Artificial Light and Noise: Effects on Human Health (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I say a huge thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for bringing this debate, which is well overdue—I say that not as a criticism but with relief that it has actually happened.

Back in 2000, three Greens, newly elected to the brand-new London Assembly, were made aware by a diligent staff member that London was about to fail the EU standards on clean air. We worked on that issue, and I have worked on it ever since. The evidence has stacked up on the damage that air pollution does to humans—often the poorest in society who live closest to large roads. The death of Ella Kissi-Debrah meant that it was understood that such pollution could cause deaths, as well as all sorts of other health issues. Ella was the first person in the world to have air pollution as a cause of death on her death certificate.

My work has included bringing a Private Member’s Bill to this House with some quite tough measures to clean up our air. It passed, but it is now languishing in the other place. However, not once that I can remember have we thought about the impact on wider, non-human ecosystems. As the Select Committee says, there are significant gaps in our research on all kinds of pollution. I was interested that the Government’s response was rather dismissive. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of that dismissiveness.

The excellent briefing from Buglife concentrates on research into artificial light pollution and lists a worrying number of detrimental impacts on all forms of wildlife and on humans. While I understand that the reduced number of meteors visible to us because of light pollution is a shame, it is the list of impacts on human health which disturbs me. It includes diabetes, depression and cancer from disrupted circadian rhythms, not to mention considerable consumption of electricity and greenhouse gas emissions.

Much more than that, the impact on insects, birds, bats, reptiles, sea-life, fish and crabs, and even plants such as corals—are they plants?—is truly worrying. Light pollution can confuse and alter feeding, life cycles and survival. There is a mantra: “No bees, no bugs, no food, no people”. Luckily, in the case of light and noise pollution, we have a Select Committee report that clearly outlines what we do not know but ought to know, and suggests some methods of getting there.

Noise pollution is easier for most of us to understand. Here in London, in Lambeth, I get woken by foxes shrieking, or even occasionally by my overhead neighbour’s clog-dancing classes, and we all hear aeroplanes. Aeroplane noise from Heathrow is painfully unbearable for many residents—apparently there is, on average, one complaint every five minutes. I completely support the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about better noise insulation in housing; that should be a must. With noise pollution, we get an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease and strokes. That puts pressure on all other parts of society, such as children having to deal with ill parents, and on the NHS. It is not just a complicated issue but one that impacts society.

On noise pollution, there has been a fairly positive reaction from the Government, who say that work is under way. It would been good to hear an update from the Minister on how that work on noise pollution is going. The Select Committee argued that the current government approach to regulating noise and light pollution is “confused”, but instead of taking this report and accepting that there is a problem here for national government, we see excuses.

One possible bright point in the response is that the

“UKHSA will consider a dedicated team focusing on light and health”.


It would be lovely to hear an update on that dedicated team. However, the Government disagreed with the committee’s request for a statutory requirement for local authorities to report nuisance complaints to DLUHC, as this

“would introduce a new burden on stretched local authorities”.

That is because the Government have massively cut their budgets, so they can barely run the transport schemes that would reduce the number of cars on the road and so improve air pollution.

Finally, the Government argued that the committee’s

“recommendation that DLUHC should set out what resources local authorities should have to respond adequately to light and noise pollution policies would involve restricting the choices local authorities are able to make over their own staffing and funding priorities”.

The Government have no problem interfering in other areas of local authority work, so I wonder why not this one.

It is not as if this Government have not been warned. I do not just mean by the Select Committee today and by environmental activists like me. Back in 2009 there was a report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, but almost none of its recommendations have been implemented. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why that is. My last question is: when is Defra going to take this seriously?

Finally, I am so delighted to be speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, because he says that when I speak, I make the rest of the speakers look reasonable. I thank him for that.