| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Randall : I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell us in a little more detail what he envisaged happening to the gentleman with the drug and behavioural problems whom he described. Earlier, he advocated that such people should be evicted and moved into other housing on licence whence, if they did not behave properly, they should be thrown on to the streets. How would he deal with people of this sort? His tough stance seems to go against the Government's notion of care in the community.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I have not one jot of sympathy for people who consciously carry out anti-social activities, but the young man to whom I referred was very sick and I believe that he was taken to hospital, where his problems were dealt with satisfactorily. I accept that that individual perhaps falls into the grey area of those people who slip through the loophole of the Mental Health Act 1984. In response to a letter I received from one lady about the noise coming from flats, I suggested that she should wait until the security system was installed, because the mechanism would then be available to council staff on duty to know what was happening and to deal with it. It seems that was a pious hope, because, even after the security system was installed, little was achieved. I do not blame the staff, because they were only acting on instructions. They sat and watched the screens, and if anything untoward occurred, they did not telephone the police but their supervisor. I am not sure what was supposed to happen then, but as far as the tenants were concerned, what hapened was zilch.
Mr. Randall : I want to return to the example that the hon. Gentleman gave earlier, because it concerns a central point that I am anxious to resolve. The hon. Gentleman described it as a case involving someone with psychiatric problems moving into an area. Although I do not have the details of that specific case, my immediate reaction is that a man who lives in the way that the hon. Gentleman vividly described needs help. To evict such an individual on licence would be a tragedy. The hon. Gentleman is raking up all the old Conservative nonsense of the early 1980s --the short sharp shock, and hang 'em and flog 'em brigade. Instead, such a man needs help to get back on his feet and to live a decent life in society.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I am greatly disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. He knows very well that I have tried to draw a clear distinction between those consciously guilty of criminally anti-social behaviour and the individual who is not covered by the 1984 Act. No one denies that a grey area exists. I have discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and we are examining the ways in which it can be tackled with care, understanding and sympathy--while making certain that a distinction is drawn between the consciously guilty and individuals of the kind that I described.
Column 1251
I turn to the question of intimidation. After a security system was installed in the block of flats that I earlier mentioned, I received a letter from one of the residents, stating :"every time a flat became empty, it was used for blues parties, and the council were not making a great effort to stop them ... all they would do would be to repair the door and the people running the parties would come and break it down again. On that afternoon, the door was opened by some guys. I knew one of them to be a person that organised parties I went to the housing officer we were told to go home and not to worry as everything would be taken care of and that there would be no parties an injunction would be obtained and if a party started I just had to call the police.
At 7 pm, the music and drink arrived and they off-loaded a music speaker as big as a mini car."
I can confirm that, because I have seen one of those speakers. It is about the size of a domestic fridge-freezer. That is pretty big. Right hon. and hon. Members can imagine the noise that two such speakers would make at a party in a comparatively small council flat. The letter goes on :
"I asked the security guard, Have you no powers?' He answered, I have no powers to say no. He lives here.' That is absurd We are told we have great security, yet the doors are just held open while all this goes on."
I saw that happen, so I know it to be true. When the tenant checked with the police, they knew nothing of any injunction. As he says, "Someone is lying to us."
On another occasion, that same resident's family was awoken at 1.30 am by loud banging in the flat above. He went upstairs and saw two men trying to break down the door with a hammer. He states : "I was told by them to go away I then said that I was going to call the police they came towards me and lashed out, then I was hit with a hammer, punched, and my teeth were broken and knocked out. The council do not seem to realise the feeling of insecurity and anxiety felt by my family and me I could not even bring myself to speak to the lady from Victim Support."
