| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1025
traffic and road legislation. Is it possible that those Bills will contain clauses that will tighten controls, particularly on noisy motor cycles?Mr. Trippier : It may not be necessary to introduce the regime to which I referred in primary legislation. It may simply be necessary to introduce it by regulation. It may also come about as a result of a European directive. The concern that I expressed, which is clearly shared by my hon. Friend, will be addressed one way or the other.
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : As the author of the Motorcycle Noise Act 1987, I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister did not give full credit to that splendid piece of private Member's legislation.
My hon. Friend will remember, painfully perhaps, as will the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) that I bored the Standing Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill with endless attempts to get aircraft and vehicle noise and pollution into that Bill, but I failed. I did not detect much enthusiasm for my amendments among the Opposition Members any more than there was enthusiasm on the Government's part.
With regard to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), is my hon. Friend the Minister saying that the Government will not contemplate legislating unless and until there is some Community agreement? Some of us believe that that might take a long time.
Mr. Trippier : I am not saying anything of the sort. My hon. Friend would be wrong to give the House the impression that he was in any way boring in Standing Committee. I clearly remember his superb speeches on this subject. Indeed, I could never forget them. It would be impossible to do that because the principal point that my hon. Friend was seeking to make was repeated on so many occasions. However, we hugely enjoyed the experience.
I do not believe that we have to wait for European legislation. I am simply saying that we may not require primary legislation. The problem could be tackled by regulation. However, we are determined to address the problem.
With regard to aircraft noise, modern jets are much quieter than their earlier counterparts and replacement of older jets by the latest models will continue to bring benefits. Older aircraft that fail to meet current noise requirements are now banned. Moreover, as from 1 November, the Government, together with other European countries, will ban our national airlines from acquiring aircraft that fail the latest requirements.
While not in the same noise league as a jumbo jet, the use of microlight aircraft was generating complaints, but the introduction of controls by the Government since 1984 has resulted in a substantial drop in the number of complaints and those controls seem likely to form the basis of forthcoming international regulations. With regard to the specific points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), we have given a clear commitment in the White Paper to review the powers with respect to small airfields.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes) : Helicopters are extremely noisy. Surely this is the wrong time to consider building a new heliport in the City of London, which would disturb many people throughout
Column 1026
London, particularly west of the City, if helicopters, which are particularly noisy and annoying, were to fly to Heathrow hundreds of times a day.Mr. Trippier : I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the recommendation in the Batho report about helicopters, which the Government have said formally we shall seriously consider. I should obviously welcome any detailed advice or recommendations from my hon. Friend before we decide how to respond to the report.
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting) : The comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) were interesting. He must realise that with talk of further extensions at Heathrow airport, even if aircraft noise levels are lower--something we all welcome--more aircraft will fly over residential areas such as my constituency. If that is not the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, it should be considered seriously by the Minister who is responsible for it.
Mr. Trippier : That would come under the responsibility of the Department of the Environment only in terms of the planning of any proposed extensions. The direct responsibility would belong to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : With regard to microlight aircraft, there seems to have been a spate of applications in the midlands, particularly in my constituency, for landing strips, which I suppose could be called airfields, to allow microlights to take off and land. Those applications have been made in country areas and areas of great natural beauty. From the remarks made earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister, do I understand it that detailed guidance from the Department of the Environment on the attitudes that should be taken by planning authorities when deciding whether to grant those applications must wait upon international regulations, or does the DOE intend to give earlier guidance to local authorities--which are at sixes and sevens about the matter--so that there can be greater certainty for applicants and objectors?
