English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fifth sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th October 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and to resume consideration of the Bill.

The Opposition are proud that the general power of competence was introduced when we were in government during the coalition years. It was something that I, as a serving local authority councillor at the time, lobbied hard for. The then Secretary of State, now Lord Pickles, was very receptive to the view that local authorities should have a greater remit, rather than being constrained to do those things that they were specifically permitted to do by law.

I have a question of clarification for the Minister. She said that the general power of competence could be exercised for economic purposes. Will the authorities have the full general power of competence, or will the power be constrained to a specific set of mayoral functions? Constraining it would not be entirely consistent with what was said in previous proceedings about the use of precepts.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

For mayoral strategic authorities, it will be the full general power of competence, but for foundation strategic authorities, at the single tier level, it will be exercised in the context of economic development and regeneration; the constituent local authority that makes that foundation strategic authority already has the wider general power of competence.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 21

Power of mayors to convene meetings with local partners

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 21, page 23, line 28, leave out subsection (b) and insert—

“(b) one or more of the following—

(i) health and social care;

(ii) planning;

(iii) environmental concerns;

(iv) funding;

(v) sustainability measures;

(vi) education;

(vii) transport provision and

(viii) green and community spaces.”.

This amendment ensures that mayors must consider specific community matters when consulting with local partners.

In previous contributions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and I have made clear the importance of decision making at the lowest possible level. I welcome the explicit provision on convening meetings with partners.

On clause 20, the Minister talked about the breadth of issues that come under the general power of competence and the scope and interest of combined authorities and mayors. We are concerned that the wording in clause 21 on the topics about which meetings can be convened is too narrow, as it is restricted to the items in clause 2.

There should be an ability to convene meetings at a strategic level about matters that are not covered there, such as education. Where skills are within the remit of the strategic authority, and education remains the remit of the constituent parts, the impact and the opportunities available would be across the strategic area.

There is also a concern that while the Bill provides the opportunity to convene meetings and consult, share and partner, it does not provide any sense of obligation for a mayor to do so where others are involved. We would like to see more of an obligation on mayors, rather than a sense of, “Let’s hope they do; if they don’t, never mind.”

The amendment seeks to broaden the scope of clause 21 beyond the items listed in clause 2. I am looking for some assurance that the Minister will be interested in broadening the clause so that we get a meaningful sense of two-way discussion, where the mayor is part of that area conversation.

[David Simmonds]

The Opposition are not entirely persuaded of the argument for this amendment, although the point is well made. We will be listening attentively to what the Minister has to say.

We are always very conscious that there is a risk with this legislation of creating conflicts. I know you have done a lot of work in the past in the field of education, Mr Stuart; we have seen that the well-intentioned education policy of school autonomy can come into conflict with the statutory duties placed on a local authority. We need to ensure that is resolved. As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, education is a good example of where conflict can crop up—for example, a university technical college is part of the skills economy, but is also, for the purposes of the Bill, a school. There is a need to ensure that all those statutory duties are squared off.

Although we are not persuaded of the need for the amendment, we would like to hear what the Minister has to say so that we can be confident that those points have been fully taken into account.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for her amendment. I am not sure that, as drafted, it achieves the intended effect. The Bill already defines the meaning of a relevant local matter as one that occurs within the geographical boundary of a strategic authority and relates to one or more of the areas of competence set out in clause 2. The areas of competence are deliberately broad to allow for a wide range of activities to fall within scope. However, the amendment would remove the existing references to skills and employment support, economic development and regeneration, climate change, public service reform and public safety. That risks inadvertently constraining the matters on which a mayor may convene meetings with local partners.

