Sustainable development

I beg to move Amendment 110, in Clause 27, page 15, line 13, leave out from ‘(1)’ to ‘; and’ in line 14.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 111, in Clause 27, page 15, line 35, at end add—

‘(6) In this section “sustainable development” means development which enables all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations, pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy that delivers high levels of employment; and a just society that promotes social inclusion, sustainable communities and personal wellbeing and will be done in ways that protect and enhance the physical and natural environment, and use resources and energy as efficiently as possible.’.

Clause stand part.

I shall address amendments 110 and 111 together. Only last night in my Constituency, I was at an inspiring public meeting, as many of our public meetings concerning the regional spatial strategy are. It was addressed by one Jonathon Porritt, who, as I am sure the Minister is aware, was recently the chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission. He described a process that he called sustainable development abuse. It was the use, particularly by Government agencies and Departments, of the phrase “sustainable development” to justify almost anything that they cared to do. There is a loophole in the Clause that would allow exactly that process in this case.

At present, the Bill allows the Minister to issue guidance not just about how authorities are to discharge their duty in the clause, but about the meaning of “sustainable development”. I am sure the Minister is a busy man, so we are helpfully pointing out in the amendments that he does not have to do that, because there is already a definition of sustainable development. It has been provided by the Sustainable Development Commission, which was set up by the Government for that very purpose, and which Sir Jonathon chaired.

The definition is the one given, broadly speaking, in Amendment 111, which states that

“‘sustainable development’ means development which enables all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations, pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy that delivers high levels of employment; and a just society that promotes social inclusion, sustainable communities and personal wellbeing and will be done in ways that protect and enhance the physical and natural environment, and use resources and energy as efficiently as possible.”

That is a much more comprehensive, detailed and well thought-out definition than some of the ones that I have seen from Departments, mentioning no names except Communities and Local Government.

I wonder whether this is yet more evidence of the new-found centralising tendency of the Liberal Democrats. The Clause as it is currently constructed at least allows some local interpretation of the guidance, whereas the Amendment is prescriptive as to exactly what local authorities should do. We should allow the case for localism in interpreting the Minister’s guidance.

That was a clever debating point from the hon. Lady, but the fact is that the English have been striving for the past 1,000 years or so to centralise the use of terminology on the basis of common understanding about what general terms mean.

The meaning of sustainable development has been abused—Sir Jonathon is right about that—by Departments in particular, which have neglected the environmental sustainability element of the meaning of the phrase. It has already been a theme in many of our discussions in the Committee. It is an important theme for the Bill, as the use of flood defences in concert with natural processes and in harmony with the natural environment is something that we need to encourage and reinforce at every possible opportunity. The two amendments would force the use of a definition of sustainable development that respects the environment and the natural processes involved. It  has been developed by the very body commissioned by the Government to do the job of defining sustainable development. On that basis, I am sure that the Minister will be supportive.

I would like to make some comments on Clause stand part, but before I do let me say that I enjoyed the exchange between the hon. Members for City of Durham and for Cheltenham. On round one, I am minded to support the hon. Member for City of Durham, but the hon. Member for Cheltenham should not be discouraged because he has had one or two positive victories as well.

The Country Land and Business Association has stated that sustainable development is a fairly nebulous concept and could mean whatever the user of the term wants it to mean. It is happy that the Minister is under an obligation to issue guidance on what it will mean in the present context. Perhaps he can let us know what parties will be consulted. However, the CLA goes on to say that because the contents of the guidance is likely to have significant implications, it believes—and I think that all of us would wish to support its point of view—that the guidance could have been made available either at this stage or before Report.

I am astonished that the hon. Lady is prepared to reject the Sustainable Development Commission’s definition of sustainable development knowing, as I am sure she does, that Government Departments under this Labour Government have, on occasion, produced the most astonishingly vacuous definitions of sustainability and have used them to justify the most unsustainable practices imaginable in housing, economics and local communities. There are many examples of sustainable development abuse, as Jonathon Porritt calls it. I find it astonishing that she is not prepared to support putting that clear definition in the Bill.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has such a good relationship with Jonathon Porritt, who seems to be a voice from the past. There are alternative definitions, which I will put to the Committee, so we do not necessarily have to take this one. One such definition comes from the Royal Commission on Environment and Development, which says that sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs. If we are to have a debate, there are a variety of definitions from which we can choose. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire will recall, when we were in the Select Committee, we lamented the fact that no definition of strategy was given.

