1. A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom (Cm 4345, 1999) para 5.1.

2. This definition is referred to as the Brundtland definition of sustainable development and arises from a report by the World Commission on Environment and Development, published in 1987: World Commission on Environment and Economic Development Our Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987)Google ScholarPubMed.

3. For a comprehensive review of the literature, see further V Jenkins Developing Dialogues on Sustainable Developmenr (Cardiff PhD thesis, 2000) ch 2.

4. Many of those who reject the concept of sustainable development base their objections on the need to achieve ‘environmental sustainability’. The technocentrics, for example, believe that a technical solution can be found to any problems of scarcity that may result from the production and consumption of natural resources for human development: for example, Scott, A and Pearse, P ‘Natural Resources in a High-Tech Economy – Scarcity versus Resourcefulness’ (1992) 18(3) Resources Policy 154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. With the exception, for example, of those who support the deep range ecology movement and adopt an ecocentric perspective: Naess, A ‘The Shallow and the Deep Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary’ in Dryzek, J and Schlosberg, D Debating the Earth: The Environmental Politics Reader (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) pp 349–355.Google Scholar

6. During the 1970s, the so-called ‘Prophets of Doom’, a group of visionary academics argued that human survival was in severe jeopardy at the hands of unprecedented industrial development and population growth. The most influential report, The Limits to Growth, argued that we would reach the limits of our environmental resource base in within the next 100 years and recommended that radical action be taken: Meadows, D The Limits to Growth (London: Pan Books, 1972)Google Scholar. At the extreme end of the spectrum this would involve a steady-state or no-growth economy. Some supporters of such an economic model acknowledge that, although the notion of a steady-state economy is a compelling one, in answer to the problems raised by ‘environmental sustainability’ it is politically unrealistic: Daly, H Towards a Steady State Economy (London: Freeman, 1973) p 342 Google Scholar.

7. R Goodland ‘The Concept of Environmental Sustainability’ (1995) 26 Environment Development World Bank Annual Review of Ecological Systems 1 at 3. The achievement of social equity is morally compelling, given the fact that inter-generational equity is an important motivation for sustainable development, but it is also of practical importance because people living in poverty may be forced into unsustainable modes of behaviour. Furthermore, those people who feel that they have been neglected in society are less likely to involve themselves in civil society. See, for example, Redclift, M ‘The key to redirecting the “development” and environmental discourses lies in the political and economic support given to the powerless and the poor’ in Redclift, M Development and Environmental Crisis: Red or Green Alternatives (London: Methuen, 1984) pp 129–130.Google Scholar

8. See, for example, Dobson, who believes that a radical approach to green politics is necessary to achieve sustainable development and will require us to adopt an approach based on communitarism, rather than focus on individual lifestyle changes: A Dobson ‘Strategies for Green Change’ in Dryzek and Schlosberg, n 5 above, pp 539–557. The Real World Coalition, supported by a number of pressure groups and academics, also promotes radiral reform of the economic and political situation both at home and at a global level: Christie, I and Wartnuton, D From Here to Susraimbility: Politics in the Real World (London: Eaahscan, 2001)Google Scholar. On the economic changes necessary to achieve sustainable development, see Pearce, D, Mmkandya, A and Barbier, E Blueprint for a Green Economy (London: Earthscan, 1989)Google Scholar.

9. The Real World Coalition, n 8 above.

10. United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (NCONF151 126). This form of the precautionary principle is supported by the present government in its national strategy for sustainable development: n 1 above, para 4.1.

11. This was the largest international conference ever held by the UN, and achieved unprecedented success in gaining political co-operation of the majority of nation states, from both the developed and the developing nations.

12. Three other treaties were created at the Rio Conference, concentrating on specific issues of environmental protection that are considered to be particularly important to the achievement of sustainable development –5 the Biodiversity Convention; the Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the Agreement on Forest Principles. The conventions on Biodiversity and Climate Change create legally binding obligations under international law and separate measures have been taken to ensure their implementation. The implementation of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 was the subject of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002, following an interim summit in New York, in 1997.