On the specific point about the dialogue needing to be two-way, I refer the hon. Member to the evidence we heard in the context of the Greater Manchester combined authority. Ultimately, for the mayor to have impact and traction, and to deliver, they must work with key partners, because ultimately those partners are the delivery arm of any strategic intent of the mayor. That requires two-way engagement and a two-way conversation. While we have not locked that in explicitly in the way that the hon. Member suggests in her amendment, that is fundamentally the principle that sits behind the way a mayor ought to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

This Government have committed to empowering mayors to make the right decisions for their local communities—a thing that runs through every aspect of the Bill. The new power to convene meetings with local partners and the corresponding duty on those partners to respond to any meeting requests will strengthen the ability of the mayor to drive local action. The use of the negative procedure provides an appropriate and proportionate level of scrutiny for the regulations. The amendments will enable us to efficiently deliver the legislative framework needed to support our mayors to effectively use their powers to engage local partners and deliver for their local communities.

[David Simmonds]

We have concerns about these measures; I will briefly explain why. As we have seen in the passage of the Bill so far, much of what is proposed for mayors will cut across different Government Departments. It could have financial and legal implications for constituent authorities, and there is plenty of scope for disputes to arise, not least where there might be different political control across different authorities. Our concern is that if we go down the route of using the negative procedure, there is a risk that the awareness of the issues in government will not be triggered and that what we will, in fact, be doing is setting up the authorities to fail by not having the appropriate procedures for getting the issues resolved at the first point where they arise, rather than waiting until they are the subject of disputes in the courts. So we are not content that this is the best way to address the issue.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I understand the hon. Member’s concern. The process is an iterative one. Strategic authorities do not operate in a vacuum. They are in constant conversation with the Government. We have set up the mayoral council as a way for us to have that conversation and dialogue. The fundamental role of national Government is to ensure that our mayors succeed. If issues arise in the way that we are seeing with existing mayoral authorities, there is a space for conversations and mechanisms for those issues to be resolved. I do not think we need an onerous legislative and regulatory procedure to resolve that. The amendment looks at the duty to convene the relevant partners. That matters where the mayor has a mandate to do something, but it requires them to bring lots of different partners around the table to deliver that. We are seeing mayors using their soft power. We have created an additional power to enable them to perform that vital function.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: 85, in clause 21, page 24, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) In section 117 of LDEDCA 2009 (orders and regulations), in subsection (3)(a), after “order” insert “or regulations”.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)

This provides that any regulations made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 that are not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. This will include regulations under new section 103B (mayoral power to convene meetings with local partners), as inserted by Clause 21 of the Bill, and section 107N (public authorities: duty to have regard to shared local growth priorities), as inserted by Schedule 19 to the Bill

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move amendment 295, in clause 21, page 24, line 27, leave out subsection 3.

This amendment would remove the requirement on local partners to respond to a meeting request from the Mayor.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 294, in clause 21, page 24, line 35, leave out from “specified” to end of line and insert “by the Mayor;”

This amendment would give Mayors, instead of the Secretary of State, the power to define the meaning of a local partner.

[David Simmonds]

The purpose of the amendments is to continue a theme that we have woven throughout our amendments to the Bill: to ensure that this is genuine devolution and that it is the mayor and local authority that make the decisions rather than the Secretary of State. There seems to be an inherent contradiction. We are talking about a devolution Bill that increases the decision-making powers of the Secretary of State to determine what goes on in each local area. The amendments seek to ensure that it is the mayor—the elected local person, of whom we have heard a great deal—who makes the decisions, and that where disputes arise, where one of the local partners feels it is not appropriate to respond to a meeting, there is provision in the legislation for that to happen. I think particularly about how the previous debate is relevant to this one.

