House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 May 1991

Column 1108

this end have been brought to my attention. For this reason I recently wrote to John Wakeham in view of his responsibility for coal policy throughout Great Britain."

I hope that, if nothing else, that demonstrates that the Government have a responsibility and cannot simply wash their hands and suggest that all such decisions should be taken on a short-term basis by British Coal.

The Minister will be aware of the campaign that has been mounted to secure the reopening of Monktonhall. A very important document called "Monktonhall Colliery The case for revival" was produced collectively by Lothian regional council, the Midlothian district council, East Lothian district council, and the National Union of Mineworkers Scottish Area. The campaign has widespread support throughout Scotland and the support of Labour Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has a deep and long-standing interest in the industry, would have liked to participate in the debate.

The tradition of coal mining in the Lothians goes back hundreds of years. I have had the privilege, as you probably know, Madam Deputy Speaker, of representing Edinburgh, East for almost 21 years. When I was first elected, quite a number of collieries were operating in Lothian. Latterly there are two collieries, Bilston Glen and Monktonhall--two large pits employing more than 1,000 men. If my memory serves me rightly, Bilston Glen employed almost 2,000 men not so long ago. Bilston Glen is now closed and all that is left is Monktonhall, which has been retained on a care-and-maintenance basis.

Let us be quite clear about what happened at Monktonhall. When Monktonhall was put on a care-and-maintenance basis, British Coal invested £14 million in new workings to open the Peacock seam, an important area of reserves which are accessible from the Monktonhall colliery. A total of 9 million tonnes of coal reserves are readily accessible from Monktonhall colliery at present. There are probably another 40 million tonnes of reserves that can be accessed from the colliery. That does not include the important reserves under Musselburgh bay. Before the redrawing of the parliamentary boundaries in 1983, I had the privilege of representing Musselburgh. We had a long discussion and argument about the siting of a satellite shaft in Musselburgh which would have allowed the men to reach the coal at Musselburgh bay, but the coal was to be brought up at Monktonhall colliery.

There is no doubt that if we can get through the short-term crisis for the deep-coal mining industry in Lothian, the Monktonhall pit will probably be in operation for another 100 years--that is no exaggeration--because of the scale of reserves. It was always said by the old National Coal Board that the reserves under Musselburgh bay had tremendous potential and undoubtedly could be exploited profitably in the long run. Nothing in the document to which I referred or the argument relates to the reserves under Musselburgh bay. The powerful case that has been mounted is based on the reserves that can be accessed from the Monktonhall colliery at present. I accept that the decision whether to resume production, in particular under the Government's policies--I do not try to make a party point--is not only based on long- term strategic lessons. There must be a short-term market for the coal. However, all the evidence shows that there is a market for the coal.

Column 1109

I do not wish to rely too heavily on the analysis in the document to which I referred. Various analyses have been made. But, unlike a few years ago, there are several positive developments on the likely demand for coal in Scotland. First, there is a good prospect- -perhaps the Minister will comment on it--that the undersea cable that will enable Scottish Power to supply electricity to Northern Ireland will go ahead. The signs are that we are likely to have a positive decision on that in the near future.

Secondly, I assume that the interconnector between Scotland and England will be upgraded. It was upgraded previously but a doubling of capacity is now planned. I believe that that should go ahead as quickly as possible. I suspect that, if it had not been for privatisation, the upgrading would have been further ahead by now. It will enable additional electricity to flow from Scotland to England. In previous years there have been disputes between the electricity and the coal industries, but Scottish Power is now well pleased with the competitive coal supplied to it by British Coal.

It would be a mistake to assume that in the long run the necessary coal can be supplied from opencast mining. Of course, opencast mining has a contribution to make. However, British Coal has to be reminded, especially as responsibility for its opencast operations has been transferred from Scotland to the English headquarters and the operations are conducted on a Great Britain basis, that over many years there has been an unwritten political agreement between the mostly Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland and the coal industry that councils would take a favourable and sympathetic view of opencast developments on the understanding that some of the economic benefits would be transferred to the deep-mine coal industry. British Coal may be in danger of understating the significance of that unwritten agreement.

It is fair to say that nothing like the controversy and difficulty that has arisen in England over opencast mining planning applications has been caused in Scotland. There are real problems with opencast mining. The Minister will know more about that than me from his ministerial experience and his knowledge of the position in England. However, it would be unwise for British Coal to think that its outlined ambitious plans for future opencast working in Scotland can go ahead smoothly if it does not give some indication of a commitment to deep-mine coal. An early and necessary sign of that commitment is a positive decision on Monktonhall colliery.