13. This list is developed from the work of Boyle and Freestone: Boyle, A and Freestone, D ‘Introduction’ in Boyle, A and Freestone, D (eds) International Law for Sustainable Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) pp 1–18.Google Scholar

14. The EC responded positively to Agenda 21, developing an initial strategy within its Fifth Environmental Action Programme. The Fifth Environmental Action Programme came to an end in 2000, at which time preparations began on a separate EU strategy for sustainable development to be presented to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. ‘The Commission published the following proposal which was presented to the European Council at Gothenburg in June 2001 –Communication from the Commission: A Sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development COM (2001) 264 final. Most of the proposals key recommendations were accepted to form the basis of the EU's new strategy for sustainable development: Gothenburg European Council, Presidency Conclusions, available at http://www.europa.eu.int. See further review by V Jenkins (2002) 14(2) J Environ L 261.

15. See further Jenkins, n 14 above.

16. Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy (Cm 2426, 1994).

17. See Jenkins, n 3 above, p 168.

18. This Common Inheritance: Britain's Environmental Strategy (Cm 1200, 1990). This initiative thus pre-dates UNCED.

19. This Common Inheritance: the First Year Report (Cm 1655, 1991); This Common Inheritance: the Second Year Report (Cm 2068,1992); This Common Inheritance: the Third Year Report (Cm 2549, 1994); This Common Inheritance: Annual Report (Cm 2822, 1995); This Common Inheritance: Annual Report (Cm 3188, 1996).

20. Christie, I ‘Britains Sustainable Development Strategy: Environmental Quality and Policy Change’ (1994) 15(3) Policy Studies 4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an in-depth study of the failings of the annual review process in respect of the White Paper, see Green Alliance Greening Government: The Failure of the Depamental Annual Reports to Reject Integrated Policy Making (London: Green Alliance, 1991)Google Scholar.

21. Osborn, D ‘Some Reflections on UK Environment Policy 1970–1995’ (1997) 9(1) J Environ L 3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Report from the Select Committee on Sustainable Development Session 1994–95, HL 72. For conclusions, see Voisey, H and O'Riordan, T ‘Governing Institutions for Sustainable Development: The United Kingdoms National Level Approach’ (1997) 6(1) Environ Politics 24 at 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. The objectives of the GPSD were to keep in view general sustainability issues at home and abroad; identify major problems or opportunities likely to arise; monitor progress; and consider questions of priority.

24. The objectives of the RTSD as set by the government were to: help identify the agenda and priorities for sustainable development; develop new areas of consensus on difficult issues of sustainable development and where this is not possible, to clarify and reduce difference; provide advice and recommendations on actions to achieve sustainable development and to inform and involve others, building wider support for emerging consensus; help evaluate progress towards objectives; and inform and involve others, building wider support for emerging consensus.

25. See Voisey and O'Riordan, n 22 above, p 35.

26. Round Table on Sustainable Development The Domestic Energy Market: 1998 and Beyond (London: RTSD, 1996). See further n 82 below.

27. See Voisey and O'Riordan, n 22 above, p 37.

28. See n 1 above.

29. The strategy hence includes ‘social progress which recognises the needs of everyone’ as a key objective alongside effective protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; and maintenance of high stable levels of economic growth and employment. See further n 1 above.

30. See further DETR The Work of Green Ministers (London: DETR, 2000).Google Scholar

31. This originally involved the amalgamation of the Departments of Environment and Transport to create a Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions. However, following the general election in June 2001, the departmental structures of government were changed once more to create the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

32. These measures have been criticised most heavily by the government's own EAC. Although largely supportive of the work of the Green Ministers Committee, SDC and the SDU, the EAC has expressed concern that the latter is not situated within the Cabinet Office. It also believes that the Cabinet committee has not provided sufficient leadership. Moreover, it does not agree with the ‘new logic’ in respect of the departmental structures for sustainable development fearing that DEFRA is now a department that is principally concerned with rural affairs. See further Select Committee on Environmental Audit Second Report: The Greening Government Initiative Session 1997–98, HC 517; Select Committee on Environmental Audit Sixth Report: The Greening Government Initiative 1999 Session 1998–99, HC 426; and Select Committee on Environmental Audit First Report: Departmental Responsibilities of Sustainable Development Session 2001–02, HC 326.

33. For the most recent annual report, see further DEFRA Achieving a Better Quality of Life: Review of Progress Towards Sustainable Development (London: DEFRA, 2002) available from http://www.defra.gov.uk.

34. DETR Quality of Life Counts (London: HMSO, 1999). The Conservative government produced an initial set of such indicators in 1996, but had little time to develop their use before losing office: DOE Indicators for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom (London: HMSO, 1996).Google ScholarPubMed

35. Bell, S and Morse, S Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable (London: Earthscan, 1999) p 30 Google Scholar. On the merits of the government's headline indicators specifically, see a recent report by the EAC – Select Committee on Environmental Audit Measuring The Quality Of Life: the 2001 sustainable development headline indicators Session 2001–02, HC 824.

36. ‘The task of monitoring progress, on the basis of indicators and other evidence, and focusing public and political attention on areas where things are not moving in the right direction’: Roundtable on Sustainable Development Response to Consultation on the Sustainable Development Commission (London: RTSD, 1999) para 8.Google Scholar

37. Its specific objectives are: to review how far sustainable development is being achieved in the UK in all relevant fields and identify any relevant processes or policies which may be undermining this; to identify important unsustainable trends which will not be reversed on the basis of current or planned action, and recommend action to reverse the trends; and to deepen understanding of the concept of sustainable development, increase awareness of the issues it raises and build agreement on them and to encourage and to stimulate good practice.

For further information with regard to the work of the Sustainable Development Commission, see http://www.sd-commission.gov.uk.

38. This approach was also supported by the former Roundtable. See n 36 above, para 6.

39. Labour first made a commitment to introduce a parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee in its environmental policy statement in 1994: Labour Party In Trust for Tomorrow (London: Labour Party, 1994).Google ScholarPubMed

40. Select Committee on Environmental Audit Environmental Audit: The First Parliament Session 2000–01, HC 67–1. For further analysis of the work of the EAC, see Ross, A ‘Greening Government – Tales From the New sustainability Watchdog’ (2000) 12(2) J Environ L 175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. With regard to the establishment of an environmental auditor general, see further Hollingsworth, K ‘Environmental Monitoring of Government – the Case for an Environmental Auditor’ (2000) 20(2) LS 241.Google Scholar

41. DETR Government's response to the Environmental Audit Committee's Report on Environmental Audit: The First Parliament (London: DETR, 2001)Google Scholar. See also ‘Government Gives Cool Response to MPs’ Call for Green Auditor’ (2001) ENDS 50, April.

42. See, for example, Boyle and Freestone, n 13 above, pp 1–18; Macrory, R ‘The Amsterdam Treaty: An Environmental Perspective’ in O'Keefe, D and Twomey, P Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty (Oxford: Hart, 1999) pp 171–83Google Scholar; Kramer, L EC Environmental Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1999)Google Scholar; and McGillivray, D and Bell, S Environmental Law (London: Blackstones, 2000) pp 4142 Google Scholar. Some commentators believe, however, that it might be possible to enforce such an obligation with reference to the ‘principles of sustainable development’. See, for example, Sands who believes that certain provisions of the Rio Declaration have gained the status of customary international law: Sands, P ‘International Law in the Field of Sustainable Development: Emerging Legal Principles’ in Lang, W Sustainable Development and lnternational Law (Netherlands: Graham & Trotman, 1995) p 53 Google Scholar. This view was supported by a minority judgment in Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (1998) 37 ILM 162. It has also been suggested that, in future, the law relating to sustainable development in the EU may be developed by the introduction of a ‘code’ of substantive general principles: Decleris, M The Law of Sustainable Development: General Principles (Luxembourg: OPEC, 2000)Google Scholar. Finally, in relation to the UK, it has been argued that such a duty may be enforceable by reference the principles within Agenda 21 or the national strategy for sustainable development: Upton, W ‘The Need for Legal Limits to Sustainable Development’ in Upton, W (ed) The Changing Role of Environmental Law: Proceedings of the UKEU Conference (London: United Kingdom Environmental Law Association, 2000) pp 153–68.Google Scholar

43. Chant v ors v Secretary of State for the Environment and anor (1996) QBD LEXIS 16.05.96, Mcleod N; Fairlie and ors v Secretary of State for the Environment and anor (1997) CA LEXIS 12.05.97.