If we look at the situation in London, the mayor has decided to spend a proportion of the mayoral precept on funding free school meals, but has not funded them sufficiently, so local authorities are faced with bills for making schoolteachers redundant because of budget shortfalls caused by that mayoral decision. There needs to be a process for resolving such issues. Simply assuming that everyone will have a meeting and that that will resolve it will not resolve those kinds of hard-edged issues. We need to make sure that local discretion works in practice and that it is not simply a matter of the Secretary of State dictating it from Whitehall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The regulation, when drafted, will be permissive, because we recognise that it will be different in different places. Through the regulation, we are trying to ensure that it is proportionate. We are also trying to make sure that the scope is drawn as broadly as possible in a way that makes sense for the mayor. I come back to the point that this is not a compulsion to be around the table; it is to trigger a process that means that if a public utility is required around the table, they have to engage. Even if the engagement is to say no which we would hope it would not be, it forces a process of engagement. We think that gives the mayor an additional tool to get the right people around the table to drive the change they want to see.

[David Simmonds]

My major concern is that it sounds like a mess. We can easily imagine situations, given the diverse job of the mayors and some of the ambitions envisaged for them as part of the legislation, where there will be a high degree of confusion about what is expected of whom and who has what obligations.

To simply say that it will be the subject of a permissive regulation when drafted seriously risks setting this up to fail, particularly when it comes to the envisaged economic partnerships. The Committee has not seen that regulation, and has no idea how it will work in practice at a local level.

We will push these amendments to a vote, which is all we can do at this stage. I am sure we will return to this issue during the later passage of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

No pressure, Mr Simmonds.

[David Simmonds]

I entirely disagree with my hon. Friend—he has not been nearly vocal enough in expressing the level of his concern.

The faults in new clause 19 are multiple. It would compel mayors, in a Bill that is supposed to be about devolution. Having spent a part of my life engaged with deliberative democracy and citizens assemblies, I agree with my hon. Friend. While I am sure they were an uplifting experience for all concerned, they achieved absolutely nothing. They wasted a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. If we reflect on the previous Labour Government’s Local Agenda 21, all the money was spent on meetings to discuss what to do about climate change, and there was nothing available to implement any of it. On Building Schools for the Future, years were spent on consultations and project planning, with not one brick laid and not one school roof repaired as a consequence. We have seen lots of examples where these kinds of processes have led citizens up the garden path.

The point about trust and consent is an important one. I reflect on my own party’s experience in government during the pandemic of low-traffic neighbourhoods. A vocal minority argued for them, but did not remotely gain the trust and consent of the affected residents. That sparked a backlash, which has led to their removal, at great expense to the taxpayer, in order to enable people to go about their daily lives. Our experience with these processes is quite negative. If a mayor wishes to implement such a process, in particular on a specific policy area, they should be free to do so, but they should not be compelled. I suspect we and the Government will find common cause on that.

The hon. Member for Banbury made reference to talking shops. We do not like talking shops in the Conservative party. I am sure he will find one quite easily if he wishes to continue his proposed debate about capital punishment and the death penalty—I am sure there are many people who would like to discuss that. It is really important that mayors are focused on the things that they can do on behalf of their constituents. We should not set up authorities that are there to talk; they should be there to do things on behalf of their constituents.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 19. I have a lot of sympathy and support for the concept of citizens assemblies, so I have sympathy for the intention behind the new clause, but it is really important that mayors, as locally elected leaders in their region, should have the ability to decide how best to engage with their local communities.

Mayors can already convene citizens assemblies using functional and general powers of competence as a way of hearing from local people and ensuring that local voices play a role in decision making. I give the hon. Lady the example of the Mayor of the West Midlands, and the Mayor of South Yorkshire, who held a citizens assembly on climate—they are already happening across the country.

Once the Bill becomes law, all mayors will have the general power of competence that we have talked about, which will enable them to convene citizens assemblies should they wish to do so. However, as other hon. Members have said, placing a duty on all mayors to convene a citizens assembly, irrespective of whether it is appropriate or how costly it is, would take away the local choice of mayors to decide how best to engage with their residents. I therefore ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause.

