Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, at this time of night I will try to deal with the amendment extremely briefly. As we discussed earlier, the problem with the planning system is that it involves more than one consent. In many planning applications there is an obligation to notify other statutory bodies of the application that has been made. One of the problems that has emerged from that is the time taken by those other bodies to respond. In the mean time, of course, until they have responded, the planning authority cannot get ahead, which is one of the reasons why planning decisions get delayed.
Amendment 81CA sets out a procedure by which in appropriate cases the local authority can charge the consultee for the delay. This, it is hoped, will never have to be used. Of course, if there is agreement with the authority that the consultee cannot reply within the 21 days or whatever is appropriate for that particular consultation, that is different. If they have agreed a different timetable, that is fine. However, in many cases they simply do not reply. A disincentive to delay of that sort, with the prospect of being fined, might in fact encourage the others.
One might ask the question, “Would it actually deliver?” The Killian Pretty review on planning applications, Planning applications: A faster and more responsive system, came to the conclusion that it has the potential considerably to reduce the delays due to consultation. It has been estimated that these delays cost the economy at least £35 million a year. This would therefore be a valuable extra piece of machinery that could encourage the acceleration of the decisions on planning applications.
We are also discussing Amendment 81CB. This is a rather more drastic amendment, which perhaps at this stage should be regarded as a probing amendment. Certain of the consultees, the statutory bodies, have the power to veto applications. Examples have been given—I will not quote them all—of where a highways authority has said, “You cannot possibly do that. We will veto it”, and it does so under a power that has been given by the Secretary of State. This amendment is intended to remove that power of the Secretary of State. It is not right that a highways authority or whoever should have the right to veto an application just like that. I can understand that there may have been a reason for it, but it is one of the reasons why planning applications run into difficulties and why applications then have to be turned down.
These are two ways in which we could achieve the Government’s objective of speeding up the planning system. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench may be able to give me an encouraging reply. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I understand the reasons behind these amendments but I am a little concerned about them. As regards the second amendment, there are very good reasons why a highways authority should be able to say no to a development in some circumstances if it considers that it would be unsafe and that to allow it to go ahead might cost lives or cause people to be injured. There are very good reasons for that power.
Of course, you can speed up the whole planning process very easily by abolishing it and letting people do what they want. The reason why the planning process exists and there are lots of obstructions in it to people doing exactly what they want as quickly as they want is because it is in the interests of society in general that planning should take place and that development should be controlled and organised in a way which is best for society. Nevertheless, it is perfectly proper to argue generally where the balance lies as regards the making of plans and individual applications.
The Environment Agency does not have a power of veto in relation to drainage but a lot of planning authorities will think very carefully indeed before going against the advice of that agency on matters relating to drainage. They will spend a lot of time talking to it to try to find an acceptable way through—a compromise—in a particular case.
I think that a lot of unintended consequences could flow from the first amendment in this group and that it has to be thought about very carefully indeed.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Jenkin of Roding(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I apologise, but my noble friend may have been asleep at the point when I spoke quite heavily to the amendment.
Lord Greaves
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indeed spoke to the amendments, and his name is on them, so I am justified in speaking to them. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
At the moment, open space is generally defined as any land used for the purposes of public recreation. When it is threatened with compulsory purchase, the developer must provide suitable exchange land. If no land is provided, or if it is thought to be inadequate, then the special parliamentary procedure comes in. It is true that open space is often already designated by local authorities. It includes all the land designated in local plans as open space. However, it surely includes a great deal more than that.
At the moment the protection of Parliament is afforded to all land used for public recreation, formal or informal. For example, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would remove this protection from the many thousands of acres of countryside, apart from the commons, which were mapped for access under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and which are now clearly designated as access land and, therefore, open space. They would also remove this protection from many hundreds of sites which people enjoy by custom for informal recreation.
Again, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, produce a new definition of open space, which is that it has to be designated by local authorities in addition to, and over and above, land designated in local plans. I do not know what this means. It would produce considerable new duties on local authorities to make sure that they looked again at all their open space and, inevitably, it would exclude quite a large amount of open space.
There is a suggestion that the Government now only want to protect the most precious spaces and very specially protected land, which the noble Lord referred to in his speech. However, that would be a very substantial restriction on existing definitions of open space. I am sure that, overall, that is not the Government’s wish, but if it were to be their wish, they should come forward and apply that to everything, not just to this particular provision.
The provisions have existed in their present form since the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 and were intended to protect land which is valued by people for recreation. I suggest that to introduce some kind of arbitrary distinction, which results from a new kind of designation by local authorities, is not the way forward. It would be vague and confusing, and to put out a new definition of open space just for this purpose would not be desirable at all. It would be a great confusion and would lead also to lots of judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the normal processes, but the normal processes in relation to open space are different from the normal planning processes. They are part of that but they are different.
Clause 22 already restricts the application of special parliamentary procedure to open space. It is something that I would rather did not happen. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. However, to restrict it even further, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wants, would be a very substantial step backwards.
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am grateful to my successor as Secretary of State for the Environment a good many years ago for giving way.
I was unable to speak at Second Reading because I could not be here, but I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a joint president of London Councils. I have considered whether to make these remarks, which will have a somewhat different tone from what we have heard so far, now or leave them until the Clause 1 stand part debate. In the light of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to say what I want to say now.
Of course, I have read all the briefing and have had meetings with the Local Government Association, which has expressed clearly its view that it would very much prefer this whole clause not to be in the Bill. It has suggested a number of amendments that we shall come to later. I put it to the association that I do not think that it has paid sufficient attention to the significant volume of evidence that is set out in the impact assessment, published last month. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to bits of it, and I shall do so as well, but perhaps drawing a somewhat different conclusion.
He referred in somewhat disparaging terms to the work of Professor Ball at Reading University, who has produced a report that seems to support the view that there is a very substantial body of opinion that regards the planning system as one of the barriers to growth. Professor Ball stated on page 12 of the impact assessment that the transaction costs of development control for major residential developments may be as much as £3 billion a year. He gave evidence recently to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee and advised that the actual costs were likely to be much higher than this. He went on to talk about the value of development that has been delayed by the planning system and stated that, taking into account both direct and indirect costs to the economy, the total cost of development control could be expected to run to several billion pounds. This is the view of a very respected academic who was consulted by the department and who gave evidence to a Select Committee in the other place.
I recognise the point made by the Local Government Association that planning is by no means the only barrier. Certainly the availability of finance, particularly for housebuilding and some forms of industrial and commercial development, has been a considerable problem. Of course, that is being addressed by the Government through a number of other measures that are not necessarily in the Bill. However, we all have evidence from bodies such as the Chambers of Commerce, the Home Builders Federation and the Confederation of British Industry. They are the investors who are affected by planning controls. Everybody seems to agree that what we need now is more investment in our infrastructure. They are the people who will do it and they have provided strong evidence, from surveys of their members, of the barriers posed by the planning system. On the measures taken in the planning Bill, in particular the National Planning Policy Framework document, I have nothing but the highest praise for my right honourable friend Greg Clark, who took it through. I notice my noble friend on the Front Bench nodding. Mr Clark did a splendid job. Despite that, these complaints are still being made. In these circumstances, the Government are right to take account of them.
Nobody is arguing for a moment that this is a magic wand that will remove all difficulties. The Minister said that the Bill was not likely to achieve that by itself. However, it contains a number of measures that will improve growth in the economy and remove barriers to investment. In these circumstances, one has to look very carefully at amendments that are designed to make the process outlined in Clause 1 more difficult. I do not say for a moment that it is all right. I will listen to the debates on amendments. I have put my name to some of them and, when the Marshalled List is reprinted, it will be seen that I have added my name to others. At the same time, I do not want the Committee to feel that I share the views of those who would rather see Clause 1 removed.
