Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

53C: Clause 29, page 41, line 37, at end insert—
“(ca) that fees charged must not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the relevant service;(cb) requiring prescribed public authorities to publish annual accounts showing fee income and associated service costs;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent public authorities from using the fee-charging power as a revenue-raising mechanism by limiting charges to actual service costs and requiring transparent reporting of income and expenditure.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we come to a series of amendments that relate to transport and the Department for Transport. If I may, I shall begin with a few preliminary remarks. The first is to apologise to noble Lords that I did not speak at Second Reading on the Bill—I was not able to. The second is to thank the Minister and his officials for the engagement and the helpful meetings and briefings that I had in preparation for today. Thirdly, as a class, the amendments relating to the transport section of the Bill are generally very trivial and minor indeed. If this is the Government’s engine for growth, there is not a great deal of puff in it. One of the amendments—I doubt we will discuss it—is so bold as to repeal a redundant clause in the Transport and Works Act. For those of us with a tidy mind, that is not a bad thing to do, but it will hardly shake up the economy. None the less, the Government’s amendments deserve a degree of scrutiny and we shall attempt to do that in the course of the next few hours.

I turn first to amendments relating to Clause 29. As well as moving Amendment 53C standing in my name, I will speak to Amendments 53D, 53E and 53F. I shall also speak to Amendment 53M, which relates to a later clause in the Bill. What these amendments have in common is that they relate to charges. Clause 29 creates a category of legal person known as “prescribed authorities”, which are not named. These prescribed authorities will be able to charge highways authorities for their services, but the services that they will be charging for are not specified either. All this is to follow in regulation. One can hazard a guess that the sort of body that might be a prescribed authority for this purpose might be Natural England or the Environment Agency, or whatever.

My first question, and the purpose of the first few amendments, is to elicit from the noble Lord what these bodies are. The second is to try to establish what range of services they are going to be able to charge for, and whether services that are currently regarded as routine and freely available will now become a charge on highways authorities. I would also like to know whether, in setting the charges, they will be limited by the very common principle among public authorities that charges should be set only so as to cover costs, and that taking one year together with another they do not generate a surplus. Will that be the case in relation to these charges or not, and if not, what limit will be placed on their ability to set those charges?

My final question is a slightly detailed one for those who are involved with local authorities that are also highways authorities. Could the payment of these charges by highways authorities fall upon a parking revenue account and be drawn from a parking revenue account, or would it fall on the general fund? It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us that as well.

Briefly on Amendment 53M, this relates to a clause which allows highways authorities to charge applicants—this is, if you like, a mirror image, or may be to some extent a pass-through clause. It is not objectionable in itself, but there is again the question of whether these charges will be set so as to cover costs and so that a surplus is not generated, taking one year with another. I think it would be very helpful to all noble Lords if the Minister could answer those questions. I beg to move.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, very briefly, I support my noble friend in this probing effort to establish what the intention of the Government is. He is right to highlight the risk that this becomes a revenue-raising mechanism as opposed to a cost-offsetting mechanism. There have been many examples over the years where different public bodies have sought to do that, and he is right to seek clarification.

The one caveat I would add is that there may be some cases where it is right to levy a punitive charge, where there has been a failure on the part of the third-party body that is being charged, but that should be under only very limited circumstances and where there has been a palpable and measurable failure in what that organisation has done; for example, a lane rental that has been put in place to carry out works that have been done inadequately, leading to disruption afterwards. My noble friend is absolutely right to ensure that the Government are clear about whether these measures will allow profits to be made or whether they are simply to offset costs. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I am very sympathetic to his point. He is quite right. He and I both know that, on many occasions, reinstatement works are done badly and do not last long. The recovery of inspection charges to find that out is reasonable; punitive charges beyond those levied for work reasonably incurred are probably not reasonable. This may not quite be the vehicle to do it, but I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord is saying. As he probably does, I inspect pavements and roads almost daily and despair at their condition.

I will deal with my noble friend Lord Liddle’s point on Amendment 71 when we get there, even though he will probably be in transit to somewhere else. I will take away the points about run-off water, which were debated by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and reflect on the extent to which they are covered by these amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling these amendments and appreciate his interest in these clauses. However, I ask that he withdraws Amendment 53C.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on the deftness with which he developed a debate on charging fees into one about charging his electric vehicle. It demonstrates the indulgence of your Lordships that he could get away with that for the whole length of a speech. Well done is what I would like to say to him.

In the light of the Minister’s clear assurances at the Dispatch Box that these genuine concerns, which are not mentioned in the Bill, will be dealt with satisfactorily through secondary legislation—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Does my noble friend not still agree that it would be much better to have primary legislation that listed who and where it is than always having to wait for secondary legislation, which we know we cannot amend, as we discovered only earlier this week? Why can we not have proper primary legislation, so that we can discuss these things more sensibly?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I could not agree more with my noble friend, and I will only say that you cannot get blood out of a stone. We are simply not going to get those changes unless we decide to bring the matter back on Report and divide the House, which we may do. I am sufficiently satisfied at this stage to withdraw my amendment.

Before I do so and sit down, I simply remind the Minister that I had a question about the general fund and parking revenue accounts as sources for paying for the charges imposed on highways authorities. It would be useful, perhaps by way of a letter after this debate, to have a response to that question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 53C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

53G: Clause 30, page 44, line 3, at end insert—
“(4H) Before making an order under this section, a strategic highways company must consult for a period of not less than 12 weeks—(a) neighbouring highway authorities;(b) local planning authorities whose area the highway passes through or would pass through;(c) where applicable, combined mayoral authorities whose area the highway passes through or would pass through.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require strategic highways companies to undertake a minimum 12-week consultation with neighbouring highway authorities, local planning authorities, and combined mayoral authorities before making trunk road designation orders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we come now to a number of amendments that relate to Clauses 30, 31 and 32, and to my opposition to the question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill. We shall return to Clause 33 in an ensuing group. These are a bit of a ragbag, because this part of the Bill is something of a ragbag, but I have grouped them together because, although they are relatively trivial clauses, they deserve some level of exploration.