On new clause 42, I again completely recognise the spirit in which it has been tabled. It will be important for all mayors to engage with the wider public and with local authorities when delivering their functions. On that we are completely agreed. However, the Government cannot accept the new clause, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, it would impose a disproportionate and unworkable administrative burden on mayors of strategic authorities. By way of illustration, North Yorkshire alone comprises 729 individual parishes, which are organised into 412 town and parish councils. Expecting a mayor personally to discharge the proposed duty in respect of each body would, I fear, be impracticable and inevitably crowd out the time needed for the office’s other core strategic responsibilities: driving change and economic outcomes across the area.

Furthermore, many public service providers will be commissioned and contract-managed by local authorities. Superimposing a parallel mayoral duty would blur lines of accountability, cut across established commissioning arrangements, and risk duplication, confusion and delay. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will not press the new clause, however well-intentioned it may be.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Duty of mayors to collaborate

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move amendment 296, in clause 22, page 25, line 29, at end insert—

“(7A) The guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 7 may not include a role for trade unions.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from creating a role of trade unions in the execution of mayors’ duty to collaborate.

I shall speak briefly about the motivation for tabling the amendment. A concern that has run through the Opposition’s responses to a number of the Government’s measures, especially in the space of economic development, is that the Government have chosen not to enshrine the roles of businesses, entrepreneurs or local employers, but always to give a statutory privilege to trade unions to be part of discussions. Although it is wise for any local leader to include the broadest possible range of stakeholders, singling out one, which serves the interests of only one group—sometimes at the expense of others—is simply not a process that any democracy should envisage. We tabled the amendment to ensure that that is not the case in the Bill, and we will press it to a vote. We are clear that, following a change of Government, this is one provision that we would seek to repeal very rapidly.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

There are two issues with the amendment. First, we believe that it could create an inconsistency between the powers of mayoral combined authorities and their equivalents elsewhere in England, because it would change only the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

More fundamentally, we have already talked about the duty to bring local partners around the table. Underneath that is a presumption and expectation that all relevant parties, including parties in the private sector, that are fundamental to the mayor driving outcomes on behalf of his voters and residents come together to deliver things. There is a vital role for trade unions both in being a clear voice for workers in an area and in being a fundamental part of that economic partnership to drive outcomes.

[David Simmonds]

May I ask the Minister to clarify something? Some 70% of workers in this country are in an enterprise with fewer than five employees in total. Where is their voice at the table? Why is it only the unions representing large-scale organised labour that are compelled in legislation to be at the table when the mayor makes decisions?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Business organisations, whether small businesses, the Confederation of British Industry or chambers of commerce, will inevitably be around the table when a mayor worth their salt is making economic decisions and driving forward strategic partnerships.

The Government believe that as part of that partnership between workers, businesses and civic leaders, it is right that trade unions are firmly around the table. They give voice and expression not only to their individual members but to key concerns for workers across the piece. We do not resile from that; we think it is critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will specify in secondary legislation the range of local partners, based on feedback from mayors. Again, this is not compulsion; we think it is really important that civic organisations, local leaders and the mayoral strategic authority engage with organised labour. That is part of the economic model that we think is right, because it means we have the voice of organised labour around the table, driving outcomes on behalf of workers. I know the Conservative party struggles with that, because the idea of empowering workers is a bit of a strain for them, but Labour is very clear. We are building a model that ensures we have the voice and representation of labour alongside businesses and our civic leaders, driving change in the economy for working people.

[David Simmonds]

I spent many years chairing employers’ organisations, negotiating with trade unions about all kinds of matters. I have a very high degree of respect for them in the space in which they have expertise, but I do not really understand the Government’s rationale for arguing for a model in which one specific group—perhaps coincidentally, a very large-scale Labour funding group—is given a privileged place at the table when decisions are made about political matters for which the mayor is elected. That place at the table is not protected in statute for anybody else affected by it. That seems to me to border on abuse of the political process. It is very serious to be putting trade unions in a position to make decisions on matters that are not remotely within their area of competence and for which they have no mandate whatever. It is simply unacceptable.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[David Simmonds]

I have finished my remarks.

