House of Commons
Friday 16 February 1996
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Noise Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
9.35 am
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
First, I must explain that immediately after speaking I shall seek the good will of the House and yourself, Madam Speaker, as I need to leave for my constituency for the funeral of my friend and constituent Philip Lawrence at 10.30 am in Ealing abbey, for whose family the Abbot of Ealing and I have collected a fund of £112,000. In my absence, my hon. Friends and sponsors of the Bill, the hon. Members for Erith and Crayford(Mr. Evennett) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall),will keep a watching brief. Upon my return, I will pick up from them the points that have been made. Further points can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that that is acceptable to the House.
It is a great honour to present this Bill. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that he would be agreeable to the Bill's provisions being extended to Northern Ireland. I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased about that.
This is a Bill
It is my intention that the Bill will curb and, I hope, eradicate the intolerable problem of neighbourhood noise. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble(Mr. Atkins) said in a ministerial reply in March last year:
I express my most sincere thanks to two newspapers that have aided me in my campaign against neighbourhood noise--the Evening Standard, for allowing me to use the newspaper to communicate with people to ascertain upon which issues they felt strongly; and, secondly, The Mail on Sunday for its long campaign against noise nuisance. That newspaper stated on18 September 1994 that neighbourhood noise is
Hon. Members are aware of the problems caused by noise nuisance and no doubt such matters have been brought to their attention over many years.
I refer to a case in my constituency to highlight the plight suffered by quite innocent people. Clare road in Greenford is a residential road that would not be out of
place in any typical suburban constituency. It is characterised by a peaceful and diverse community. Last July, a substantial deputation of people from that road came to my surgery to voice their complaints about intolerable noise from one house, in a row of hundreds, and the fact that the local council was failing to assist them to deal with the problem.
The residents' right to a peaceful existence had been cruelly shattered by the selfishness of one household.In the problem house, music was blasting out until the early hours, noisy parties were commonplace most evenings, and the sheer volume of people using the house caused a mighty and intolerable racket for the good residents of Clare road. Following a concerted effort by those residents and myself, the noisy tenants were finally removed last week--some seven months on. For more than six months, the residents of Clare road were subjected to an intolerable tyranny of sleepless nights and anxious days. They dreaded going home after work--think of it. My Bill will solve that problem. Had the council been empowered with the ability to impose on-the-spot fines, or the even stronger powers that my Bill will confer, I am certain that there would have been a swifter end to the whole affair.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South):
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in extending the Bill to Northern Ireland. Does he accept that authorities which have said that the Bill is a knee-jerk reaction have not been living in the real world and dealing with their constituents?
Mr. Greenway:
The hon. Gentleman, who is sponsoring my Bill, is absolutely right.
The Noise Bill creates a new offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to deal with excessive noise from domestic dwellings at night. The Bill introduces for the first time an objective level against which noise can be assessed. It also clarifies powers to confiscate equipment causing severe noise, under either the Bill or the statutory nuisance regime in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Enforcing the statutory nuisance regime can be time-consuming and can lead to the dissatisfaction of the local authority and complainants. Concerns about the effectiveness of the existing controls and the rising number of complaints, especially about noise from domestic premises, led me to realise that there was a need for additional legislation. That was also very much the conclusion of the Department of the Environment's review of the effectiveness of neighbour noise controls.
The Bill aims to make it easier for noise complaints made during night hours to be resolved quickly and effectively, but recognises that not all local authorities have the same problems and so might not be able to justify providing a night-noise complaint service for so few cases. Clause 1 therefore allows, but does not require, the local authority to adopt the new offence. I hope that most authorities will adopt it, and I believe that the London borough of Ealing plans to do so.
Where district and unitary authorities have adopted the provisions, clause 2 puts a duty on them to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of excessive noise from a dwelling house between 11 pm and 7 am. That is an duty additional to the requirements placed on all district and unitary authorities to investigate
complaints made under statutory nuisance legislation. If a local authority officer considers the noise excessive and that it exceeds or might exceed the permitted level, he may serve a warning notice. The officer should decide whether the noise may exceed the level and whether to measure it. The permitted noise level is covered in other clauses.
