Labour u-turns on devolving powers over cattle-grids

Feb 03, 2026

Welcome

Yesterday was my first taste of debating an amendment I had tabled in the House of Lords. It was also my first taste of dealing with a (helpful in this case!) intervention from another peer.

The way amendments are handled at committee stage is that ones on similar topics are grouped together, and for an amendment that isn’t the ‘lead amendment’ in the group, you get to speak about it but save the formal moving/withdrawal of the amendment until a later point. But yesterday was the occasion to talk about the topic - cattle-grids in this case.

Government drops White Paper commitment on cattle-grids

a black and white cow grazing on the side of a road — Why should the Secretary of State be the person who decides on new cattle-grids? Photo by July on Unsplash

My speech is, hopefully, self-explanatory so here is the version as recorded in Hansard:

My Lords, Amendment 236 in this group is on perhaps a slightly more niche issue than the others raised so far in this group, but it is a detail of relevance which raises some important wider issues. The crux of it is the centralised control over the installation of cattle grids due to the powers reserved to the Secretary of State. The powers are primarily derived from Sections 82 to 90 and Schedule 10 to the Highways Act 1980, although there are other powers, such as those under the New Forest Act 1964.
Sticking to the Highways Act as the principal issue, it rightly requires local councils to consult appropriately before making decisions about the installation of new cattle grids, but it also gives very significant powers to the Secretary of State to have the final decision on such things. It is a legitimate question to ask: what is it about decisions over cattle grids that requires the special attention of the Secretary of State to make a decision on them? I think it is hard to argue that there are great strategic issues at play when making decisions over cattle grids, and indeed the expertise and knowledge that is necessary to decide whether on, say, a particular road, it would be appropriate, dangerous or necessary is very much local expertise and local knowledge. No matter how impressive a Minister may be in their depth of geographic knowledge of the byways of the roads around the country, that expertise will always best sit locally.
The Government’s White Paper was very promising on this topic. I quote it approvingly:
“It is costly, inefficient and patronising that the Secretary of State for Transport has to agree to a new cattle grid”.
I could not have put it better myself. In fact, I think I probably would have been slightly more timid in my choice of language, but, alas, despite that pungent language, the issue then somewhat disappeared. It has not been followed through in the Bill. Listening carefully to the Minister’s comments at Second Reading, it is pretty unclear why this issue has disappeared. I feel there is a slight degree of shadow-boxing on my part, hence the breadth of the amendment that I have submitted, because it would be helpful to tease out what has changed the Government’s mind from that pungent language in the White Paper to the silence in the legislation.
Although in a way it is undoubtedly not the most important of issues when it comes to devolution or transport, it is one of those issues that has wider relevance. Sometimes, improvements in government or public services come from big, grand, sweeping, important measures, but often, the improvements come from relentless incrementalism, the accumulation of small steps. This amendment certainly would be one of those small steps, but a useful small step in properly decentralising power, empowering local councils, acting as highway authorities, to take responsibility and, perhaps, also rather usefully, reducing the workload on central government a little. After all, one of the most common comments that Ministers and civil servants make is how overloaded and overworked so much of Whitehall and Westminster is. Cattle grids on their own are not enough to crack those problems, but devolving power over cattle grids would be a helpful step forward. I look forward to the Minister telling us how the spirit of the White Paper is going to be restored to the Bill on this topic.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con): Although his amendment does not say so, I assume the noble Lord is talking about cattle grids on highways. The majority of cattle grids are on people’s private land. I think the amendment would be better if it was clearer that it relates to highways, if it does.
Lord Pack (LD): The answer is largely yes, although the provisions under the Highways Act get into the use of adjoining land and the circumstances in which adjoining land might be used, particularly for bypasses related to cattle grids. However, the intent of the amendment is absolutely to tease out where the Government are on cattle grids on highways.

As I said in my speech, the White Paper had it right when it said:

It is costly, inefficient and patronising that the Secretary of State for Transport has to agree to a new cattle grid.

So it is a bit of a mystery as to why the government has backed away from this. Something, somewhere has happened. Perhaps a person involved in drafting that punchy text in the White Paper has fallen out of favour

In his response, the minister did point out how relatively few cattle-grid applications end up with the Secretary of State.

But that is to miss both the point of principle - why is Whitehall hoarding such power? - and the practical point - lots of small tasks eating up Whitehall time do add up. Look after the seconds and the minutes and hours add up, as it were.

It is still the right thing to do to devolve such power.

Fun footnote: I have noticed that Hansard appears not to be consistent on whether or not to hyphenate “cattle-grid”. Although the text above is the initial version, so perhaps a clutch of hyphens are about to be added?