I should like to ask the Minister to support the comments of the Local Government Flood Forum, which has given the matter some thought. It says that the meaning of sustainable development is clearly defined in Government policy—so it would obviously take issue with the hon. Member for Cheltenham—and that it has been used to develop sustainable community strategies. It says that to issue new guidance with a new special flooding definition of sustainable development would be unnecessary. It is particularly concerned about  Clause 27(2). I have thrown that in the pot as a debating point, because there is confusion about what sustainable development means in this context.

As the hon. Lady argues that we should not have logical definitions of sustainable development and a special flooding definition, she should support my Amendment because it is designed to ensure that there are not multiple definitions across Governments and that there is only the one supported by the SDC.

I want to hear from the Minister about what definition the Government are using in this regard.

I want to make a couple of comments on Clause stand part. Unlike the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I was pleased to see the inclusion of clause 27 in the Bill, because it is important that authorities are able to think about future sustainability. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Vale of York for making that point.

The Minister has told the Committee that authorities are already able to refuse planning applications that might in some way conflict with sustainability under PPS25. However, I think a number of us have had particular issues or circumstances in our constituencies relating to that. I am dealing with an issue where an application is being made for development on Durham’s flood plain. We are not at all confident that it will be refused under PPS25. Indeed, PPS25 is being used to approve the development because of resilience measures that are being included in the development. However, the nature of the development impacts on the possible sustainability of the whole area because it is being developed inappropriately. I would like some reassurance from the Minister that under clause 27 there will be strong cause for local authorities to be able to refuse development where they think it impacts negatively on the long-term sustainability of the area.

The amendments would remove the requirement for ministerial guidance on sustainable development and would mean that guidance on the meaning and definition of sustainable development would be placed in the Bill. That definition would be fixed in primary legislation for ever and a day, until we revisit it.

The Amendment is interesting, and I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Cheltenham said. He asked whether I would be supportive and I can tell him that I support the intention, not the substance of the amendment. I accept the need for clarity, but the meaning of sustainable development has already been defined in various ways. For example, as many Committee members will know, in the international context, there was the well known Brundtland report, “Our Common Future”—the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. More recently, in the UK context, there was the Government’s 2005 sustainable development strategy, “Securing the Future,” which includes the definition that is in the amendment.

I think we know where we are, but the problem is—I hate to say this—ever since the blueprint for growth in the 1960s and the Brundtland report, there has been much work on improving definitions of sustainable  development, and I have no doubt that Jonathon Porritt and others will continue to improve those definitions. For example, we can look at definitions from Jacobs on weak sustainabilities and strong sustainabilities.

We already have definitions of sustainable development, but let me just add to those. If hon. Members were looking for a current definition of sustainable development beyond what the hon. Gentleman refers to, DEFRA’s website contains pages on sustainable development, including a definition and details on the principles that underpin it. The principles are equally important and include living within environmental means, ensuring a strong, healthy, just society, achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and using sound science responsibly. We all know that the overall goal of sustainable development is to enable people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life without compromising the quality of life of future generations.

Guidance provided by the Minister under section 4 of the Environment Act 1995 and Clause 27(2) of the Bill will allow us to be more explicit about what sustainable development means in the context of flood and erosion risk management in England and Wales. Clause 27 requires that ministerial guidance is given to clarify that definition in relation to flood and erosion risk management. We do not need to bang it in the Bill for ever and a day because we might get the definition wrong, or it might move on or be improved—tweaked, refined or made more specific—by Jonathon Porritt or whoever else.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Gentleman has confidence that the definition he proposes is the definition par excellence and that no Minister would have to return to it over the next few years, I will welcome his Intervention.

The Minister seems to be presenting this as Jonathon Porritt’s personal definition, but it is not. It is the definition used by the Sustainable Development Commission. As has been pointed out, it is the official definition of the Government. I believe that it is agreed in the shared framework with the devolved Administrations, so it is also their official definition of sustainable development. Of course it will not be the end of conversation, discussion or debate on the matter.

If the Minister made a commitment to table an Amendment that made the definition the same as the wording in the shared framework between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations at any given time, I would consider not pressing amendment 111.

I try to be accommodating as far as I can, but I am not likely to propose such an Amendment. My suggestion is that we provide guidance on what we mean by sustainable development. This might well be the definition that we settle on. There will be an ability to alter that in regulations, if necessary, although not necessarily through Jonathon Porritt because, as the hon. Gentleman says, this is not Jonathon Porritt’s definition. It will be an accepted definition at that time.

The definition might well last for five or 10 years, but my point is that it is not appropriate to fix one definition in primary legislation. We had the same debate during  consideration of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. The approach we took was to put the definition in the underpinning principles rather than in the Bill, for exactly the same reasons. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is certain that this definition is the be all and end all. On that basis, putting it in the regulations based on guidance will allow us to stay in tune with any developments in the concept of sustainable development and enable Ministers to ensure that the guidance is consistent with other guidance on sustainable development, such as the statutory guidance provided to the Environment Agency under section 4 of the Environment Act 1995.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York, we do not have a firm date, but we anticipate bringing forward the guidance by autumn this year. In bringing forward any definitions through regulations, I would wish to consult with the public, academics, wildlife groups and others to ensure that we fix on the right definition. We could not do so if we bolted it on to the Bill.

I notice that Clause 27(3) lists a number of authorities. Water and sewerage companies are excluded. Would it not be a good idea for them to be included?

I can clarify for the hon. Lady that a similar statutory duty already applies to Ofwat. The principles of sustainable development are embedded in its formulation and in the review of policy that controls the way in which water companies work. She raises an important point to ensure that the provision cuts across all agendas.

I agree with the theory of the Amendment, but bolting the definition on to the Bill for ever and a day is not the right method. It is far more appropriate to have fluidity so that we can improve the definition as time goes by. I am addressing a conference on biodiversity, post-2010 targets. I would be remarkably wise if I could fix in time now what we should be doing to improve the environment in that context. The same applies here. We should have flexibility so that we can take this forward over time and evolve. Having said that, the definition the hon. Gentleman has put forward may well be the one that we agree on.

That was a kind final comment, but the Minister’s argument seems to be against trying to define almost anything. At some time, one has to plump for a definition and put it in the Bill, in policy guidance or wherever. One cannot avoid the temptation to define anything on the grounds that it might change in the future.

I suggested earlier that, if the Minister brought forward an Amendment that did not put a definition in the Bill, but said that for the purposes of the Bill, sustainable development meant whatever was the current definition of the shared framework between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations—that is the phrase used by the Sustainable Development Commission and means the current best definition that the Government have—that would be preferable to allowing Ministers in one particular Department to come up with their own definition. That is precisely the process, as the hon. Member for Vale of York pointed out, although she was not supporting my amendment, that leads to multiple  definitions, some of which, I have to say, are vacuous, unsustainable waffle. I am afraid that I have sat through Select Committees with Ministers from various Departments, at various times, giving evidence on what they thought sustainability meant. Some of them produced the most ludicrous and meaningless statements, which were just PR fluff. We have to get serious about sustainability. It has a concrete and serious meaning, which respects economic sustainability, social sustainability and—the most important of the three pillars in a long-term sense—environmental sustainability. Without environmental sustainability, the other two fall.

If we proceed along the course that the hon. Gentleman suggests, well intended as it is, the ability to go beyond the wisdom of this Committee, or beyond the wisdom of the proposal that he is putting forward, and to seek views before we agree on a definition is stymied. That is the way we should do it: to consult properly on the matter and bring it forward. If we settle on the definition that he has as the best way forward, so be it, but let us not cut that out at the moment, because it will not allow any of those interested parties to contribute to the debate that we are having.

The Minister’s willingness to spend public money on consultations about things that have already been perfectly and satisfactorily defined is almost endless.

I am not necessarily endorsing the hon. Gentleman’s Amendment, but Clause 3(3) on risk management gives

“examples of things that might be done in the course of flood or coastal erosion risk management”.

Does he not think that it might be useful, in a similar way, to give some examples of what sustainability might touch upon?

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. It might well be good to give examples of sustainability, even if we are reluctant to define it. However, I will conclude. I might need your guidance, Mr Martlew. I would like to press Amendment 111 to a vote.

When we come to it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw Amendment 110.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 59, in clause 27, page 15, line 32, leave out ‘flood and coastal erosion risk management in England’ and insert ‘English authorities’.

Amendment 60, in clause 27, page 15, line 34, leave out ‘flood and coastal erosion risk management in Wales’ and insert ‘Welsh authorities’.

Amendment 61, in clause 27, page 15, line 35, at end add—

‘(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)—

(a) an “English authority” is—

(i) a lead local flood authority, district council or highway authority for an area in England, and

(ii) an internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is wholly or mainly in England;

(b) a “Welsh authority” is—

(i) a lead local flood authority or highway authority for an area in Wales, and

(ii) an internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is wholly or mainly in Wales.’.—(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Amendment proposed: 111, in clause 27, page 15, line 35, at end add—

‘(6) In this section “sustainable development” means development which enables all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations, pursued in an integrated way through a sustainable, innovative and productive economy that delivers high levels of employment; and a just society that promotes social inclusion, sustainable communities and personal wellbeing and will be done in ways that protect and enhance the physical and natural environment, and use resources and energy as efficiently as possible.’.—(Martin Horwood.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.