Clause 3 provides for the service of a warning notice. Where possible, the notice must be served on the person responsible for the noise. However, where the person cannot be found, the notice can be served by leaving it at the dwelling where the noise is being emitted. The notice will warn that any person responsible for noise emitted from the dwelling, including its garden, may be guilty of an offence, which can come into effect not less than10 minutes after the serving of the notice and is valid until7 am the following morning.
Clause 4 sets out the new night noise offence. Where a warning notice has been served and the noise exceeds the permitted level in the period of the notice, the person responsible for the noise is guilty of an offence. A person found guilty of an offence can be fined up to level 3 on the standard scale, which is currently £1,000.
Clauses 5 to 7 provide the technical basis for the objective standard and its measurement. Clause 5 enables the Secretary of State for the Environment to give directions to determine the permitted noise level. I am clear that the level should be based on the World Health Organisation guidelines, which in 1980 stated:
An objective test is necessary because it enables the offence to be proved more easily and quickly than the statutory nuisance offence. The raising of the standard also represents a reasonable objective standard that would confirm a serious neighbour noise problem and be likely to cause sleep disturbance.
Clause 6 ensures that the equipment must be approved by the Secretary of State, which is very important. Clause 7 requires verification that the noise has been measured in accordance with any specified conditions and with an approved machine. Clauses 8 and 9 allow a local authority to operate a fixed penalty notice for an offence committed under clause 4. The fixed penalty sum is set initially at £40.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
Hear, hear.
Mr. Greenway:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support.
The sum may be varied by order of the Secretary of State. Anyone who receives a fixed penalty notice has 14 days in which to pay, otherwise he or she will face prosecution. The fixed penalty will be especially helpful to local authorities since they will not have to take every offender to court. It is not, however, appropriate for gross or persistent cases, where prosecution is more suitable.
Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North):
Does my hon. Friend agree that a £40 penalty is derisory and must be increased considerably when--we hope--the Bill becomes law?
Mr. Greenway:
Although I accept that, £40 is a reasonable starting level and we should see how it goes. I am looking for a much tougher fine of--perhaps--about £100.
Clause 10 and the schedule give local authorities the power to seize noise equipment used in the emission of noise that leads to an offence. If entry to the premises is refused, the local authority may apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant. The schedule provides for the retention of noise-making equipment and allows the court to order forfeiture of equipment. The clause also clarifies the basis of confiscation and forfeiture of noise-making equipment by local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland where that equipment has been used in the commission of a noise offence that is a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act. I am sure that the Bill will be very welcome for that alone.
The remainder of the Bill is mainly technical. Clause 11 provides definition and enables regulations to be made. Clause 12 provides protection from personal liability for local authority members, officers and persons authorised to take action under the Bill. Clause 13 relates to financial matters, and clause 14, the short title, deals with commencement and the extent of its jurisdiction.
At present, local authorities handle complaints about excessive noise by using the statutory nuisance controls of part III of the 1990 Act. Domestic premises are the largest source of complaints about noise, accounting for two thirds of all complaints in 1992-93. It is important to note that, between 1983-84 and 1992-93, complaints about noise from domestic premises more than trebled; the problem is worsening every day.
Having stated that the Bill is primarily concerned with domestic noise, it is necessary to distinguish further what type of noise I hope the Bill will address. Although, potentially, all types of neighbour noise at night could be investigated, the major source of complaints is noise made by amplified music and--perhaps--parties. The Bill is necessary because the existing statutory nuisance regime is regarded by many noise sufferers as too lengthy and uncertain a remedy, which is undoubtedly the case.
The number of complaints about noise, especially domestic noise, and public concerns expressed through organisations such as the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, the media and public correspondence is growing. In 1993-94, there were 131,153 complaints about noise from domestic premises.
It is vital to balance people's rights to carry out activities in their own homes with the ability to protect those who are affected by the noisy and sometimes inconsiderate action of their neighbours. It is also necessary to underline that the Bill is not intended to be a killjoy. Obviously, tastes vary, and one man's music is another man's noise.
Hon. Members might be asking themselves why the Bill applies solely to noise emitted from private dwellings and not noise from pubs, audible bird scarers, church bells, and so on. The simple answer is that statutory nuisance legislation will still deal with noise from all those sources. The additional offence is intended to provide a more immediate response to the problems of domestic noise.