Amendment 53G relates to Clause 30, and it is to do with the power being given to the highways authority to designate trunk roads. At the moment, this designation has to be carried out by statutory instrument. Contrary to advice that I suspect would be offered by my noble friend Lord Deben, were he still in his place, the Government wish to transfer that power to Highways England. I have to grant that this is not a constitutional point on which to go to the stake, but we are at least, in this amendment, asking that it be required to undertake proper consultation with neighbouring authorities—highways authorities, planning authorities and local authorities—in so far as they are not the same body. I hope that the Minister would be able to agree to that.

I have to admit that Amendment 53H to Clause 31 is a bit of a tease. The Department for Transport, pressed to find something that it could put into the Bill, has gone so far as to say, “Wouldn’t it be a nice idea to standardise notice periods, so that instead of having six weeks under the Transport and Works Act, we move it to 30 days?” The only thing about that is that, if you turn to the Explanatory Notes, the example of standardisation given is the Planning Act, where it says the notice period is 28 days. I have tried to be helpful to the Government here in seeking to correct 30 days to 28 days so that it is compliant with the Explanatory Notes that the Government have themselves produced. Were the Government simply being inattentive? I wonder how much time we should spend debating this clause.

Amendment 53I relates to Clause 32. It raises a similar concern to that which I raised in relation to Clause 30. The clause dispenses with the need for a statutory instrument in confirming certain schemes. Again, the question here is whether the Secretary of State should be taking those powers for herself and away from Parliament. The amendment is much more honest. The Secretary of State is obliged to publish confirmation of an order or scheme when she makes that confirmation, but it does not say what deadline she has to meet when she makes that confirmation before she issues the publication. We suggest that she should have to do so within seven days.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, before I turn to Amendment 53G, I will reflect on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the end of the previous group. I will, of course, write to him about the question of the general fund versus the highway fund. He reflected on the deftness of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in turning his amendment to charging electric cars, but I have some sympathy as the noble Lord will be travelling on Avanti on a Thursday afternoon.

Amendment 53G seeks to require

“strategic highways companies to undertake a minimum 12-week consultation with neighbouring highway authorities, local planning authorities, and”

relevant

“combined mayoral authorities before making trunk road designation orders”.

I welcome the reasoning behind the noble Lord’s amendment and note that the existing legislation makes some provision in respect of these matters—most notably, in parts II and III of Schedule 1 to the Highways Act 1980, which set out consultation requirements in respect of every council in whose area the proposed highway order relates.

The noble Lord’s amendment could introduce an additional and unnecessary administrative burden on those neighbouring local authorities that are not directly affected by a proposed order but would necessarily be directly consulted by National Highways. Mandating engagement risks diverting resources away from the core task of delivering vital infrastructure and could lead to delays.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is an ingenious argument on the part of the Minister, but I have never come across, and I may say that he has never come across, a consultation that mandates a response from a consultee who has nothing to say.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

We will differ slightly on the interpretation. I think that I agree with him.

Furthermore, imposing a 12-week minimum consultation period would introduce rigidity that would have the consequence of significantly slowing down the delivery of transport infrastructure projects. It would be contrary to the purpose of Clause 31, which is designed to make consultation more efficient while maintaining necessary safeguards.

Amendment 53H, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposes to amend the notice period from 30 days to 28 days. He did not detain us long, and neither will I. The purpose of this is to reduce it from six weeks. I note his comparison with the Planning Act. The Government’s proposal of 30 days seems, to the Government at least, to strike a good balance in this respect. That is where we propose to leave the matter.

Amendment 53I, tabled by the noble Lord, seeks to write into primary legislation that the Secretary of State must publish the notice of making a highway order and the confirmation of a highway scheme within seven days, along with the related documentation. Currently, notices are dated on the day they are published. The amendment would not have the effect of speeding up that part of the process. I appreciate the noble Lord’s interest in this clause and the intentions behind the amendments, but I ask him not to move his amendment.

The noble Lord has given notice of his intention to oppose Clause 34 standing part of the Bill. The clause contains an enabling power that allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales the power to move model clauses from legislation into guidance to make the Transport and Works Act process more efficient for applicants. The model clauses are intended to streamline the delivery of Transport and Works Act orders. They set out standardised provisions for applicants and other stakeholders to consider in the preparation of applications. They can currently be amended only through secondary legislation, so moving them into guidance will allow these helpful guiding provisions to be updated on a more responsive basis via a more efficient process. This supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport laws, ensuring that we have a more efficient legal framework. I urge the noble Lord not to oppose the clause standing part.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister did much less well that time round than he did on the previous debate. At least on the previous debate he said that the issues that I had raised would be dealt with one way or another in secondary legislation. Here he is moving into government blank wall approach: nothing can be changed. None the less, given the relative triviality of this part of the Bill and the fact that it does nothing whatever to promote growth but tidies up a few things here and there—that is all from the bottom of a bureaucrat’s desk—I am happy at this stage to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53G withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

53IA: Clause 33, page 49, line 1, at end insert—
“(2) After section 250(8) of the Highways Act 1980, insert—“(9) Any compulsory purchase order made in exercise of powers under this Act that includes the right to take temporary possession or occupation of land must specify the maximum duration of such temporary possession or occupation, the mechanism for establishing compensation, and the condition in which the land is to be returned to the landowner.” (3) Before the powers in this section are implemented, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on the procedure for temporary acquisition, acceptable durations, calculation of compensation, and further compensation if the land is not returned in the agreed condition.”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that this amendment, which started life some time ago, got lost somewhere in the system. That was identified only yesterday, so it was tabled as a manuscript amendment, but the Minister has been aware for some time that the area is of concern. It is, I think, the first substantial area of concern. I set out my stall immediately as a Conservative who believes in the rights of private property and that, consequently, the Government’s power to undertake compulsory purchase should be constrained to occasions when it is absolutely necessary.

The clause appears to create a new type of compulsory purchase altogether. It is entirely open to the Minister to correct me in all this, because I am not a planning or property lawyer, but it purports to create something that is, in effect, temporary compulsory purchase, and we have never heard of such a thing. We have heard of the temporary acquisition, compulsorily, of certain rights and usages across land that may be necessary for the purposes of construction on an adjacent site—way leaves, for example, may be acquired compulsorily—but the clause talks about the possession and acquisition of the land, and that seems to go considerably beyond what exists at the moment, unless, as I say, the Minister can correct me.

