Greater London Authority Bill (Hansard, 25 October 1999)

HL Deb 25 October 1999 vol 606 cc108-48 108

§ 8.39 p.m.

§ Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

§ Clause 317 [The Mayor's air quality strategy]:

§ Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 544WA: Page 176, line 34, leave out ("likely") and insert ("predicted").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 544XA and 544ZA. This small group of amendments relates to air quality strategy. Two of them are relatively unimportant but one is most important.

§ Clause 317(3)(a) states that the London air quality strategy shall contain information about the air quality in Greater London and the likely future air quality in Greater London. The word "likely" is imprecise and we would prefer it changed to "predicted". This is one of those debates about the meaning of words that the Minister and I will continue to have over the years, if we are both blessed and spared.

§ Amendment No. 544XA would remove the words to be encouraged by the Mayor from Clause 317(3)(c), so that it would read the measures which other persons or bodies are to take for the purpose of the implementation of the London air quality strategy. That is more positive than measures that the mayor encourages people to take. Some people might take adversely to encouragement from the mayor. If that provision is removed, they will be obliged to take such steps, which would be a good thing.

§ Amendment No. 544ZA is more significant than the previous amendments—which, it could be argued, are a matter of taste in the English language. Clause 324 deals with consultation by local authorities with the mayor. Those mentioned are 109 (a) any local authority in Greater London, (b) any local authority whose area is contiguous to the area of Greater London. In any prolonged period of high pressure during the summer, one of the most polluted atmospheres in the country, surprisingly, is coastal Suffolk. That pollution arrives from the Ruhr because in continuous, relatively still conditions and high pressure, that is the way pollution drifts.

§ If the atmospheric conditions are right, much of the sulphur that is deposited on the ground or is present in the atmosphere in this country arises in the south of France and northern Spain. Again, that is due to atmospheric drift.

§ Anybody who took the trouble to examine the maps that were produced with great accuracy after the Chernobyl disaster will be aware that radioactive dust from that particular hiatus travelled huge distances, sometimes at heights not far from the ground. Where that appalling dust finally landed was very much a lottery.

§ Atmospheric movement is unpredictable, so we thought it appropriate to add to Clause 324, any local authority other than those mentioned…which shall be otherwise affected. The result of the movement of atmospheric pollution from London has not yet been sufficiently studied. We can he reasonably confident that it does not stop at the boundaries of those authorities that are contiguous with London. We can be absolutely certain that pollution spreads much further than that.

§ I accept that there are difficulties in deciding where that boundary might lie, but authorities that may be adversely affected as a consequence of atmospheric movement, when more is known about it, should not be prevented from having a say in matters in which they could have a direct and positive interest. I ask the Minister seriously to consider Amendment No. 544ZA, whatever he does with the two other amendments in the group. I beg to move.

§ 8.45p.m.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, Amendment No. 544YA enables matters that the mayor considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State to be included among the information that the air quality strategy may contain.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that the mayor might discover during the course of research matters that it would be useful for the Secretary of State to know, and that it would be useful for the public to be aware that the Secretary of State would know about them. The Minister was sympathetic to that suggestion and asked for the opportunity to consider it, with the possibility of returning to the matter at a later stage.
Although the Government have not chosen to take up that opportunity, they have accepted the principle that there might be instances where such a provision would be useful. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, air moves and is in no one's particular domain much of the time. Often, there may be issues 110 that are more relevant to decisions that the Secretary of State can make but the mayor needs to feel that he or she can exert some influence. I look to the Minister for further explanation as to why the Government have not felt able to incorporate an amendment for which they previously had some sympathy.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, each amendment raises a different issue. Amendment No. 544WA would require the strategy to contain information about "predicted" rather than "likely" air quality. If something is likely, it has a high probability of occurring but is not absolutely certain. If something is predicted, that, too, is supported by evidence—so the difference is not that clear. The wording in the clause is the same as that used in the Environment Act 1995, which refers, as does the Bill, to "likely future air quality" in the context of local authorities' air quality management duties. So it is for consistency that we have used the word "likely" in this provision. I have not been convinced that there is any need to change it.
The second of the noble Lord's amendments would require the mayor's air quality strategy to contain information about measures which persons or bodies are to take for the purpose of implementing that strategy, rather than information about measures which the mayor encourages them to take. The Bill already requires the mayor's air quality strategy to contain certain information. Some of that information relates to measures which are to be taken by the authority, by Transport for London, and so on. The words "are to be taken" reflect the fact that in that set of circumstances the mayor can influence the actions of those bodies. In contrast, the amendment would require the strategy to contain information about measures to be taken by persons or bodies over which the mayor has no influence but only the ability to encourage. That is therefore a different category from those relating to the functional bodies of the authority. I trust that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree that the amendment would be inappropriate.
Amendment No. 544YA, tabled by the noble Baroness, would require the mayor to include in the strategy such matters as he or she considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness is correct to say that my noble friend indicated that she thought that there was perhaps an issue here and we took the matter away for consideration. We have taken legal advice and, while not dissenting from the objectives presented to us by the noble Baroness, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
We entirely accept that the Secretary of State will need to be informed of progress in managing air quality in London. But Clause 317 of the Bill already requires the London air quality strategy to include information which will be relevant to the implementation of the strategy, including information relating to the measures that persons or bodies are to be encouraged by the mayor to take for the purposes of such implementation. That provision will allow the mayor to include information about the measures that he or she would like the Secretary of State to take for 111 the purpose of the implementation of the strategy or information that might be needed by the Secretary of State in order to take measures himself to support the strategy. Therefore, the existing provision in Clause 317 covers the point sought by the noble Baroness.
I understand rather better than I did when I read it in black and white on the page the intention of the final amendment. I am not sure that it is in fact geared to the noble Lord's objectives. I understand both the argument that it is not necessarily boroughs within London or authorities immediately contagious to London—I should say "contiguous" to London, although in this context they would possibly be contagious as well! I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord sought to extend the number of boroughs that must consult the mayor to the Ukraine, as appeared at one point. Certainly, pollution arises on the Suffolk coast, for example, which may affect London; and pollution in boroughs down-wind of London may affect authorities beyond London.
But the obligation in this clause is on boroughs which must consult the mayor, not boroughs which the mayor must consult. Clearly, if implications arise from the mayor's air quality strategy that affect other local authorities throughout the UK, the mayor should consult those authorities. He may wish to consult authorities whose situation he believes may detrimentally affect his strategy. But this is a requirement on those authorities to consult the mayor. I am not necessarily suggesting that the noble Lord should think up another amendment at this stage in the Bill, but I believe that he is approaching the matter the wrong way round. I hope, therefore, that he will not pursue the amendment.
I hope that in the light of these explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and that the other amendments will not be pressed.

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, his final point applies equally to areas which are up-wind of London. Am I right in understanding that under the amendment to the Environment Act, areas which are not contiguous to Greater London but which might give rise to pollution that affects London are not required to consult the mayor?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, that is indeed the case, as it is under local authority legislation more generally. There is no overall requirement for a local authority to consult on the effects of its own air quality strategy except in specific circumstances in relation to particular pollution matters. The desirability of consulting is still there. But, as I say, the amendment would in any case provide a requirement to consult the other way round.

§ Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. With regard to the first two amendments in the group, I think I am content. I did not expect either more or less than I received. With 112 regard to the third amendment, if I misinterpreted the clause, then I am at risk. However, I think I shall find it irresistible to attempt to return to the matter.
There is a very real problem. At present, not sufficient is known about atmospheric movement. Atmospheric movement takes place vertically as well as horizontally. What is presumed to be the prevailing wind on the ground is all too often not the prevailing wind at 5,000 or 10,000 feet. That can often be observed by standing and feeling the wind on your face and watching the clouds move in a completely different direction over your head. There is an issue here, and I shall consider it further. Whether I need to do anything about it at Third Reading remains to be seen. I do not wish to make the mayor's life difficult but in regard to atmospheric pollution we all need to be much more conscious of what we are doing and of the fact that it can have a surprising impact in locations that are not the ones we first think of. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ [Amendments Nos. 544XA and 544YA not moved.]

§ Clause 324 [Consultation with the Mayor]:

§ [Amendment No. 544ZA not moved.]

§ 9 p.m.

§ Clause 325 [The London ambient noise strategy]:

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 544A: Page 179, line 26, leave out ("contain") and insert ("consist of").

§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 544B, 544C, 544D, 544DA and 544F. I shall refer later to the reason for not moving Amendment No. 544E.

§ Clause 325 requires the mayor to prepare and publish a "London ambient noise strategy". In Committee, we agreed to look at this clause again. The amendments tabled here are lengthy but are not as dramatic as they seem.

§ Our purpose is to clarify what is expected from the mayor's London ambient noise strategy so as better to reflect the intentions contained in the White Paper. The amendments also address concerns expressed during earlier stages of the Bill about transport being included in the strategy and consultation with the Environment Agency.