44. DETR Planning Policy Guidance Note No I (London: DETR, 1997).

45. Seen 2 above.

46. In fact, the concept of sustainable development was not created by the Secretary of State, but introduced as a policy aim in response to the government's international commitments. Therefore, arguably, it should be possible to challenge the definition of sustainable development within government guidance if it does not conform to the principles of sustainable development outlined in Agenda 21. If so, for instance, the national strategy of the Conservative government relevant at the time of this case might have been challenged on the basis that it virtually ignored issues of social equity. See n 15 above.

47. See further Brandl, E and Bungert, H ‘Constitutional Entrenchment of Environmental Protection: A Comparative Analysis of Experiences Abroad’ (1992) 16(1) Harv Environ LR 1 at 92.Google Scholar

48. Lester, A and Bindman, G Race and Law (London: Penguin, 1972)Google Scholar.

49. DETR The Government's Response to the Environmental Audit Committee's Second Report: The Greening Government Initiative (London: DETR, 1998).Google Scholar

50. In the annual report on the sustainable development strategy in 2000, the government reported that central government departments had set up 13 public bodies since the national strategy was published in May 1999, and that sustainable development had been included in policy directions or non-statutory objectives in most of these with a statutory duty for the SRA, GLA and local government. See further DETR Achieving a Better Quality of Life: Review of Progress towards Sustainable Development: Government Annual Report 2000 (London: DETR, 2000) ch 1Google Scholar. The second annual report, however, did not include any mention of progress in this respect: see n 33 above.

51. Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, s 1.

52. The Environment Agency was formed from the amalgamation of the functions of the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Pollution. It also took over the waste regulation functions of the local authorities to become responsible for the control of pollution of all media in the environment.

53. Environment Act 1995, s 4(1).

54. Environment Act 1995, s 20.

55. S 31 (2) requires the SEPA to follow guidance with respect to the contribution towards attaining sustainable development that it is felt appropriate for the Agency to make.

56. Environment Bill 1995, cl 4.

57. The Environment Act 1995, s 4(1) states that the duty is subject to the requirement to take into account likely costs. S 39 provides a general duty for the Environment Agency in this respect, ie: ‘in deciding the manner in which to exercise any power, [the Agency] shall, unless and to the extent that it is unreasonable for it to do so in view of the nature or purpose of the power or in the circumstances of the particular case, take into account the likely costs and benefits of the exercise or non-exercise of the power or its exercise in the manner in question.’

58. Jewell, T and Steele, J ‘UK Regulatory Reform and the Pursuit of Sustainable Development: The Environment Act 1995’ (1996) 8(2) J Environ L 283 at 296CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59. Environment Act 1995, s 4(2). The guidance is subject to the negative resolution procedure: s 4(7).

60. The government first published guidance to the Environment Agency in November 1996. DOE/MAFF The Environment Agency and Sustainable Development (London: DOE/MAFF, 1996)Google ScholarPubMed. This is currently being reviewed, and the draft guidance is available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/ea-guidance/index.htm. Both documents simply outline the organising principles for sustainable development in the national strategy discussed above to ensure that these are adopted by the Agency in its work.

61. Hansard HL Official Report (5th series) col 44, 22 June 1995, amendment 17.

62. Hansard HL Official Report (5th series) col 441, 22 June 1995.

63. Hansard HC Official Report (6th series) cols 736 and 752. 8 December 1997.

64. Hansard HC Official Report (6th series) ∼01 752, s December 1997.

65. The scheme is to be kept under review and the Assembly must enter a process of consultation with such bodies as it considers to be appropriate before making, remaking or revising the scheme. The Assembly also has a duty to produce a report outlining progress on the implementation of the proposals within the scheme at the end of each financial year. Finally, in the year following each ordinary election (after the first) the Assembly must publish a report containing an assessment of how effective its proposals have been in promoting sustainable development. The first scheme Learning to Live DifSerently was adopted in November 2000: Welsh Assembly Learning to Live DijJerently (Cardiff Welsh Assembly, 2000). This was followed by the publication of an Action Plan in March 2001 and the creation of a sub-committee of the Assembly’ s Cabinet to monitor, evaluate and ensure progress in respect of these initiatives. See further n 33 above, p 19.