As a result of my meeting with members of the residents association, Labour councillors finally bothered to go to talk to them. Those residents, who live in a ward that has been a Labour fiefdom for as long as anyone can remember, told me, "They take us for granted." I replied that they would probably go on voting Labour for the rest of their lives anyway, but, be that as it may, I was their Member of Parliament and would do what I could to help. I never ask people about their politics, and that probably goes for most right hon. and hon. Members. However, it grieves me when I see ordinary working-class people being taken for granted by their elected representatives, on the basis that they will always have their support.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course." That is the saddest part of all. We imagine, as reasonably sophisticated people, that everything can be solved through the ballot box. Sadly, that is not so. In certain situations, people need help beyond the ballot box, in dealing with problems that some councillors will not address.
The chairman of the city housing authority acknowledged that the flats concerned had fallen below city standards, and that tenants should expect cleanliness inside and out and action to be taken against noise nuisance. He confirmed the duties of the people watching the security monitors, and made a reference to the use of
Column 1252
loudspeakers. He pointed out to the residents that unless they were prepared to stand up in court and testify, it was difficult for the local authority to take action. I accept the truth of that, but it should not be used as an excuse to do nothing.The housing chairman, who is supposed to be in charge of policy and to approve council tenancy agreements, irritated me beyond belief with this comment about dogs in the blocks of flats known as the 4Bs, when he said that its tenants association should make decisions about dogs. It is for the council to take such decisions, and to say, "Dogs are not permitted, but we will apply discretion when it comes to the Yorkshire terrier or small lap dog that many people, particularly the elderly, keep for company." No one can deny that the council has the power to say, "You shall not keep a rottweiler, alsatian, or any other large dog in a high-rise block."
I tried to make direct contact with that housing chairman, but he did not answer. Instead, he wrote to Tony Barton, whom I complimented earlier, saying that he would not reply to my letter because he thought that I was being somewhat hysterical. If I am angry on behalf of my constituents and that is deemed to be hysterical, so be it. However, at least he conceded this point :
"This nevertheless does not excuse the fact that the rubbish and graffiti should not have been there in the first place."
When I visited the residents, they smiled and said, "We don't know if it was because the council knew that you were coming, but yesterday four lorries turned up and carted away more rubbish than you can possibly imagine from these flats." When they showed me around, I said, "My goodness. If four lorries came yesterday, they had better come back tomorrow, the day after, and the day after that, "--because it looked as though no rubbish had been removed from those tower blocks for months.
Councillor Chapman continued :
"I am not excusing previous management deficiencies but we are already taking measures to improve the situation by, for example, introducing security".
The council is beginning to do what I was submitting should have been done years ago. I said at a tenants' meeting that I would be willing to try to enforce a ban on dogs in the Radford road flats, but added that I would need the backing of the tenants' association. The views of the representatives of the tenants are clear, but it must be for the council to decide whether large dogs should be allowed to be kept in the flats. It is ridiculous for councillors to say that the responsibility for placing a ban on dogs rests with the tenants.
In his letter, the Labour chairman, Councillor Chapman, takes up the issue of security of tenure. He wrote :
"Mr. Brandon Bravo, I believe, voted for this legislation." Indeed I did. If the measure came before the House again, I would vote for it again. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends would vote for security of tenure. I challenge those who occupy the Opposition Front Bench to say unequivocally that the Labour party has no plans to diminish security of tenure for council tenants. If the sort of things that are being said in Nottingham on this issue represent official Labour party policy that lies under the surface, it is time that that was established once and for all.
I tried to help a constituent who lives in another block of flats. When she explained her position I said to her, "After 23 years, you should not be driven from your home. I cannot accept that it is the innocent who have to pay the price." I am sure that many hon. Members would confirm
Column 1253
that the local authorities in their constituencies often ask complainants whether they would like a transfer. Often it is easier to offer the innocent party a transfer than to tackle the guilty party. Surely that is wrong. I do not see why the innocent should suffer. The constituent to whom I have referred is a lady who lived happily in her home for 23 years before a problem arose, yet she was being asked whether she would like a transfer. That is not an option which I can accept.Mr. Barry Porter : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to put the record straight. Some many hours ago--well, it feels like that-- I said that I had never heard of the sort of problems that my hon. Friend has described in the area that I represent. I have made a check and I have been reminded by my secretary that twice over the past five years I have been approached about similar problems and the transfer option. These cases involved noise, drug-taking and general unneighbourly behaviour. I wish that to be known, but the majority of the Wirral is clearly perfect. I must accept, however, that there are one or two small stains to its otherwise impeccable character.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking the opportunity of putting the record straight. It seemed inconceivable that the Wirral could be perfect and that within the area there had not been one example of the sort of problems that I am drawing to the attention of the House.
In one instance I have no criticism of the local authority's housing department or social services department. Those who are involved in causing the problems to which I shall refer are not criminal--I know that I am not using that term in a correct legal sense. I shall not put a label on those who are causing the problems, because I am aware that I shall be challenged up hill and down dale for using the wrong label. I shall refer to the two people who are causing problems as Mrs. X and Miss XX.
Solicitors have tried to take out injunctions against Mrs. X during the past couple of years. She threatens people in the streets. The police have tried to take her to court to have her bound over. We cannot lock up this sort of person. I am not sure how conscious such a person is of the trouble that he or she is causing. With Mrs. X, the problem is abuse and foul language generally. Perhaps I am being kind when I describe her as a poor old dear. She seems not to fit into any category and no one knows quite what to do with her. However, an answer must be found.
I went to see Mrs. X's house in the knowledge that there is not a solution to everything. One of the failings of politicians is that we kid ourselves that there is always a solution to everything. There is not. Indeed, we have debates to try to highlight problems. It may be that there is a genius living in these islands who has the answer. If so, let him come to the Bar of the House and present it to us. After all, we have long been struggling to find answers to the problem that I have put before the House.
I referred to Mrs. X as a poor old dear, but she is not an old lady. When I went to her house I found that the windows were boarded up. It seems that she thinks that stones will be thrown at her windows. People wish that she would stay quietly in her home and leave them alone, but it seems that she feels threatened. As I have said, no one knows what to do with her.
Column 1254
Miss XX has been moved voluntarily on five occasions within Nottingham. All that that has done is move on the problem. Again, no one knows what to do. A letter from some residents reads : "Over the past five months she has threatened the children, shouted abuse at adults and children (which is unrepeatable) ... threatening with dangerous weapons such as a carving knife, a baseball bat and scissors. The last straw was last night when she came out threatening the children with a hammer. Who is to say that in one of her fits of depression she will not physically attack a child? She has already tried to do so on numerous occasions in the street."When I took up the case I found, to my horror, that I had dealt with it 12 months before--at least I thought that I had dealt with it. I said to myself and to my constituents "Here we go again. I know this Miss XX of old." Their hearts fell just as mine did. I recalled that 12 months ago an old lady of 92 was terrified to leave her home because Miss XX used to lift the flap of the old lady's letter box and scream through the aperture. She would threaten to pour petrol into the old lady's house. I should say that Miss XX has never carried out a threat of that sort. She has occasionally been taken before the magistrates by the police, but she seems to fit into no slot that has been created by the relevant agencies. We love to put people into slots so that we can say that we have found an answer.
I shall read a letter that I received from the housing department that is relevant to the argument that I am advancing. It reads : "I am sure that you appreciate Miss"--
the letter gives her name but I shall refer to her asMiss XX " has a mental problem which neither I nor my staff are able to deal with. Indeed, it is my personal opinion that she should not be living in the community at all without some regular supervision. I have expressed this view forcibly to the caring agencies but they seem unable or unwilling to take any responsibility for her." I do not want to pass judgment on whether the agencies are "unable" or "unwilling". I only hope that this constituency case will be picked up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that he will consider whether current legislation is able properly to deal with it.
The letter continues :
"In all fairness, however, I have to tell you that in my opinion it is most unlikely a judge would grant the council a possession order, despite the evidence, in view of her condition."
