MONDAY 14 JULY 2003

RT HON KEITH HILL, MR DAVID MILIBAND, DR MARTIN WILLIAMS AND PROFESSOR IAN HALLIDAY

  Q153  Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. David Miliband, you have ventured here before and helped us with our inquiries; thank you very much for coming back. I do not think Martin Williams, you have joined us before; thank you very much. Keith Hill, we welcome you to your new office and look forward to your contribution today. Ian Halliday, of course, is an incessant visitor to this Committee. Nice to see you again. We shall try to put questions to each of you individually and give you a chance to expand on things as we move along. The first one is a general one. You have probably seen these satellite pictures of the United Kingdom. The deepest red is the worst and I notice, Keith Hill, that you are right in the middle of a big red blob. I am no better; up there in Norwich, we are just as bad. I do not know about David Miliband's area. It does not look good, it is worse than most European countries, other than the Netherlands. How do you feel about that?

  Mr Hill: I have two feelings about it. On the one hand I share that sense of what Peter Ackroyd in his biography of London describes as the effect of light in contaminating the cosmos. A striking phrase. At the same time, we recognise that lighting fulfils an absolutely fundamental function in our cities and indeed in the countryside in terms of personal safety and security. Quite clearly a balance has to be struck between the needs of the generality of the public, the economy and the travelling public, but also the interests of those who have a particular commitment to studying the night sky.

  Q154  Chairman: We have had evidence from some councils who take it very seriously—we have just had Huntingdonshire telling us how seriously they take it and neighbouring councils less seriously. How do you think we can meet that kind of problem?

  Mr Hill: To be honest, having looked very carefully at the CPRE evidence, no complacency of course, but my own view is that actually on the whole the local authorities are not doing as badly as the most pessimistic observers might expect. Something like 35% of local authorities have light pollution controls in their planning guidance. The evidence from CPRE report is that a further 26% of authorities are actively involved in bringing forward light pollution controls in their planning guidance, others are contemplating it.

  Q155  Chairman: Rural or urban authorities?

  Mr Hill: Again drawing on the CPRE report, the authorities which stick in my mind are authorities like Cumbria and Norfolk as well. It is perfectly clear that there are rural authorities who are taking this seriously. It is perfectly clear as well that some of the county councils have taken a fairly adamant stance against this. Since I am aware that the thrust of the CPRE argument is in terms of rural and suburban, or the semi-rural context, in terms of light pollution, my own impression is that a certain amount of progress is being made. If you look at these dramatic satellite pictures of the expansion of areas, it seems to me that it is, as we say in the trade—us New Labour types, do we not?—a matter of the red light joining up in urban and suburban partnership, spreading over into rural areas.

  Q156  Chairman: In holy partnership, in a Third Way sense of course.

  Mr Hill: It goes without saying.

  Q157  Dr Iddon: Congratulations on the "Right Honourable" to start with.

  Mr Hill: You always used to call me "Sir Keith", did you not?

  Q158  Dr Iddon: You are on the way.

  Mr Hill: We are getting there.

  Q159  Dr Iddon: Government has made available £300 million to local authorities up to 2003-04 to improve their street lighting. Was any guidance given to local authorities regarding light pollution? Were they asked to follow the criteria laid down, which we were discussing earlier, indeed are the PFI credits conditional upon people doing something about light pollution?

  Mr Hill: First of all, the reality of the level of investment is rather better than you suggested: it is £300 million going into street lighting outside London and a further £80 million being available in PFI credits for London authorities. And not before time. In an earlier incarnation, as a junior Transport Minister, somewhat to my surprise I discovered I had responsibility for street lighting and I was appalled to discover the shockingly antiquated condition of our street lighting. The investment which is now going into the modernisation of street lighting is very much to be welcomed. There is central government guidance in a succession of documents on the issue of light pollution, which we certainly expect local authorities to take cognizance of in their street lighting renewal programmes. My understanding as well is that modern street lighting, which is to say more intense sodium lighting, though I rely on Professor Halliday for details of this, is a less diffuse form of lighting. In other words, the light will not actually go up, it will more particularly go down. It will not be the full cut-off lighting, which I think is employed by the Highways Agency in road lighting. There are good reasons for that. The reasons are that street lighting is about traffic, but it is also about personal safety. There is a powerful argument for the shading of light, so that it laps over onto front gardens and onto house frontages as a means of additional personal security for people walking along the street on foot.