Lord Greaves
My noble friend is eloquent and has a very established knowledge of these matters. However, if it is true, as Professor Ball suggested and my noble friend seems to accept, that there is a major problem of delay in the planning system in all sorts of places, how will that be solved by a clause in the Bill which, according to the Government’s consultations and the criteria that they are known to be thinking of setting out, will affect only a very small number of very small planning authorities?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I will say something about Amendment 28. When I was Health Secretary, I had to suspend the Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham Health Authority because it was refusing to live within its cash limits. That suspension was overturned by the High Court on the grounds that I had put no limit on the time of suspension. The embarrassing consequence was that I had to bring legislation before Parliament to validate what the commissioner whom I had appointed had done in the intervening period. Has my noble friend taken into account what the courts might say about what would appear to be an indefinite period of designation, or does she envisage that a designation will always include a time limit during which it could be considered, reconsidered and if necessary renewed? I was stung once, and one can use one’s experience to ask what I hope is a not wholly frivolous question.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, my Amendment 33 is in this group. I certainly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Tope. Before I speak to Amendment 33, I will say that I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, which sets out that the criteria for making decisions should be in regulations that are subject to parliamentary approval. We can argue about whether approval should be by affirmative or negative resolution, which is the argument we normally have, but here we are arguing about whether the criteria should be in parliamentary regulations and statutory instruments or whether the Secretary of State should have the power to issue an order stating what the criteria will be, or simply to publish the criteria. This is unsatisfactory.
Many development orders made in the planning system are not subject to parliamentary approval. This is part and parcel of the planning system and relates sometimes to planning policy and often to the way in which the system works. This legislation is different because it would take away the statutory powers of authorities to carry out their planning functions and transfer them to the Secretary of State. It is on a different level from normal development orders and it is right and proper that the criteria should be subject to parliamentary approval—not the decisions as to which authorities should be designated but the criteria that the Secretary of State has to follow to carry out a designation. Unless they are, the opportunities for judicial review might be substantial simply on the basis of something that has been published. However, in principle, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is right.
My amendments seek to probe in detail some aspects of the criteria that the Secretary of State will look to when deciding whether or not to designate an authority, and particularly some of the criteria that will count against designation because they might be unreasonable. The Minister touched on some of these in her reply to the previous group of amendments but I hope that she will look at the amendments one by one and give the Committee an understanding of the Government’s thinking on them.
In the discussion on the previous group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to the wide variation in performance of local planning authorities. I have no doubt that, as in many other aspects of their work, there is a substantial variation in the performance of different local authorities. That is inevitable where you have hundreds of local authorities around the country carrying out their functions in different ways with different degrees of efficiency and effectiveness. It is part and parcel of local democracy.
However, in this area there are two issues involved. One is the genuine underlying difference in performance, which no doubt will and does exist. The other is what the statistics show and whether those that we have at the moment on delays in determining planning applications have any underlying meaning. In many cases, they are based not only on different levels of efficiency in dealing with planning applications but on the different practices of local authorities. For example, on major applications, the level and depth of the pre-application discussions that take place vary from one local planning authority to another. Some local planning authorities will wish to extend the pre-application discussions until they have got to a point where they think they can put an application through the system and probably get a decision in favour. That will mean that the submission and registration of the application will take place later than in other authorities which take the view, “Let’s get the application in and, once it is in, we can have a great deal of discussion and debate about it”. Of course, it will be more difficult to keep that within the 13 weeks.
Therefore, not all authorities that take longer than 13 weeks over many major applications are necessarily making the decision later than authorities that appear to make the decision within the 13 weeks. It is a question of when the application is submitted and registered. There will be authorities that register an application almost as soon as they get it, while others will accept the application when it is submitted, look at it, and then say, “You have not provided this and that, so we are not going to register the application until you have provided it all”. All this is done with the agreement of the applicant. The second group of authorities will fit within the 13 weeks more easily than the former group because they will spend time gathering information after the application has been registered.