Mr. Trippier : Two issues are involved. First, the Department of the Environment was responsible for a code of practice that can be used as guidance, but not in terms of planning applications, which would have to be considered initially by the planning authorities. However, those could certainly come to Ministers on appeal and particularly to the Secretary of State. On the latter point, I should have to reserve comment because of the semi-judicial role in those matters of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The code of practice, which I am told has been received and respected internationally, is an enormous guide and a dramatic step forward. I undertake to send a copy of it to my hon. Friend tomorrow. I now refer to more down-to-earth noises, as it were. There has been quite a bit of concern expressed about noise from alarms. I wish to make it quite clear that the Government believe that burglar alarms and car alarms should perform better. Although there is a code of practice relating to burglar alarms, it is only advisory. The Government propose to introduce mandatory controls to require a 20-minute cut-off. Car alarms are permitted to sound for five minutes, but often continue for longer and are prone to go off automatically. We are examining what can be done to improve matters.
Column 1027
It is clearly desirable that, as far as possible, noise and people should be kept apart, and clearly the planning system has an important role to play. Planners need to consider the potential noise problems of locating factories, roads, airports and so on near existing houses and of locating new houses near existing noise sources. Government advice to planners on traffic, aircraft and industrial noise already exists but it is to be updated and extended to take account of a wider range of noise sources.Of course, in a densely populated country such as ours it is not always possible to build, say, a new road without increasing noise levels to those already living in the area. However, the Government are especially concerned to see that all reasonable measures are taken when designing a new road to mitigate the impact on those living nearby.
In addition, noise insulation is available where noise levels remain high, as is compensation for depreciation in the value of houses caused by the use of the new road. The Government also recognise that the proposed widening of existing motorway routes could cause difficulties from increasing noise for those living nearby. As well as seeking design solutions where practical, it has been decided to assess eligibility for insulation as though a new road were being provided. That reflects the sentiment of the noise review working party.
Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : I trust that, when the legislation is introduced, it will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that, when a new road is being built through a residential area, an assessment of noise levels should be made before work is undertaken so that there is no difficulty on the part of owner-occupiers in establishing their entitlement to compensation or a grant for insulation?
Mr. Trippier : I think that I am right in saying that in the abbreviated version of the White Paper, which has only recently been published, there is a photograph of such an investigation taking place and the monitoring of noise levels in an area that is to be considered--I choose my words very carefully--as a new road development. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I should have thought--again I choose my words carefully--that any forthcoming legislation would apply throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : It is the constituency experience of many hon. Members that in modern schools, rather than older schools, the noise level is so absurd that it is impossible for a teacher to hear himself or herself teach in some of the new classrooms, even if a relatively small amount of noise is being made next door. Do the Government consider that to be a problem? If so, are they prepared to issue any regulations to try to improve the situation?
Mr. Trippier : I am pleased to say that the provisions to which I referred would be necessary and should be extended not only to schools but to hospitals.
Similarly, much can be done to reduce the impact of aircraft noise. One can provide noise insulation for those worst affected. There is a statutory requirement for the principal London airports to provide sound insulation to
Column 1028
surrounding homes within a specified boundary--equivalent to the provision for roads. Elsewhere, insulation is discretionary, but all the major airports run similar insulation schemes.Other measures include establishing noise preferential routes so that aircraft fly over the minimum number of people on take-off, and encouraging quiet landing procedures.
Before leaving aircraft noise, I should like to say a few words about military flying, as it has been the subject of considerable debate during the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill. Military flying, one has to accept, is intrinsically noisy. Pilots have to be trained to fly at low levels because that is what they need to do in operations. We can never be sure when our pilots will be called on to exercise those demanding skills-- as the current situation in the middle east has shown--so constant practice is necessary. Simulators are used as much as possible, but, at present, no simulator provides a complete substitute for real flying. Ways of reducing noise emissions are kept under review, but military aircraft are exceptional and there is no early prospect of transferring quiet engine technology into the military sphere. Nevertheless, the Government are very conscious of the need to do all that they can to reduce the environmental impact of military flying. The amount of flying is kept to a minimum and will continue to be reviewed as the options for change in the light of developments in eastern Europe are worked out. The heights and speeds flown in in training are controlled, and inhabited areas are avoided as far as possible so as to reduce the impact on people on the ground. Similarly, noise around military airfields is kept as low as possible by prescribing flying circuits to avoid local centres of population and by ensuring that the ground running of engines is carried out under cover, in daylight hours and in the centre of airfields whenever possible. Not all disturbance can be avoided. For example, flightpaths are largely dictated by the fixed alignment of runways, but sound insulation grants are available for the occupants of homes near airfields that meet certain qualifying criteria. Also, offers to purchase are made to those worst affected.
Mr. Adley : I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is always the most courteous and helpful of Ministers. I apologise for interrupting him again.
Has it occurred to him--I am sure that it has--that most of the problems that he has discussed so far emanate from transport, the solution to which and the handling of which are the responsibility of the Department of Transport? Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why many of us have felt over the years that we have never successfully tackled the problems is that there is a dichotomy between the Department of Transport's responsibility as sponsoring the noisy transport and its apparent responsibility for coping with the problems that it raises? Will my hon. Friend consider designated areas in particular? At the moment, only the main London airports are designated airports. When one has problems anywhere else in the country, one writes to the airport concerned. If it replies, one will be lucky, but it will not do anything. It refers one to the local authority, which refers one to the Civil Aviation Authority, which refers one back to the operating airport. It is most unsatisfactory. Will my hon.
Column 1029
Friend look at the legislation and try to liaise better with the Department of Transport to see whether we could have action on the problem? Nothing ever happens.Mr. Trippier : I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I shall look at the matter. I must assure him that liaison between my Department and the Department of Transport has never been better. It would be difficult to get a razor blade between the two Departments. There is clear evidence of that in the White Paper.
As a result of the many appeals that my hon. Friend made to me in Committee when we considered the Environmental Protection Bill, he will have been the first to welcome the fact that the Batho committee examined aircraft noise. If I may pay my hon. Friend a personal tribute, he was consistent, assiduous and tenacious in asking for that review committee to study the matter.
Mr. Dalyell : I am not a Fife Member, but in the area of RAF Leuchars there are complaints that, if only the RAF would let the people round about know when terrain-following-equipment flying was likely to take place, life would be that much easier. My next point is blunt and anecdotal. There are complaints from civil pilots that they are not as well informed as they might be about military flying. For regular routes, that is a serious matter. I do not want to be alarmist, but there is a real problem.
Mr. Trippier : All that I can do is give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall draw what he has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Let me return from air to surface transport. I know that much concern has been expressed about the potential noise nuisance from possible new railway lines. In response, the Government announced last March the setting up of a committee to recommend a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines. Its remit is to recommend to the Government a standard that relates equitably to the standards set by regulations for new highways.
Sound insulation can and should play a vital role in the tackling of noise within buildings, and in tackling neighbourhood noise in general. Without adequate sound insulation in walls and floors, the transmission of noise between dwellings can lead to serious nuisance, and, in some extreme cases, can affect the health of the occupants. Where sound insulation is especially inadequate, nuisance can be caused even if the activities of the people causing the noise are not unreasonable.
In recognition of that potential problem, the building regulations for England and Wales impose sound insulation requirements on the design and construction of new homes. The Government are currently reviewing those requirements in the light of the responses to a consultation document that was issued in June.
The most significant likely change is the extension of the sound insulation requirements to cover flat conversions. That reflects the concern expressed by the noise review working party. In addition to that major change, the Government propose to improve the technical guidance issued in support of the regulations.
The Control of Pollution Act 1974 gives local authorities powers to set up noise abatement zones. They provide for local authorities to control noise levels in mixed residential and industrial or commercial areas. Their main aim is to control the creeping increase in noise
Column 1030
levels resulting from many noise sources that individually do not amount to a nuisance. The Government will be looking into possible ways to simplify the procedures to encourage authorities to use them more.Where there are local problems--such as neighbourhood noise--the Government believe that a co-operative approach is needed. So we are sponsoring a pilot "quiet neighbourhood" scheme. The key to success will be encouraging residents of an area to co-operate in drawing up a code of conduct and agreeing on reasonable behaviour, perhaps with time restrictions on noisy activities.