In other words, there is no point in the council taking Miss XX to court because it would not be able to obtain an eviction notice. It is obliged, therefore, to opt for the voluntary approach. The letter adds :
"I am desperately trying to do all I can to find a solution to this very difficult and time-consuming problem but in all honesty I cannot see a way forward at this point in time. I only wish I could." The letter continues :
"The meeting was attended by Social Services staff, the Police and this Department and each expressed great concern about her behaviour. It was noted she had been banned from the Offices due to her abuse of staff there were frequent complaints/petitions about her behaviour etc."
They concluded that Miss XX
"may persistently be at odds with the community Health services staff are quite clear that she is untreatable'. Any work ... can have only a very limited effect in changing her attitude/behaviour." The housing department agreed to
"recommend rehousing on Management Grounds but careful consideration must be given as to location/neighbourhood and vulnerability of children/elderly etc."
Column 1255
I believe that that case is typical of a number of cases, although I do not know how many, throughout the country.I share the view expressed in the letter that Miss XX and those like her
"should be placed in a hostel/community-type setting where there could be close monitoring of behaviour. It seems, however, there is no Local Authority or any other type of accommodation available for people like her. It was also stated, quite rightly, that she cannot be forced or co-erced to live where she does not want to go. I am greatly concerned that the Housing Department is left in the unenviable position of having to deal with this anti-social tenant with a mental condition. Obviously my staff will continue to act in the best interests of both the tenant and the community, (hopefully with the continued co-operation of the Social Services staff and the Police), to try to ensure matters do not get out of hand in any other area where she may be moved to in the future."
I think that I have shown that there is a real problem not only in my city, but throughout the country, much of which can be tackled if there is the local will to do so. Housing, environment and health legislation can deal with most of the problem. The House should consider further legislation to provide for local authorities to deal with such cases. Although they may be few in number, they involve a disproportionate use of staff, money and time.
I wish briefly to touch on the second part of my motion. It appears that the city of Nottingham now has a council willing to use the tools that this Government have provided. If it uses them, there may well be a diminution of the problems caused by anti-social behaviour. However, if local authorities such as Liverpool, Lambeth and Hackney do not carry out their duties in areas in which nine out of 10 other local authorities happily carry out those duties, how on earth can we expect local authorities, such as the one that I have named, to tackle those real human problems? By whatever style, title or priority the Labout party currently adopts-- [Interruption.] Is it high priority, first priority, top priority--
Mr. Randall : We decide the priorities.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : The hon. Gentleman was, of course, referring to the Labour party, not the Government.
Mr. Barry Porter : I wish to be as helpful as possible. The secretary of the ruling Labour party in Lambeth is an ex-Member of Parliament, who represented a Nottingham seat. If my hon. Friend has any complaints, I am sure that Mr. Michael English will deal with them immediately.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : My hon. Friend referred to the gentleman who held my seat before I won it in the 1983 general election. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not respond to his point.
I have taken much more time than I intended, but given the number of interventions, most of them helpful--
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : As the hon. Gentleman says, the rubbish came from him. I accept his descripton of his intervention. I was grateful for the other interventions from hon. Members, and I commend my motion to the House.
Column 1256
10.54 amMr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) has done the House a service by initiating this debate, He may as well have taken another five minutes to deal with the other two constituency cases that have been brought to him since 1983. He made an interesting speech, in which he recognised personal ineffectiveness --not just his, but that of all Members of Parliament. It is a pity that he spoilt what should be a useful and constructive debate by trying to superimpose a rather trivial and silly political dimension.
I do not intend to follow that line, although we could cite examples of Conservative councils and councillors and make silly yah boo noises. We could even ask how it is that, with the previous Conservative party leader, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), having said there is no such thing as society, it is possible to be anti-social ? That would be a good debating point at the Oxford Union, but it is not what we are here to debate today. As I said, the hon. Gentleman has provided the House with a good opportunity for debate, which he partly spoilt by introducing a political dimension. I hope that we can now get to the substance of the issue.