[Paul Holmes]

I want to make some brief remarks agreeing with my hon. Friend. I have negotiated with trade unions and I have a huge amount of respect for them. When I was cabinet member for children’s services and learning at Southampton city council, a hugely unionised organisation, I was responsible for negotiating some of the pay contracts for our really important staff. I had a very productive relationship with my trade union representatives and held them in great respect, as my hon. Friend did his when he was deputy leader at a local authority.

We are not anti-trade union, but we do not believe that there should be political favouritism for organised labour, where private business is essentially left out. Why does the Minister believe that organised labour, who, I must say, have intrinsic links with the Labour party movement, should have that prestigious and privileged seat at the table with the elected mayor? The Minister has resisted legislating for a mayor to have a duty to ensure that private business is included around that table; she is leaving that to the direction and the whim of the mayor elected at the time. Why can she not take that same attitude towards organised labour and the union movement?

Finally, I would say that this is very closely bordering on abuse of the political system. We on this side of the House firmly believe that. [Interruption.] Government Members can chunter as much as they want, but I ask them again: when they go around their constituencies and speak to private businesses that have been drastically affected by the decisions of this Government, will they say to those businesses, “It is absolutely fine that, when you get a mayor, you will not be legislatively consulted, but the unionised, organised labour workforce will be guaranteed a prestigious seat at that table”? That is a clear blurring of the lines on what a mayor should be doing. That is why we in the Opposition are opposed to that legislative proposition. As I have said clearly, Conservatives—including any Conservative Government and my hon. Friends and I here today—are not anti-trade union, but the measure gives legislative access on a dangerous scale, and that is why we will be opposing it. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is welcome to intervene if she wants to.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 32

Ayes: 3

---

Conservative: 3

Noes: 11

---

Labour: 10
Green Party: 1

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move amendment 297, in clause 22, page 26, line 22, at end insert—

“(3A) If a collaboration request is denied by mayor B, the request may not be appealed or reissued for the same purposes.”

This amendment would prevent a collaboration request which has been denied by mayor B from being appealed or reissued.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 298, in clause 22, page 29, line 27, at end insert—

“(3A) If a collaboration request is denied by mayor B, the request may not be appealed or reissued for the same purposes.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 297.

Clause stand part.

[David Simmonds]

The purpose of amendments 297 and 298 is to forestall the possibility—with reference to the Minister’s earlier comments—that, when in response to a request to collaborate or engage with an issue an organisation legitimately says it is not prepared to do so, that is followed by multiple repeated requests, which would create a situation in which there was a foreseeable conflict that should be avoided. That is the purpose of the amendments, which sit together. We will see what the Minister has to say about how that particular risk will be managed.

[Siân Berry]

I am speaking to clause stand part. Broadly, I very much support the duty. I do not agree with the amendment moved by the Conservatives. I cannot see how that would be logical or work when a mayor or council might well change. Similarly, in the sense that I would like it clarified today, I raise the issue of why the clause only seems to allow for collaboration between pairs of mayors. The various proposed new sections for the different Acts in this clause—often in the proposed new subsection (4)—seem to mandate that the two areas must be adjoining. A mayor may therefore only make a request to a neighbour, and I do not think that they may request to collaborate with a number of neighbours. However, a key transport connection in the strategic rail or road networks could lie in the next mayoral area beyond. A mayor might want to approach the other mayor about the possibility of collaborating on approaching Great British Railways about some financing ideas, for example. Likewise, a key hospital or employer might be in a nearby mayoral area that is not adjoining—a collaborative project at a strategic mayoral level might still be appropriate.

For a mayor in the middle, potentially a chain of collaborations could be set up, but were it a transport link, if the mayor in the middle was not that bothered or was focused on other things, such as digital tech rather than transport links, they might be able to stand in the way. I want to check whether the clause needs some amendment to allow for more flexibility in how mayors collaborate, and with which other mayors.

