I thank my noble friend for her characteristically full reply. I know that she is wrestling with this problem very seriously. I also thank all those who have participated in an interesting little debate. I hope that all the points will be taken seriously.
My noble friend emphasised the importance of sustainability. Here is the rub. Sustainability does not necessarily give priority to the qualitative dimensions of society. The point about the regional assemblies—and, presumably, what will be characteristic about the RPBs—is that they are an endeavour to bring together a meaningful cross-section of those who have a wider concept of what society is about and, as I put it repeatedly, why we need a strong economy to support society.
My noble friend said a lot of things that obviously point in the right direction. I liked what she said about the significance of local councils. I shall go away and look very carefully at her remarks. I certainly hope that we can find some way of getting more explicitly on the record at this stage the Government’s commitment to the qualitative dimensions—environment, heritage, amenities and the rest. I will take advantage of the offer that she kindly made in her letter to me that I should meet with officials and work out some way in which this could be convincingly done, other than by seeking to amend the Bill at Report. But I hope that she will take it in the best possible spirit that I shall need to be convinced; otherwise, I regard this as so important that I shall want to come back to it at Report.
I hope that the Committee will forgive my saying that my formative young years in politics were in the post-war period. What struck me, and has always remained with me during subsequent years, is that we had a desperate task to rebuild the economy—but central in the counsels and deliberations of our leaders was the need for quality in that society. Hence, we had the Town and Country Planning Act and hence the national parks, with which I am associated, and the rest. We are now faced with a dire economic situation, which it will need all our resolve to overcome. I just wish that we could have it explicitly and clearly in the message to the nation that this is in order to have a worthwhile society. Therefore, in everything that we are doing about planning, those wider considerations should be as explicit and given as much priority as they were in the post-war years.
I thank my noble friend for what she has said, and I will take her arguments very seriously as I read them again in Hansard. I may well ask to have a meeting with her officials. I reserve the right to come back to this matter at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 171 agreed to.
Clause 172 [Local development documents]:
[Amendments Nos. 408 to 409C not moved.]
Clause 172 agreed to.
Clause 173 [Development plan documents: climate change policies]:
[Amendment No. 409D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 173 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 410 and 411 not moved.]
Clauses 174 to 176 agreed to.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Judd
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1005-6 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:48:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501730
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501730
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501730