Where an application is generally all right with only a few details to be sorted out, some authorities will give the developer a nod and a wink and come to an agreement that the application is rejected. Instead of lodging an appeal, the developer spends a little time sorting out the application and then resubmits it. I think that developers have a right to resubmit within 12 months without paying an extra fee. Different practices mean that authorities generate different statistics in terms of whether they deal with applications within eight or 13 weeks. The statistics are not based on differences in the underlying efficiency of authorities, but if the period of 13 weeks becomes more important because authorities do not want to be designated, they will use these processes to reduce to a minimum the work that actually has to take place within the 13 weeks and do as much of it as possible in advance. That does not mean that the final determination will be made any later or any sooner. All this is the practical stuff of how things happen. However, if people are given targets, they will find ways of achieving them. Some will do so by becoming more efficient and others will do so simply by changing their working practices and doing what other councils do.
Amendment 33 sets out some of the criteria referred to by the Minister in responding to the last amendment. They are the criteria that the Secretary of State will have to look at when deciding whether to designate a council. Subsection (9)(a), which will appear in new Section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 proposed in Clause 1, refers to,
“planning performance agreements … entered into … before the submission of an application”.
The Minister has suggested that such agreements will be an acceptable reason for taking longer than 13 weeks, but it would be helpful if she would confirm that. Proposed new subsection (9)(b) refers to any,
“agreements that have been entered into following the submission of an application”.
Will this be an excuse not to be designated or will the local authority be told that once it has registered the application, the clock starts ticking remorselessly? Proposed new subsection (9)(c) is important in many cases, and refers to,
“informal agreements that have been entered into between applicants and the local planning authority to delay the issue of a decision”.
It is often in the interests of both the applicant and the local planning authority, along with everyone else, to sort things out before a decision is made. If things are not sorted out, there is a greater risk of a refusal which causes further delay through an appeal or a resubmission. Particularly on major applications, negotiations always take place between the applicant and the local planning authority to cover the detail and conditions of the application, such as those which may arise from a Section 106 agreement. If those discussions are artificially brought to a close before they are properly agreed, we will see worse decisions being made. Proposed new subsection (9)(d) refers to,
“any delays that have been caused by the failure of statutory consultees to respond within the specified time”.
The local planning authority is perfectly entitled to determine an application if it has not had a response from, for example, the Highways Authority, but it would be very foolish for it to do so if the application will have an important impact on the local highways network or even if it is just a matter of connections to the local network. If the Environment Agency is late in responding, what do you do? Do you pass the application anyway or, when you get a late response from the Environment Agency saying that it does not like the drainage system which is being proposed and that, as it stands, it would recommend refusal, do you refuse it on that ground? Alternatively, do you say, “No, we need more time for the applicants to work together with the planning authority and the Environment Agency to sort it out”? These are the kind of decisions and practices which take place time and time again on major applications.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I wonder if I can respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Surely it is the case that because the criteria for granting planning permission in national parks are much more rigorous and strict than in many areas, many developments will actually need more time for negotiation and discussions with the applicants to make them acceptable within a national park context. In national parks particularly, it may well be that some of the authorities are not as efficient as they might be—I can quite believe that—but in general I would expect that similar applications in national parks will take longer than in what I might call ordinary areas, for those reasons.
The statistics are interesting and worth putting on the record. In the past year the Lake District had 19 major planning applications—far more than most others, which is interesting—and the Broads Authority had 13. Of the rest, Dartmoor had two, Exmoor had two, the New Forest had seven, the North York Moors had seven, Northumberland had two, the Peak National Park had five and the Yorkshire Dales had three. With that level of application, it would clearly be ludicrous to apply anything like a strict 30% rule or any other simple cut-off.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
The fact of the matter is that this table is about decisions, not applications. The decisions may well have been refusals. Indeed, in many of the national parks, that is what happens. These are major applications, over so many hectares and so on. The national parks are planning authorities in their own right, as are bodies such as the London Docklands Development Corporation. They should be subject to the same sort of discipline as anybody else.