Mr. Robin Squire (Hornchurch) : Let us imagine that, at some time in the near future, my hon. Friend the Minister extends royal Lancastrian hospitality to me and invites me up to his constituency. Let us further suppose that he gets a little excited during the evening, the music becomes rather loud and eventually--and unusually--his neighbours complain.
Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North) : He has not got any neighbours.
Mr. Squire : He may not have any after I have been there. Let us suppose that, despite several entreaties, my hon. Friend does not turn the noise down. As he knows, there is nothing that the police can do, and little--beyond monitoring--that the environmental health officer can do. If, by contrast, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)--who is even more charming--were to invite me to his stately pad and--unusually--we created an excessive din, the Scottish police would have direct responsibility and could take immediate action. In his discussions with the relevant Minister at the Home Office, will my hon. Friend please consider carefully before introducing legislation? Will he find out whether England and Wales can enjoy the protection and the guarantee of urgent action that has already been granted in Scotland?
Mr. Trippier : I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, I go further and say that there is a recommendation about that in the Batho report. The Government have already undertaken to examine the matter carefully, and I think that we shall. I am aware of the problem, because constituents have drawn it to my attention in my surgeries.
Mr. Beggs : In my constituency, most of the complaints about noise concern people who operate ghetto blasters until all hours of the morning. As we are spending so much time and thought on the need to reduce the noise from vehicles, aircraft and so on, is not it time that we put some control on the amount of noise that can be emitted from wirelesses, record players and the like?
Mr. Trippier : I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point ; it is an extension of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). If we are to respond positively to the Batho report, we need to concentrate on that.
We all need to be reminded from time to time to consider the amount of noise that we make. The Government give financial support to a number of bodies concerned with noise prevention. For example, the National Society for Clean Air produces teaching packs on noise for use in schools, thus encouraging an awareness of
Column 1031
noise from an early age. Making a new generation conscious of the effects of noise could have a directly beneficial effect in years to come.Of course, noise policy needs to be underpinned by research, and the Government carry out, or sponsor, a great deal. Trends in noise levels, the development of quieter road surface materials and investigation of low- frequency noise are just a few of the aspects being examined.
We all recognise that a great deal of the noise around us is the result of what most people would regard as legitimate activities.
Mr. Dalyell : We need to say more in the House about the trends of noise. When I first came here, we could normally hear a pin drop during Prime Minister's Question Time. However, we now get a bawling match every Tuesday and Thursday. Before we become too self-satisfied, perhaps we should register--without being priggish about it--that we do not set a great example.
Mr. Trippier : The hon. Gentleman has absolutely ruined the punch line of my speech, and I shall never forgive him for that as long as I draw breath. Someone had to say that we do not exactly set a superb example to the rest of the nation ; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman got in first.
The examples that I was--
Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jessel : This is a serious matter. My hon. Friend, in reply to an intervention, has referred extensively to neighbourhood noise and amplified music. However, the Batho report shows that there are almost as many complaints about noise from dogs, which he has not mentioned at all. Dogs should receive far more attention in the House.
Mr. Trippier : I hoped that I should not even have to mention dogs today. I thought that I had been relieved of that enormous responsibility, but once again I have been proved wrong.
I am sympathetic, but it will be extremely difficult to frame the legislation whereby we clamp or clam up dogs in some way. We shall attempt to undertake the exercise ; that is as much as I can say at this stage.
Mr. John Carlisle : This is my first and last intervention, because I know that my hon. Friend wants to finish, but it should go on the record that the problem in Luton is not dogs but cockerels. A practice is creeping into my constituency : cockerels are kept in urban areas, causing the utmost nuisance to residents when they start singing--as they do--between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning. If my hon. Friend is framing legislation, will he please include cockerels?
Mr. Trippier : The way of tackling the problem suggested by my hon. Friend stretches my credulity to the utmost. If he comes up with a suggestion that he would like to develop into a crusade, however, I have no doubt that the nation will be eternally grateful to him. It could play a significant part in his seeking re-election.
