The Government's responce to the Science & Technology Committee Report

The British Astronomical Association's Campaign for Dark Skies welcomed the Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee's Report on Light Pollution and Astronomy, which was published in October 2003 (see JBAA, 2003 December p.315). It was based on evidence from the astronomical community, both professional and amateur, PPARC, Government Ministries (DfES and ODPU), the Highways Agency, Local Government officers and others. The Government is obliged to publish a response to all such reports, and in December 2003 this duly appeared. The main conclusions of the Select Committee report are recalled below, with a summary of the official response to each.

The committee concluded that amateur astronomy had a "valuable input" into professional work and the introduction of young people to science. Response: the amateur effort is "a small but significant contribution". Government support of foreign-based telescopes, PPARC's awards schemes, and support of amateur societies are mentioned, but amateur astronomy is not given recognition as a valuable pursuit in its own right, and there is no declaration of direct intent to help astronomers in the UK.

The committee concluded that the Government fails to take seriously the energy waste and "disquiet and annoyance" caused by light pollution. Response: the Government does not respond directly, but states that it is already committed to various energy saving programmes and to "raising awareness" (strategies which have as yet had no positive effect on light pollution).

The committee concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that light pollution is getting worse; it calls for a commitment to tackling the problem. Response: the Government recognises that light pollution has increased, but questions the reliability of the satellite imagery upon which much of the arguments are based.

The committee concluded that "the correlation between lighting and crime is inconclusive". Response: the Government counters this by relying on the work of Farrington and Welsh (Effects of Improved Street Lighting on Crime: a Systematic Review), the methodology of which has already been called into question with the Home Office by Dr Paul Marchant.

The committee concluded that both locally and nationally, the authorities should be moving towards better-controlled light sources. Response: The Government still relies mostly on the willingness of local authorities to follow published guidelines (which most manifestly do not). The Highways Agency and UK Lighting Board "will promulgate good practice in conjunction with local authorities, the lighting industry and the lighting profession". An "imminent" European Standard "with restrictions on the amount of light emitted directly upward" should filter into British Standards soon.

The committee concluded that there should be special protection for dark rural areas, National Parks, and observatories fulfilling an educational role. Response: The Government does not directly address this recommendation in its response.

The committee concluded that significant energy savings can be made in the area of security lighting and that "500W lights are energy-inefficient and liable to cause a nuisance". Response: the government does not address this issue directly and hints at future research by DEFRA and a future advisory leaflet. Public consultation on this matter is proceeding.

The committee concluded that curfews should be imposed on lighting sports facilities, car parks etc, and conditions imposed on positioning and timing. Response: the government still intends to rely on guidelines rather than directives in this area (a policy which has failed so far to decrease light pollution generally).

The committee concluded that a new Planning Policy Guidance document (PPG) on light pollution is needed. Response: the government will use the new Planning Policy Statements (PPS) to "update its advice on the desirability of minimising light pollution".

The committee concluded that light pollution should be declared a statutory nuisance. Response: the government is " considering how best to tackle this issue" and DEFRA is at present considering this in its response to the consultation paper "Living Places - Powers, Rights, Responsibilities".

The committee concluded that the government should monitor the situation over the next 5 to 10 years and adopt legislation similar to that in other countries if sky-glow levels are not reduced. Response: no direct answer was given to this recommendation.

The committee concluded finally that "if the government accepts this report's recommendations it will start the process of reducing light pollution "; Response: "The government endorses the committee's observations that amateur astronomers can make a valuable contribution to the work of professional astronomers, and that astronomy and space can be used to stimulate young people's interest in science^ŽÅwe have explained in this note our policies for enhancing young people's experiences of astronomy and for tackling the issue of light pollution."

The CfDS response to the Government's response

The Campaign for Dark Skies is disappointed with the government's response. It is lukewarm and addresses far too few of the main issues. There is some encouragement, in that we are perhaps closer now to having light included on the list of potential pollutants under the Control of Pollution Act. Light would thereby attain the status of an actionable nuisance, alongside noise, smoke and other intrusions.

However, the Government does not recognise a need to protect amateur astronomy as a worthwhile pursuit in its own right, and it does not accord the night sky the status it deserves as part of the environment which needs to be protected. The real problem here is that no government department includes the stars in its environmental brief: DEFRA, supposed guardian of our environment, does not cast its gaze above the horizon. The response leads CfDS to believe that the government intends to stress continuing reliance on "raising awareness", guidelines and mere recommendations to counter light pollution. This policy will lead to the loss of the night sky in any detail for most of the UK population, if current trends persist. We welcome the existing good lighting practice of the Highways Agency, and moves within DEFRA and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister towards more control of excessive private lighting. CfDS will continue to call for much more positive action to save the night-time environment from the continuing depredations of badly designed and misdirected lamps, and of poor lighting practice. It would be a great boost to the campaign if more amateur astronomers thought the same, and acted accordingly. This is not a lost battle. Directing light where it belongs, and in appropriate amounts, is not rocket science. There are NO arguments in favour of wasting energy and assaulting the environment with glare. To misquote John Paul Jones: "We have hardly begun to fight".

The Parliamentary Select Committee for Science and Technology report on Light Pollution

On October 6th 2003, the Parliamentary Select Committee for Science and Technology issued its report on light pollution in the United Kingdom.

Earlier in 2003, representatives from the BAA’s Campaign for Dark Skies (CfDS) gave illustrated talks to the Committee, and supplied evidence during formal sessions at Westminster, as did Guy Hurst, BAA President. Also involved were the two Astronomers Royal, the RAS, the CPRE, the Highways Agency, Ministers, PPARC, lighting professionals and local authorities. Written evidence was submitted by hundreds of societies and individuals.

The report is totally "sky-friendly". It does not change the law, nor does it oblige the Government to act; but its direct accusations of Government indifference and confusion on the subject of light pollution is such that they surely cannot be ignored. The Select Committee writes: “We regret that PPARC and the Government have adopted a defeatist attitude towards light pollution and astronomy...

The Select Committee supports proper control of excessive lighting: "Light trespass and glare affect astronomers, but… can also affect us all. We recommend that obtrusive light should be made a statutory nuisance."

The battle will still be long, and the skies can never again be as dark as they were a century ago. But the optimum rural and urban night sky is achievable for all, if those in power allow it to happen. The Select Committee report is not a "quick-fix" magic wand. But it is certainly a big stick with which to beat the decision-makers if they continue to close their eyes to the value and majesty of the environment above.