Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Moynihan, who have very much set out the case for other amendments in this group. It is worth focusing on how we need to debate, consider and act on the parlous state of health in the UK and the significant contribution and terrible impact on people’s health that the built environment, the state of our housing and streets, and the way in which people are forced to live, is having. It is not the way that I would do it but, if nothing else, we should consider the economic impacts of that ill health. I will focus on the three amendments in this group that I have tabled. They are fairly diverse; two of them are specific and one is a much more general purpose on adverts, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, previewed. Amendment 124 is about the display of advertisements. It would amend Section 220(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Currently, it allows the regulation of public advertisements for amenity or public safety reasons. The amendment would add environmental impact and public health as reasons for which advertising can be regulated. Noble Lords should think about how, when they were coming into the House today or when they are going home tonight, they are bombarded with advertisements for gambling companies, junk food and polluting substances. The odds are that there are a lot of them, and this is having a negative impact on public health. Many Members of your Lordships’ House are focusing on how out-of-control gambling is a public health issue in our country. I pay tribute to the campaign group Adfree Cities, the inspiration for the amendment, which wants a complete ban on all outdoor corporate advertising. As one of its campaigners said, these ads are in a public space without any consultation about what is being shown on them. They cause light pollution—often these days they are digital—and they are for things that people cannot afford or do not need. The fact is that advertising is designed to make you miserable and suggests that you should spend some money to fix that misery. This is not just the dreaming up of some new idea. To go back to 2006, São Paulo, the largest city in the southern hemisphere, banned all outdoor advertising. Under its clean city law, more than 15,000 billboards were removed, along with 300,000 store signs considered too large. Grenoble in 2014 said that it was not going to have digital advertising and that it would take advertising off its streets altogether. Amsterdam banned adverts for petrol and diesel cars and air travel, something that we have seen happen increasingly with local governments—with Bristol City Council, and Norwich is exploring it, as well as Sheffield and Edinburgh. That is protecting people and the public spaces that they have to be in. In thinking about the public health impacts of this, Dr Nathan Critchlow from the Institute for Social Marketing and Health at the University of Stirling said: “There is consistent evidence that exposure to marketing for unhealthy commodities—for example advertising for alcohol or food and drinks high in fat, salt, or sugar—is associated with consumption, including among … young people”. This is being pushed to people and their health is suffering as a result. Many people will be familiar with the ban from Transport for London on unhealthy food advertising, which a study found prevented almost 100,000 obesity cases. We can think of the positives instead of just the negatives. What if, in those spaces, we had community arts. One thing that our cities, towns and villages lack is more community arts, such as murals and local projects —or indeed, let us have some more trees. Would not that be nice? It is worth saying that this is very much a public health issue. Adfree Cities found that four in five outdoor billboard advertisements are in the poorest half of England and Wales. They are actually increasing inequality, so we need something different there. Amendment 132 deals with something very different. Noble Lords are used to debating purpose clauses. Very often, when we start to debate a Bill, someone puts an amendment down for a purpose clause. This amendment is about all planning functions. What is the purpose of planning? What are we trying to achieve? We have a lot of piecemeal provision in different legislation and different places, but why not say, as an overarching principle, what planning is for? This is an amendment that I picked up from my honourable friend Ellie Chowns in the other place, and it was backed by the other Green MPs there. This is our attempt at suggesting a way of saying what planning is for. I am very happy to debate the detail, but it is to “manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest”. To spell that out a bit more, it “addresses the long-term common good and wellbeing of current and future generations”. The phrase “future generations” is one that many noble Lords will possibly recall from a Private Member’s Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, brought forward some Sessions back—I have forgotten how many—copying the model of the future generations Act in Wales, which says that we cannot just govern for the moment. We know that our democratic system has a real problem with short-term thinking, and this would be a way of introducing the idea that we have to think about our impacts on future generations. It ultimately draws on the very well-known law of seven generations. That comes from the great law of the Iroquois, also known as the Haudenosaunee, which says that you should make every decision on the basis of what impact it will have in seven generations’ time. It is about thinking about the future and leaving this place better than we found it. The amendment refers to the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act 2021. I can predict that the Minister will say that the Government are bound by these Acts, but the amendment explicitly lays down that planning considerations have to take account of those Acts. It also says that the processes have to be “open, accessible and efficient”. Finally, I come to Amendment 227, which brings me to ground on which noble Lords will have heard me speak many times. I will cross-reference amendments that I, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others brought to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill addressing concerns about the poisons and threats to health contained in school uniforms. This is an amendment to look explicitly at the threats to health from new buildings. Noble Lords are probably aware that PFAS, the forever chemicals, are in many substances that are part of the fabric of buildings. There is an increasing understanding that there is a build-up of these chemicals—there is a reason why they are called “forever chemicals”—because we are all being exposed to them from our clothing and in our buildings and food. They are building up and up, and our bodies cannot get rid of them and our environment cannot get rid of them. Again, this is a very simple review amendment. I cannot write an amendment that deals with all these issues for the Government now, but we are on a poisoned planet and we are living in poisoned buildings and this identifies some of the issues—the PFAS, the plastics—and it also very explicitly draws attention to something that many campaigners reach out to me regularly about: artificial turf. We were talking in an earlier group about how we need more green spaces, more natural environments, healthy soils. The absolute opposite of that is taking a piece of ground and covering it in plastic, because that is what artificial turf is.