Column 1032
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : I wonder whether I can briefly be of technical assistance to the Minister. The matter was debated on Radio 4 many months ago. If its perch is moved a little higher, the cockerel cannot throw its head in the air and make that alarming noise that wakes everyone up.
Mr. Trippier : From the strength and fervour of the earlier intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), it seems that there is probably not a perch high enough to conquer the problem with which he seeks to deal.
I insist on getting through another page before allowing another intervention. The examples that I was giving are lorries delivering goods to the local supermarket ; the aeroplane taking us on holidays or taking a business man to an important meeting ; and the quarry that provides raw materials to construct the very buildings in which we live and work.
While we must make every effort to ensure that such activities are carried out as quietly as possible, I suspect that the majority of people will have a greater readiness to tolerate a degree of noise if at least something positive results. For example, it may be impossible to carry out a manufacturing process without making some noise, but to a small town a factory may well represent many jobs and be an important factor in the local economy. On the other hand, it is surely the case that people will be far less tolerant of what they perceive as wholly unnecessary and inconsiderate noise. It is the very fact that much noise is considered as unnecessary that makes it more stressful to others.
Examples of that easily spring to mind, some of which have been mentioned. They include the unnecessary volume issuing from hi-fi equipment ; the inconsiderate viewing of television late at night with the volume too high ; the do-it-yourself enthusiast who carries out noisy work during unsocial hours, thus depriving his neighbour of much-needed sleep for the heavy day ahead ; and the inconsiderate motorist who wakes up his neighbours in the morning. We all accept that some people have to get into work very early-- but is it necessary to rev the engine as if one were in the pits at Brands Hatch? While the Government's commitment to tackle all forms of noise remains undiminished--I have given that undertaking several times in response to interventions--Government action can do only so much. Action by individuals and community groups--particularly on neighbourhood noise--is also needed to help to cure many of the current problems through greater consideration for neighbours. I hope that as the matter is debated in the House, which does not set a superb example to the rest of the nation, all hon. Members will recognise that every individual in the land has a responsibility to ensure that unnecessary noise is avoided.
6.21 pm
Ms. Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : I am sorry that the Minister will not be here for the final paragraph of my speech. I should tell the House that he has already warned me that he will not be here for the end of my speech, for reasons that I fully accept. If he had stayed, he would have heard me, too, refer to the problems of noise from dogs and noise in this very House.
In a week in which environmental issues have dominated the business of the House, it is right that the
Column 1033
final debate of the Session should be yet another environmental debate, this time on noise. Noise can be a problem, whether it be neighbourhood noise, noisy neighbours, loud music, parties, barking dogs, burglar alarms, car radios--the list is endless. It may be noise from traffic. Noise from unloaded heavy goods vehicles and lorries clattering over badly maintained roads is particularly bad. It may be aircraft noise, unacceptably high levels of noise at work, or noise tolerated by those of us who live near to factories with machinery that constantly drones on through the night without respite. Often there is no adequate legislation to control such noise. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about voice pollution-- perhaps the latest version of noise to make the headlines. It includes persistent background noise in open-plan offices where the next person may talk so loudly on the telephone, or type so loudly--they cannot help that-- that one cannot concentrate or hear oneself think.The standards of sound insulation in schools and hospitals have been referred to. Sometimes everyone can hear what everyone else is doing. Background noise, particularly at television and radio stations, can also be a problem. I have had representations from the staff who operate the BBC local radio service in Stoke-on-Trent. All those different types of noise need abating, and abating quickly. People desperately need more peace and quiet. The anti-social actions of those whose noise causes health hazards-- for health hazards they are--to others cannot be tolerated. The Government must deal with noise no differently from the way in which they deal with other forms of nuisance and environmental pollution. That is why the Government's failure to integrate fully noise abatement of all types into the Environmental Protection Bill is inexcusable. As we heard from the Minister, the Bill brings some welcome improvements. Local authorities' basic duty to investigate noise complaints has been clarified and we welcome that. We also welcome the increase in fines from £2,000 to £20,000, to which the Minister referred. Of course, that is welcome. But a Government who really cared about environmental protection would not have stood for a half-hearted measure on noise. They would have had the foresight to get their working party on noise off the ground soon enough to make sure that the recently published findings of the Batho noise review working party were available in good time to be integrated fully into the only piece of environmental legislation that we are likely to have this side of a general election.
