Opinion

The Infrastructure Act - an "extraordinary process"

Nick Raynsford MP

Unpredicted mishaps failed to materialise and the Infrastructure Bill finally completed its parliamentary passage and achieved Royal Assent in February to become the Infrastructure Act. 

The title is a little misleading, in that the Bill contained a range of miscellaneous provisions only some of which relate to Infrastructure.  Others cover issues such as the control of non-native plant species or animals not normally native to the UK.  Important matters, but not generally seen as related to infrastructure!

This tells a story about how, towards the end of a Parliament, there is often a frantic search by civil servants to find opportunities to ‘shoehorn’ odd bits of legislation into any available Bill.  Sometimes this backfires when a hastily inserted amendment proves to have been badly drafted or not fully considered. 

"This tells a story about how, towards the end of a Parliament, there is often a frantic search by civil servants to find opportunities to ‘shoehorn’ odd bits of legislation into any available Bill."

This explains the extraordinary process by which almost 60 pages of legislation was inserted by the Government into the Infrastructure Bill on the final day of its Committee Stage on 15th January, only to be removed again at its Report Stage, just 10 days later, when it had become clear that the provisions were badly drafted and had upset most of the interested parties. 

Ironically there was no political division about the need for amendments to update the Electronic Communications Code, governing the installation and operation of mobile phone masts and related apparatus. 

Had the Government done its homework properly, this could have gone through with unanimous support.  Instead it will now have to wait for the next Parliament.

The other main infrastructure provisions in the Bill related to the creation of a new structure for the Highways Agency, some procedural change to arrangements for planning approval of nationally significant infrastructure projects, and safeguards relating to ‘fracking’. 

The latter again involved significant last minute change to the Bill when the Government was obliged to accept an opposition amendment extending and clarifying the conditions which will need to be satisfied before approval can be given for hydraulic fracturing activity, and restricting the areas in which such activity can occur. 

Regrettably there was less willingness on the part of the Government to agree constructive amendments to the parts of the Bill relating to energy efficiency, where the original objective of meeting zero carbon standards in new homes by 2016 has been seriously watered down. 

The exclusion of small sites (10 homes or less) from having to meet even the modified definition of zero carbon is a loophole which could seriously compromise progress towards meeting the statutory carbon reduction targets.

Finally it was disappointing that the Government refused to accept an amendment which would have brought into effect an Independent Infrastructure Commission as proposed by Sir John Armitt. 

That also is an issue which will need to be considered again in the next Parliament, and it now seems clear that establishing such a Commission which has widespread support across the industry, will depend on the outcome of the election.

Rt Hon Nick Raynsford MP is the Member of Parliament for Greenwich and Woolwich and a former construction minister.