Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

I have two concerns about the clause on sustainable development. We touched on the issue in debates on earlier clauses. I am concerned about the wording. The Campaign to Protect Rural England strongly makes the point in its briefing that the wording is not strong enough to be meaningful. The CPRE is making a value judgment between the previous objectives of regional development agencies—effectively to drive residential housing development and disperse significant housing numbers from central Government—and the wider remit of social and economic growth and sustainability. Therefore, we do not think that the wording in the clause is sufficiently robust and, on that basis, do not support it.

To be helpful, the Minister will also know that the CPRE made the sensible suggestion in its submission to the Committee that the purposes of an RDA, as set out in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, should be amended, so that it is required to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in all the work that it undertakes, rather than only

“where it is relevant to its area to do so”.

All members of the Committee will have received that briefing. For those reasons, we think that there is an alternative route for the Government to look at sustainability and sustainable development. We do not think that the clause’s current wording is sufficiently robust and, on that basis, do not feel disposed to support it.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I want to add to that briefly. The debate goes back to a discussion that we had on a previous clause. That provision seems to have been added as a footnote to the range of things that the regional strategy needs to consider. The core function of the regional strategy is to set up policies on sustainable economic growth; but on development, it only sets out policies in relation to the development and use of land in the region. Because neither “sustainable”, nor “sustainability” are included in its core mission, it is difficult to see how they can have some additional regard to that. If it is really part of their core duty, why is that not set out in the earlier clause, rather than just added in parenthesis at the end?

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I am slightly puzzled by subsection (2). Either something is sustainable or it is not. I am curious about why we have that little special reference to “good design”. Which lobby is responsible? Is this Lord Rogers striking again? I agree with the comments that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made on Chelsea barracks, which I thought were absolutely spot on. It is curious that the clause stresses the importance of good design. How about stressing the importance of fuel efficiency, of trying to have combined heat and power or of not having to travel by private vehicle? Why has that one little point about design suddenly popped up? I would have thought that either we had sustainability or we did not.

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

This has all the hallmarks of a subsection inserted in another place, where I understand that there is a powerful lobby for design interests, and that perhaps gives a flavour of how curiously legislation can be amended.

Rosie Winterton (Minister of State (Yorkshire and the Humber), Department for Communities and Local Government; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I hope that the Committee will support this important clause, which relates to sustainable development. It will be extremely worrying if the Liberal Democrats, after all they have said on sustainability, decide to vote against it. It uses the standard legal formulation used in various pieces of legislation that have been passed by the House, most recently the Planning Act 2008. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested, the design reference is replicated from the 2008 Act.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Let me make the Liberal Democrat position clear. We think it better that the provision is included as a separate clause than not at all, but we are unhappy that it was not set out in the core function of the strategy in earlier clauses.