In some ways, we are involved in an exercise in humility. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a sovereign Parliament, but we have placed a duty on councils. That is passing the buck. He said that he did not know what to do about the problem, but implied that because Parliament had imposed a duty on councils we should assume that they could deliver an answer. That is a rather fatuous way to treat some of the issues that we are discussing.
What continually emerged during the hon. Gentleman's speech--I am not making a criticism as I am sure that we will all say it--was the fact that he did not know what to do about the problems. It is a pity that he kicked the councils for not being able to solve them. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman should know how to solve the problems ; I certainly do not. He gave the example of an old lady in his constituency--a sad but common case. Every hon. Member has the equivalent of that old lady. However, it is simplistic to suggest that such people should be rehoused, given one opportunity to stop causing problems, and then thrown out on the streets. He cannot seriously suggest that that would be a solution. If that approach were adopted, I do not doubt that he would be on his feet in the House condemning the very council--especially if it were Labour--that had put an old lady out on the street.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I did not say that.
Mr. Williams : The hon. Gentleman should read his speech in Hansard. He did the House a disservice because instead of dealing with the issue on its merits--it has enormous merits--he tried to twist it by imposing a political dimension. He put himself into rather absurd, illogical corners.
It became increasingly clear, not just from the hon. Gentleman's comments but from some of the examples that he cited, that very often the sort of people we are discussing are at the margins of competence. He said that they were not criminals, but he could not define them. If something cannot be defined, it is hard to legislate to deal with it. That is one of the problems of Parliament.
Column 1257
I suspect that during the debate we will hear example after example for cases of which Parliament cannot effectively legislate. We can introduce nominal legislation saying that certain things cannot be done, but that is rather like our legislation that says that people should not break the 30 mph speed limit. We all know that that legislation is effective only in the context of the impossibility of achieving that speed on many of our roads. Although necessary, the legislation is fairly meaningless in its application. We should clear the deck of the nonsense that all that we have to do is to pass a law and we will have solved the problem. We can often recognise and define a problem, but that is very different from solving it. Therefore, let us not indulge in the easy trick of saying, "We, in Parliament, from on high, have said that this should not happen and those nasty, incompetent councillors and council officials have failed to do what we have told them they have to do, although we admit that, if we were in their position, we would not know what to do either."Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat missing the point. The House has given local authorities considerable powers and resources to deal with the sort of problems described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon- Bravo). The main complaint is about local authorities which, although they are in full possession of these powers and resources, display indifference to the problem and make no effort to deal with it.
Mr. Williams : My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned Wandsworth council, the prime example of all Conservative virtues, which suffered from the same problems as those outlined by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. Unless half the population are inspectors checking on the other half, many of the matters about which we complain are almost untreatable in legislative and administrative form. We are talking of behavioural and malevolent defects. One can sometimes deal with malevolence, but behavioural inadequacies are more difficult to cope with. They are caused by the change in our social cement, our social structure and our social responsibilities.
Mr. Carrington : The House will accept that many of the problems described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon- Bravo) result from social conflict between the lifestyles of the parties involved, which is a great difficulty. However, is the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken, because the problem is in the solution. It may be difficult enough to find in itself, but we cannot even start on a solution because the legislation to enable it to be acted upon is not in place. In other words, legislation is a necessary precursor to finding a solution to a social problem.
Mr. Williams : The hon. Gentleman is taking a somewhat different position from that of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, who said that the solutions are there but these nasty local authorities will not use the legislation that Parliament has enacted.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I did not say that.
Column 1258
Mr. Williams : The hon. Gentleman will need to read what he said. I listened to his speech with an attention that much of what he had to say did not deserve. He needs to think through what he said, because many of his premises conflicted with each other. I did not want to get into party contention on this because I came in to refer only to one brief issue. However, listening to the hon. Gentleman stimulated all manner of responses.
Mr. Carrington : I reinforce what the right hon. Gentleman said. We had a stimulating hour and a quarter from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.
Mr. Williams : It was certainly thought inducing. Unfortunately, hon. Members have had to bear the consequence of the fertility that it created in my imagination. If the aim of the exercise was to stimulate debate, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South has certainly done that.
