Highways take driving seat in Infrastructure Bill debate

This entry reports on yesterday's second reading of the Infrastructure Bill in the House of Lords.

The debate was longer than one might have guessed - over four hours. The Hansard report of it can be found here. Incidentally, the origins of Hansard are fascinating, as publishing proceedings in Parliament transformed from a criminal offence with severe penalties to something Parliament did itself.

Transport minister and former London mayor candidate Baroness Kramer introduced the bill. She described the infrastructure provisions thus:

"When planning nationally significant infrastructure projects, it was never the aim to make the process burdensome for obtaining further development consents. Part 3 shows the Government’s commitment to increasing the pace of delivery for new developments and to manage our land assets more effectively. The Government are committed to securing investment in new nationally significant infrastructure projects as part of their efforts to rebuild the economy and to create new jobs. We want to speed up the process and get Britain building for our future.

"Applications are large and detailed documents—up to 50,000 pages or more. Allowing inspectors to be appointed once the application has been accepted, rather than once it has been publicised, will give inspectors an additional six to eight weeks to become familiar with the issues. In addition, we will allow two inspectors to be appointed as examiners: at present one, three, four and five are allowed but not two. Since the workload is often too much for one inspector but not enough for three, around £200,000 a year can be saved by developers if an examination is conducted with two inspectors rather than three.

"Currently, the process for making changes to a development consent order once consent has been granted is lengthy. The process is the same as if a completely new application is being submitted. A simpler process is required but only for very minor changes. This the Bill will now allow."

She mentioned three measures that are not in the bill yet, but may be added to it:

• enhancing the United Kingdom’s energy independence and security by opening up access to shale and geothermal sites;
• maximising North Sea resources;
• the construction of zero-carbon homes.

There was criticism of the bill thus being incomplete (Lord McKenzie described it as 'hardly shovel ready'), but there wasn't that much debate about fracking. The issue that took up the most time was Part 1 of the bill on the changes to the Highways Agency. Incidentally, although the bill refers to strategic highways 'companies' being set up, Baroness Kramer clarified that the intention was only to create one such company. 

In reply to Baroness Kramer for Labour, Lord Adonis said that infrastructure needs and the bill "are like ships passing in the night, except that the Bill is perhaps more like a dinghy than a ship". He criticised the plans for the Highways Agency, saying it could have its planning period extended from one to five years without changing governance.

On two inspectors he commented that giving the lead inspector a deciding vote made the second one "distinctly second-class", as his or her vote would never count. Fair point, and a difference between two and four inspectors.

He bemoaned the lack of transport infrastructure planning: "I am told that later this year, for the first time in 350 years, Britain will no longer have the world’s largest port or airport. That accolade will pass, symbolically, to Dubai."  Lord Teverson countered that "there is no crisis on runways"', which had been overstated by air travel enthusiasts.

Lord Oxburgh had the same criticism of the National Infrastructure Plan that I do: "it is not an infrastructure plan: it is a list."  Lord Hunt suggested that motorways double up as drains after flooding, as in Kuala Lumpur. a novel suggestion.

Only two peers referred to the Planning Act provisions. Lord Judd said: "'It is proposed that the Secretary of State should have discretion to allow non-material changes to be made to nationally significant infrastructure projects without developers having to resort to the process of seeking development consent. That is a very broad power. It may make a lot of sense in some circumstances, but will the Government provide more detail about how the power would be exercised in practice, and about what the checks and balances would be?"

He is possibly missing the point, as that is already the case. Lord McKenzie asked if the consultation planned for August on changes to DCOs after they had been made could be speeded up so that parliament could take it into account. There were also a couple of supportive mentions of the proposals of the Labour-sponsored Armitt review of infrastructure planning.

The debate concluded without a vote, since the Labour Party supports the principle of the Bill. The bill will proceed to its committee stage, and the first day of this will be on 3 July. Unlike the Commons, where a dozen or two MPs are appointed to the committee, in the Lords any member may participate at that stage.