Growing importance has been given in recent years to low-sulphur coal. One might argue that that has been one of the most important developments since Monktonhall colliery ceased production in 1987. A premium is now put on high-quality and low-sulphur coal. The privatised English generating authorities have emphasised the growing importance that they attach to low- sulphur coal. One of the great strengths of Monktonhall coal is that it has one of the lowest sulphur contents in Great Britain and is potentially a high-quality coal.

For the reasons that I have given, there is a powerful, long-term strategic case for resuming production at Monktonhall, and, given a positive approach, a commercial case can be made for doing so, even though British Coal has not previously accepted that case. There

Column 1110

are grounds for optimism that the commercial circumstances are such that in the years ahead the output from Monktonhall will find a market and can be produced profitably by British Coal or whoever operates the colliery.

It is no exaggeration to say that, if British Coal decided to write off the colliery, it would be an act of industrial vandalism. British Coal is committed to taking a decision next month. It is within its power to stop the pumps, to allow the colliery to be flooded and to write off a huge investment. In so doing it would sterilise reserves of tremendous potential that would continue into the next century. Huge investment would be written off, including £14 million which British Coal invested even after the colliery had ceased production. Surely such action is unthinkable.

The easy option for British Coal, of continuing care and maintenance, would contribute nothing to the local economy in the short term. The local community would be greatly disappointed if that option were taken. Jobs are needed in the area and the community is looking for them. If there were a resumption of production--I shall not say what the scale of the initial production should be, and it might not be as great as some might want originally--we would have the chance to prove that the colliery could operate extremely efficiently and competitively and that there was a market for its coal. I would hope that output could gradually be increased.

I quoted a letter that the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Campbell Christie. Ministers have put it on record that there have been approaches from interests in the private sector which wish to acquire and operate the colliery. Probably there are about five consortia, including the Monktonhall miners' consortium of local miners, who want to operate as a sort of co-operative. Various interests have all expressed a wish to operate the colliery.

It is not an accident that British Coal invested in Monktonhall after it had ceased production. Care and maintenance has continued. British Coal always recognised that the colliery had tremendous potential. If British Coal is not prepared to operate the colliery, surely the Government will insist that it is not written off for the long term. Surely they will insist that British Coal sells the asset to a private company or consortium. It is not for me to comment on the relative merits of the organisations which have expressed an interest. It is important, however, to put on record that private consortia have declared an interest. If British Coal is not prepared to operate the colliery, it is the overwhelming view of the local community that it must accept its responsibility to the nation and sell the asset to a private company, on the understanding that it will reopen the colliery and bring it back into production. There is an abundance of mining skills in Lothian. Some men with a wide range of experience at the pit have not worked since it was closed. There are others who have expertise that is related to the mining operation. From the point of view of local Labour Members, the local authorities, unions and miners, the best outcome of the review that British Coal is carrying out would be for British Coal to decide to reopen the colliery and to restart production. If it took that step, there would be tremendous support and good will within the community. I am confident that if British Coal were to take that bold decision next month, its boldness would be rewarded by competitive production following the reopening of a colliery with a long future.

Column 1111

1.50 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory) : The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) spoke candidly about the potential for the Scottish coal mining industry and about the future of Monktonhall in particular. I share his optimism about the future, but it would be wrong if we did not temper that hope with realism about the formidable challenges that the industry faces.

Those challenges are not new. The hon. Gentleman will know that British coal mining output peaked in 1913 at not far short of 300 million tonnes a year. Since then, the industry has had to contract to meet market demands. The reason for that is obvious if we consider that before the war there were huge markets for domestic coal, railway coal, for bunkering ships and so on. Even as late as 1950, British Coal was supplying 38 million tonnes simply for the domestic market. Today's sales of domestic coal are just under 5 million tonnes and of course we do not use coal for railway transport or making town gas. So the industry has had to go through a period of substantial restructuring and now coal faces competition from gas, the nuclear industry and so on.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about imports. As members of the European Community and as signatories to the GATT arrangements, we could not operate a protectionist policy, even if we wanted to do so. I agree with him that Britain, and Scotland in particular, has substantial fuel reserves and an impressive diversity of fuel sources, but it would be wrong to protect that market artificially and to exclude imported energy as a matter of course. That would be a recipe for inefficiency and British industry generally would not be well served by a policy that exposed it to excessively expensive electricity prices simply to protect one energy industry.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East also spoke of the potential for exporting electricity from Scotland and I am aware of the need to strengthen the interconnector to England. But that, again, needs competitive Scottish power. I think that the industries concerned can rise to the challenge and the restructuring of the electricity industry and placing it in the private sector has helped to create a competitive market in electricity which enables British Coal and the Scottish generating companies to look forward to exporting their power to other parts of the United Kingdom.