We can all quote examples of anti-social behaviour--aggressive smokers, hooligans and the foul mouthed. I shall concentrate on one example. Many of these personal behavioural inadequacies come together in a singularly dangerous environment when the people about whom we are talking are put into a car. I can hark back to my younger days, as no doubt other older Members can, and talk about the neighbourhood, the influence of neighbours and the fear of stigma in the community. We live in a different society. It is more mobile and semi-detached in its accommodation and attitudes. There is no social cohesion or sense of social responsibility. Strangely, such social patterns were consolidated by factors such as living through a war, because we had to work together and observe certain basic rules. However, society has gradually loosened.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South described the person who throws litter from the top floor of a flat, but that person is now throwing a can through the window of a car in the fast lane, on to the central reservation of a motorway. People who are a danger, a threat or a nuisance when they are relatively static become positively dangerous when they are in 1 tonne of metal capable of doing 100 mph. On the roads, the neuroses, the aggressiveness, the competitiveness and the inconsiderate behaviour that can be found in other contexts are concentrated in a situation in which there is no accountability. For example, if one feels inclined to shout at a neighbour, one knows that he will be living there the next day, and one has to take into account how relationships will be affected. In a car, if a conflict arises, snap decisions are taken at 70 mph by drivers of varying competence. There is no social restraint there. There is no accountability because one does not know the other person.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : In America, a driver could pick up a gun and shoot the other person.
Mr. Williams : The hon. Gentleman is correct. I fear that we may be coming to that extreme behaviour. We have a relatively low ratio of cars to people and it will become considerably higher.
There is belligerence, aggressiveness and a lack of awareness in people in control of vehicles that are capable of high speeds. That is exacerbated by the fact that there is congestion not only on urban roads but on motorways.
Column 1259
People are in a hurry and a rush. All these additional pressures bring out the inadequate characteristics described by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South.All hon. Members spend a lot of time on the roads and we have observed such behaviour. I do not suggest that we are better or worse drivers than anybody else, but, because of the amount of time that we spend on the roads, we are able to observe the rapidly deteriorating standards of conduct. I drive up and down the M4 to my constituency. I am lucky in that it is a relatively unused motorway. I feel sorry for those of my colleagues who have to travel on the M1, one of the most miserable motorways to be found anywhere in the world. We are lucky that the road from London to Wales and back is a fairly pleasant drive with only the occasional hold-up.
I have been struck in the past few years by the change in attitudes towards driving. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South spoke about the American experience. On American freeways motorists are allowed to pass on either side. In Britain we sensibly preserve the rule that one should pass only on the right-hand side. At least one knows where to look to see where trouble may be coming from. Increasingly we all experience the belligerent, aggressive driver who weaves his way through the traffic, passes on the inside lane, ducks into the middle lane and works his way in and out of the traffic streams. No doubt he feels clever. He may be venting his need to prove his competitive capability, but he creates enormous dangers for a great many people. A worrying phenomenon that has emerged recently is a tendency, which cannot persist for long without leading to serious accidents, for people to jump the red light at traffic junctions. All of us who drive in and out of city centres, especially if we do so in the rush hour, find various ways of dealing with the tedium and frustration. We turn on the radio and try to lose ourselves in music, a discussion or whatever is on. Recently I have taken to counting the number of cares that jump the red light. It is not uncommon to see as many as three cars go through the red light. One is aware that for them and for the people on the other road, it is a matter of good fortune rather than judgment that accidents are avoided.
About two months ago I was driving in London. I was the third car in the outside lane to draw up at a set of traffic lights. A car behind went not only outside into the oncoming traffic stream but around the red light, cut across the traffic and proceeded to turn left.
The problem of standards of driving is the only reason why I bothered to intervene today. It worries me that we have a problem which, as the hon. Member for Notthingham, South said, we do not know how to deal with. The laws are in place on road traffic offences. There is no point in passing more laws, because we cannot enforce the existing ones. People do not seem to recognise that the laws are there not just because of parliamentary bloody-mindedness but to protect them and other people.
