Localism Bill

I hope to convince the hon. Lady when I say more on that in a few minutes. As we are considering Lords amendments, I will reflect on the conclusions that were drawn after extensive debates on all these issues in the House of Lords and what its settled view was. Lord Howarth of Newport, a Labour peer, said:"““Like other noble Lords I do not think that it is appropriate to attempt a full definition on the face of primary legislation because… the right place for that is guidance.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1078.]" The Opposition spokesman, Lords McKenzie of Luton, in summing up, said:"““We accept that definitions are not going to be included in the Bill but I hope that at least we shall be able to get very strong assurances that there will be full definitions in the NPPF.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1076.]" At the end of the debate, he said that he was happy to withdraw the same amendment because my noble Friend Baroness Hanham had"““given the strongest degree of reassurance I have heard to date on the issue.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1088.]" A view was reached in the House of Lords on the basis of assurances that my noble Friend gave. I will not quote from some of the other reflections, but some colleagues there said that this went even further than they had expected. In answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), the Government are committed to a clear definition of sustainable development and think that policy is the right place for it. I have said clearly that we have no difficulties with the 2005 definition, which I think is ably reflected in the amendment. Hon. Members will know that I cannot pre-empt the consultation on the NPPF, but in all the deliberations we have had on the Bill my assurances about the Government's good faith have always been reflected and brought to a final conclusion. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will bear that in mind.