|
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for given way again; he is being extremely generous, but it is an important matter. We have had some clarification in relation to London. I hope that this is my last intervention.
I ask the Minister to turn his mind to the situation in the shire districts. What would happen there? How would conflicts be resolved? What would happen if the regional spatial plan handed down house-building target numbers to each local development scheme and plan? What flexibility would each local authority have to reduce, or even to increase, that target number?
Mr. McNulty: The clear shift from land-use planning to a broader regional basis allows us to move away from the old predict-and-provide model. The same resolution device would prevail, and that is
Column Number: 264
to be found in subsection (5). The document of most significance in terms of the plan would be the last-published, most relevant and the most up-to-date document. That flexibility and responsibility is key; it underpins the whole Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Sustainable development
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 221, in
clause 38, page 20, line 28, at the end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section 'sustainable development' will mean development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and includes—
(a) Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone,
(b) Effective protection of the environment,
(c) Prudent use of natural resources, and
(d) Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 372, in
Amendment No. 359, in
Amendment No. 327, in
clause 38, page 20, line 34, leave out 'a view to contributing' and insert 'regard'.
Amendment No. 255, in
Amendment No. 364, in
Amendment No. 226, in
clause 38, page 20, line 35, leave out 'sustainable development' and insert—
'(a) sustainable development, integrating and achieving environmental, social, economic and natural resource use objectives simultaneously;
(b) accountable decision making in the public interest; and
(c) the facilitation of, and enhancement of, public engagement in the planning process.'.
Amendment No. 371, in
Amendment No. 353, in
clause 38, page 20, line 35, at end insert
Column Number: 265
', the protection and the enhancement of the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending upon them.'.
Amendment No. 256, in
clause 38, page 20, line 35, at end insert—
'(2A) For the purpose of this section sustainable development means—
(a) social progress which recognises the needs of everyone to access high quality public services, education and employment opportunities, decent, accessible and inclusive housing and local environments,
(b) effective protection of the environment including limiting global environmental threats, such as climate change, protecting human health and safety from hazards such as poor air quality and toxic chemicals and protecting things which people need or value, such as wildlife, landscapes and historic buildings,
(c) prudent use of natural resources making sure that non renewable natural resources are used efficiently and that alternatives are developed to replace them in due course and using renewable resources, such as water, used in ways that do not endanger the resource or cause serious damage or pollution, and
(d) maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment, so that everyone can share in high living standards and greater job opportunities provided through businesses which are ready to invest with infrastructure to support them.'.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: This large group of amendments concerns the definition of sustainability. I say in passing, as the Minister is about to leave the Room, that the previous debate was one of the most illuminating. When that happens, the Committee is working at its best, so I thank the Minister for his explanations.
The Opposition believe that the Bill should define sustainable. Many people have wrestled with such a definition, and we believe that it should at least be attempted so that we can measure the progress of planning authorities against that definition. We have received many representations on this question from many bodies. I shall go through some of those representations and some of the definitions that have been suggested, and say why we have chosen what I believe to be the best definition in amendment No. 256, which was proposed by the Town and Country Planning Association.
I start with amendment No. 221, a definition that I dreamed up from the Government's documents. It is a summary of amendment No. 256.
Amendment No. 372 was suggested by the Confederation of British Industry, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the British Retail Consortium, and it states:
''For the purpose of this section the meaning of sustainable development shall be defined in guidance to be prescribed by the Secretary of State''.
Everywhere in the Bill, we have guidance. I find guidance not to be the best or most democratic way to proceed. The Bill should be clear. I do not like the amendment. Sustainability should be defined in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet drafted amendment No. 359, which puts a much more positive duty on the authorities in parts 1, 2 and 6. I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's
Column Number: 266
amendment, although I would like to see a proper definition in the Bill.
The Woodland Trust suggested amendment No. 327, which would leave out ''a view to contributing'' and insert ''regard''. The trust wants to ensure that sustainable development is placed at the heart of the planning system, and to ensure that effective protection of the environment and the integration of social, economic and environmental aims are central to the operation of the system. No one would disagree with that, but I believe that we have come up with a better definition.
Amendments Nos. 255, 364 and 226, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, build on some of the definitions of my earlier amendment. If I may say so with great tact, I do not think amendment No. 226 is as good as amendment No. 256, which is a much more full definition. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet drafted amendments No. 371 and 353.
We come now to the meat of the Bill and what I believe to be the best amendment, should the Government be minded to include a definition in the Bill. A number of people over many years have wrestled with a definition of sustainability.
Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth): Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of sustainability being defined in Acts passed by a Conservative Government? Will he confirm that the principle of sustainability is enshrined in the Government of Wales Act 1998, which his party opposed?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman will know, as he obviously has an interest in the matter—I shall go through the history of the subject in a moment—that it is an evolving subject. People's views on it have changed. Therefore, the definition that I propose in amendment No. 256 is, for now, the best definition that we can come up with. Were we debating the issue 30 years ago, nobody would think about sustainability in relation to planning. They would get on with their daily lives and consider each development as it came along. However, as the hon. Gentleman will see in the history of definitions of sustainable development, people by and large feel that every development affects other people and the world's resources. The Government have included sustainable development in clause 38. If they believe—and it is right that they should—that planning matters should include sustainable development, there should be a definition in the Bill.
