Clause 38 - Sustainable development
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
2:45 pm
Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Harrow East, Labour)
I presume that the amendment seeks to provide a defence to any challenge to the effect that an RSS or local development document has not contributed sufficiently to sustainable development. No formulation used in other legislation qualifies the duties in that way, and the qualification would send out the wrong message. I am not aware that the absence of such a qualification has caused problems in other legislation.
The clause 38 duty on the regional planning body and the local authority is to prepare the RSS and LDDs with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. That was dealt with at length this morning, and rightly so. The duty does not extend to requiring the RPB or local authority to contribute, whatever the circumstances. Provided that the RPB and local authorities have properly
demonstrated a positive intention for the RSS or LDDs to contribute, the duty will be met. The position is almost the reverse of the intention of an earlier amendment, which favoured ''have regard to'', not ''contribute to''. The amendment would weaken, not strengthen, the duty on the RPB and local authority.
I am worried that the amendment could give the message to, or even encourage, RPBs and local authorities to pay lip service to the policy. Given the contribution of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I am sure that that is not the intention. I reject the amendment in both practical and policy terms. It refers to an explicit duty to contribute. Bearing in mind the complexities of the environment in which we live, that statutory duty should not be in the Bill. The ability to contribute is important. The amendment would be ineffective. It would not get RPBs and local planning authorities off the hook. Given the message that it would send out and bearing it in mind that sustainability permeates other clauses, I strongly urge, in the context of our broad consensual discussion, that the probing amendment be withdrawn.