66. See further n 33 above, pp 16–18 and 23–24; and a more recent publication by the Scottish Executive Meeting the Needs: Priorities: Actions and Targets for Sustainable Development in Scotland, available from http://www.scot1and.gov.uk. A report by WWF is, however, highly critical of the approach of the Scottish Executive to the challenge of sustainable development: T Birley Reality Check: A Review of Scottish Activity on Sustainable Development (London: WWF, 2001).

67. See further Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and Scottish Development Agency Act 1975.

68. Building Partnerships for Prosperify (Cm 3814, 1997) p39.

69. HC Official Report, Standing Committee E (Regional Development Agency Bill) pt 8, 3 February 1998.

70. Above, n 69.

71. DETR Guidance to the Regional Development Agencies on Sustainable Development, (London: DETR, 1998)Google Scholar. See further n 60 above.

72. DETR A Mayor and Assembly for London: The Government's Proposals for Modernising the Governance of London (London: DETR, 1998) ch 5. This White Paper included a chapter on ‘An Integrated and Sustainable Approach’. The government stated that it would act within the practical framework to be provided by its new sustainable development strategy, to develop its own strategy and priorities, and that the new mayor would be placed under a statutory duty to promote sustainable development in London. The government's plans for local government were set out in its White Paper, Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People (Cm 4014, 1998). Here it stated that a new statutory duty would be introduced which would ‘enshrine in law the role of the council as the elected leader of their local community with a responsibility for the well-being and sustainable development of its area [and] put sustainable development at the heart of council decision-making’.

73. Greater London Authority Act 1999, s 30 and Local Government Act 2000, s 2.

74. See declaration of Hilary Armstrong in M Clarke and J Stewart Community Governance, Community kadership and the New Local Government (York: YPS, 1998) p v. The difference between the model of ‘government’ and ‘governance’ is explained by Rydin as follows, ‘Whereas “government” implied hierarchical relationships between tiers of the state, a strong element of top-down control, and a firm boundary between the state and outside organisations, “governance” points to the proliferation of quasi-governmental agencies and the growing formal role of organisations outside the state within the policy process’: Y Rydin ‘Environmental Governance for Sustainable Urban Development: a European Model’ (1999) 4(1) Local Environment 61.

75. Greater London Authority Act 1999, s 30(4). However, in determining whether or how to exercise this power the authority will, primarily, ‘have regard to the desirability of exercising the power so as to further the remaining principal purpose(s) and secure, over a period of time, a reasonable balance in furthering each of them’: s 30(3).

76. Greater London Authority Act 1999, s 41(4).

77. Local Government Act 2000, s 4 (1).

78. In response to a question raised during the Committee stage in the House of Lords: Hunsurd HL Official Report (5th series) cols 1480–82, 25 January 2000.

79. Local Government Act 2000, ss 3(5) and 4(3) and Greater London Authority Act 1999, s 30(7). The Mayor of London also has a statutory duty to have regard to the need to ensure that all his strategies are consistent with national policies and international obligations: Greater London Authority Act 1999, s 41(5).

80. This is entirely consistent with the need to adopt a common approach to the achievement of sustainable development at all levels of government in the interests of global sustainable development. See further n 3 above.

81. Hunsurd HC Official Report (6th series) cols 20–24, 30 June 1997. The terms of reference of the review were: ‘to consider whether changes are required to the system of regulation of the utility industries in order to ensure open and predictable regulation, fair to all consumers and to shareholders, and which promotes the Government's objectives for the environment and sustainable development, whilst providing sufficient incentives to managers to innovate, raise standards and improve efficiency.’

82. Department of Trade and Industry A Fair Deal For Consumers: Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation (London: DTI, 1998) ch 2.

83. Utilities Act 2000, ss 9 and 13.

84. Utilities Act 2000, ss 10 and 14. The latest draft of this guidance was published in May 2001: DTI Draft Social and Environmental Guidance to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (London: DTI, 2001).

85. Ie the disabled or chronically sick, pensioners, those on low incomes and people living in rural areas.

86. DETR Water Bill – Consultation on Draji Legislation (London: DETR, 2000). Cls 27–30 of the bill outline the duties of the regulator. The primary environmental duties – currently found in the Water Industry Act 1991 – are to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest; to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological architectural or historic interest; and to take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty or amenity of any rural or urban area or any such flora fauna features buildings sites or objects. The regulator also has a number of secondary duties relating to public access to the environment. C1 28 of the draft water bill provides a statutory duty for the regulator to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State on social and environmental matters in discharging its functions and, hence, interpreting its environmental duties.