Lord Greaves
The table I have is headed “total major decisions” not “total major approvals”. This needs clarifying perhaps, but I would not want to clash with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding over a technical, statistical thing when neither of us knows whether it is right.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I entirely recognise that they were both approved and not approved. They were decisions.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Jenkin of Roding(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought this matter back to the attention of the House. I have attended a number of lectures and presentations about the development of shale gas. As he said, it is perfectly true that there are substantial areas of shale several kilometres or more under the surface of this country, which could be, in appropriate circumstances, a source of gas for this country. However, a good many people have said to me, “But you would never be able to deal with this properly in a country that is as crowded and as fully populated as the United Kingdom”.
It has happened in the United States—indeed, it is happening on a very substantial scale—but there are wide open spaces there. It is apparently likely to happen in Poland where, again, there are substantial areas where it could be done without interfering with the life of the normal population. But in the crowded areas of western Europe and the United Kingdom, there is a widespread view that this is not likely to happen.
I, too, have had correspondence from a farmer in west Lancashire who has written in terms of being extremely anxious about what is happening. Yes, we had the small earthquake outside Blackpool, which is perhaps a foretaste of what may come. But the real concern is the huge amount of surface activity that has to go on at regular intervals. There is a limit to the amount you can drill horizontally before you need to drill another hole down and have all the equipment and plant at the top to deal with it.
There is quite a movement now to say that there should be a moratorium on this until it has been examined a great deal more thoroughly. I do not know enough about it. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, clearly regards it as very important: he is the chairman of Cuadrilla, which is the only company that I am aware of that is drilling so far in this country. One needs to treat this very seriously, as it is a serious prospect. If we could find an acceptable process for recovering very large quantities of shale gas, that would replace a lot of the North Sea gas, which appears to be coming towards the end of its life. At the same time, however, if there are enormous disturbances of local populations and communities because of a huge rash of surface activity, this solution would seem to be worse than the problem.
I do not know what the answer is—whether it is a moratorium, or it is simply sufficient to say that it will come under the NISP process. As I said to the lady who wrote to me, it is going to be jolly interesting to learn what the Minister says in answer to this amendment. All I know is that there is a widespread view that it is not going to catch on in this country for the reasons I explained a few moments ago. I look forward hearing my noble friend’s response.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this issue is closer to me than to other noble Lords, since the Bowland shale, which is the reserve of rock that potentially contains a large amount of methane, if it could be extracted in a sensible and safe way, underlies at a very great depth of some two miles or so a large amount of the Lancashire plain, and extends up towards Pendle Hill, where it is rather nearer the surface. Like other noble Lords, I have taken an interest in this and decided that I ought to find out something about it, as it is clearly extremely controversial. I have been doing just that, and I spent an extremely interesting three hours last Friday afternoon at the site at Banks in Lancashire where the firm Cuadrilla is currently drilling. Its employees showed me around, explained what they were doing and told me a very good tale. I listened and, like all very good tales, will assess it against all the other evidence in this particular case.
I have been deliberately trying not to take a view on the desirability of the extraction of shale gas until I discovered a great deal more about it. My current view is that the people who claim that this will be the answer for decades to the gas problems of this country are overegging their case a little bit, or quite probably a very large amount, but, equally, the people who claim that it would be the kind of environmental disaster in this country that it clearly has been in parts of the USA are also overstating the case. The regulatory regime in this country is very much stricter and more acceptable than the regime in the USA, particularly in some states of the USA. I doubt whether we will get the environmental devastation that has happened in some parts of the USA. I am told by Cuadrilla, although I cannot confirm it, that the famous picture which we have probably all seen on television of the water tap setting on fire was a result not of shale gas but of drilling into coal-seams. Even so, this clearly has to be taken extremely seriously indeed.