§ The sharp-eyed among your Lordships will have noticed that a typographical error has crept into Amendment No. 544E. The words "(e) or (f)" in line 1 of subsection (4A) should not be there, because if this amendment were agreed to there would be no paragraphs (e) or (f) in Clause 325(4). I shall not move Amendment No. 544E today and will come back with a correct amendment at Third Reading. We note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is not in his place. I am sure that he would have enjoyed this moment.

§ A number of drafting changes limit what the strategy may consist of, remove reference to the spatial development strategy and ensure that the Environment Agency is consulted when the mayor prepares or revises 113 his strategy. We have also provided that the mayor's strategy may contain information about the impact of noise on those living and working in London. By way of background, Amendment No.544E deletes the existing subsection (4) and replaces it with a new form of words that detail the types of noise excluded from the mayor's strategy. They are the matters dealt with by local authorities under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and by local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This amendment would remove the reference to statutory nuisance so that if a local authority did not, on investigation, consider noise from premises to be a statutory nuisance it would not come within the remit of the ambient noise strategy of the mayor. There is a provision to ensure that noise caused by aircraft and traffic and from a fixed industrial source is not excluded from the strategy.

§ I turn to Amendment No. 544DA proposed by the noble Baronesses. Lady Hamwee and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. It is our intention that the definition of "ambient noise" in the mayor's strategy should be widened to include all transport. I agreed to consider the wording of the clause when the noble Baronesses tabled amendments in Committee. The amendments now Brought forward by the Government respond to the change tabled here. I therefore ask that that amendment be withdrawn.

§ I apologise for going into the detail at length but I felt that, having given notice that there would be a further amendment tabled at Third Reading, it would be helpful for noble Lords to read it in advance. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I thank the Minister for accepting the point that I raised at the previous stage—Amendment No. 544DA—and dealing with it. I note her observation about noise that is not regarded as a statutory nuisance. I am rather disappointed by that approach. Ambient noise goes much wider than noise which comes from a particular source that is a statutory nuisance. I believe that the aim of the mayor should be to attempt to reduce the overall noise level, whether or not it is a statutory nuisance. Noise is an enormous factor in stress. From these Benches we have said a good deal about the role of the mayor in improving health. I remain unconvinced that the approach contained in Amendment No. 544E, and whatever may be its successor at the next stage, is the right one.

§ Baroness Hanham
My Lords, perhaps I may address two points. I appreciate that Amendment No. 544E is to be amended. First, will the provision cover amplified music? Reference is made to loudspeakers and amplified music. Secondly, as to Amendment No. 544G, no mention is made of helicopter noise. There is a good deal of civil as well as police helicopter activity. Is that covered?

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I appreciate that we may not have gone quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would have liked, and 114 for that I am sorry. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asks about the control of helicopter noise. It would not be appropriate for the mayor to exercise direct control since airspace planning and air traffic control are specialised tasks. As with other aircraft, the mayor will have the right to be consulted on any airspace changes that are liable to have significant adverse effects on the environment.
A query was raised about amplifiers. I betray my age and ignorance of more modern ways of making sound if I say that I would have thought it impossible to use a loudspeaker without amplification. I am not sure whether it is possible to amplify without the use of a loudspeaker. I believe that both points are covered, but if I am wrong about that I shall write to the noble Baroness.

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

§ The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale)
My Lords, I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that Amendments Nos. 544B to 544D should be moved en bloc. However, I point out to the House that if Amendment No. 544D is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 544DA.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 544B to 544D: Page 179, line 27, at end insert ("and the impact of such noise levels on those living and working in Greater London"). Page 179, line 29, leave out from ("above") to ("on") in line 30. Page 179, line 36, leave out subsection (3) and insert— ("(3) In this section—

"ambient noise" means—

(a) noise related to transport, including road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and water transport; and
(b) noise of such other descriptions as the Mayor may consider it appropriate to include in the matters dealt with by the London ambient noise strategy.

but does not include noise falling within subsection (4) below; and
"noise" includes vibration.").

§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 544B to 544D en bloc.

§ On Question, amendments agreed to.

§ [Amendment No. 544DA not moved.]

§ [Amendment No. 544E not moved.]

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 544F: Page 180, line 5, at end insert— ("( ) In preparing or revising the London ambient noise strategy the Mayor shall consult the Environment Agency.").

§ On Question, amendment agreed to.

115

§ Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544G: After Clause 325, insert the following new clause—

cc115-7