I conclude this brief speech with a warning of what will happen. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South referred to how much further aggression and violence among road users has developed in the United States. I am appalled at the speed at which we seem to be following the same pattern. That must be a matter which causes anxiety to all road users and to families and pedestrians. Therefore, I hope that some attention can be given to how we can introduce new self-discipline. Enforced regulation
Column 1260
on its own will not achieve the objective. We must try to create a new self-discipline in road use and driving and try to develop a sense of consideration for other road users.11.13 am
Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham) : I am most grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) on selecting this motion, which is wide-ranging and all-encompassing but tackles the real problems that many of us who represent urban seats find that our constituents face on a day-to-day basis. In many ways the problems are of almost insoluble complexity. That has already been said and amply illustrated with examples. The difficulties of anti-social behaviour have no simple solutions. They are frequently conflicts of lifestyle, attitude and sometimes of generation, experience or stage in development in the stages through which we all pass in life. In many cases those conflicts are insoluble. My hon. Friend demonstrated that magnifi-cently and I compliment him on the way in which he introduced the motion. I shall concentrate on some aspects of anti-social behaviour which my constituents face. I hark back to some of the points that my hon. Friend made about noisy neighbours, one of the worst social problems that my constituents in some areas face. Noise problems are by no means confined to council estates. We must be clear about that. It is not a problem of class, wealth or poverty, any more than anti-social behaviour is. It is a problem which we all face in some way or another. The only way in which one can get away from noisy neighbours is by becoming so isolated that no matter how noisy the neighbours are they do not cause problems. That, I am afraid, is not a privilege that any of my constituents have--nor, I am sure, do many constituents who live in urban areas.
I am not sure that even in rural areas it is easy to get away from noise. I am a townie--a Londoner born and bred. Having lived in London all my life and represented a London constituency, I like to take my holidays in the countryside. Several years ago I went to an extremely rural spot. I was taking a walk one evening as the sun was going down and in the middle distance a loudspeaker was beating out heavy rock music for the edification of the entire countryside, including the cows. Someone was having a party in the middle of the countryside. If I had lived a quarter of a mile away, I should have been just as annoyed as some of my constituents are when parties are held next door.
The problem of noise is not confined to one area or one class. In many areas it is, of course, exacerbated by the policies pursued by local authorities. I shall come to that in a moment. The problem is also made worse by the nature of the construction of many properties. Again, that is by no means confined to council estates or modern properties. Much of my constituency was built before 1914 and much of it comprises terraced houses. In fact, the overwhelming majority of my constituency was built as terraced houses. Many of those houses have partition walls that are as thin as anything that one would find in the most jerry-built of the 1960s council estates. Noise travels just as easily through them. Some of the noise problems arise not from wild parties but from a neighbour, who is absolutely deaf, having the television set turned up too loud in the front room.
Column 1261
Mr. Alan Williams : The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Is not it an example of the problems that face councils and those who seek to deal with such difficulties? Even when regulations have been changed to ensure greater sound insulation, often the regulations were devised in the days of what we call the radio. Now youngsters have amplifiers and so on. Technology invalidates attempts to engineer out the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.Mr. Carrington : The right hon. Gentleman is correct. Attitudes to noise change and technology has changed, which enables music to be played louder than when he or I were young. I listened to the wireless with a cat's whisker, trying to get some noise in my headphones. I well remember as a child lying under the bed clothes trying to pick up Radio Luxembourg on my crystal set. Children now have ghetto blasters, to use American parlance, and can make as much noise as they like. That is a serious problem.
On the underground, one often has to sit next to a fellow--not necessarily young, but perhaps somebody who should know better and should be more experienced--who is listening to a personal stereo. One hears not the music but the thud, thud of the base. Noise is intrusive and is a problem, but the extent of the problem differs according to the person who is listening and the time of day.