There are formidable challenges ahead and they have been met in the recent past. The Government have been generous in helping British Coal to meet the cost involved. Since 1979, we have provided £17 billion worth of grant aid to enable British Coal to restructure, in conditions that have avoided the need for any compulsory redundancies, and any miners wishing to redeploy to other parts of the mining industry have been able to do so.

In Scotland, those challenges were faced earlier than in most of the rest of the United Kingdom. The restructuring there was difficult, but was achieved somewhat earlier. The Scottish energy market is particularly competitive. The hon. Gentleman mentioned offshore oil and gas and nuclear and Scotland is well placed for the development of alternative energy sources such as wind power.

Longannet colliery is successfully producing coal today in a way that shows what can be done with good management, good investment and the commitment and

Column 1112

enthusiasm of a highly motivated work force. Longannet is a low-cost, highly productive pit which stands comparison with any in Europe.

Restructuring has not been painless, but the redundancy terms have, at least since 1979, ensured that those leaving the industry have done so with generous terms to cushion them during the difficult changes from working in the coal industry to working in other employment or taking early retirement.

That is the background against which the coal industry must operate and against which any decision about Monktonhall must be taken. It is for the industry, which at the moment means British Coal, to decide what its manpower requirements are. It must also, as it has already started to do, change its culture from one that attempts to retain market share at all costs to one that seeks a market share based on competition and reduction of costs to a level from which it can compete against other energy sources. The 90 per cent. increase in productivity that the industry has achieved since 1985 is impressive and shows what can be achieved. If that pace of productivity improvement can be kept up, I too am optimistic about the future. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, British Coal has the stewardship of the nation's coal resources. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, it is responsible for the efficient development of the industry in the public interest. It is charged with the task of determining where the public interest lies. Decision on access to, and exploitation of, reserves has always been a matter for British Coal, based on its assessment of market prospects. We wish to change that. As we have announced, after the next election we intend to privatise the coal industry and alter the statutory framework. That will create new opportunities for operators, companies, consortia and co-operatives of all sorts to mine coal. At present, however, the statutory framework remains that set out in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.

Mothballing is not an easy option for deep mines. It is also an expensive option. Monktonhall is costing British Coal £500,000 a year because it has to be kept dry and the roads have to be kept open. However, it is not true that reserves are lost permanently if a mine is closed. Sometimes they can be accessed from a neighbouring pit, as has happened before. British Coal has given assurances that the pit shafts and road ways are being kept open properly.

I agree that, if British Coal decides that it does not wish to reopen and work the pit, it should give proper consideration to whether the mineworkers' consortium or the other interested groups should be given the opportunity to work it. We have encouraged the consortium and other interested parties to put their proposals direct to British Coal. I want British Coal to take an early decision. It would be wrong for it to sit for too long on this opportunity without giving others a chance to exploit the reserves if it believes that it is not in its interests to do so.

Therefore, I undertake, in the light of the hon. Member's remarks to write to the chairman of British Coal drawing his attention to the debate and expressing my hope that a decision will shortly be reached. I do not dispute the status of British Coal. It must make the assessment in the light of market circumstances and its requirements. If, however, other people decide that they

Column 1113

can make a success of it--that they can mine the coal economically and sell it at a profit--they should be given the chance to do so.

Column 1114

Noise Pollution

1.59 pm

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North) : I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to bring again to the attention of the House the problem of noise--in particular, the problem of noisy parties and the noise created by individuals, mainly in the towns and cities of our country.

The House will remember that on 31 October 1990 we debated the subject at some length and discussed comprehensively the problems caused by noise. I intend to concentrate now on a very wide subject--the problems caused by individuals who seem totally bereft of any feeling for their fellow citizens and neighbours.

At that time in October--and before that date--we had available to us an excellent White Paper from the Department of the Environment. We also had available to us the Batho report--a Government working party report--on noise nuisance. Since then, the Environmental Protection Bill has been passed, part of which takes into account the problem to which I wish to draw the attention of the House.

It is particularly apt that the debate should take place at this time when my postbag and, I suggest, those of many hon. Members are beginning to reflect concern about noise as summer approaches. People remember the last two summers, which were long, hot and dry. Due to parties in and around our towns, noise nuisance increased. An interesting press article recently suggested that my hon. Friend the Minister was considering a fresh approach to the problem. Since last October's debate, he has had time to reflect upon it. His Department has issued a few directives and suggestions which I believe will help us to combat this terrible nuisance. It is pertinent to point out that the complaints about noise that local authorities have received increased tenfold during the past year. Only the dog problem comes close to that. I believe that that was aired earlier today. It is pertinent to ask exactly what the problem is. I believe that there are two aspects to it. First, there is the noise caused by noisy parties. Inevitably, they are linked in the minds of the public with blues parties. In some cases, they are illegal, under recent legislation passed by the House. People are asked to pay to go to parties that are held outside the law. They are also asked to go to parties that take place on an ad hoc basis.