None the less, we welcome the proposals in the Batho report. Despite what we heard from the Minister about the White Paper, the report is much firmer in tone and more detailed in its proposals for improving noise control than the White Paper on the environment. Will the Minister or the Under- Secretary who replies say precisely what resources will be available to local authorities to enable them to implement in full the Batho recommendations?
We warmly welcome the proposal that local authorities should take all reasonable steps to investigate complaints about neighbourhood noise. Such noise is intolerable. Certainly councils should keep offices open to deal with noise complaints at weekends and in the evenings. This afternoon the Secretary of State made an announcement about the new formula for the standard spending assessment. We heard how little he has taken into account basic environmental services. Therefore, I wonder how
Column 1034
local councils will find the money to employ the environmental health officers to provide a service at weekends and in the evenings.There is the prospect of further capping, whether we know the rules in advance or not and whether, as the Secretary of State suggested, councils could in effect volunteer for capping. None of what we heard explained where the money would come from to pay for the improvements. It seems that the extra duties will not be self-financing, so where does that leave noise in the priority rating for the formula used to arrive at the SSA for a local authority and consequently the amount of expenditure that it can afford?
Mr. John Carlisle : Perhaps the hon. Lady is a little pessimistic about the new legislation outlined by the Minister. She will be aware that, like her, I represent an urban constituency with exactly the same problems. Hopefully, when fines and penalties are imposed on offenders the terrible problems will begin to be corrected. Therefore, the number of officers required--I agree that at present it is considerable--by definition will fall as noise is dealt with. It is up to everyone to ensure that the legislation works and that fines discourage people from having noisy parties.
Ms. Walley : That was a useful intervention. It showed that we must take into account long term as well as short term considerations. However, it is no good having plans to deal with the problem in the long term when some money has been generated if there is no way of dealing with the problem in the short term. Does the Under-Secretary have any idea of the costs and the work involved in dealing with noise from weekend parties, which is the main source of complaints? In case he does not know, I shall tell him what is involved. A proper service must take full account of the findings of the detailed report of the London strategic policy unit on the operation of weekend noise services. That report found that there were wide variations between local authorities. The hon. Gentleman's intervention suggests that that must be taken into account. We do not want differing noise standards ; we want standard implementation. It is important that the Under-Secretary is aware of the code of practice that environmental health officers helped to draw up in 1988.
If a weekend service is to be provided, it is necessary to train people to do the job, which costs money. Officers must often work in pairs for safety reasons. The complainant must be interviewed and the procedure must be followed up by issuing a warning letter. If there is a second incident, that must be followed up by a statutory notice, again involving costs. If there is a third incident, a prosecution notice must be issued. If a proper weekend service were provided, it could cost as much as £60,000 to £65,000 a year on top of all the other environmental health costs of local authorities.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East) : Does the hon. Lady agree that if a party is taking place, no matter how many environmental health officers there are, they do not have the power to end it? Does she agree that it is not just a question of the number of officers but that the matter goes well beyond that?
Ms. Walley : The hon. Lady is right and she should make those representations to the Under-Secretary of State. If there is a noisy party, it does not matter how many
Column 1035
officers there are if none is on the end of an emergency telephone line at 5 am or midnight on a Friday or a Saturday night to deal with the complaint then and to follow it up subsequently. My point is that after dealing with the initial complaint there is a tremendous amount of follow-up work. As hon. Members will be aware, it is not part of the normal contract of an environmental health officer to work extra hours at the weekend or to work night shifts on Friday and Saturday nights. Immediately we are talking about contractual overtime commitments and overtime pay for staff.Many late-night parties occur in inner-city estates which have a distinct shortage of amenity and community facilities. Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that there should be sound-proofed facilities to provide suitable venues for late-night parties? I see him smiling, but if more community facilities were provided it would meet the needs of people to find a place to go for social entertainment.
