Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 15, at end insert

', and

(h) ''sustainable development'' means development that will strive to incorporate—

(i) low carbon emissions;

(ii) low waste;

(iii) the provision of sustainable transport;

(iv) the use of local and sustainable materials;

(v) the use of local and sustainable food;

(vi) the use of a local and sustainable workforce;

(vii) low water demand;

(viii) the conservation and enhancement of natural habitats and wildlife;

(ix) local heritage and contemporary culture;

(x) the principles of equality and fair trade;

(xi) the promotion of health and well being;

(xii) low energy demand.'.

Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 14, in clause 5, page 4, line 28, at end insert—

'(ba) to achieving sustainable development,'.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Again, I hope not to detain the Committee for long. Members are aware of the clear commitment made by the bid team, in putting together the bid for the 2012 Olympics, to ensure that the games are in all respects developed in a sustainable way. The team produced an extremely good document ''Towards a One Planet Olympics'', which clearly sets out its intention to ensure that it provides the first sustainable Olympic games and Paralympics. Indeed, that was a fundamental objective of the Olympic movement, through Agenda 21 and ''Sport for Sustainable Development''.

Unfortunately, although that was made a high priority in our bid document, the Bill reflects little of the zeal that underpinned that aspect of the bid that we took to Singapore. There is little mention of sustainable development, and that term is not defined in the Bill. Therefore, I thought it would be helpful to give the Minister the opportunity to tell us a little more about sustainable development and how he foresees it fitting into our future plans for the delivery of the 2012 games. That is why I tabled these amendments, with some definitions of sustainability that he may wish to discuss and suggest some changes to.

I should make it clear where the definitions in the amendments come from. They are largely based on the ''One Planet Living'' document, a set of benchmarks produced by World Wide Fund for Nature and some other organisations. Along with those that they produced, in these amendments two further   benchmarks are proposed: low energy demand, which would, of course, be over and beyond the low carbon emission aims that we already have; and the use of a local and sustainable work force.

There are a number of other issues that we could discuss in some detail if the Minister were interested in doing so, but I think that he and Committee members are well aware that sustainable development is a key element in the planning for, and delivery of, the games. By these amendments we have given an opportunity for sustainable development to be given a higher priority than it has in the Bill. I hope that they will be supported by the Minister, at least in principle, if not in their full detail.

Hugh Robertson (Shadow Minister (Sport), The Family & Culture, Media & Sport; Faversham & Mid Kent, Conservative)

I start by apologising for not welcoming you to the Chair in my opening remarks, Mr. Hood. I was slightly caught out by the brevity of the Minister's initial remarks in moving the motion formally.

It is fair to say that our party has three key objectives in this Olympic process. The first, which I suspect is shared by many Committee members, is that we want the maximum benefit from the games devolved to sport generically—right across the sporting spectrum. The second is that we are keen that the tax from the Olympic lottery games benefits sport. That will also not surprise anybody. The third is that we want to ensure that things run to budget and do not overrun to the detriment of London council tax payers.

I am entirely behind the spirit of the Liberal Democrat amendment. However, before I supported it, I would want assurances that it would not add a considerable bill to the games that would fall to London council tax payers. It is right that council tax payers in London—the host city—should pay as they are doing at the moment, but I do not want them to be saddled with an open-ended and fairly lengthy commitment to pay off any cost overruns afterwards. The key aspect is that we agree with the spirit of what is being said, but before we supported it we would want assurances that a huge cost would not be involved.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

Many would have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Bath, but we have covered them in the Bill and in Olympic delivery authority's responsibilities.

Amendment No. 30 would include a definition of sustainable development in clause 1 of the Bill, which sets out its principal terms. Clause 4 requires the ODA to contribute to sustainable development when carrying out its functions, which is vital to ensure that we leave the lasting legacy after 2012. There has been a lengthy debate on that. However, I do not accept that we need a definition of sustainable development in clause 1 for two reasons.

The first is because the UK strategy on sustainable development ''Securing the Future'' provides the main source of guidance on the meaning of sustainable development. Secondly, similar legislation that imposes sustainable development duties on public bodies, such as the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, does not provide a definition of sustainable   development. Therefore, I do not propose to have one in this Bill and I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Amendment No. 14 would include a specific reference to sustainable development in clause 5. We do not think that that is necessary. Clause 4 already puts the ODA under a general duty to contribute to sustainable development in exercising all its functions. Clause 5(5)(e) requires it to have a regard, in discharging planning functions, to local authorities' development plans, which must also contribute to sustainable development. It will not be able to ignore sustainable development considerations in discharging its planning functions.

Moreover, the balance to be struck between economic, social, resource and the environmental aspect in any particular case will vary. I think that was a point to which the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) referred. There might be occasions when an optimum balance cannot be struck but it is nevertheless appropriate to grant permission.

Clause 5 puts the ODA in exactly the same position as local authorities. Statutory requirements in relation to sustainable development in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 apply to the plan-making function and not to development control decision making. The ODA will have only the development control function. As far as this Government are concerned, sustainable development is not a bolt-on; it is substantial part of the policy making. It applies to RDAs and to the ODA as well. Given that reassurance, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister bring us up to speed with the arrangements in respect of the Thames gateway development corporation? When in operation, it will have major responsibilities for driving forward the Government's sustainable communities agenda in the area. At present, it has not yet been set up, but it will clearly have a role to play in delivering sustainability.

Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I am absolutely in favour of the corporation. I was involved in its resurrection back in 1997. As the hon. Gentleman knows, during the period from then until 1999 we set up the regional development agencies. The South East England Development Agency, the Eastern Development Agency and the London Development Agency were involved in such matters. What I have said about the ODA is applicable in respect of the Thames gateway development corporation and will be entitled to sustainability under ''Securing the Future''.

Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful to him for placing firmly on the record the importance of sustainable development in driving forward all the activities of the ODA and the other bodies that will be responsible for delivering the games in 2012. He will be well aware that we have held several such debates in Committee when I argued that   it was helpful of the Minister to put forward such proposals, but given that there is support from the Government, why was it not possible to put such policies into the Bill?

Clause 5 sets out provisions applying to the ODA and lists some specific requirements. However, one crucial requirement is not listed. I have heard no objection from the Government to make sustainable development a requirement of the ODA's functions. Indeed, the Minister has put such proposals firmly on the record. We know that Lord Coe and the bid team have made an absolute commitment to such matters. More recently, that commitment has been re-established in several press releases that have been issued by the organising committee. Having received such assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.