The tragedy of these events is that they do not occur for just one or two hours. Many go on for several days. I fear that during the coming weekend-- a bank holiday weekend--a party might begin in my constituency tomorrow, Friday, and last at least until Monday. That will be a terrible nuisance for those who have to put up with the party and also for those who are not invited to it.

Many hundreds of people are likely to attend such parties. The way they behave and the nuisance that they cause should be of great concern to us all. It needs to be said--although I am sensitive on the issue because of the criticism that came as a result of the speech that I made in the House last October--that part of the problem arises in towns where there is a large Caribbean influence. That is the case in my constituency. Those of Caribbean origin tend to enjoy loud music rather more than the rest of us do. Their style of music is not particularly accommodating to those who live in close neighbourhoods. Also,

Column 1115

regrettably, attached to some of those parties--only a minority--are activities such as drug taking and fornication. That is not my evidence but that of my constituents, and I bring it to the House's attention on that basis. There is concern that those communities tend to dominate lives in certain neighbourhoods with customs that are alien to those of Anglo-Saxon origin. It is a tiny majority, but the problem must be recognised and cannot easily be put under the carpet.

Those parties do not take place in warehouses outside towns or far away from residential areas. They tend to take place in tower blocks, of which there are several in my constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) has had similar problems in his constituency. They tend to take place in close communities and, therefore, the nuisance they cause is doubled. If there is a party on, for example, the sixth floor of a tower block with loud music--one must not underestimate how loud the music can be--with scores of people attending, the nuisance extends throughout the tower block and adjoining blocks. It is a terrible problem. There is also the problem caused by noisy individuals, some of which is deliberate. Last week I received a letter from one of my constituents who has problems with his neighbours. That is not unusual as many hon. Members receive such correspondence. Sometimes music is deliberately turned up to annoy neighbours. There is no doubt that ghetto-blasters played in the vicinity of others can cause extreme problems. Certain individuals seem content to enjoy themselves throughout the night to the annoyance of their neighbours. There are also instances of people deliberately turning up their television sets to annoy their neighbours. We must bear in mind that many of these events occur in tenements and council blocks with thin walls.

There is also the problem of car noise. High-powered cars may be revved up late at night, youngsters may roar up and down the street and music may be played loudly causing many problems for the neighbours.

On a minor scale, there is the problem of the do-it-yourself enthusiast. On occasions they seem to believe that they should be boring holes in the wall at 3 o'clock in the morning. Such persons may be doing admirable things to improve their own facilities, and I am aware that some facilities do need improving, but there are better times to do it.

Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley) : I do not look like--nor am I-- a do-it-yourself man. I believe that there should be a chap with his name on his ladders. However, as my hon. Friend will know, there are self-build housing groups which need to work and can only work at weekends or in the evenings. Will my hon. Friend comment on those housing groups and on the curtailment of their activities being imposed by some over-enthusiastic local authorities? Those groups build perhaps 30 or 40 houses, not one or two. We should also include those chaps who want to build their own house and live in a caravan while doing so.

Mr. Carlisle : I sympathise with what my hon. Friend has said. Nobody would wish to lessen the enthusiasm of the do-it-yourself enthusiasts or the self-build housing groups. However, my hon. Friend will know that they have to obtain permission from the local authority, as do others, and if they are carrying out commercial work they have to obtain permission about hours. If any legislation

Column 1116

is to be framed or any directive controls are to be imposed, they must take full account of those who go about their business legitimately and in a neighbourly way. My hon. Friend will agree that such people are not deliberately provocative--they just want to get on with a job that they have to do out of hours.

It is probably true to say that almost every hon. Member who, like myself, represents large urban areas has received complaints about noise. In last October's debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) outlined the problems faced by residents in city areas.

The message from that debate and from my constituents is that they seem powerless to act. The problem is that those who commit unneighbourly acts are not stopped by the various remedies that are available. Those remedies vary. The first and obvious one is for a report to be made to the local environmental health officer. Assuming that his office is open at night-- many of these problems occur in the early hours of the morning--he will send an officer to answer the complaint. When the officer arrives on the scene, having ascertained what is going on and perhaps confirming the trouble, he offers the organiser of the party or the perpetrator of the noise 30 minutes' grace.

I am sure that environmental health officers will agree that the problem is identifying the organiser of the party. One can picture an environmental health officer, or his deputy, arriving at a party of 300 heaving bodies on the seventh floor of a tower block in Luton and trying to ascertain who organised it. The notice of abatement must be served on that person, who then has 30 minutes to turn the noise down. In most cases they do so, but when the officer disappears the music is turned up and the problem persists and sometimes worsens. Often, environmental health departments will ask for witnesses. The problem is that people are reluctant to report on their neighbours. Hon. Members all have experience of that.

If legal action is taken, it is two or three months before the case gets to court, by which time the problem may have disappeared or have been forgotten by the public. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that the problem of identification is important. The second remedy is for people to go to the police. It is a sad fact that in England the police have no power because making a noise is not a criminal offence. That is the nub of the problem. In many instances, the police will attend but do not have the manpower to prevent the party from continuing. They are often reluctant to go into a party of many people, who may be highly intoxicated, perhaps on drugs and, to put it kindly, in a boisterous mood. It has been reported to me that police have sat outside waiting in their cars. I fully understand their reluctance, especially where the party, as I said earlier, is of a Caribbean nature.

The police, who are sensitive and anxious to maintain racial harmony, are reluctant to break up such a party because of what might ensue if they do so. One must feel for young officers who are sent to deal with such an "offence"--I say that although it is not a criminal offence to cause much noise--only to find on arrival that they are severely outnumbered. I can understand the police being reluctant and somewhat fearful to intervene in some cases because of the lack of manpower.

Column 1117

Another option which has been promoted by my hon. Friend and his Department--and by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in the previous debate--is to try to create a form of neighbourhood noise scheme. That idea sounds attractive and I know that some work has been done on it, but I fear that although such a scheme would probably work well in the nice suburban areas of some towns, it would not be much good in tower blocks with many hundreds of flats. It is unlikely that one could ever get people together to take on board a curfew or whatever was decided by the local community. It is a nice idea which would work in some areas, but I regret that it would not work in parts of my constituency because I personally know of some individuals who would take no notice of such a scheme.

The last remedy, which I have tried to use on some occasions, is to go to the local borough housing manager or to the committee if the people involved are council tenants and to ask if they are breaking their tenancy agreement by causing a nuisance. In some cases, the borough council is sympathetic, but there is a problem if the people are moved to another area and the noise springs up again. I do not believe--though I stand to be corrected--that the borough council would be able under the law to sever a tenancy unless the people were deliberately flouting their particular agreement.

The problem is that people who are afflicted by such parties and such noise have very little remedy to enable them to escape and to get things put right. Following the debate and in addition to the initiatives taken by the Department, there are other actions that we must take.

First, we must have the power, whether through the police, environmental health officers or anyone else, to stop such parties immediately or to stop the people making the noise. The 30 minutes' grace is nonsense, as is having to wait for court action. It must be possible to stop the party immediately if it is causing a nuisance to other people. Secondly, it must be a criminal offence to make such noise. There is no doubt that on some occasions the nuisance is terrible, as proved by the sad letters that we have all had, especially from old people. It must be made a criminal offence if people persist in making such a nuisance of noise to their neighbours.

Thirdly, the police must have the power, if necessary, to confiscate the equipment immediately. That would at least stop the immediate problem and might stop any future problem unless further equipment were purchased. However, such equipment is very expensive. Fourthly, everyone who attends a very loud party must be involved if arrests are made, as is the case in a pub serving drinks after hours. There must be more of a community responsibility to stop this terrible nuisance.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that the great scourge of modern times was the noise emanating from mobile phones in rather plush London restaurants. I must say, with respect, that he knows nothing about the noise that emanates from parties in my constituency and from those in many other towns and cities. The scourge of noise and nuisance during the next few summer months will be terrible for many people in my constituency. It is the Government's duty to encourage any measure to combat that nuisance and at least to make people's lives a little more worth living.

Column 1118

2.18 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has done the House a service by drawing to its attention his concerns and those of his constituents relating to the problems of noise. As my hon. Friend reminded the House, the problems of noise and Government plans for tackling them were the subject of a wide-ranging and thorough Adjournment debate last October. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing this opportunity to review progress since. I note from re-reading the official record of that debate that my hon. Friend spoke about particular concerns for him and for his constituents, including noise resulting from road- widening schemes and from noisy parties. Today, he has, for reasons that he explained, concentrated on noisy parties and I will shortly deal with his points.

Whether the problems are specific to Luton or nationwide, the Government fully understand the concern about noise which, although invisible, can be one of the most potent forms of pollution in its ability to irritate and to create stress in all our lives. It is important that people should feel confident that the problem is being tackled and mitigated. The Government have an important role in ensuring that the framework for doing so exists. We are taking action in many ways to mitigate the pollution of noise.

The Government's present policy initiative commenced with the setting up of an independent noise review chaired by James Batho. Its report was published together with our initial response last October.