Earlier in the debate there was a useful intervention about the different practices in Scotland. Under Scottish legislation equipment causing the noise offence can be confiscated. I should welcome it if the Government took on board the proposals in our alternative White Paper which make provision for that.
How will the Government implement the working party's recommendations on noise abatement zones so that they can be used far more effectively? If the proposed neighbourhood watch scheme pilot project is a success--I noted that the Minister said that there would be only one--are there proposals for a comprehensive system throughout the country or are we to see a wide variation in standards? Which areas has the Under-Secretary of State chosen for the pilot project? Clearly, the proposals to revise the planning and noise circular 10/73 and to amend the related legislation are given a high priority in the Batho report and could make a big difference. Precisely when will the Minister introduce them? When he considers the changes, will he take into account not only the paper prepared by the Building Research Establishment, but the commendable report produced by Labour-controlled Norwich city council's environmental health department which is entitled "Guidance Notes on the Sound Insulation of Party Walls and Party Floors in Converted Dwellings"? It is one of many examples of good practice from Labour-controlled councils. Norwich is concerned about the growing problems of noise disturbance to neighbouring property which frequently arise when terraced or semi-detached dwellings are subdivided. I am well aware of the council's anxiety because it mentioned that to me in great detail when I visited the city earlier this year. Sound sound insulation should be fully incorporated in planning conditions. Does the Minister agree that he should now take urgent steps to introduce better standards of home insulation sooner rather than later? Despite what the Minister has said about steps to deal with noise pollution caused by transportation, the Government's credibility is exhausted. There is a complete lack of a comprehensive transport policy, which is typical of the Government's ad hoc approach to policy making. Energy saving automatically includes noise reduction
Column 1036
implications. All the threads need to be pulled together before noise pollution can be satisfactorily tackled. It is all very well for the Minister to say that one could not get a razor blade between him and the Secretary of State for Transport, but how far have the Government gone to put across these tighter standards on noise to the Department of Transport? Does the Minister intend to redefine "premises" under section 105(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to include the highway? Noise from traffic is estimated to be the most widespread source of noise nuisance. It must be tackled by developing quieter vehicles, road and traffic management, comprehensive planning and measures to compensate those who are adversely affected. Obviously that has staffing implications. There should be measures and compensation available to deal with excess noise. At present there is no coherent system covering the various modes of transport. There must be a common measure--a standard form of assessment. Compensation across the board should be made a fundamental right. There must be an extension of rights to cover problems caused by the increase in traffic creating noise nuisance. Existing regulations detail no grants or compensation if a road is changed into a major thoroughfare. When the Channel tunnel opens up the railways to increased freight traffic, especially at night, those who live near existing lines will not be entitled to help. I understand that the Department of Transport has a working party looking at the implications of rail traffic on new lines, but existing lines are not included. Perhaps the Minister could liaise with his counterpart in the Department of Transport to ensure that full consideration is given to that problem.Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : The hon. Lady has talked at some length about grants, compensation and so on. Has she costed them and, if so, what figure has she come up with?
Ms. Walley : The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to those issues which need to be addressed. At this stage it is important to consider the proposals and how far the "polluter pays" principle can be taken on board.
We welcome the Government's decision, albeit a delayed one, to include aircraft in the terms of reference of the noise working party. The Minister referred to his announcement halfway through proceedings on the Environmental Protection Bill to extend the working party's terms of reference. Nevertheless, not enough has been done to bring together the issues for which the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport have overlapping responsibility.
Aircraft noise, particularly for those who live near airfields, is an extreme nuisance. The Government still do not seem to have accepted the detail of aircraft noise pollution recommendations and I await with interest the provisions of the planning Bill which is expected to be announced in the Queen's Speech.
