My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and I thank her for explaining the basis of her approach so clearly. I was not able to speak at Second Reading but I have an interest in planning, going back to the 1980s, both in government and in business, and one of my most rewarding experiences was as chair of the Built Environment Committee before I joined the front bench.

I am not sure it is strictly relevant, but I am the joint owner with my brother and sister of a cottage and a couple of fields in agricultural use in an AONB in Wiltshire, this is declared in the register.

It is always good to start with a debate on the purpose of a Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was saying, although, unlike my noble friend Lord Banner, I have some doubts about adding such a Clause to a Bill. That is because it is so very difficult to get it right in an ever-changing world, and because such clauses tend to lead to more, not less, legal argy-bargy. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Banner that environmental impact assessments could be simplified—I was also present at their birth, I am embarrassed to say.

If we are to have such a purpose clause, it needs to include an explicit reference to the importance of growth and, above all, to achieving a reduction in the delays in the planning system and in the construction of housing and infrastructure. It seems that year after year, these delays have got worse, not better, under all political parties. Speeding up the system would provide a one-off growth spurt, which nearly all of us across the House believe is urgently needed.

In trying to achieve this, I have a question for the Minister. Can she share with the Committee the things in the Bill that she believes will hurry things up, such as the reduction of the involvement of planning committees in less contentious schemes, less judicial review—we hope—fewer statutory consultees, investment in planning expertise and the ability of councils to fix planning fees at a level that helps them to provide a more efficient service? Can she also set out those that, although she believes them to be needed, will slow things down, especially in achieving our housing, infrastructure and energy objectives? That might include the new spatial development strategies, new arguments over CPOs and the elaborate processes on the environmental delivery plan that were outlined by my noble friend Lady Scott.

What is the net impact on speed, given the Government’s manifesto commitment to cut red tape? I have a real concern that the need for speed and streamlining will be outgunned by other objectives, including amendments favoured by Members of this House. Growth, and all that it enables a Government to do, will be the loser.