Since last October's debate, part III of the Environmental Protection Bill has been enacted and the maximum fine for breach of a noise abatement order on trade or business premises has been substantially increased. We also took the opportunity to amend the Bill to give effect to one recommendation that we knew would emerge from the noise review and we clarified the duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints. In addition to the review and the Environmental Protection Act, we published the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" during the same period. It has a chapter on noise and a good deal of the noise review working party's thinking is in it.

However, my hon. Friend concentrated his concerns on noise from neighbours. There is no doubt that noise from neighbours generates most complaints and that it is, in some ways, the most intractable topic because individual freedoms as well as nuisance are involved. Seeking to strike the right balance between individual freedoms is never easy.

It must be sensible for neighbours to try to sort out problems among themselves before invoking the local authority and the law. With that in mind, I am delighted that our first pilot neighbourhood noise awareness scheme has recently been launched in the Forest Hill area of Lewisham. The straightforward idea of the scheme is simply that a local group of residents come together in an area of about 1, 100 dwellings, mixed in both form and tenure--some privately owned, some council owned, some detached houses and some blocks of flats. A leaflet has been prepared by and for the residents suggesting ways in which the impact of noisy activities can be restricted. In preparing the leaflet, the residents have sought collectively

Column 1119

to determine, for example, when it is sensible for people to carry out DIY work or when it is sensible for them not to carry out DIY work.

Anyone who is suffering and who cannot secure an improvement by a direct approach can drop a note into the local authority neighbourhood office and the complaint will be followed up. The Department of the Environment has funded the development work on the project. We will watch its progress closely and we shall be interested to see how it develops. We hope that if the initiative in Lewisham proves to be a success, it can be replicated elsewhere, including, perhaps, my hon. Friend's constituency.

In view of the misleading impression that may have been given in some articles in the press about the neighbourhood noise awareness scheme, I stress that in all such schemes the initiative must lie with residents. The leaflet will say whatever they want it to say. There is no national model telling people what to do--nor is there necessarily a desire to prevent individuals from engaging in particular activities. The objective is to make people think about the disturbance that they may cause and about the times of day at which their neighbours may find that least irritating. Where disputes arise, the scheme will enable communities to settle them without recourse to court action, although the power for an individual to go to court as a last resort remains unchanged.

My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties caused by noisy private parties, such as blues parties, which go on not just for hours but sometimes for days, and at a volume that pollutes the local environment. He expressed concern about ghetto-blasters and car radios played loudly either unthinkingly or, even worse, deliberately. We have given a good deal of thought to complaints about noisy private parties. As my hon. Friend emphasised, those who complain about noisy parties are frequently frustrated that they are powerless to act. It is understandable, therefore, that they should become even more frustrated and furious when they find that a local authority officer or police officer arriving at the scene of a party is apparently also powerless to act to stop it in its tracks. The officers face several obstacles. Making a noise is not in itself a criminal offence. The name of the organiser cannot be ascertained. The noise-maker cannot be arrested. Moreover, I suspect that there are problems of natural justice in making the owners of premises

Column 1120

responsible even if they are not there when the party is held. We are looking at ways in which to make progress on that. It may be possible for council officials temporarily to remove equipment such as loudspeakers, with police support where appropriate. I am also considering the provision in Scotland, where it is an offence not to desist from making a noise when requested by the police to do so. My hon. Friend specifically referred to blues parties. In addition to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, we must bear in mind the fact that blues parties that party-goers pay to attend may qualify as private entertainments and may need to be licensed. If a council can establish that a party is being held for private gain and if that party is not licensed, penalties may be imposed. A fine of up to £20,000 or imprisonment for up to six months or both may be applied in respect of parties for which no licence is held, or if a licence exists but its conditions have been breached. Those powers constitute a significant deterrent to the people who organise blues parties with the intention of making a profit.

The noise review working party was also concerned with the control of noise from commerce and industry in mixed residential areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) reminded us that these issues are not always easy to resolve. In many towns there are no neat distinct residential and commercial areas. Some people might want to build new homes. However, local authorities can take action in respect of self-build if they believe that a nuisance is being caused to others.

We are concerned that the present arrangements for mixed residential areas are not completely satisfactory. We shall be writing to the British Standards Institution about the recent revision of the relevant British standard. We are also considering the regulations on noise abatement zones. Modern technology should allow us to make the regulations simpler and more useful. We intend to underpin the work on tackling the nuisance of noise with appropriate research.

The Department of the Environment spends about £750,000 a year on research and the priorities have recently been re-ordered in line with the priorities identified by the working party. I hope that the House will see- -

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order.

Column 1121

Mr. Leonard Pell

2.30 pm

Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Leonard Pell, who lives in Carlton, near Barnsley. The case is rather complex, as I will explain.

