risks for public safety. Last year, the Casey audit into group-based child sexual exploitation exposed harrowing failures in protecting vulnerable children and identified that cross-border hiring was being exploited by individuals and groups sexually exploiting children. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended that the Government should introduce more rigorous safety standards and put a stop to cross-border hiring. The recommendation was:

“The Department for Transport should take immediate action to put a stop to ‘out of area taxis’ and bring in more rigorous statutory standards for local authority licensing and regulation of taxi drivers”.


The Government accepted all the recommendations made in the report, in order, they said,

“to get justice for victims and survivors, and to get perpetrators behind bars”.

However, the Government have not yet set out when and how they will take action that fully closes the loophole that enables cross-border hiring. In December, they introduced amendments to this Bill that have focused only on national minimum standards. Although those national minimum standards may work to ensure a strong foundation and ensure that more consistent standards apply across different licensing authorities—I welcome this as one step in dealing with this complex issue—this alone does not go far enough. These standards will be subject to consultation, with no clear deadlines for implementation, and they do not close the existing loophole. They are only part of the solution to addressing the recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey.

Additionally, the Government have not set out how national minimum standards will be enforced. Enforcement is already a challenge for many licensing authorities, and the ability of drivers effectively to licence shop means that authorities who rely on local licensing fees to fund their enforcement will continue to be undermined. I also understand that there is anecdotal evidence that existing enforcement mechanisms are not being used correctly by all licensing authorities, including in cases of driver behaviour representing public safety concerns.

In January, the Government launched a consultation into simplifying the taxi licensing system. However, this is about significantly reducing the number of taxi licensing areas, and it does not set out any actions to address the issue of out-of-area working, meaning that passenger safety will remain at risk. In London, Transport for London has long called for national enforcement powers, which would enable enforcement officers to uphold national standards regardless of where a driver or vehicle is licensed, supported by data-sharing provisions. In Greater Manchester, the mayor and leaders of all 10 local authorities have been advocating for an end to out-of-area licensing, most recently through their “Local. Licenced. Trusted” campaign which they launched last April. In addition, an independent review undertaken in Greater Manchester, with input from over 5,200 licensees, trade bodies and local authority officers, highlighted that legislating on out-of-area was necessary, even in a regional system with licensing powers at a city-region level.

If the Government are serious in their commitment to improve standards and safety for this industry, this Committee urgently needs assurances from the Government on how and when they will fully close the loophole of cross-border hiring and that they will continue to improve enforcement powers as part of their review of the industry. My Amendments 235CB and 235CC look to tackle the out-of-area licensing issue and have the support of Transport for London, Transport for Greater Manchester, other metro-mayor areas and the Local Government Association, which I have contact with. It said:

“The LGA supports this amendment as the most effective way, combined with minimum standards, to meet Baroness Casey’s objective”.


However, I have also tabled my Amendment 235BA, which would grant powers to all licensing authorities to take enforcement action on any private hire or taxi vehicle on their streets, wherever they are licensed. In my view, this could be the way forward that would plug the gap that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, flagged, but would also allow the Government time to review and research the other issues, such as cross-border hiring, standards and so on, so that, in tackling one issue, the legislation does not restrict access to taxi services in another area. I hope that the Minister will consider that carefully.

The accessibility issues that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and other noble Lords today are really important as we look at private hire and taxi services across the country. I thank the Ministers for meeting me and other noble Lords to discuss the complexity of issues in this area and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief for the reasons that we all know about—the number of votes that have taken place in the House this afternoon.

I offer my support to the movers of the amendments that have just been spoken to, first on accessibility. It is fairly close to my heart. Even with a high national profile, I have sometimes had real problems with accessible transport because of having a guide dog, and it is a nightmare for those who are wheelchair users. I hope that we can do something that is within the practicalities of protecting those who are prepared to have the vehicles and pay the extremely substantial investment that is needed to have accessible vehicles when Uber and other operators clearly do not.

I also give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. An issue has been rumbling along for years in relation to the licensing shopping scheme, where people have been able to license a taxi and then rove around the country, which certainly put people at risk. In my own region, that applied to Rotherham. Apart from Wolverhampton, my city of Sheffield seems to have an inordinate number of taxis licensed in Kirklees in West Yorkshire; we clearly need to do something about it. There would have to be flexibility.

In my Amendments 235CA and 235E, which I speak to this afternoon, I am trying to say that there should first be a recognition that devolution and local empowerment means that there should be continuing engagement of elected members. That is not easy in strategic authorities that are combined authorities, because although we can proclaim elected mayors, the engagement of those who know the localities within which those strategic authorities are placed is left out.

First, we need an accountable input and, secondly, we need national standards that apply right across England and deal, in part at least, with the correct assessment that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made of the difficulties and dangers. There should be some flexibility: if you are genuinely licensed in Wolverhampton but the license authority becomes the West Midlands Combined Authority, you need to also be able to use your licence in Telford in Shropshire. I know it quite well and I think that people in Shropshire county are quite bereft of taxi services as it is. There needs to be flexibility that allows the licensing authority to specify very clearly and then, as the noble Baroness rightly said, to actually have some enforcement powers.

But local authorities also tell me that we need transitional arrangements. We need to assess the costs and ensure that there is that genuine local input. There is a serious issue here. I know my noble friend very well and know he will be incredibly sympathetic to the points that have been made this afternoon and, overcoming internal bureaucracies within government, will seek to find a way forward on Report, should we reach it.

--- Later in debate ---

With those reassurances, and for the reasons I have set out, I kindly ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

As the Minister works through options to bring back on Report, would he be prepared to meet with me and other interested noble Lords on the matter of enforcement?

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this first group of amendments concerns the Greater London Authority and the London councils. We expressed concern regarding Clause 15 in Committee as we do not see why conferring more powers on the Mayor of London should be such a priority in a Bill supposedly concerned with devolution to the rest of England. Although we recognise that London’s governance is unique, we do not believe that this alone shields its governance arrangements from scrutiny.

Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would expand the London Assembly’s existing powers to require the attendance not only of the mayor but of experts and professionals involved in the delivery or oversight of London’s services. It is clear that further democratic oversight of London’s services is needed, and not from the mayor alone.

Amendment 84, also in the name of the noble Baroness, would alter the voting requirement for the assembly to change the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement with a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds majority. The two-thirds majority requirement has proved to be a barrier to effective scrutiny, particularly over taxation. This is especially pertinent amid the rising cost of living for households in London and has our full support.

All these concerns and proposed changes can be deliberated further through Amendment 83, tabled by my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, to whom I am very grateful. This amendment would initiate a full review of London’s governance model within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, giving Parliament the opportunity to look at the GLA’s effectiveness, accountability and outcomes. This amendment also has our full support.

The amendments in my name seek to give the Government the flexibility to respond to such a review or to any changes Parliament decides on in the future. By amending Clause 15, our amendments would ensure that functions can be both removed and added to the GLA without requiring more and more primary legislation. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ valuable contributions and I hope the Government will consider our constructive proposals to allow the Government flexibility in the future.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting me so that I could explain more about my amendment, in particular the need for the wider power of summons for the London Assembly. Amendment 82 is about the need for a greater power of summons. The London Assembly has a limited power of summons over individuals and documents, but it can currently summons the Mayor of London only in very limited circumstances. The assembly is also prevented from summonsing those delivering services in London. At times, organisations refuse to attend hearings, including London councils. That cannot be right. Organisations that are delivering services to Londoners and spending huge amounts of money should be required to attend and answer questions.

When I met the Minister, it was suggested that the assembly should simply ask the mayor to secure guests who were reluctant to attend. That would be rather like the Lords asking the Prime Minister to help with our work—completely inappropriate. This power would strengthen the London Assembly and the scrutiny of services to Londoners. I therefore hope that Members across the House will support this simple amendment, which has always received cross-party support at the London Assembly. Given that there has been a shift between Committee and Report and a clear understanding of a need to increase scrutiny and transparency of mayors across the country, this amendment would help address that issue.

Amendment 84 would remove the requirement for a two-thirds majority to amend the mayor’s budget at its final stage. This is an anomaly; it does not exist in other parts of local government. This simple amendment would remove it and make it the same as for other levels of government. I am pleased to have received support from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. This is about basic democracy and powers for a scrutiny body. It would mean that any mayor would have to work cross-party to secure his or her budget. Again, I hope all Members will support this.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. Our Benches do not support Amendments 81, 154 and 156, which go against the devolution agenda by suggesting that powers can just be taken back by the Government from the GLA. Why would you single out London for this? Surely we should be looking at devolving far more services and powers to local and regional government, rather than just trying to recentralise.

Amendment 83, which we will hear about shortly, calls for a review of the London model. I believe that work may already be under way looking at London. I hope the Minister can update us on that but I am sure that this probably should not be in the Bill.

The Government’s Amendment 243, which allows for grants to be paid to joint committees of London councils, rather than the current messy situation where one borough has to take the lead, is a tidying-up exercise and we support it. I look forward to hearing a positive response to my amendments from the Minister in due course.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was previously Bexley’s longest-serving leader, with associated involvement in London Councils and the Local Government Association. I will speak to my Amendment 83 and to Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name, as they are interlinked Before I do, I thank the Minister for Amendment 243 and the power to grant funding for distribution via a joint committee, as this will, I hope, resolve some of the issues I raised in Committee.

I raised the suggestion of a review of London governance in Committee, given that the mayoral GLA governance structure in London was the first of its kind and has been in place for about 26 years. The Minister promised me a conversation before this stage, but I suspect she ran out of time. It would still be helpful to have that conversation; it is interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, got one.

As I said, the governance arrangement in London has been in place for nearly 26 years. It is interesting that that structure has never been repeated. Indeed, the Bill does not seek to replicate that same arrangement. That appears to be an indication that it is not viewed to be the most successful governance structure, so surely it would be worth considering the learning from mayoral authorities set up since, with a view to improving the arrangements in London. The irony is that I sat here the other night listening to the Minister talking about commissioners, and it occurred to me that a review of London that picks up some of the issues and shows some of the weaknesses could be of benefit to others. That would be an additional benefit.

The main difference with the arrangements post-London is that their governance relationship is between the council leaders and the mayor in pursuit of devolution, we hope to the lowest common denominator. Indeed, the proposal in this Bill suggests overview and scrutiny arrangements, whereas the London arrangement—the GLA—is considered to be for checks and balances.

In London there are 25 elected members of the assembly; 14 are constituency members and 11 are London-wide. They can call people before them, but they cannot instruct or make things happen, which comes back to the earlier point. The only real power over the mayor is to overturn the budget with a two-thirds majority, which in effect has never happened—something that Amendment 84 seeks to address. According to Google, the GLA’s budget for 2026-27 is £22.7 billion; that is an awful lot of money. It includes the mayor’s office, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police and London fire. Each council tax payer on a band D property in London pays just under £500 per annum towards that.

It is an awful lot of money and, given the responsibilities, would not it be more effective to have the mayor and boroughs working together for the best outcomes for London? I am talking about outcomes such as tackling crime, making sure that our public transport is effective and efficient, and building the homes that London needs—outcomes that impact every Londoner, as well as those who come to London to work, learn or visit. In fact, in Manchester those outcomes even include health, and it could be beneficial to join up the public health or prevention knowledge in councils to deliver better health outcomes for London.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

82: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings(1) Section 61 (power to require attendance at Assembly meetings) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for “or (5)” substitute “, (5), (5A), or (5B)”.(3) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) This subsection applies to the Mayor of London.(5B) This subsection applies to—(a) any person who has professional competence, specialist knowledge or relevant experience connected to the delivery, management or oversight of services provided in or on behalf of Greater London, and (b) any person who is a member of, or a member of staff of, a body which employs individuals with such competence, knowledge or experience.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the London Assembly’s existing powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to require the attendance of the Mayor, as well as experts and professionals involved in the delivery or oversight of London’s services.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response, but I think it misses the point. There is a gap in the existing legislation which means that key organisations can simply refuse to attend meetings and to answer questions. That includes organisations such as High Speed 2, London Councils and the Environment Agency. This is about transparency and accountability. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

