Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Lucas and Lord Moylan

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 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?

Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Lucas and Lord Moylan

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for raising the interesting point about an electric tuk-tuk for passenger use. I listened with great care to the Minister’s response. I have to admit, a few years ago, I looked at the possibility of purchasing a BMW i3. The cost at that stage was £33,000. I do not know what the Minister paid for his. I do not think, however, that my noble friend Lord Lucas is thinking about a vehicle of that sort and that cost. That is one of the principal—

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

For noble Lords’ information, the cost of an electric tuk-tuk in China is about £1,500.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful. That is something the Minister should respond to. I shall not comment further on it other than to say that it is a useful thing to know. But the BMW i3 is not £1,500; it costs a great deal more, and that is beyond the scope of the majority of people.

My noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about road safety. The Government have given assurances on this. Although I am happy to accept those assurances for today, they will be held to them. We will expect those changes to be monitored for their road safety effects. The Minister has said that and we will hold him to it—it is a very important consideration.

Concerning the state of the roads, much has been made by the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the fact that a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. I know that. Everybody knows a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. It has the word “heavy” in its name. The key difference is that there are 33 million cars in this country. There are 500,000 heavy goods vehicles. The damage being done to our roads is not, as I said in my opening remarks, because of the occasional passage of a heavy goods vehicle down a lane in Oxfordshire. It is done by the relentless passage of heavier and heavier cars across those roads, which is not only leading to potholes but breaking up the base and creating a huge maintenance and restoration bill for our roads that will not, in my view, be properly addressed by £1.6 billion.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Government were given the opportunity to reject the notion that they were going to manipulate driving licences and the conditions on driving licences to achieve objectives related not to road safety or vehicles but to net-zero policy. That would open a door to further manipulation in the future, which could well be used to disadvantage—as the price of a BMW i3 already disadvantages—people on lower incomes. The Government took no opportunity to reject that. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, endorsed it and thought it was a very good idea. That is a cloud perhaps no larger than a man’s hand, but it will come back—