87. See further DEFRA The Government's Response to the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Ninth Report: Draft Water Bill (London: DEFRA, 2002) and ‘Government plods on with water bill’ (2002) ENDS 328 at 4143 . This duty will be modelled on that of the Strategic Rail Authority. See further n 91 below.

88. See further n 86 above.

89. Transport Act 2000, s 205.

90. Transport Act 2000, s 2. Guidance on the environmental objectives of the CAA was issued by the government in March 2002. See further press release 24 March 2002, available at http://www.caa.co.uk/caanews. The other secondary duties of the CAA are to further the interests of all involved in operating and air services and travelling by air, to ensure economy and efficiency on the part of licence holders; and to take account of the interests of operators of air services.

91. Transport Act 2000, s 207(2).

92. Ie to protect the interests of users of railway services; to promote efficiency and economy on the part of persons providing railway services; to promote measures designed to facilitate the making by passengers of journeys which involve the use of the services of more than one passenger service operator; to impose on the operators of railway services the minimum restrictions; to enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance: Transport Act 2000, s 207(2).

93. Transport Act 2000, s 224.

94. This policy was included in a White Paper issued shortly after the election of the Labour government in 1997: Eliminating World Poverty–A Challenge for the 21st Century (Cm 3789, 1997). IDA 2002 will replace existing legislation in this area in the form of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.

95. IDA 2002, s 1(2).

96. IDA 2002, s 1(3).

97. During the debate in Standing Committee, the minister stated that the concept of sustainable development would allow the Secretary of State to support activities that ‘strengthen governance, reduce corruption, tackle causes and consequences of conflict and promote private sector growth from foreign investments in development countries, as well as promoting health and education’. Interestingly, the government also fought hard against the inclusion of a specific mandate to provide assistance for the purposes of promoting good governance within the relevant countries because this term did not have an ‘easy or natural meaning’. See further HC Official Report, Standing Committee D (International Development Bill) pts 6–7, 22 November 2001.

98. Alternative views regarding the nature of this clause were expressed during the passage of the bill. The clause was welcomed in the House of Lords as a broad definition of sustainable development that, in particular, was not focused heavily upon the environment as suggested within the Brundtland definition favoured by the government: Hunsurd HL Official Report (5th series) col 729, 2 July 2001. Meanwhile, in the House of Commons it was suggested that it was not so much a definition of sustainable development but a necessary safeguard against those with either an entirely economic or an entirely environmental view of sustainable development: Hunsurd HC Official Report (6th series) col 335,7 November 2001.

99. Or improving the welfare of the population, or alleviating the effects of a natural or man-made disaster or other emergency on the population of one or more countries outside the UK IDA 2002, s 9.

100. Export Control Act 2002, s 9. The guidance will also refer to the consideration (if any) to be given to a number of other issues included in Sch 3 to the Act.

101. See n 97 above, pt 3.

102. J Mackintosh ‘Peers deliver double defeat to the Government’Financial Times, 19 April 2002, p 6.

103. P Wintour ‘Government backtracking on arms export safeguards’Guardian, 24 June 2002, p 4.

104. See n 97 above, pt 2. This issue was also raised in the debate on the International Development Bill: see HC debate, n 98 above, col 307.

105. In the first instance, neither the Conservative government in its plans for the Environment Agency nor Labour government in developing the legislation for the government of Wales paid any attention to the need for a legal duty in relation to sustainable development. In both instances an amendment was made to the legislation following successful lobbying by environmental protection groups.

106. Seen 22 above.

107. Select Committee on Environmental Audit Second Report: The Greening Government Initiative: see n 32 above, para 52. Another more recent concern of the EAC was the Treasury's decision not to incorporate social and environmental objectives for the Financial Services Authority on the grounds that this would distract from its primary purpose as financial regulator: see further Select Committee on Environmental Audit, n 40 above, para 52.

108. This approach to the notion of sustainable development is also illustrated in the EU strategy for sustainable development: see n 14 above.

109. See n 1 above.