84: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Greater London Authority Act 1999: amendment of Schedule 6(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.(2) In Schedule 6 (procedure for determining the Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement), in paragraph 8(4), for “two-thirds of the Assembly members voting” substitute “a simple majority of the Assembly members voting”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the voting requirement for the Assembly to change the Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement by replacing the two-thirds majority currently required under paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 6 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 with a simple majority of the Assembly.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response. I heard her say clearly that it is a two-thirds majority that is required in other authorities when voting on a budget. This particular piece of legislation, however, refers clearly in Part 1, Clause 6(2), to

“a simple majority of the voting Members present and voting”.

I would like to have in-writing clarity on that, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 84?

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I would still like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 97, I will speak also to the many others in my name in this group. I apologise for that, although they fall into four distinct subject areas, so that partly explains the number of them. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb moved and spoke to related amendments in Committee. My noble friend was not expecting to be able to be here, but she is now listening in to see that I do this right on these amendments.

I will start with Amendments 97 and 98, about non-passenger micromobility vehicles. We have others in this group, but I will focus on the ones in my name. As my noble friend said in Committee, what we are talking about here is a future that is already here. The intention of these amendments is to empower councils to act when issues arise with these micromobility vehicles.

Right on cue, an issue has arisen in Bristol. From this month, there are now new delivery robots running up and down Bristol’s Gloucester Road. Anyone who knows Bristol’s Gloucester Road—as I do quite well, having campaigned there often—will know it is a very vibrant place with lots of small independent businesses and lots of people travelling around. One of these little autonomous delivery robots was running up and down this road while one of the Green councillors was walking their dog, which I believe is a very small dog. These micromobility vehicles will have to deal with everything, from very small and very large dogs to children of different ages, and all kinds of different obstacles.

The interesting thing is that in this really complex environment, Bristol City Council says it was not informed about the trial of these Just Eat small-wheeled micromobility robots, and it does not have a policy on the use of delivery robots. As I understand, under the current legal arrangement, it has no real power to do anything about them. There is also the issue of these small delivery robots and people with mobility issues. Even if they do not actually cause a problem for them, it is about how frightening they are going to be.

My noble friend Lady Jones and other Peers expressed concerns in Committee that if the opportunity is not taken in the Bill to provide the framework to take action, it could be many years before anything happens. The example given was of just how long it has taken to deal with the pedicab issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, very kindly responded by letter to those concerns, but he did not give us any way forward or an immediate course of action.

This amendment would allow for secondary legislation. We are well aware of the issues around Henry VIII clauses. It is not my intention to push the amendment, or any in this group, to a vote, but I hope the Government are thinking very hard and are prepared to take action with this Bill, which is such an obvious place to be taking actions. This relates to an amendment to Clause 8 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which would tweak existing powers to allow such a vehicle to be seized if it is causing a problem in the local area. That is the first group of amendments.

Amendments 107 to 113 are all about applying the traffic reporting duty to all local roads within an area of the local transport authority, ensuring the alignment of the duty with the scope of its effective transport plans. Again, the response in Committee did not engage with the reality of the effects of the Bill in making strategic authorities primarily responsible for transport. It would not be that difficult to report strategic authority-level data in addition to what is already proposed, but it would be hugely useful. I note that on 12 February, MHCLG published guidance for outcome frameworks at local authority levels, but the traffic levels are not included there. There seems to be a real lack of joined-up thinking between the frameworks and the spirit of the Bill.

Amendments 114 to 116 are about local travel plans. Since we last discussed this, the issue of fuel usage has, of course, become much more pressing and of much more concern. I note the overall figures that UK road fuel usage has increased by 8% since 2020. We talk and hear a lot about modal shift, but we are just not seeing it happen. The Bill could be taking us in the opposite direction.

I move to the parking levies element of this—Amendments 117 and 118. We need a power to create parking levies from local authorities to strategic authorities. That would enable the relevant national authority to widen the purposes of parking that a levy could apply to. With a strategic authority becoming a local transport authority, and therefore responsible for the local transport plan, it would deem that the plan, forming the policies of any constituent authority, must be the purpose of this part.

Finally, to put that in an overall context, the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report to Parliament called for new powers and funding for local government to help it deliver the modal shift that is in the target by 2035. We have so many pressing needs here, and the incredible Parkulator tool shows just how much space in our towns and cities is given over to parking—space that could potentially be used for much better purposes including, in many cases, the housing we so often talk about. In a rather complex set of amendments, I beg to move Amendment 97.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 99, which picks up the issues of providing parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the appropriate density and standard, and requiring traffic authorities and Great British Railways—when it is fully completed—to co-operate on the provision of parking at or near railway stations. This builds on the discussion we had in Committee. The amendment is about managing the problems that we all encounter, day in, day out, with bikes and scooters parked dangerously on our streets. This requirement would help ensure the right amount of suitable parking for micromobility vehicles and help to address this problem. It also specifically names the co-operation with the new Great British Railways, which is essential if we are to allow ease of travel to and from our railway stations. This strengthens what is already in the Bill regarding the parking of these vehicles and will ensure that first and last mile connections are improved.

I hope the Minister will be able to support the aims of this amendment and respond to this important issue. There are many amendments in this group, but I particularly welcome the amendments from the Government covering pavement parking outside London. They are long overdue and will be welcomed by pedestrians up and down the country.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendment 100 in this group but congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on opening this group of interesting amendments. I thank the Minister for meeting us prior to Report and bringing forward a first stab at a definition of micromobility vehicles. It was an interesting and successful meeting, and elucidated that currently there is no definition covering this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House for the seriousness with which our new proposed strategic licensing measures were considered during Committee. The attention given to the detail of these clauses and to their practical implications has been valuable.

I begin by stating clearly that this Government recognise the important role of local licensing authorities, which are often best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge. This is reflected in the design of the new strategic licensing functions for the mayor and the Greater London Authority—for example, by requiring the Mayor of London to consult London licensing authorities before determining the London-wide strategic licensing policy. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds in regulations of what is meant by “potential strategic importance” to Greater London.

London licensing authorities remain the default licensing decision-makers in Greater London, and the mayor will be able to “call in” decisions made by a London licensing authority only on applications of potential strategic importance to Greater London and in a limited set of circumstances. Even then, the mayor may choose to uphold the decision of the London licensing authority.

The Greater London Authority has launched a consultation on the new London-wide strategic licensing policy. I am pleased to hear that many London licensing authorities have responded. This will help to inform the criteria by which the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting out in regulations what “potential strategic importance” to Greater London means. We intend to conduct further engagement with London borough councils and other licensing stakeholders before laying these regulations, as well as any other statutory instruments that are needed to determine the procedural elements of the call-in process.

Nevertheless, our amendments establish some important parameters that prevent the mayor encroaching on local licensing authorities’ decision-making unnecessarily. This includes preventing the mayor rejecting an application that would otherwise have been granted by a London licensing authority, reflecting our intention to establish a clearly defined role for the mayor in promoting London-wide strategic objectives to drive growth in London’s sporting, cultural, hospitality and nightlife sectors. The call-in power is intended to be used as a measure of last resort and only in specific circumstances—effective as much in its existence as in its use—to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to licensing across the capital.

I turn to some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, in Committee. While my time in local government was spent some 30 miles outside of London, I am acutely aware that large urban areas cannot be treated as homogeneous—least of all our diverse capital. I therefore recognise that the licensing priorities of inner and outer London boroughs will vary significantly, as will their demographics and local policing capacities. There is no inherent contradiction between this reality and the establishment of new strategic licensing functions at the mayoral level. When determining strategic licensing policy, for example, the mayor will be under a duty to have regard to the requirements on local licensing authorities when carrying out their licensing functions—including, for example, the setting of local licensing policies—as well as locally published cumulative impact assessments. The mayor will be required to state his reasons for giving any direction to ensure an appropriate level of transparency. New rights of appeal against mayoral directions will also be established to mitigate against improper use of the call-in power. The Government will monitor the new strategic licensing measures, and the Secretary of State will be able to repeal the measures up to five years after they come into force.

I must conclude by emphasising that licensing decisions are, by their nature, nuanced judgments. They involve weighing competing factors and exercising discretion, rather than arriving at a binary outcome. Through the piloting of new strategic licensing measures in Greater London, our intention is to give greater weight to economic growth and the reputational importance of London’s hospitality and nightlife sectors, while recognising the importance of promoting the licensing objectives to help ensure that people’s local concerns are protected.

I commend to noble Lords the amendments in my name, and I will listen to other noble Lords before I comment on theirs.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, our Amendments 140 and 148 seek to remove the London licensing provisions in the Bill. Talking to a number of London boroughs, I found that many of them were quite unaware of this proposed change, seeing it, in effect, as a power grab by the Mayor of London, potentially causing real issues locally in boroughs, where licensing can be a very sensitive issue.

Licensing decisions should be taken locally, with local context and knowledge. For example, in Kingston, I understand that for any licensed premises, their security staff are required to work closely with the police, street pastors, the VAWG team and VAWG charities. This is not just during operational hours but after closure and at local events. This is a detailed local arrangement that works for this borough. Having the Mayor of London call in a licence application and change conditions or impose longer hours on a community would simply not be right and would go against the spirit of this legislation, which is supposedly about devolving down local powers. Those are our concerns. Are the Government really confident that a future mayor, perhaps of a different political persuasion and approach, would not be far more interventionist, blocking the very growth opportunities it is claimed that these new powers are seeking to free up?

The Minister has talked just now about the important role of local licensing authorities. Licensing works best when it is grounded in detailed local knowledge, through local councillors and local communities working together. These proposed call-in or direction powers for the Mayor of London risk overriding this expertise, increasing tension and introducing uncertainty in the system for boroughs, businesses and residents. A key concern I have picked up is how potential conflicts between local priorities, which are reflected in a council’s licensing policy, and pan-London priorities, potentially driven by the mayor’s decisions, will be resolved. There is a genuine fear that this could lead to an additional burden on boroughs, including increased casework, appeals, additional workloads for borough staff and, no doubt, additional costs to the boroughs.

We talked earlier about this being strategic. What does that mean? Take sectoral activity zones, such as Wembley or Twickenham stadia, which sit in the middle of highly residential areas. Those boroughs work really closely with communities. They know what hours and noise levels are acceptable. I am concerned that centralising this in some way could cause a huge risk. We urge the Minister to think again on giving these additional powers to the Mayor of London at this time.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, these provisions introduce a substantial change to the licensing framework for London by creating a role for the Greater London Authority and, ultimately, the Mayor of London in applications deemed to be of strategic importance. This raises important questions about the balance between strategic oversight and the principle of local decision-making.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has already mentioned, licensing has traditionally been a core function of borough councils, rooted in local knowledge and expertise, and accountable to their local communities. The introduction of a mayoral call-in power therefore represents a major shift, which could result in significant duplication, added bureaucracy and the loss of local voice and expertise.

This raises questions of clarity and process, particularly around the definition of strategic importance, and I am grateful that the Minister said that that will be defined. I would appreciate clarity on the time scale. What assurance will the Minister give that strategic importance will mean what the man on the street would determine to be genuinely of strategic importance, and hence would be for a very limited number of situations?

The Minister also commented that the mayor will not be able to reject applications that have already been accepted. However, as I understand the provisions, the mayor would be able to impose a whole series of conditions on an application that had been given approval at the local level, which, in effect, could make that licence inoperable in any event. Could we have some assurance as to what additional conditions could be imposed, and that these would be fair and reasonable and would not be, in effect, an alternate route to a rejection for something that the local borough had already approved? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

140: Leave out Clause 50
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the London licensing provisions to probe the Government’s rationale behind their inclusion.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I have put on record our clear concerns here and I hear what the Minister has said about a carefully constrained strategic role. The consultation on “strategic importance” will be key, but we will watch this space and see how this develops. I wanted our clear concerns on record. There is a lot of work to do to get all the London boroughs on board. With that, I will not move my amendment.

Amendment 140 not moved.