I could not agree more about the problems associated with undesignated airfields. Small airfields must be covered by proposals acting against nuisance. There is a particular problem with existing legislation in that ground activities are excluded from existing controls. Although
Column 1037
large airfields cope with the noise generated by ground testing and engine maintenance, the same is not true of small airfields. As we have already heard, even in built-up areas there is an increasing problem with helicopters. Planning permission is not needed for some landing sites.Mr. Jessel : The hon. Lady questioned the credibility of the Government regarding aircraft noise. I should remind her that the Government have done far more than any other Government to control aircraft noise, particularly at Heathrow. They stopped the fifth terminal at Heathrow, as well as the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link, and sharply curtailed the number of night flights at Heathrow. The previous Labour Government did practically nothing to control aircraft noise. I bet that the hon. Lady cannot think of anything positive that they did.
Ms. Walley : I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have no intention of making this debate on noise a slanging match between hon. Members on either side of the Chamber.
It is most important for the Government to find ways to deal with the many issues related to helicopter noise as there is no doubt that greater controls are necessary. Reference was made to that in the Batho report, and the Government must tell us how they intend to introduce such controls.
I share the Minister's concern about the problems created by military aircraft, which I am sure we are all aware are increasing in many constituencies. We agree with the Government that the noise generated by military aircraft must be kept under review and that something should be done to abate at least some of it.
It is also important to consider the problem of noise in the workplace. I am aware that that topic was conveniently excluded from the review on the ground that separate controls exist. Why do not the Government recognise that they cannot deal with noise abatement effectively unless they act across the board? The Government have already extended the terms of reference of the working party to include aircraft noise and they should similarly extend them to include noise in the workplace. The Government should ensure that minimum criteria and standards are applied to the Departments of Employment and Trade and Industry. Those criteria should also have some bearing on the work of the Health and Safety Executive. The plain truth is that noise regulations to protect the hearing of industrial workers are being ignored, despite the fact that 1.7 million people are exposed to noise levels that put them at risk of suffering permanent deafness. Why is it that only 0.5 per cent. of the notices served under health and safety at work regulations in 1988-89 concerned noise even though 1,515 sufferers won occupational disease awards because of deafness? The resources of the Health and Safety Executive are inadequate to deal with the problem. Does the Minister agree with the head of the noise at work unit at Sandy Brown Associates that the improved regulations which came into force in January have not had much effect? That was not the intention behind the European directive.
This is deaf awareness week, and, in this week of all weeks, does the Under -Secretary agree with trade unions, including the General Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Transport and General Workers Union, that there should be a requirement on employers to
Column 1038
offer hearing tests to employees working in noisy surroundings? What advice is the Minister willing to give to ministerial colleagues on noise at source? Does he accept that there are no common procedures in the national health service for carrying out hearing tests? Has he any idea of the length of the waiting lists of those seeking treatment from an ear, nose and throat specialist? The statistics show that, in 1975, there were 6,325 complaints about noise. In 1987, the figure had increased sharply to 59,132. No number of statistics can reveal the amount of suffering and irritation caused to those who must put up with unacceptable noise levels. The Government could have done far more to give wider powers and greater resources to enable local authorities and industry to reduce noise at source and to take enforcement action when needed. The Government should consider re-establishing the now disbanded Noise Advisory Council. In that context I pay tribute to the Batho working party for its report. That working party was set up in the wake of the Noise Advisory Council.We need a national strategy capable of addressing all forms of noise, a strategy which will, by example, encourage people to be considerate about the noise they make.
We heard something earlier about barking dogs and I do not know whether the Government acknowledge that they still have a problem on their hands concerning dog registration--certainly some of us were expecting a vote about that tonight. The Government had better be warned because a survey conducted by the Building Research Establishment found that amplified music was the cause of 34 per cent. of complaints, but 33 per cent. of complaints related to dogs. The Government should take note that we and the long- suffering public are every bit as determined to press for overdue action on noise abatement as we are to take necessary action against irresponsible dog owners.
6.45 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |