'—After section 225 of the principal Act there is inserted—

''(1A) Regulations under this Act shall make provision for restricting or regulating the use of external lighting so far as appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety.''.'—[Matthew Green.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee will be pleased to know that this is the last time that I shall start a debate—

That is the first time that he has been right all day.

I am grateful for the information provided by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The new clause aims to make lighting subject to planning control by providing for enabling regulations to be made.

The CPRE offered a long new clause that would have gone into great detail. I decided that that would give Ministers too much opportunity to tell us that it would not work. The clause therefore simply gives Ministers the ability to make regulations to

''make provision for restricting or regulating the use of external lighting so far as appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient in the interests of amenity or public safety.''

The matter is now in Ministers' hands. How could they possibly refuse another power? They normally like accruing power, and I would be surprised if they did not accept this one.

The problem is that light cannot be classed as development, and is therefore not subject to planning controls. In some cases, however, it can be a problem. When excessive light is beamed upwards it can cause light pollution, which has a damaging effect on the environment, particularly if it is on all night. It is not physically damaging, but it affects our view of the sky. When we drive at night in rural areas, we realise that we can see an orange glow in the sky from nearby urban areas. It spoils the view of the stars and the sky. In a sense, it pushes the urban area out into the countryside.

Other problems that affect neighbours and surrounding areas are lights that are too powerful, floodlights that light too big an area, lights that stay on for an excessive time, and floodlights that light buildings excessively. There are clearly issues of public safety, and we do not want unlit areas to be dangerous and perhaps encourage crime. However, I am sure that all hon. Members can think of areas in their constituencies where there is too much light, or the light is inappropriate.

As I said, I leave it entirely to Ministers to decide whether they want a light or a heavy touch—or indeed, whether they want to make regulations at all. The new clause would not mean that they had to do so. It is an enabling new clause, which would allow them to deal with the problem later, should they wish to do so, and as such, I struggle to see how Ministers can refuse it.

Much as the hon. Member for Ludlow would like to tempt me to take new powers, I shall resist. However, the new clause addresses a genuine issue: the concern that in too many places, external lighting increasingly prevents people from seeing the stars.

The adverse effect of some external lighting is well known. In the past, a lot of street lighting was provided by low-pressure sodium lighting units, which often lead to orange sky glow. Newer technologies, particularly high-pressure sodium lighting units, allow much finer control of light distribution and reduce the amount of light directed towards the sky.

The Government are sensitive to these issues. In 1997 we issued a document entitled, ''Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice'', which is available on our website. It demonstrates what can be done to lessen the adverse effects of external lighting, including street lighting and security lighting. The Department for Transport has published advice on good street lighting practice to reduce sky glow and light pollution generally, as has the Institution of Lighting Engineers. The institution has also published advice on security lighting.

The hon. Member for Ludlow specifically mentioned nuisance lighting, which I agree is at issue. Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a consultation paper entitled, ''Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities''. One issue addressed in that paper is nuisance from domestic security lights. Opinions were sought on whether the Government should extend the statutory nuisance regime to include security lighting, which we are considering.

The paper also questioned whether the guidance in the document ''Lighting in the Countryside'' should be updated. We are considering that question. On 6 October 2003, the Select Committee on Science and Technology published a report on light pollution and astronomy, which the Government are considering. We will consider whether any additional guidance on light pollution is needed, and will also consider any recommendations that emerge from the consultation exercise and from the Science and Technology

Committee's report. It is worth recognising the fact that the Committee did not recommend a planning solution.

I am glad that the Minister mentioned the Select Committee. It recommended making obtrusive light a statutory nuisance, thus enabling local council environmental health officers to take legal action against serious neighbourhood light polluters. Unfortunately, there may not be time for the Minister to perform another miracle under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill.

The hon. Gentleman is right. That issue, which can be separated from that of orange sky glow, needs attention. The Government are considering nuisance lighting, and the relevant legislation issues, as part of the consultation led by the DEFRA. However, it is important to note that the Science and Technology Committee did not recommend a broad planning solution to the problem.

It is difficult to design a feasible means of assessing external light for statutory planning control purposes. Any legislation would have to be practically enforceable. That would require the ability to make assessments that are sufficiently robust and clear to survive argument in the courts, where cases may end up. We must also recognise that the main source of orange glow is street and highway lighting, which are being addressed in other ways. The planning system would not provide the best solution.