The licensing regime at the moment appears to be threefold. First of all, drilling for shale gas comes under ordinary petroleum exploration and development licences. Areas in which shale gas is currently being looked at have licences, issued in 2008 as I understand it, under that regime. It is a licence to explore and develop, but it does not grant planning permission or give the go-ahead even with planning permission. It is the first stage. The areas of this country where these licences have been issued in relation to shale gas include part of south Wales, where a different company, a British one I believe, is involved. I understand that there is also a wish to explore in a part of Somerset that has given rise to concerns in Bath about the spa waters.
The second stage is planning permission, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has been talking about. Planning permission is needed for exploration, and that is what is taking place in Lancashire at the moment. That planning permission was obtained from Lancashire County Council because in two-tier areas, the upper tier authority gives permission for mineral extraction. I have to say that, given the scale of the present exploration, it seems reasonable that the local planning authority, the county council in the case of Lancashire, should be in charge of this, although if it really took off, the points made by the noble Lord make a great deal of sense.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Jenkin of Roding(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
My Lords, we return to the Localism Bill and have reached Part 5, which is about the substantial changes the Bill makes to the planning system. Amendment 203K, which is grouped with one other amendment, is about sustainable development. This is the third time during proceedings on the Bill that I have had the privilege of opening a debate on sustainable development. We had a comprehensive debate at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill, and a further, pretty comprehensive debate at the beginning of the planning section. Both debates took place in Committee. We are now on Report and come to sustainable development again. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for adding his name to the three Liberal Democrat names on the amendment.
The amendment seeks to place in the Bill a definition of sustainable development. This debate reappears every time a planning Bill comes before the House, or a Bill related to planning or similar things. So far, although Governments have increasingly included the words “sustainable development” in legislation, they have always resisted including a clear definition of it in legislation. This amendment also sets out a duty of each person who carries out functions within the planning system, from the Secretary of State down to local planning authorities, to promote sustainable development. It also applies to the neighbourhood forums or parish councils which will be carrying out neighbourhood planning functions under the new provisions within this part of the Bill.
There are therefore two issues. The first is whether a definition should appear in the Bill. It has always been the view of the Liberal Democrat Benches in this House that it should, and we have not really changed in that view. The second is what that definition should be.
Sustainable development is a phrase which has been in current use for about 20 years. However, it has really come to the fore in the past 10 years. In 2005, the then Government issued a report called Securing the Future—Delivering UK Sustainable Development Strategy—I am not quite sure why the title does not have an “a” or a “the” in it. Page 16 lists a set of guiding principles, and it is those guiding principles which this amendment sets out, exactly as they appeared in the 2005 strategy. These are: living within environmental limits, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance, and using sound science responsibly—all with the detail set out. Although this strategy was issued by Defra, it was to apply across government, throughout all departments and all government activities. One assumes that that definition applied to the planning system, since the planning system is part of what the Government do, although parts of the strategy might be more relevant to planning, just as other parts might be more relevant to other aspects of government activity.
In 2010, we had the exciting development of the formation of the new coalition Government, who clearly had to review their policies and strategies, and in particular those which had been passed on to it by the previous Labour Government. In February of this year, the Government issued Mainstreaming Sustainable Development—the Government’s vision and what this means in practice. That vision was very much based on the 2005 strategy, and according to the Defra website, which still existed when I looked last week, the Government are reaffirming their vision for sustainable development.
The website said in February this year:
“The Coalition Government has reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable development and set out its vision of achieving economic growth, improved wellbeing and a protected environment now and for future generations”.