Mr. Pell is a war pensioner and I hope that this short debate will highlight the erosion of the various benefits that have been paid to war pensioners over the past few years. In particular, I shall refer to the difference in pensions paid to service personnel who retired from the services before 1973 and the benefits paid to those who retired after that date. The difference is due to improvements to the scheme initiated between 1971 and 1973. I shall also refer to the level of disregard applying to war pensions. Although the Minister who is to reply will concentrate on the armed forces pensions scheme, I shall refer to the level of disregard operated by local authorities when taking account of benefits for the purpose of community charge benefit.

As I said, Mr. Pell's case is rather complex. It encompasses several different issues and benefits. He qualifies for several different benefits because of his substantial disability. Perhaps I should explain Mr. Pell's present circumstances.

Mr. Pell served in the RAF until he was invalided from the service with a 70 per cent. disability assessment. No doubt the Minister will agree that a 70 per cent. disability assessment is substantial. Since then, Mr. Pell has had surgery and is unfortunately diagnosed as suffering from chronic atrophic gastritis which might lead to cancer in later years. Mr. Pell has also suffered a mild heart attack and is therefore considerably disabled. His disabilities are compounded somewhat by his wife's disabilities. Unfortunately, she is diabetic and was recently discharged from hospital after an operation to remove a tumour. It is clear that Mr. and Mrs. Pell are experiencing considerable financial strain as a result of their joint disabilities. Their financial needs include a special diet for Mrs. Pell because she is diabetic, and the provision of extra clothing and the cost of extra heating which they both require. Mr. Pell's major complaint is that the level of war pensions over the past few years has deteriorated in relation to other benefits and in relation to the 1973 improvements.

It has long been accepted by Governments that pensions in respect of injuries inflicted during war time or during periods of service in Her Majesty's forces--and for that matter injuries at work--are paid at a slightly higher level than pensions for ordinary social security beneficiaries. That is based on the idea that people injured during their service in the forces were serving the country or the economy in war time. That principle has been eroded by the Government, who no longer maintain that that distinction is entirely valid. Over the past few years, Social Security Bills have tended to remove the distinction between war pensioners and industrial injuries pensioners over and above normal social security pensions. Changes to the social security benefits which came about as part of the 1986 review have also eroded the comparable value of war pensions in relation to other benefits.

Mr. Pell pointed out in his letter, a copy of which was forwarded to the Minister, that with the introduction of benefits such as income support, war pensioners do not qualify for or are not entitled to some of the benefits for

Column 1122

which income support beneficiaries qualify. It is interesting that, for service personnel injured during peace time or at a time other than in war, there are no support funds such as the Gulf support fund or the South Atlantic fund. My constituent does not qualify for any of the charitable benefits that have been made available following recent conflicts.

In 1973, the armed forces pension scheme introduced

service-attributable benefits. Since 1973, pensions for service personnel have been drastically improved. However, no retrospection was allowed to service personnel who qualified for pensions before 31 March 1973.

In his letter to me, the Minister was good enough to outline arguments about retrospection. The cost of retrospection is quite substantial in relation to all service personnel. It has long been a condition that a person can benefit from a pension scheme only if he is a current serving member. I appreciate the Government's arguments, but the House has also recognised those arguments in the case of women who were widowed and qualified for armed forces pensions before 1973. As we know, action was taken for that special group. Special consideration should be given to Mr. Pell and others who were invalided and severely injured during their service for the country. Mr. Pell's disablement is so severe that his working ability has been restricted. Over the past few years it has been totally restricted--he has been unable to work at all. As he could not continue in the service until his scheduled discharge date, he does not qualify for a full pension, but he would have done had he not been injured. As Mr. Pell pointed out in his correspondence, had he not been so severely injured but allowed to continue his service until his discharge date, he would have been well looked after with pensions and benefits.

Mr. Pell's disability was so great that, initially, he could take up only light work, which he had to give up. He has been unable to build up an occupational pension to add to the pension benefits that he receives from the forces. He was forced to give up employment during the early 1980s and he has been unable to build up any occupational pension provision to compensate him for his inability to work.

If Mr. Pell had been able to continue in the service despite his disability, he could have built up an occupational pension provision and his entitlement to pension. He argues that the Government should seriously consider improvements in the benefits given to service men who left the services before 1973 and were so seriously disabled that they could not work outside the services. These are men who were invalided from the service. I support Mr. Pell's argument that they should be looked on as a distinct and deserving group.

Any retrospective action taken by the Government would have to exclude service men who retired from the services before 1973 but were able to complete their term of service, or those who were disabled or qualified for incapacity pensions but were able to work outside the services in civvy street and continue their service term until they reached their retirement date.

Mr. Pell's other complaint is about the war disability pension, which is regarded by the Department of Social Security as a maintenance benefit. It is subject to the statutory disregard of £10 for the community charge

Column 1123

benefit. But the DSS regards such pensions as having "a special nature" because they are awarded in respect of service in the armed forces.