All hon. Members will recognise that music systems are much louder and cheaper than they were 10 years ago, and therefore more pervasive. I remind the House that the type of music that is now most popular is very different from the music of 10 years ago. I am talking about dance music, which is characterised by a heavy, loud, repetitive bass drum beat. Not only is this music almost invariably
played at an excessively loud volume, but the beat has a strong reverberation which passes easily through neighbouring walls in houses and neighbouring ceilings in flats. Is this music a passing trend that will not be with us in a year's time? No. The music is played widely in clubs around the world and, as a genre, is now indisputably the nation's favourite. It is so popular that different branches of the music have been developed, including jungle, handbag, hard core and techno. [Laughter.] One has to have some knowledge of these things. This music and a sophisticated hi-fi operated by a selfish soul are a devastating combination.
It was that combination that led a Mr. Purbrick, as reported in The Mail on Sunday, to knock on his neighbour's door to complain about the volume of the music being emitted from that dwelling. Mr. Purbrick was greeted by a hail of punches and kicks, eventually being thrown down a full flight of stairs. He died 12 hours later from massive internal injuries. Mr. Purbrick's brother said:
It is as serious as that.
The powers incorporated in my Bill are purely adoptive ones--that is, local authorities are not compelled to adopt the recommendations of the Bill. However, I very much hope and believe that my Bill will be widely adopted if it becomes law.
Hon. Members may be wondering why the benchmark has been set at 35 dB. Thirty-five decibels is typical of night-time noise levels in bedrooms with single glazed windows fronting busy suburban roads. In addition, information derived from the national noise incident survey carried out by the building research establishment in 1990 suggests that 90 per cent. of the population of England and Wales is expected to experience noise levels of less than 35 dB inside rooms on the front aspect of their dwelling at night. That, combined with the advice supplied by the World Health Organisation, shows that an objective standard of 35 dB is a fair and just benchmark.
The message of the Bill is clear; noisy neighbours will be prosecuted. I want the Bill to help to eradicate the problem of noisy neighbours, but I do not want there to be any unjust prosecutions. Let us consider a case in which the problem is in the construction of the dwelling. There will be a defence by which people can show a reasonable excuse to explain why they were unable to reduce the noise below the specified level. People will have to give a proper explanation, but that could help them.
We must also consider whether the new offence will create a benchmark for all noise cases and so make it difficult to prosecute statutory nuisance cases where the noise is lower, but is still causing a nuisance. To that point, the simple answer is that the criterion for the new offence is quite different from the existing statutory nuisance provisions.
It is not my intention that the general public should have to know when the noise levels have been exceeded. It is for an environmental health officer to assess the noise against the suggested standard for 10 minutes after being summoned by a noise sufferer and, if necessary, to request the noise maker to stop. The general public need to be aware of the noise that they are making and its effect on others and, where necessary, to turn it down.
What happens if the standard does not work? To answer that, I stress that there has been some research by the building research establishment that suggests that one can devise an objective test to substantiate judgments of nuisance from amplified music. Some trials have been carried out on the proposed standard, and further work is planned. Different procedures may be needed for the assessment of noises that have significantly different characteristics from those of music, such as the noise that may result from some do-it-yourself activities. That is an important point, bearing in mind that the Bill will apply not only to dwelling houses, but to the gardens of dwelling houses. The Bill is the first step in establishing a standard; the Secretary of State will have the power to vary the standards set.
A further case brought to my attention by The Mail on Sunday is that of Mrs. Edwards. She would roam in a park near her home to escape the sound of a stereo blasting from the flat above her until 5 am every night. After sitting out in the cold and rain for several nights, she died from a combination of pneumonia and despair. Jeffrey, her husband of 22 years, said:
"To make provision about noise emitted from dwellings at night; about the forfeiture and confiscation of equipment used to make noise unlawfully; and for connected purposes."
"Inconsiderate noisy neighbours can cause extreme distress and suffering to many."--[Official Report, 27 March 1995; Vol. 257, c.469.]
"an intolerable tyranny imposed on many by a thoughtless few. And--unchecked it can lead to violence, even murder."
"a level of less than 35 dB is recommended to preserve the restorative process of sleep".
"I believe that if there had been a quicker response to my brother's complaints about the constant noise he had to put up with, he'd still be alive today. John paid the penalty for making a basic human request for some peace and quiet--with his life."
"We would walk for hours in all weathers to get away from that noise. It broke her heart not to be able to live in her own home."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |