Localism Bill

My Lords, I should like to add a few comments to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in moving his amendment. All those who have spoken are very conscious of the fact that planning in the future must surely be a balance between social, economic and environmental needs. Subsection (4) of Amendment 147FD in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, clearly defines that. However, I have a slight problem with what to include and not include in the list. It is always the same whenever there is a list. Certainly, I have no difficulty with, "““social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs””." That is something to which I hope the Minister will, when he responds, say, ““Yes, this is something that we feel is extremely key””. I have a slight difficulty as we go through paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) because it is quite difficult to strike a balance between them. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, might well feel, for example, that environmental limits should be given a higher priority than the economic side. I think that the two go together and you cannot define them separately. I have difficulty with paragraph (b). We would all like to see, "““ensuring a … healthy and just society””," included but most of us know that the society we live in is not fair for all as it is. Therefore, I have concerns about putting that in the Bill. Turning to paragraph (e), ““using sound science responsibly””, I would much rather have seen something such as ““using our resources better””. We have such wonderful new technologies available to us now. We can make better use of water and can use better means of energy-saving. In future, we shall see many more of those technologies coming on-stream. I do not wish to be a killjoy on the amendment. I support the thrust behind it. However, as it stands, it raises certain questions. Lists have never been one of my great loves. One often puts things in that one should not, or leaves out things that ought to be included. However, I very much support the theme behind subsection (4), which I started by mentioning—social, economic and environmental needs.