Environmental Noise (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for taking me into constitutional and procedural waters wherein I have never before paddled. I do not think that I am of such learning that I could improve on the questions about the ambience of ambulatory references that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach has already put to the Minister in his characteristically crisp and forensic way. However, we have the order at large in front of us this evening, and I am, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the sole representative of the ordinary Back-Bench Peer in the street to speak this evening. I know that Front Benchers like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, seek to limit the debate, but I think it is terribly important that we look at the substance of the regulations that we have in front of us and do not bow to the pressure from the Liberals to limit ourselves in speaking across the wider range. I speak only where my pay grade takes me. It does not take me into constitutional waters, but it does take me to read the statutory instrument, which is shot through with a number of issues. I have examined these regulations, so let me give some context from the point of view of concern over the quality of life for our citizens in England and how it can be improved. One damaging aspect of the way we live and consume now is the production of sometimes nearly unbearable, often very disturbing, noise. Another example is the parallel problem of overlighting and the consequent pollution of the night sky. Light and noise pollution are twin scourges, but tonight we are concerned only with noise pollution and its abatement. I also speak as someone who does not like the burden of regulation—exactly like my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach on the Front Bench—and who recognises that the political zeitgeist is moving away from targets and performance tables to more localism in decision-making. In truth, both are necessary preconditions for good government; it is just that finding the golden mean between the two is very hard. That said, I turn to the details of these regulations. Like my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, I welcome the use of mapping in this context. The production of consolidated noise maps is sensible and to the public good. Where I differ from the Government and these regulations is that I do not agree that there should be a replacement of a duty to produce them with a mere discretionary power. That is dangerous. This change from a duty to a mere discretionary power does not diminish the weight of regulation in terms of numbers, but just changes and devalues the potential efficacy of the regulations. This is something that I hope the Minister will give some attention to in his wind-up speech. I believe that the substitution in these regulations—the replacement of a duty to produce maps and guidance with a discretionary power—is likely to set back the assessment and management of environmental noise in England and, I dare say, in the devolved legislatures, if they are going down the same route. Indeed, the local or national political acceptance of every new major road, rail link or road link will depend on noise management in future, which in turn, I recognise, always depends on financial constraints. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach and I are at one on this in that we do not wish to see excessive government expenditure any more than we wish to see excessive government regulation. The regulations before us tonight do not remove regulations; they simply alter them and, I think, devalue them. It is interesting to note in my own part of the West Country how happy people are living in housing, old or new, near roads on which sound-deadening surfaces have been laid—for example, on the A303 trunk road—compared with roads where traditional, noisier road metal is still the norm. Action near the worst noise-affected areas is urgently needed, although only as and when resources allow. I am therefore most concerned about Regulation 30, which gives the Secretary of State a general power to produce guidance in these cases and replaces the excellent existing duty in Regulation 14(1) of the 2006 regulations. I recognise, after a deep reading of these regulations, that the Secretary of State is the competent authority for producing action plans for quiet areas near the agglomerations, roads and rail links to which my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach has already referred, and that someone might therefore suggest that the Secretary of State should not be burdened by the duty of preparing guidance for herself or himself. I know that the Minister would not fall for that argument for a moment; I know that he is much too clever to attempt to run such a specious and intellectually derelict argument in any circumstances to justify this change in the guidance. I put it to the House that if guidance is not a duty on the Secretary of State, it is highly unlikely to be produced at all. In these respects, the regulations are no more than what that great parliamentarian the noble Lord, Lord Healey, called in another place "a spiffing wheeze" to get out of doing anything much at all, because it is now simply a power and not a duty. I would be happy to bet the Minister—he has sometimes been a betting man in the past—that no such new quiet areas will be produced before the next election if the word "duty" is substituted by "power" under the regulations, but I hope that he will assure the House otherwise.