This measure is hard to find in the Bill because all this, which is at the bottom of page 48, is encompassed in five lines of text. So what I regard as potentially a very significant change—meriting, in my view, a Bill of its own, a Bill that actually has the words “compulsory purchase” in the short title—is possibly, though I am not saying deliberately, being slipped through in a way that would hardly be noticed at the bottom of a page in a Bill that on the face of it is about something very different.

My amendment does not seek to set the provision aside because it is possible that the Minister can correct me and explain that all he is doing is building on well-established precedents, which he will be able to cite. My amendment is simply to say that any order creating such a compulsion, any compulsory purchase order, must specify the manner in which the compensation is to be paid. Normally, for compulsory purchase, there is one payment and you pay to acquire the site, the land or the building. If you are doing it temporarily, what are you paying? Are you paying a form of rent, or are you paying a price together with a fixed repurchase price at the end of a defined period? None of that is known.

Then we come to the question of period. The second thing that my amendment would require is that when such an order was made, it should specify the period. Otherwise, what is to stop temporary becoming permanent—and for what purpose? If it is temporarily needed for a certain purpose, could it become permanent and used for a different purpose? If you temporarily need access to a field to put portakabins in it next to a construction site, could it somehow slip into being permanently acquired for development by the Government themselves? On what basis then would the recompense have been decided? Would that have been a valid recompense?

I think asking these questions through the amendment is more valuable than simply trying to slap the clause down completely, especially as I do not claim to be 100% sure of my ground, but this is potentially quite a dangerous clause that the Government are going to have to justify thoroughly if it is to stand, as it does, part of the Bill at the moment. I beg to move.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

I endorse the comments of my friend Lord Moylan. I have two questions and two observations. First, “temporary” can mean different things to different people. For example, in the context of onshore wind, temporary permission tends to be granted for 25 years, whereas if one is talking about occupation or possession of land, ordinarily one would think of a considerably shorter time. Can the Minister give any elucidation of the intent behind the use of that word in the provision to which the amendment relates?

Secondly, can reassurance be given on whether the power that Clause 33 proposes to introduce would be used only where lesser alternative forms, such as those existing powers that my noble friend Lord Moylan referred to, would not do the job equally or similarly well?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

This amendment seeks to provide safeguards in legislation to implement powers of temporary possession under the Highways Act 1980. Of course, that Act already contains powers covering the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in and over land. Clause 33 would make it explicit that those powers can also authorise temporary possession.

We are introducing this power because currently in the Highways Act there is no mechanism for the temporary possession and use of land through means of compulsion. Where land is required only on a temporary basis, if access to such land cannot be achieved by agreement with the landowners, the highways authority will seek powers of compulsory acquisition to enable it to use the land. Powers of compulsory acquisition are disproportionate to the needs of highways authorities that need to access the land only temporarily. This measure will offer a more proportionate route, aid land negotiations and provide legal protection to landowners that they will regain their land following the carrying out of works.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, raised the definition of “temporary”. This is not defined in legislation. It has the meaning of lasting for only a limited period and not permanently. This provides flexibility to the order-making authority and landowner when considering the nature of the powers. He is right that the power would not always be used, because if the land could be temporarily used in another way, the relevant public authority would use that instead.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised some very important points on compulsory acquisition of land and rights over land. These matters are already embedded within the existing compulsory purchase mechanism that underpins not only the Highways Act 1980 but other infrastructure consenting regimes. For example, land compensation is calculated in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961. The legislation sets out the mechanism by which compensation might be calculated and, in the case of dispute, the mechanism for seeking resolution. A suite of published guidance exists to support these established mechanisms. The Highways Act 1980 therefore already embeds an existing and well-founded mechanism for consideration of compulsory acquisition of rights in and over land. The clause would not amend this but simply make it explicit that it applies to powers of temporary possession and occupation, as well as powers to permanently acquire land.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord would surely agree that those provisions do not cover one of the questions that must arise in the case of temporary possession of land, which is the condition in which you are obliged to return it. Since the permanent acquisition of land by compulsory purchase does not contemplate that it will ever be returned, there will not be any provisions that cover that. This must be another one of the issues. In what condition are you required to return it? That is also addressed in one of my amendments. Surely the Minister cannot claim that prior legislation explicates and resolves all that.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Since he asked the question, I will write to him about how the condition of the returning land is to be dealt with. In the meantime, I kindly ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for that point. He makes a very valid point, and we will go away and consider it. I thank him very much for raising it. I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I regret to say that the Minister has confirmed one’s worst fears about this clause—that it has created something wholly new and unprecedented and has done so without proper safeguards and without being properly embedded in a piece of legislation that would invite appropriate scrutiny. Rather, it is in a very short clause in a Bill that appears to be about something else. He appears to be saying that, but I have a suspicion from what the noble Lord has said that, actually, something else might be going on: those who have drafted this clause have simply got muddled about the difference between acquiring rights over land, such as way leaves and so forth—necessary for the purpose of construction—and actually acquiring the land itself. Indeed, it is notable that, in the Minister’s response, he gave no reason and no examples as to why it should ever be necessary to acquire the land outright rather than to use the existing provisions available to those who can exercise compulsory purchase powers.

In all candour and friendliness, I suggest to the noble Lord that he consider very carefully whether this clause is necessary—and, indeed, whether it actually achieves what it was intended to achieve in the first place or goes way beyond it. It is certainly the case that, if an amendment is not tabled by the Government at the next stage of consideration of this Bill, it will be the subject of a very significant and lengthy debate as a result of amendments tabled by this Bench. In the meantime, I would be grateful for your Lordships’ permission to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53IA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

53J: Clause 36, page 49, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (2) (hearing after objection under section 10) omit “may” and insert “must””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to provide an opportunity for objectors to appear before and be heard by an appointed person.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we are now back on the Transport and Works Act. This clause relates to the holding of an inquiry when the powers of that Act are used. Since it will come up at some point later, it is worth reminding noble Lords, although I am sure they know all this, that for major construction works and infrastructure projects there are three methods available to a promoter for getting permission. One is planning permission from the local authority, and one—since 2008—is to go for a development consent order. When I say that there are three methods, there are really four, because there are also hybrid Bills. But there is also the intermediate thing of getting a Transport and Works Act order under that statute. In doing so, of course, one almost inevitably impinges on the property rights of others, so the possibility of having objectors and holding inquiries to examine those objectors must of necessity arise. That is the part of the Transport and Works Act that we are dealing with.

There are two things going on in the Bill, as far as I can make out. One is that it is currently the case that, if somebody raises an objection, the Secretary of State may hold an inquiry or may appoint somebody to hear the objector. However, they do not have to appoint someone to hear that objector if the Secretary of State considers that the objection is frivolous or trivial. There is a seriousness test, if you like, before the Secretary of State is obliged to respond to the objection by appointing someone to hear it or, indeed, by holding an inquiry.

One of the things happening in the Bill is that that seriousness test is being changed so that it now has to be something considered “serious enough” by the Secretary of State—no longer the very low bar of frivolous or trivial, which are terms quite well understood in legal circles, I believe, and therefore testable objectively, to some extent. Now, it becomes an entirely subjective test on the part of the Secretary of State as to whether it is “serious enough”—enough for what? No definition is offered. This moves the balance of power away from the citizen and in favour of the promoter, who is very often the Government, in a way that deserves inquiry. That is what these amendments are intended to highlight and invite the Government to comment on.

In addition, there is the question of whether the Government have to hold an inquiry or appoint a person. At the moment, in the Transport and Works Act, they “may” do so, but with the rising of the seriousness test—if that is admitted—it seems to me that, if someone passes the seriousness test, it should say “must” hold an inquiry or appoint a person on the part of the Secretary of State. After all, if it is admitted that the objection is serious enough—again, enough for what?—surely it must follow that an inquiry or a hearing should take place. If we are going to have a different balance, I am trying, not unhelpfully, to get the right balance. It would be worth hearing what the Minister has in mind here, and whether there is any give on his part.

Finally, I turn to my Amendment 53L, which relates to what is, as far as I can make out, a new power for inspectors in relation to Transport and Works Act inquiries—not planning inquiries but specifically Transport and Works Act inquiries—to impose costs on those who appear. At least in the planning realm, with which I am more familiar, inspectors can indeed impose costs on one side or the other, and in some cases on both, but only if there is some sort of delinquency on their part that has caused damage and held up the inquiry, such as a failure to provide documents on time or not turning up at hearings, which create costs for the other side.

The inspector can hold a separate costs hearing and can, and does, impose costs. I think we would all agree that that is a sensible measure to try to minimise delinquency on the part of those attending hearings. But a general power to defray the costs of the inquiry could have a chilling effect on objectors. That may be the Government’s intention—it may be that the Government want only the well-heeled to be able to appear before inquiries. If so, it would be as well to say so. But, if not, this new power needs to be either removed or very severely moderated. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support my noble friend in these amendments. This is not just something that is happening in this Bill; it is also going on in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, where the Government are looking at the conditions under which a parent is allowed to complain about their treatment by a local authority. There seems to be a general move to restrict individuals’ access to setting something right when they feel they have been hard done by by the state and really making it quite difficult. In the case of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, there are no criteria set out for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can just throw the thing in the bin without giving reasons, without doing anything. I hope we will manage to change that, but it is a big change in attitude and I am really interested to know what is going on in this Government, in that they want to change the relationship between the state and the citizen in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for setting out so succinctly the choices for the routes by which infrastructure projects might be pursued. The objective of the Bill is to deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for infrastructure, because a failure to build enough infrastructure is constraining economic growth and threatening the economy, climate targets and energy security. There is a strong purpose in this whole suite of amendments. In this case, it is not intended to withdraw the right of individual citizens to take action; it is designed to deal with objections to transport infrastructure projects more proportionately. Sometimes, those objections will necessitate a public inquiry. On other occasions, however, an exchange of correspondence may achieve the same goal but quicker, cheaper and more efficiently. All objections will continue to be decided entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. It does not mean less scrutiny but it is designed to speed up the Transport and Works Act process.

Currently, if an objection that is better than frivolous or trivial is raised through an application under the Act by a statutory objector—that is, an affected local authority or landowner—a public inquiry or hearing must be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. This can result in a costly and lengthy public inquiry even where objections clearly lack merit. Instead, it is proposed that a public inquiry or hearing be held only when an objection by a statutory objector is considered serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and costs for applicants and objectors, but a proportionate objection process will still remain, ensuring that objections are given due attention and decisions communicated to all parties.

On Amendment 53K—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Before the noble Lord moves to Amendment 53K, what does he understand, and what should noble Lords and members of the public understand, by the term “serious enough”?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

We have to get ourselves into a position where it is possible to get schemes to move forward based on a consideration of the objections and whether they can be dealt with by means other than a public inquiry. It is evident from how the processes work at the moment that delays can be and are being incurred. Of course the definition needs to be fleshed out in due course, but the Bill seeks to streamline the whole process by introducing another bar into it. The Government have chosen the definition

“serious enough to merit such treatment”

to define what that is.

On Amendment 53K, the Government consider that procedural matters such as providing written reasons for a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry are best dealt with in guidance or secondary legislation. By reducing the current unnecessary bureaucracy or disproportionate process, this clause will help support a faster transport consenting process.

Amendment 53L would ensure that costs may be imposed on a person only when that person has acted maliciously or unreasonably during a public inquiry process. Clause 37 introduces to the Transport and Works Act a new power enabling an inspector conducting a public inquiry to make decisions on relevant cost claims rather than the Secretary of State, as is currently required. Department for Transport Circular 3/94, which governs how claims for costs during a Transport and Works Act inquiry are handled, makes explicitly clear what constitutes unreasonable behaviour and the circumstances in which it can be applied. Guidance of this type is also used for the Planning Act 2008 regime and appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspectors conducting inquiries on Transport and Works Act applications will continue to apply the circular when considering costs. The intent of the proposed amendment is achieved through existing means.

I thank the noble Lord for the amendments he has tabled but, for the reasons outlined, ask that he does not press them.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I think many noble Lords—I am one of them—have general sympathy with the Government’s ambition to remove unnecessary obstacles to the approval of infrastructure projects, which is why one has tried to be as indulgent as possible in bringing forward amendments to their clauses. But in this case, it simply will not stand. It is an entirely circular definition to say that an inquiry will be held if the objection is serious enough to merit an inquiry. It is entirely self-defining; it tells us nothing whatever. It does not tell us anything objective about the seriousness required, as one of my amendments would set out. The Government will have to come back to this because, as it stands, it is completely unsustainable.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, I have a question for the Minister. He said the definition needs to be fleshed out in due course. Under what powers in what Act will that fleshing out be done?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53J withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My purpose here is not to enter a radical objection to Clause 38 but, rather, to raise a debate and to hear what the Minister has to say on the points that I would like to make. This clause allows the Secretary of State to set a deadline for inquiries to be conducted and concluded. As I understand the clause, the deadline is flexible in that the Secretary of State can subsequently amend it and extend it to make it longer. With the purpose of trying to speed up consents, that may appear, on the face of it, to be a very sensible measure. However, I want to draw a lesson from history here.

Let us go back to the Planning Act 2008, which introduced the development consent order. One of the features of the development consent order was that the inquiry phase was to be limited; it was to be six months by statute, unless it was extended. Exactly the same approach was used all the way back in 2008 in relation to DCOs. Has that resulted in DCOs being shorter processes? It has not. It has, in effect, required all the work preparatory to the inquiry to be front-loaded, carried out and presented to the inspectors before they will agree to open the inquiry; the clock does not start running until they open it, so the six-month limit does not apply.

In effect, this approach has failed in relation to DCOs. It could be argued that it has made DCOs a slower method of acquiring permission than a Transport and Works Act order currently is. To get to the point at which the inspectors are willing to start the inquiry, one has to produce every conceivable document that they might require, which sometimes results in hundreds of thousands of pages having to be produced. Under the older system—using Planning Act powers under which documents could be pulled in later on—although the overall process lasted quite a long time, it did not require as much paper as is currently required by the DCO process.

I offer that lesson from history—not even history, because we live with DCOs today—as a cautionary tale. I wonder to what extent the Minister has taken account of that. Are the Government not in fact doing something here that is seductively attractive and will achieve something that we would like to see but will, in practice, slow up the whole process? I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, makes an interesting point. I will not replicate the intention of Clause 38 because that is already pretty clear to the House. However, I am not sure that he is entirely correct in saying that what he describes as a DCO is a wholly bad thing because, in practice, it is sometimes a very good thing that the parties sort themselves out before the inspector starts the inquiry, rather than prolonging the inquiry by sorting themselves out while the inspector is sitting.

It is true that the DCO has the time limit that the noble Lord describes, whereas the Transport and Works Act does not. The Government’s view is that that leads to uncertainty in the consenting process and that introducing statutory timeframes will provide increased certainty to stakeholders, which has been valued in other transport consenting regimes. It will introduce greater accountability to the decision-makers. It should speed up the consenting process and should allow applicants to be better prepared post consent. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to oppose Clause 38 standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I do not intend to oppose Clause 38 standing part of the Bill.

Clause 38 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the Bill stands to disapply heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is, therefore, a risk that this could harm heritage assets without proper scrutiny and probably go further than the stated ambition of the Bill. I am therefore delighted to support Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, who has outlined the technical issues, as has the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in talking about his amendment.

We all understand that building transport infrastructure is important to our economic growth. In particular, new public transport is important to support people moving away from cars where possible. However, we have got to make sure that, in building faster and more efficiently, we do not lose critical heritage. This amendment and debate are important because they flag the importance of recognising our architectural heritage and conserving the historic environment alongside the need for new infrastructure. It is a practical approach, and I urge the Government to support this small but, in some ways, significant change.

As we have already heard, in Committee in the Commons, the Minister acknowledged that these changes could have unintended consequences and committed to respond to concerns raised by my colleague Gideon Amos MP by Report—yet nothing has been forthcoming. No further comments were made by the Minister on Clause 41 during that debate. I await the response from the noble Lord the Minister to this important topic of our heritage assets and the answers to the many important questions that have been raised.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, after this very valuable debate. I make it clear that the Opposition Front Bench is fully behind the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. I seek to add nothing to the detail of their amendments, which were so eloquently argued by both of them.

I just add one reflection of my own. It is very easy to imagine that listed building consents and planning applications are much the same thing, because they are usually dealt with by the same officers in the same local authority. But they are not; they are two very distinct legal regimes, which have two very distinct bases. Planning is essentially about mitigating and shaping the externalities of development so as to minimise public harm and perhaps achieve some public good—it is to do with utility—whereas listed building legislation is about a test of absolute value. Either a building is listed and therefore is to be preserved, implicitly for ever, or it is not. Of course, there are grades of listing and it is possible to delist a building, so there is a little movement around the edges. However, in essence, it is a test not of utility—of whether something is useful to us—but of value. For the Government to mix up these two, to mash them together, is to ignore that very important distinction.

The listed building regime is not part of a trade-off as a consequence of that. You do not say that, because we can achieve something useful on the one hand—a faster railway, shorter route or whatever it might be—there is a calculus by which we can demolish so many listed buildings to achieve that. They are not commensurate regimes. The Government would do very well to withdraw this clause altogether and rely on the flexibility in existing arrangements. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord has to say, but I suspect that we will be debating this again in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

55A: Clause 42, page 55, line 4, after “may” insert “, subject to the approval of the environment agency,”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, again I return to the Dispatch Box not to object as a matter of principle to what the Government are proposing in Clause 42 but to throw a little grit, in the hope that the Government will explain the consequences of it for us and accept that it might need some moderation.

The effect of Clause 42 is that an order under the Transport and Works Act can be made that includes a marine licence without having to apply separately to the Marine Management Organisation. The concern that I have expressed in my amendment is that there appears to be no requirement in any of this for consultation with the Environment Agency, which has considerable responsibilities for much of our marine environment. Some assurance on the existing apparatus of guardianship is necessary. It is like what we discussed earlier. Keeping the guard-rails without necessarily having excessive bureaucracy is something we are sympathetic to, but losing the guard-rails altogether is much more concerning.

The Environment Agency is part of the guard-rails system for protecting our marine environment. We should like to know that it will be properly consulted and that that will be in the Bill. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall seek to be brief on this matter. Clause 42 allows for a single process similar to that in the Planning Act 2008, which already provides for deemed marine licences. Applicants will still need to consult the Marine Management Organisation on a Transport and Works Act order that contains a marine licence, ensuring that proper oversight remains in place.

The Marine Management Organisation’s application process includes consultation with the Environment Agency, whose representations will be given due regard during the determination process by the Secretary of State. The clause removes duplication and, therefore, streamlines the process, saving time and costs in decision-making, while maintaining the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee. It aligns the Transport and Works Act with the Planning Act 2008 process, making it simpler and quicker for transport projects that involve marine areas.

The noble Lord’s amendment would introduce a blocking power for the Environment Agency that does not exist for deemed marine licences under the equivalent provisions in the Planning Act 2008 regime. Clause 42 reduces bureaucracy, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I appreciate the noble Lord’s interest in this clause. However, I kindly ask him to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

55B: Clause 45, page 57, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) the Transport and Works Act 1992, or”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, here we come to the odious Henry VIII provisions in the Bill, which are completely unnecessary. The Government are seeking power here to make regulations that

“may amend … an Act, or … an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, passed before the end of the session of Parliament in which this Act is passed”.

I have tabled two amendments to this clause. The first would delete “an Act” and replace it with “the Transport and Works Act”. It should be enough for the Government to be able to amend the Transport and Works Act by regulation and not have a power that extends to every Act of Parliament that exists. If that is not acceptable to the Government, then it is incumbent on the Minister to explain now, or very shortly after this debate, which Acts he intends, or might intend, to amend using these powers.

The other amendment I have relates to Clause 45(3), which says:

“Regulations under this section may include incidental, supplemental, transitional and saving provision”.


My amendment would add after “may” the word “only”, so that these changes may include “only” changes of that character. Even with those two limitations, the clause raises questions, but without them it is pretty unacceptable, and the Government need to explain what they are aiming to do. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the amendments he has tabled seek to limit the making of any consequential amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992. Clause 45 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments; namely, changes to legislation that may be required when changes to the Transport and Works Act as a result of Clauses 34 to 44 are added to the statute book. The power cannot be used to implement changes in policy, nor to make amendments for reasons unrelated to Clauses 34 to 44. Its purpose is simply to ensure consistency across the statute book.

If any changes were needed to primary legislation, already existing or made in this parliamentary Session, the relevant regulations would need approval from both Houses. If changes were needed to secondary legislation only, the negative procedure would apply.

The Transport and Works Act interacts with a number of pieces of primary legislation. Therefore, limiting amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992 could hinder the implementation of Clauses 34 to 44. The inclusion of this power is a practical and reasonable step to ensure the most efficient legal framework. I will endeavour to write to the noble Lord to set out examples of the legislation that might need to be altered. In the meantime, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Pending receipt of the Minister’s letter and saving our position for Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

55D: Clause 46, page 57, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “must”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief because there are government amendments in this group. Their effect is going to be the same as what I set out to achieve; namely, that it would be interesting to hear what the Government imagine they are going to achieve by making these changes so that we can consider properly what the effect is likely to be. Since the Government are likely to do that themselves in moving their amendments, it is hardly necessary for me to press the point at this stage. I beg to move, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in support of his amendments.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendments 56 and 359 relate to Clause 46. Harbour revision and empowerment orders under the Harbours Act 1964 extend or modify ports’ statutory powers. The Marine Management Organisation currently charges fees for harbour orders in England and for the reserved trust port of Milford Haven. Elsewhere in Wales and in Scotland, fees are the responsibility of the devolved Ministers. These fees are currently charged at flat rates in advance, an approach that does not align with marine licence applications. The current system does not accurately reflect the complexity or time required for each application, especially for works applications, and does not allow enough flexibility in charging, which currently leads to inefficiencies and inaccurate cost recovery and slows down application processing.

Clause 46 offers great flexibility in setting fees in relation to case work on these orders—for example, charging on the basis of actual hourly costs. The actual fee level will be subject to consultation with ports and relevant stakeholders. In line with the devolution settlement, this new, more flexible regime will be commenced by the Scottish and Welsh Governments at a time of their choosing.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The amendment would not add value to Clause 46. It would require regulations to include elements that either—as for the method of determination of fees—would almost certainly be included anyway, or, such as for making incidental provision, may or may not be required. It would therefore risk making regulations unnecessarily complicated. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55D withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

The sentiment behind all the amendments is absolutely right; this is definitely the direction in which we should be travelling. However, we should be grateful to the Government and particularly to the Minister for his letter to us in advance of our consideration of these amendments. When he wrote to us on electrical vehicle charging, he was very clear about some of the challenges, but he equally shared the enthusiasm of the Committee. That was an excellent letter and a good example of its kind; we should place on record our gratitude to the Government for their consideration of these issues.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I find myself somewhat out of temper with many noble Lords who have spoken. It would give me great pleasure to be able to say that I heartily swung behind them. I do so to some extent, but not very heartily—and with some difficulties and problems, some of which have been extremely well set out by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I have three amendments in this group—Amendments 57A, 57B and 71B—but I do not intend speak to them in detail. Rather, I will draw, to some extent, on my own experience. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that, although this is not simple, it is not difficult either. However, then he went on to explain that, in practice, it really is very difficult.

At one stage, I was in charge of the roads in Kensington and Chelsea, one of the places in London with the greatest demand for on-street parking, because very few people have an off-street place to park their car. It is not terribly different in many other parts of London, especially inner London. I was approached by a Member of your Lordships’ House, who asked me whether it would be possible for the council to install an electric vehicle charging point outside his house. As it happens, we had a programme of installing such points at the council’s expense. I said that there was no difficulty at all, and that, if he wanted it, I could put it forward and it could easily happen. Not everybody welcomed electric vehicle charging points then, so it was nice to have a resident who did. However, the charging point would of course not be for his exclusive use. For him, that was not good at all; that was not at all what was wanted—in fact, his enthusiasm for the idea waned immediately.

The discussion we have had today more or less envisages that groups of families or houses will have clusters of spaces more or less outside their front door, which they may have paid for and which will be for their exclusive use. I am afraid that, if any elected local authority in London—and, I suspect, in many other cities—did that on a sufficient scale, they would eventually be lynched from the nearest lamp-post. Local authorities know that perfectly well, because this is politically a very difficult thing to do.

It also raises an issue of principle: to what extent should we encourage what is in fact the privatisation of a public asset? It is after all the public who pay for and maintain the highway, yet what is envisaged is that people will have the exclusive use of part of it for themselves. That will create very severe difficulties, which have been raised but have not been fully addressed by noble Lords in the course of this debate.

There is another point. If one puts an electric vehicle charging point next to the carriageway, the tendency—although this is not entirely true—is to mark off the bay and write, “Electric Vehicles Only”. I see that my successors in Kensington and Chelsea are not quite doing that; they are putting up signs—this might actually be more effective—politely asking, “If your car is not electric, would you mind awfully not parking next to this lamp-post?” That might achieve as much as an outright ban, because sometimes being polite to people gets their compliance more than anything else.

While we still have a large number of people, mostly people on lower incomes, who need access to an internal combustion engine car, the threat arises that they will be increasingly squeezed out of access to the public highway they are paying for in favour of middle-class people in their Teslas. It is not simply the optics but the morality of this that is highly questionable.

Some of the things that have been suggested should be done. Nothing seems more obvious to me than the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that it should be mandatory for freight depos to have electric charging points in them that can be used by electric HGVs. That sort of thing should be happening. She gave other examples of a similar character, so not everything is difficult. When you come to that interaction, particularly of cars with the pavement edge and where people park them, there are serious difficulties not only of practical local politics but of social equity.

It is very easy to think that because something is a good idea, we should all push for it, make it happen and just shove the obstacles to one side. I do not mean this to be excessively critical of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I am very struck by her amendment that says we must prioritise grid electricity supply for electric charging infrastructure. “Prioritise” means to choose, to say that one thing is more important than another. My question is: prioritise over what? Prioritise over electricity supply to a new housing estate, hospital or care home? Those questions do not just vanish because one has enthusiasm for a subject; they are real choices. I think the Minister is already going a little too far in the Bill for what the public will bear. That is the thrust and gravamen of the amendments I have tabled.

Certain noble Lords, including, I regret to say, certain noble friends, have gone perhaps even further than the Minister. I am not following them in that direction. I shall do my best between now and Report to reason with them, as we normally do in the Conservative Party, so that we may present a united front of common sense and reason to this House when we return to this debate.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, follow that. The noble Lord says he is out of temper; I am out of energy, so I am going to be as brief as I can be.

The general tone of the discussion was very positive, stimulated by the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Liddle—who was here earlier and has hopefully reached Preston by now. It is getting past Preston that is the difficulty on Avanti. That entirely accords with the Government’s intention, which is to promote the use of zero-emission vehicles. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her introduction, and I recognise the passion with which she has spoken on this matter—that too is entirely in accordance with the Government’s desire to move forward.

Other contributions have raised some choices about the form of zero-emission power, especially for HGVs and hydrogen. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised, in a slightly more positive way than the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, some issues that need to be resolved in these matters as we move forward.

The Government are working with local authorities to promote cross-pavement solutions, including the recently announced £25 million grant fund to encourage the installation of cross-pavement channels, plus published guidance for local authorities on this technology and charge point grant funding for residents. We recognise that cross-pavement solutions will not be suitable for all scenarios. Local highway authorities are responsible for deciding on each application, considering the needs and opinions of residents. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of other users of the pavements who need a safe and level surface, of which we should be very mindful. Local authorities will have to take account of this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, remarked, they will be held accountable if people fall over or sustain injury or damage in any way. This is an important issue of which the Government are well aware, and that is why we launched a call for evidence on this very matter on 6 May this year; we are currently considering responses.

--- Later in debate ---

If there is a level of expectation, which is fairly universal, as to what sort of environment we should be creating—encouraging things that take a bit of effort, such as hedgerows, and, importantly, places that will be good for insects, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said—it would be immensely helpful to have it in guidance. Lots of people can write and contribute to really excellent guidance. This is not impossible to do. To have it there, to set the bar high and to show people how it can be done would make a great difference and help a whole range of places I have seen that are quite unnecessarily denuded of wildlife. We want our young people to grow up in nature—to really appreciate it, understand it and have it around them. Making that happen will take a bit of effort from us.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am at risk of losing my carefully nurtured reputation as an environmentalist and a nature lover. This amendment was beautifully presented by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, but perhaps somewhat extravagantly. We were told that having more trees would improve driving. Does anybody believe that? Just think what experiment you would have to conduct to be able to prove it.

Not every tree is as attractive as you might think. Right across the road from my front door, there is a mulberry tree. Most of the year it is survivable, but at the moment it is absolutely fatal. It is dropping its half-formed mulberries on the pavement, causing danger in every direction, as well as being terribly ugly. The householder was out today with a hose trying to sweep it off the pavement, I assume because he was worried about liability. Just around the corner we have some very fine plane trees in Queen’s Gate that must be 150 years old. They are aggressively pollarded. Why? It is because they suck so much water out of the clay that they cause subsidence in the houses adjacent. As it is the council’s liability if the street trees pull the houses down, to protect itself it pollards them aggressively to reduce water demand.

There is a right place for trees. Bedford Park in west London, built as a semi-rural extension, would look ridiculous without trees and of course must have them, but other fine Italianate terraces looking like palazzos are made ridiculous if you plant the odd sapling in the carriageway because you cannot fit it on the footway due to the voids under the pavement built to house coal. Everything must be judged very finely and at local level.

The idea here is that the source of wisdom on this should be a civil servant in MHCLG, producing guidance which includes, to my horror,

“standard designs, and planting palettes”.

What will that produce? It will be one ash, one poplar and one oak sapling—box ticked and that is the developer done. You will have the same trees planted in the same configuration in half the developments in the country. There are people who can produce guidance on trees, and I would encourage them to do so. There is a professional body representing local authority arboriculturists. People who really work with trees, know trees and have great affection for them have a great sensitivity to what is appropriate to plant in a particular location. Guidance from that source might be very sensible and valuable. I would encourage that, but not, I hope, box-ticking.

Let us have trees in the right places and remember that they are good in some places but bad in others. Let us have variety in the right place and perhaps fewer mulberry trees overhanging the footway, but let us not bureaucratise this with guidance from the ministry with little drawings.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I should declare that for the past year or so I have been working with the Horticultural Trades Association, which represents environmental horticulturists under the Industry and Parliament Trust scheme. The industry is very keen to improve the quality of planting. We have talked about housing, but I do not know if the noble Lord has seen, for example, the planting near warehouses or commercial estates. Far too often, there are one or two exotic species which have no value at all for wildlife. The Government could of course work with the industry and those experts to produce the guidance, so it would not just be them; it would be a co-operative effort.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

That would be an indispensable approach, if this were to go ahead, but we are fundamentally forgetting local authorities and local planning departments in this. The arboriculturists to whom the noble Baroness refers are exactly the sort of people who should be involved and are the right source of information for this—more so than the Government. If the Government are to be involved, it should be at a very considerable distance from the whole process, offering encouragement, advice and light support rather than providing the guidance itself. Otherwise, I welcome everything else that my noble friend said and I am very happy to have a further discussion with him in due course.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for tabling this amendment. The Chief Whip on our side is no longer present, but I can hear him saying, “Get on with it”, so I shall.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion. The Government agree that planting schemes can mitigate the environmental impacts of new highways and make existing ones more pleasant. However, this amendment is not necessary as there is already relevant guidance on this matter, produced by a number of relevant stakeholders, that local highway authorities and others should have regard to. This includes the well-managed highways infrastructure code of practice, which provides guidance for local authorities on managing highway networks; the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges; the Manual for Streets; and local authorities’ own street adoption and street works guidance documents. Some local authorities go further and encourage local residents to look after street trees—including my own. When I am not in the Chamber until late at night, I am nurturing a small but growing tree in my locality by taking it a bucket of water every so often, and it will be a pleasure to do so this evening when we finish.

Planning applications for highway development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are already subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain, and we are currently consulting on the application of biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects, with the aim of mitigating any environmental impact. Requiring additional or new guidance would be an administrative burden and could merely duplicate the guidance that already exists, so I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declared my interests in detail some two hours ago; they relate also to this amendment.

Regrettably, my noble friend Lady Coffey is, as the Committee knows, abroad. She offers her apologies and has asked me to speak to her Amendment 71A, an amendment regarding litter on the strategic road network. Essentially, her amendment asks the question: which roads are the responsibility of National Highways? Due to previous legislation, National Highways has responsibility for litter only on all motorways and some A roads. When my noble friend Lady Coffey was MP for Suffolk Coastal, she witnessed a real conflict in trying to get National Highways to work effectively with the council on litter on the A14. Most litter can be collected only when National Highways closes the road, which is often overnight and does not really fit in with local council practices on litter.

My noble friend’s points are valid. She is right that it is very difficult for National Highways and local authorities to co-ordinate and to get this work done efficiently. There are challenges in night-time operations as regards who is the principal contractor, who puts whom to work safely and who holds whom to account when litter picking needs to happen prior to grass cutting, road space management, customer complaint management, responses et cetera. Having the responsibility for litter across the entire strategic road network sit wholly with National Highways would, it seems, make complete sense.

But I know that the Minister has lengthy experience. With flat opex, the challenge of maintaining the SRN will be exacerbated. I am not completely sure that we have addressed the issue of whether sufficient moneys will be redirected from local authorities to National Highways to offset the additional service demands and risks. Litter picking under NLR is a schedule of rates activity, so it would require new and additional funding. It could not just be absorbed solely through efficiency gains.

Litter picking is a current necessity, but it is reasonable to consider it a waste of taxpayers’ money. Working as a community to dissuade littering behaviour through campaigns and technology should perhaps be the continued primary focus. How do we accelerate? How do we use technology? How do we change legislation? How can we affect the level of prosecution for littering—which then could raise moneys to fund litter-picking activity until the problem hopefully ceases to exist? With 100% strategic road network coverage with CCTV an intended outcome, and with the help of AI, I hope that we can move this industry challenge forward. I believe that we will.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, lane rental has worked well in London; it should be rolled out across the rest of England. National Highways should of course pick up its own litter. Street works should be guaranteed for a decent period. As ever, Conservatives have all the best ideas. I look forward to a short speech from the Minister in which he agrees.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, in respect of lane rental schemes, the Government are committed to reducing disruption from street works and improving the efficiency of our road networks. Lane rental is an important tool to help highway authorities reduce the impact of works taking place, but it is important to recognise that such schemes may not be suitable for every area. Many local authorities do not experience the level of congestion necessary to justify the administrative and financial burden of operating such a scheme. However, the Government recognise the value of empowering local leaders and that is why we have consulted on devolving approval powers for lane rentals to mayoral combined authorities. We will be publishing the results of the consultation and next steps in due course. So I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, to beg leave to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for speaking to the amendment on litter. I agree with him that we must find the best way of tackling this problem. I know that the amendment has been tabled in that spirit. At present, National Highways is responsible for the collection of litter on England’s motorways, but there are other roads—trunk roads and A roads—where National Highways is responsible for the maintenance but local authorities are responsible for litter collection. The question is therefore whether we should relieve local authorities of those duties and transfer them instead to National Highways.

That sounds like a simple solution, but it is in fact a little more complicated. The collaboration methodology works well: for example, National Highways looks for opportunities to enable litter collection to take place safely when roads are closed for other reasons, such as resurfacing or maintenance. Those partnership arrangements provide the best way of tackling litter on the strategic road network, and we encourage and expect National Highways and local authorities to work closely together on them.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for tabling the amendment on extending the guarantee period following road reinstatement. He and I both recognise that high-quality reinstatement is highly desirable. It is important to note that, under the existing Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways guidance, the guarantee period begins only once the reinstatement has been completed to the required standard.

In 2023, a performance-based inspection regime was introduced that means that utility companies with higher defect or failure rates are subject to more frequent inspections and, as they pay for each inspection, this creates a strong financial incentive to maintain high standards. We are closely monitoring the recent changes in Scotland, where the guarantee period has been extended to six years, to assess whether that leads to improved standards, before considering any changes in England. For the reasons outlined, I kindly request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Liddle will now have reached the end of his journey to Carlisle, and I celebrate the noble Lords who have come on the journey for this part of the Bill by remaining in the Chamber. I wish all those who have stayed this long a happy and restful recess.