The £10 disregard is now too low as a proportion of the war pension, the maximum level of which is about £76. In 1971 the maximum pension was about £7.50 and the disregard was about £4, so the disregard was about 53 per cent. The level of disregard has fallen in real terms during the past 20 years. The disregard should be increased to take account of that.

Several other issues which affect war pensioners are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, but I shall touch on them in my concluding remarks. They include the community charge and the disability rate allowance for adaptations and special fitments. Many war pensioners qualified for rent rebates for alterations to their properties. When the community charge was introduced, that rebate was removed, so again war pensioners suffered a fall in income. My constituent is considerably disabled as a result of his service to the country. His earning capacity was severely eroded and now he believes that his pension entitlement is also being severely eroded. I call on the Government to consider carefully the small group of war pensioners who were so severely disabled as a result of their service that they could no longer work. The Government should perhaps look on them in the same way as they considered the pre-1973 war widows. 2.43 pm

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing this Adjournment debate. I confirm that the disregard for the community charge is not one of my responsibilities. However, I shall show the essence of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment and I am sure that they will communicate with him on the matter. I am responsible for the armed forces pension scheme. We all want those who have served in the armed forces, and have experienced some disability as a result of that service, to be appropriately provided for. I am sure that we all recognise the value of the service that they have given to their country. I will address the points which the hon. Member raised in a moment, but first I should like to set out the background against which those points must be considered.

In dealing with service pensions we should recognise that there are two separate sets of provision under which benefits may be paid to ex-service men and their dependants. There is the war pension scheme, which is administered by the Department of Social Security and provides benefits specifically in those cases where a member of the armed forces is injured or dies as a result of his service. There is also the armed forces' own pension scheme, which is administered by the Ministry of Defence. It is mainly the provisions of that scheme which provide the basis for this debate.

The armed forces pension scheme is an occupational pension scheme and is broadly similar in nature to other public service pension schemes, although there are a number of features designed to reflect the somewhat different characteristics of service in the armed forces compared with the majority of other types of employment, and the relatively short careers which apply to many

Column 1124

service men. There is also special provision for the greater physical risks which may arise whether through war-like operations, training for such operations or, indeed, many other types of duty that service personnel may be called upon to perform. Those risks are catered for today by a combination of appropriate provisions within the occupational scheme, in addition to the important and longstanding provisions of the war pensions scheme.

As with any other provision, money has to be found to pay for the benefits. In the case of the armed forces pension scheme, there is no standing fund from which these costs are met. There are no direct contributions and benefits are paid for, as they arise, from money allocated to the defence vote each year. Service personnel are not, of course, completely insulated from the cost of providing for their pensions. The review body on armed forces pay, in establishing pay rates to recommend to the Government, takes into account the greater value of armed forces pension scheme benefits over those of comparator pension schemes. A reduction is then made from comparator rates of pay to reflect this, and for the overwhelming majority that reduction currently stands at 9 per cent. While this provides an invisible offset, the cost of pensions and any increase in commitments associated with them have to be met within the overall allocation for defence each year. Those costs are continually rising, not least because benefits have been improved from time to time, and the estimated figure for 1990-91 was £1,408 million. They represent an increasing proportion of total defence expenditure, and will of course remain a commitment for many years to come.

As an occupational pension scheme, the armed forces scheme is managed in accordance with the same principles which apply to such schemes in general. There are two important and allied points. First, entitlements under the scheme are, for any individual and through him his dependants, derived from the rules of the scheme which were in force at the date of his retirement. Secondly, when rules are changed, those changes do not apply to those who are no longer serving at the time when they are brought into effect.

The detailed rules are inevitably complex, but the main features of the scheme as it stands today are as follows : a pension, paid immediately on retirement, for officers who have given 16 years or more of reckonable service and for other ranks who have given 22 years or more reckonable service ; deferred pensions, payable from the age 60, for those who serve for shorter periods, subject to a minimum of two years ; pensions for widows, widowers, and dependent children ; immediate pensions for those invalided from service on account of injury or ill-health, subject to a minimum of two years' service ; enhanced benefits where that injury or ill- health is attributed to service in the forces, with no minimum qualifying period of service ; enhanced benefits for the widows and dependent children of those whose death is attributed to service.

All those pensions are index linked. In the case of long-service pensions, the cumulative increases are payable from the age of 55. But for invaliding awards, and widows', widowers' and dependants' pensions, the index-linking comes into effect immediately following the award. Long-service and invalidity pensions are calculated from representative rates of pay for each rank, and on length of service given. For a full career, based on retirement at age 55, the pension is equivalent to about half of the corresponding rate of pay with, in addition, a

Next Section

Home Page