--- Later in debate ---

Of course, there may also be political consequences if a mayor consistently fails to engage with others in good faith. If a request is genuinely identical and made for the same purpose, it will be open to the receiving mayor simply to refuse it and refer back to the reasons already given. In that way, the risk of creating an impracticable administrative burden can be mitigated. By contrast, the amendments would invite legal uncertainty—for example, over whether two requests were truly the same or made “for the same purposes”. That would create unnecessary scope for dispute and challenge. With that explanation, I hope the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment.

[David Simmonds]

Following discussion with colleagues, we remain concerned about this, but we made the point in earlier debates and there has already been a vote on a similar issue. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Regulation of provision of micromobility vehicles

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The clause gives the Secretary of State the ability to empower local authorities to license on-street micromobility services, such as dockless cycle schemes, operating in their areas. The market for those services is currently unregulated. Operators do not have to get permission for services, and local leaders are limited in their ability to address antisocial behaviour and poor parking. We have all seen the issues created by rental e-bikes obstructing pavements. It is apparent in my constituency, and I know that other hon. Members will have it in theirs. The Government remain committed to keeping streets safe, and the clause will tackle this directly.

Local leaders have been vocal about their need for more powers to ensure that schemes work for their communities. We want more shared cycle schemes across the country, and ensuring that local leaders have the powers to manage them properly will be key to delivering sustainable, long-term growth of these services. The industry is also keen to see regulation, but the patchwork system is creating burdens on business and holding back growth and investment in the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

That deals with my first concern, but the second one was about subsections (2) and (3) in proposed new section 22G on the first 14 lines of page 124. However, I apologise and withdraw my comments—the clause applies specifically to the exemptions and not to the ruling. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move amendment 300, in schedule 5, page 128, line 11, at end insert—

“(3) The regulations must include a requirement for the license holder to maintain sufficient docking space for the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license.

(4) The regulations must include requirements for license holders which would require them to ensure that the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license do not obstruct any highway, cycling path, footpath, bridlepath, or subway.

(5) The regulations must stipulate that failure of license holders to comply with subsections (3) and (4) will warrant a loss of license.”

This amendment would require that regulations ensure that license holders for micromobility vehicles are responsible for maintaining sufficient docking space for their vehicle and ensuring their vehicle does not obstruct any highways or public paths, or else lose their license.

From the interactions so far on the subject, I feel as if there is a high degree of consensus on this point. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any regulations under the Bill will answer some of the questions that many of our constituents have been asking about such micromobility schemes. A number of Members present have a particular interest in this topic and a series of pilot schemes across the country on the hire and use of micromobility were broadly modelled on some of the previous schemes that were introduced to improve access to bicycles. They have met with mixed reviews.

The key thing that comes up repeatedly is the number of micromobility vehicles that are left to cause obstruction to people who have disabilities, parents who have pushchairs, people who have vision difficulties or are partially sighted, and those who are undertaking duties such as repairs, maintenance and cleaning. They all can find such vehicles a significant problem if not properly managed. The purpose of the amendment—I particularly draw attention to proposed new subsection (5)—is to be clear that if the provider of the scheme fails to manage its vehicles properly, the licence may be removed. I am open to what the Minister has to say about how such a provision could be enshrined.

[Paul Holmes]

Does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that part of our problem in many of our city centre locations, as he rightly outlined, is the impact of the vehicles being discarded across the pavements? The operators do not necessarily have the wherewithal or enforcement ability to take responsibility. Does he agree that the amendment absolutely places that responsibility on them, so that there is no doubt about their duties with regard to the public?

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to spotlight what is at the heart of the matter. The learning from the pilot schemes is that they are widely engaged with and used, and I know Members of this House who use micromobility hire as part of their commuting near the Palace of Westminster. Such schemes potentially form a responsible and useful part of our transport system, but we need to ensure that the issues that persist in undermining them are addressed. I will listen closely to what the Minister has to say about how the Government propose to deal with the issues.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)