The word “wellbeing” has come into prominence recently since it appears in the health Bill as well, but I take it that in this context it encompasses the social side of the three prongs of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, welcomed the new vision by saying:
“The Government is determined that as we reduce the deficit, we also rebalance the economy and put it on a greener, more sustainable footing. In order to achieve this, we must lead by example. I am pleased to see this document”—
He means the document entitled, Mainstreaming Sustainable Development—the Government’s vision and what this means in practice published on 28 February last—
“sets out exactly how we can do that and take our place among the greenest governments of the world”.
I am going to read out much of the introduction to the document because it is crucial:
“The Coalition Government is committed to sustainable development. This means making the necessary decisions now to realise our vision of stimulating economic growth and tackling the deficit, maximising wellbeing and protecting our environment, without negatively impacting on the ability of future generations to do the same. These are difficult times and tough decisions need to be made”.
That is what they say all the time, but it is true, of course. It continues:
“This Government believes in going beyond the short term with eyes fixed firmly on a long term horizon shift”—
this is the crucial bit, and I think I know what it means—
“in relation to our economy, our society and the environment … This refreshed vision and our commitments build on the principles that underpinned the UK’s 2005 SD strategy, by recognising the needs of the economy, society and the natural environment, alongside the use of good governance and sound science”.
These are the guiding principles that appear in my amendment. The introduction goes on to say:
“Sustainable development recognises that the three ‘pillars’ of the economy, society and the environment are interconnected. The Government has initiated a series of growth reviews to put the UK on a path to strong, sustainable and balanced growth. Our long term economic growth relies on protecting and enhancing the environmental resources that underpin it, and paying due regard to social needs. As part of our commitment to enhance wellbeing, we will start measuring our progress as a country, not just by how our economy is growing”—
although clearly that is very important—
“but by how our lives are improving; not just by our standard of living, but by our quality of life”.
I could not have put it anything like as well as that.
In launching the document, the then environment Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
“While the Government is committed to tackling the deficit and rebuilding Britain’s economy as we recover from recession, not least through the development of a sustainable green economy, we recognise that our success and progress as a country is about more than economic growth”.
The Prime Minister, when announcing the measurement of the nation’s well-being in April, said:
“Prosperity alone cannot deliver a better life … The Government must be focused on quality of life as well as economic growth … Improved wellbeing is important to our goal of creating a more family-friendly country … Sustainable development is also about ensuring a high quality of life for our children and future generations”.
We appear to have a pretty firm commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, Nick Clegg, David Cameron and from the Government themselves.
The purpose of the amendment is to suggest to the Minister that now is the time to put all this on the face of the Bill so that we are absolutely clear about what it is. If she cannot agree to do that on the wording in my amendment today, perhaps we might consider this again at Third Reading with wording suggested by the Government themselves. In any case, it asks her to give a firm assurance—in view of the controversy around the country, not least over the national planning policy framework—that the firm commitments made back in February this year by the high-ups in the Government to sustainable development are still the view of the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I agree with almost everything that my noble friend has said about the desirability of promoting the concept of sustainable development. I rise to speak only for one reason—namely, the news of the death of Sir Arthur Norman, who was a very distinguished president of the FBI, as it was before the CBI. He and the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, came to see me when I was Environment Secretary. They were very concerned about what appeared to be a growing conflict between those who championed the environment and those who were concerned with the well-being of industry. Their view was that, in fact, they are mutually dependent on each other—you cannot improve the environment unless there are the resources there to do it; and business cannot hope to succeed if it flouts all the canons of good environmental behaviour. They came and asked me to help them set up an organisation that could reflect this—and, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Greaves, this was well in advance of the Brundtland definition, which he has just quoted. I had no hesitation in offering them a launching grant to set up what became the United Kingdom Centre for Economic and Environmental Development—UK CEED. It is going strong today.