Given those practical difficulties, the issue is probably best dealt with not through the Bill or the new clause, but by considering the guidance issues, the response to the Science and Technology Committee's report and the consultation on nuisance lighting led by DEFRA. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Having listened carefully to the Minister, I would like to make two comments about two different examples of the problem, the first of which concerns security lighting. There is a house in my constituency that is slightly set back from the public highway and footpath. However, if one passes it on the public footpath, the security light goes on. That is clearly a nuisance to neighbours—and to the pedestrian who is going about his lawful walking business. It is not unreasonable for the planning system to insist that although security lighting is welcomed, it should be within the curtilage of a property, rather being allowed to expand beyond it. Perhaps my constituent who is the owner of that property has deliberately made that arrangement to provide a certain security when he parks his car in front of his house. That is only a thought, but that example shows how the planning regulations could be reasonably and practically used.

The second situation, which has not been touched on, is where, for example, school playing fields or other school grounds are surrounded by houses. The benefit to those in the houses is that they have a nice stretch of green field behind them, but the disadvantage is that if someone suddenly decides to put down an all-weather hockey or football pitch, tennis courts, or whatever,

people can use those at all times of the day and night. It seems to me perfectly legitimate for the planning authority not only to decide whether an all-weather pitch should be permitted, but to control when floodlights can used for the purposes of participating in a sport—but can the Minister confirm that, perhaps in a letter? I am sure the local planning authority can insist on restricting the hours of use, so that even though lights are necessarily used in the evening, they need not be on at the dead of night. That is another example of when the planning system could be used practically to deal with a problem.

I shall follow on from the hon. Gentleman's comments about how the existing planning system could be used, which were most helpful. There is another example in my constituency, in which the residents complained about the light from a car sales area attached to a showroom. In that case there was a large parking area with columns tens of feet high that spread the light over an enormous area. The planning authority eventually enforced its initial condition that those lighting columns be much lower, so the spread of light and the disruption to residents was controlled. That is another example of how the current planning system can be used positively to try to control what can be a considerable public nuisance.

I shall try respond to the points that hon. Members have made. We recognise that the nuisance caused to neighbours by security lighting is an issue, but I am not convinced that the planning system would be the best way to deal with it, which is why DEFRA is taking the lead in consideration of a wide range of issues involving nuisance. As I said, although I cannot promise to achieve the same feat that we achieved with high hedges in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, I can assure the Committee that we are looking into nuisance lighting and the issues associated with it.

On the question of whether local authorities can impose conditions on things such as floodlighting for sports and recreation, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) is right. PPG17 advises that when considering applications for floodlighting, local authorities should ensure that local amenity is protected. They can impose conditions on planning consents that they grant—for example, by restricting the height of lighting columns or the spread and duration of light from the new light fixtures.

Light pollution is identified in PPG12, on development plans, as one of the environmental considerations that should be taken into account when drawing up development plans, and the 1997 lighting in the countryside guidance, which I mentioned earlier, advises local authorities to consider including policies on lighting in their development plans, and supplementary planning guidance to elucidate those policies. There are examples of local authorities introducing such policies.

I understand that the unitary development plan for the London borough of Sutton contains a policy to the effect that development proposals involving the use of

external lighting and floodlighting will be permitted only where there is no unduly adverse impact from increased levels of light pollution on the environment or on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Local authorities are increasingly interested in the issue within the existing framework.

I am half reassured that there are things that councils can do. I suspect that they need to be more aware of that fact and best practice should be encouraged as soon as possible. The Government could still need new planning regulations and the new clause would have enabled them, if necessary, to make such regulations—the Minister is wrong completely to rule out changes and it is unnecessary to reject the new clause on those grounds. I welcome the fact that there is a review on nuisance lighting, but my concern is that if it fails to be added to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill I cannot think of a Bill that is likely to come up in the next year's legislative work load on to which the Government might be able to tag it. [Interruption.] The Hunting Bill—yes. That is not one of the Minister's better observations. I do not think that I would be encouraged to support the Hunting Bill even if lighting were in it. [Interruption.] Oh dear.

Mr. Francois: Keep going.

Keep digging.

The Government are churlish to turn the proposal down, because it would give them an opportunity that they might want to use if their review shows that they need to do something. They are determined to resist and I am not sure that I have much support—I can do the maths. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.