Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill and Lord Lucas
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait Lord Lucas (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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?

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I thank the noble Lord for his interjection. I will write to him after this Committee and set out some more detail.