I believe that this has now become—as my noble friend has rightly said—absolutely embedded in the policies of, I suspect, every party in this country and, indeed, across the world. My only concern with my noble friend’s amendment is whether it is actually going to achieve anything. “Sustainable development” is one of these expressions that tends to mean, rather like “humpty-dumpty”, what I want it to mean when I use it. I am not sure how far it helps to seek to have a definition, because circumstances and conditions change and one is going to find oneself having to amend it as new developments, inventions and technology come forward. I support the concept of trying to build in sustainable development, as has been done in this Bill and certainly in the framework planning policy document. I just question whether putting an amendment of the sort that my noble friend has proposed in the Bill carries this forward. I say this with some background awareness of the huge importance of trying to get everybody—every major part of the economy and the community—committed to this principle of sustainable development.
Localism Bill
Debate between Lord Greaves and Lord Jenkin of Roding(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Without wishing to prolong the debate, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said and to thank my noble friend for the swift acceptance of two of the substantial amendments to which I have put my name on the Marshalled List.
When I had the opportunity to discuss matters very briefly with the Minister’s right honourable friend the Secretary of State, he said that he thought that we were going to be able to reach accommodation on some of the points that had been made at Second Reading. My noble friend has done exactly that, and I express my gratitude.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the Minister’s last two announcements are extremely welcome and I am quite prepared to trade my amendment for them. It is good news all round. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has just said, it bodes well for future debate.
It is only in the House of Lords that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, or anyone else, would raise in evidence events that took place more than 100 years ago. While the short-term effects of Joe Chamberlain’s and the other Liberal Unionists’ defection was extremely damaging to the Liberal Party, the slightly longer-term result of it was that the Liberals gained their greatest ever victory in the 1906 election, in which Joe Chamberlain and his allies in the Conservative Party were roundly trounced. If we are looking for historical precedents, there is one.
Lord Greaves
I apologise. I shall explain it all again, because there is a mess-up in the groupings and it is best to discuss the questions under the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, rather than under mine that come later. I keep referring to mine because my notes obviously refer to them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
If my noble friend objected to the grouping and thought that the amendments should have been put together differently, he had plenty of opportunity over the weekend to put that to the Government Whips. As it is, surely to goodness he must debate those amendments in the group in which they are listed on the amendment paper—otherwise it becomes extremely confusing.
Lord Greaves
I agree entirely, except that I did make changes to the grouping. As a result of this, we are where we are. I attempted to make sense of it, but in the end it did not come out that way. Let me be absolutely clear: I am talking to the two amendments in the group that starts with Amendment 12 as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I apologise for the confusion in the numbers, which is entirely in my head and in my notes. I shall attempt to be much clearer.
I am talking now about Amendment 22, which is in the group that we are debating. The amendment, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and which I entirely support, reflects the analogous condition in Section 3(2)(a) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. This additional safeguard is needed and is not covered by the other conditions—for example, the requirement for proportionality. The reason is that Clause 6(2)(a) refers to the proportionality of the “effect of the provision”, while Amendment 22 relates to the means of achieving that objective. The Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that the particular amendment or repeal proposed is the only way of satisfactorily securing the objective; it would require him to consider whether there were other possibilities—for example, by issuing guidance to local authorities or by amending or repealing a less significant provision. This is an extremely complicated matter. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to give us an answer that can satisfy us all, but again perhaps further discussion, either by letter or in person, can take place.
Amendment 23, which relates to the Human Rights Act and similar Acts, would add a further condition to Clause 6(2). Section 8 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 makes a specific exception for the Human Rights Act. The Minister in the House of Commons stated that Clause 6(2)(e) would preclude the making of an order repealing the Human Rights Act or any part of it, but that paragraph relates to the provision—in other words, what the order proposes to do. This is different from whether the statutory provision itself, which is the subject of the order, is of “constitutional significance”. The point is that the 2006 Act recognises that distinction. The Bill as it stands does not recognise it and the question is why not. Why the change? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would restore the distinction, which would be a very sensible thing to do.