10 am
Before I come on to the history of the definition, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, if the Bill includes no definition, I am certain that before long an application will be made in the High Court involving someone who has carried out a development or drawn up a plan somewhere along the line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, learned barristers will be paid a huge amount of money to argue over the definition of sustainable development.
The Bill should contain a definition that can be changed by statutory instrument under a proposal by
Column Number: 267
the Secretary of State. That is the obvious way to deal with the matter. I do not think that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) and I are talking at cross-purposes—at least I hope that we are not. If he does not think that the Bill should include a definition, no doubt he will say so. Perhaps he would like to intervene now. If he really thinks that the Bill should not contain a definition, I shall happily give way. The hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene, so he must feel that the Bill should include a definition.
The Library has produced a helpful brief on the subject. It is its standard note SNSC 742, which was updated on 28 August 2002. The brief provides a short history of sustainable development. The section on defining sustainable development states:
''The concept of sustainable development was essentially introduced to the world at large at the Rio Earth Summit. As a concept it seems to be fairly simple until there is a need to define it, such as to introduce the principle to legislative programmes.
Whilst most people believe they have a rough idea of what the term means, legislation requires working definitions rather than vague ideas. There have however been many attempts to define the concept.''
One of the earlier definitions was the Brundtland statement, which said that any development should leave the world in as good a condition as it was found.
The Government picked up the sustainability challenge in its consultation paper ''Sustainable development: opportunities for change''. I have based the wording of amendment No. 256 on that paper, which builds on the Brundtland definition. It says:
''Sustainable development is a very simple idea. It is about ensuring a better quality of life for everyone''.
It includes four objectives that I have mentioned in my definition, the first of which is social progress that recognises everyone's needs. The document says:
''It is not enough to focus on economic and environmental policies if whole groups in society, or parts of the country, are excluded.''
The next objective, which is mentioned in amendment No. 256, is effective protection of the environment. The document says:
''This means acting to limit global environmental threats, such as climate change; to protect human health and safety from hazards such as poor air quality and toxic chemicals''.
The third objective is the prudent use of natural resources. It says:
''This does not mean denying ourselves the use of non-renewable resources like oil and gas, but we do need to make sure that we use them efficiently''.
The fourth objective is the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment,
''so that everyone in Britain can share in high living standards''.
The Library brief tells us that the World Business Council for Sustainable Development provides a glossary, in which it defines sustainability. It says that there are more than 100 definitions of sustainability and sustainable development, but they are not the same thing. It states:
Column Number: 268
''The implementation of sustainable development is essentially the reduction of the ecological footprint of the human race. Each person, by their very existence, impacts on the environment.''
That must be right. That is why we must ensure that all our developments are carried out in a sustainable way. Mineral extraction is one form of development that uses up resources more quickly than anything else, but the Minister scoffed when I said that nothing in the Bill ensures that we adopt policies towards mineral development that minimise the use of aggregates.
The Government produced a long list of targets in an attempt to ensure that every Department adopted policies consistent with sustainable development. The Government attach great importance to those targets. After all, they created Green Ministers. The Minister for the Environment tried to explain how the Government would take on Agenda 21, which builds on the Rio summit in relation to sustainability. In answer to a parliamentary question, he said:
''There is no mandatory requirement on any organisation to take on Agenda 21. However, a wide range of organisations, including central and local government, business and the voluntary sector, are committed to take forward the Agenda 21 agreement on sustainable development.''—[Official Report, 29 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 193W.]
The Minister's former Department, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, introduced a best-value indicator to report on the progress made by local authorities on community strategies. A survey of English and Welsh authorities by the Local Government Association in autumn 2001 found that 27 per cent. of the 67 per cent. of authorities that responded had developed a strategy. The Bill is a further twist to encourage authorities to act in a sustainable way.
As I said, the Government created the role of Green Minister, and although that has been enhanced and strengthened, it does not go as far as it should. The Government's greening initiative will now continue as sustainable development. They have introduced three broad priority areas: integrating sustainable development into decision making; improving performance of the Government estate—I have already said that the Government have set targets for that—and promoting understanding of sustainable development across government.
Sustainable development has featured in spending reviews, and was an overall theme in the spending round for 2002, so the Treasury has become involved in it. In their report ''Quality of Life Counts'', the Government gave details of which indicators they planned to utilise to measure sustainable development. They established 15 indicators, which I shall not list. The Environmental Audit Select Committee reported on the Government's sustainability indicators and found that only 10 out of 15 had been widely implemented. The Committee said:
''One could just as easily present the 2001 assessments as showing that only two of the seven environmental indicators . . . are showing clear progress.
The Government must ensure that appropriate data is collected. Given that the 15 headline indicators were established in 1999, we are surprised and disappointed that there is still insufficient data in some areas to provide a complete picture.''
DEFRA published an updated report in 2002 ''Quality of Life''—barometer leaflets. The Minister
Column Number: 269
for the Environment gave a definition in answer to a parliamentary question, which I summarised. On 25 January 2002, the Government launched their new sustainable development website, and the public will be able to see clearly from that whether those 15 indicators have been reached.
With that rather long history of the need for sustainable development and the Government's progress on it, I commend amendment No. 256 to the Committee. The amendment has built on the four original themes from the Government's document. After some research, I find it to be the best definition. It is supported by the organisations that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, and by the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Disability Rights Commission, among others.
Given the spirit that the Minister showed on the last clause, I hope that we will get not merely half a loaf, but a whole one, and that he will accept the amendment.
|