Mr. Summerson : Does my hon. Friend agree that an equal menace is the young man who gets on the underground with a guitar, sings two or three songs extremely badly and then passes a hat round?
Mr. Carrington : My hon. Friend is right. I have mixed views about buskers. Hon. Members walk down the squalid and sordid underpass that leads from this place to the outbuildings at Norman Shaw. Some of the buskers in that underpass are wonderful people who play instruments so well that they should be in a concert hall, whereas others hurry one on one's way in order to get away from them. Noise is an irritation if it is unpleasant to the person who is listening, but it is cheering and pleasant if it is played in the right circumstances and at the right volume and if one is in the mood to listen to it. I wanted to presage my comments with those thoughts because we cannot regard noise as being absolute ; it affects different people differently. In some circumstances, noise is totally inappropriate. All-night parties are not a novel feature of urban life. When I was a student in London in the mid-1960s, many more years ago than I care to remember, I was not averse to all-night parties. I am sure that the neighbours were no happier about the noise that we made, admittedly on more primitive equipment, than neighbours these days. Such parties are unacceptable and steps must be taken to eliminate them.
The problem is worse in areas of mixed communities. If a community consists of people who have similar lifestyles, are from similar age groups, have similar work patterns and have children, problems can be reduced. One of the problems is that councils tend to mix the young with the old and people with or without children on council estates. They are not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of different members of society.
In advocating such a solution, we can be accused of racism. I represent an inner-London constituency which benefits from having a mixed community. The stereotype
Column 1262
of all-night parties, ghetto blasters and anti-social behaviour is that it is a black-white problem. That is not true. Many people from all races and ethnic backgrounds suffer from such parties. The problem is not confined to any racial ethnic sector of the community. When my constituents complain about an all-night party, it is perceived as a complaint on racial grounds rather than on noise grounds, and frequently it is not. The initial reaction of the people to whom a complaint is made is that it is a racist complaint, but often that is confounded by the fact that the people on both sides of the dispute are of the same race. These things are never as simple as they seem.Policies must ensure that people of similar lifestyles are housed together. There is a problem in Fulham, where many houses have been converted into flats. I see the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) nodding ; I am sure that he experiences the same problem in his constituency. If a family with children live in the upstairs flat and an elderly couple live in the downstairs flat, there will be many problems and difficulties that, given the description of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, might be more common in Nottingham.
The problem will not be solved by fining one party to a dispute. The housing allocation officer must consider possible conflicts when allocating housing and, where possible, the policy should be to house elderly people together. That would minimise the problem. It will not be possible to achieve that every time, but the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham does not appear to operate such a policy, mainly because of a misguided fear of being accused of being racist rather than because it does not understand the problem.
Much can be done to minimise the problem of noise, but if a neighbour is completely unamenable to reason and outrageous in his behaviour, there comes a point when something more must be done. There are always extreme cases where noise is persistent and they occur when the environmental health officer is not at his or her desk. All too frequently in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham when my constituents telephone the environmental health officer they get only the answering machine, and when the officer contacts them the following day the party is finished and there is no evidence. Therefore, nothing can be done until a party is next held, when exactly the same happens. The problem may be solved by employing more staff, but it is more likely to be solved by changing the priorities of the environmental health department.
If someone has a neighbour who is extremely noisy and obtains evidence to give grounds for eviction, that will sometimes result in an eviction and the people will be thrown on to the street. The council may not have a statutory obligation, or even a moral obligation, to rehouse those people. However, more often than not, that is not so. Instead the people causing the noise are vulnerable and the council has a statutory obligation to rehouse them either because they are mentally or physically disabled or, which is more likely, because children are involved.
The children might be the principal cause of the noise. Many cases have been brought to me where the noise is not caused by the parents in a flat, but by their children, who may be 10, 11 or 12 years old and listen to what we used to call record players. I suppose that nobody calls them that now. The children listen to loud music on what are now called sound systems, probably when their parents are
| Next Section
| Home Page |