---

9.55 am

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting): I touch first on the reason why the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has to leave the debate. I am sure that all hon. Members would like him to take our deep condolences to the family of Philip Lawrence. He was a courageous teacher and gentleman who was brutally murdered. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that all of us feel as deeply as he does about his constituent.

I fully support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North on presenting it. Whatever part of the country we represent, we all know that noise has become a real and more complex problem. Clause 1 deals with night noise, and clause 2 refers to the night hours--11 pm to 7 am. During that period, excessive noise from music or from parties causes utter hell not only for people who live adjacent to the noise, but for people in a wide area. Noise travels, so many people, sadly, suffer from the problem.

We now hear a great deal about road rage. I believe that, although that problem is serious, noise rage is a far greater problem, which is suffered by many more people; we know that the problem exists. Road rage can be seen to take place. Noise rage cannot be seen, but people suffer from it and the consequences are often worse in terms of

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1249

the length of suffering. Whichever part of the country we represent, we all have constituents who come to our surgeries in utter despair about their problems.

All of us have spoken to constituents who say, "I am in utter despair. I have been to the police, but they are not interested." That is one of the sad problems. The general public feel that the police can do something about noise, and I am sure that the police often try, but--

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that among the most intransigent problems that we encounter during our weekly or fortnightly surgeries and advice bureaux are neighbour problems, which often stem from noise nuisance?

Mr. Cox: Without a doubt. The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. As he says, we often feel that, if only the problem could have been resolved quickly and politely, both sides would have benefited. But, sadly, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North said when he explained why he was presenting the Bill, that does not happen.

We have all heard people in our advice surgeries say, "I saw the police and I thought that they would help."We ask, "Did you call them?" The complainant replies, "Oh, yes, they came--and the person creating the noise said apologetically, 'I'm sorry, officer, I didn't realise that we were playing the music so loudly and disturbing people. Of course we'll turn it down'." And they do--for a few moments. Then off go the police and, because of their many other duties, they do not have the resources or the time to go back. But they feel, "At least we have been." That is where the Bill will be so useful.

Like the promoter, and like many hon. Members, irrespective of which side of the Chamber they sit, I want the Bill to become law, and I hope that it will be made absolutely clear that local authorities, with their new powers, will be able to do something about stopping that continuing problem.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North touched on another aspect of the problem that many other hon. Members, including myself, have come across in their constituencies--as was confirmed by the intervention by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). One goes politely to the person creating the noise and asks, "Could you kindly turn it down now?" What is the response? Abuse and threats, and one walks away. At that point the complainant realises that, because the people making the noise are so aggressive, he has lost, and he thinks, "Well, okay, what can I do about it now?"

The people who make the noise will live in the same area, and they will get to see the people who have complained, and may find out their names and where they live. Constituents of mine have had their windows broken and their flowers ripped up in their gardens. They cannot prove anything, but they know that, shortly after their polite request to "turn the music down please"--not off, just down--they suffer not only the abuse with which they were initially met but damage to their property. They may not be able to prove anything, but they know that it happened, and often who did the damage.

One accepts that legislation already exists, but, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North explained, much of it is not working, and does not do the kind of job that our constituents expect. That is why they look to us for added support, and that is why I warmly support the Bill.

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1250

The Library produces many excellent reports on many issues, and in November 1995 it produced one called "Noise nuisance and anti-social neighbours". The introduction says, on page 5:

"For three decades complaints about noise have been steadily rising, and in 1993/94, complaints about noise from domestic premises rose for the seventh consecutive year, to a total of 131,153 complaints".

It then mentions a problem that I have already raised, the confusion of the general public about the responsibilities of the police. I shall not comment further on that.

The research paper continues:

"Some widely publicised cases have highlighted the misery that can be caused by a noisy neighbour. Often noisy actions are accompanied by other forms of inconsiderate or intimidatory behaviour, which in some cases have driven individuals to violent retaliatory action, even murder and suicide; one newspaper report has listed 17 deaths which have allegedly resulted from noise disputes".

That confirms what the hon. Member for Gillingham said in his intervention.

Clause 2 defines night hours as those between 11 pm and 7 am. I understand that times must be specified, and that many people may say that noise before 11 o'clock at night is not too bad, but I question that. If people are trying to get their youngsters off to sleep, loud noise is absolute hell. We also know that many people are shift workers and work varying hours. So to ask for restrictions from 10 pm to 7 am is not unrealistic.

I do not suggest that music should not be played at all. The Bill would simply restrict its volume during the night hours. If I happen to serve on the Standing Committee, I shall seek to amend the time, because the period between 10 pm and 7 am is not an unrealistic goal.

Clause 4 specifies a maximum fine, which I fully support, but I agreed with what the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said about a £40 fine. In this day and age, that is ludicrously low.

When we consider the financial effects of the Bill,I start to get worried. We know that with major legislation--in my view, the Bill will fall into that category--the key issue that determines whether it will succeed not only in the House but in being properly implemented in the country, is its cost.

I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Ealing, North said about seizures and the disposal of equipment. Nevertheless, many hon. Members here who have been in the House a while and have served on Committees will know what happens when a Bill gets into Committee. The Government--I do not single out the present Government; all Governments do it--say, "Yes, it is a wonderful Bill and basically we support it, but there are the costs, and we do not know whether we should get too involved with it." I hope that such an attitude will not delay the Bill's real effects.

I have found another problem in my constituency, and I am sure that, wherever our constituencies are, we can all tell similar stories. Properties in my constituency--generally lived in by young people--have been sublet, and I have been told that some of the youngsters play music hour after hour at the highest possible volume.A neighbour may have been to see them, but, frankly, they do not want to know. But if the neighbour knows either the owner of the property or the person who is officially renting it, he may try to take it up with them.

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1251

I have been involved in five such cases in three months, and have written polite letters either to the landlord or to the person who has sublet the property. Some, to their credit, do reply, but they are neither interested nor sympathetic. Their attitude is, "Look, it may be a problem, but I do not live there and I do not suffer from it.My relationship with the tenant is very good, and I am not going to get in the tenant's bad books. I am sorry, but I am not interested in doing anything." One can politely ask a person to turn his music down and be greeted by abuse. In those cases, one has lost. Sadly, in cases where landlords fail to act, one has lost again. We must look at that issue in detail in Committee.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North referred to the role of local authorities. The House of Commons research paper on the subject, which produced a great deal of valuable information, says:

"Local authorities in England and Wales do indeed vary in the way in which they implement the statutory nuisance legislation that exists; the powers are there for all of them, but of course, local authority policies depend on resources and the importance they attach to noise complaints. Some authorities give noise a high priority and have 24 hour noise lines and officers on hand at all times to deal with noise nuisances."

That relates to a comment that I made earlier about the varying attitudes of local authorities.

Some agree that there is a problem and state that they are tackling it. We welcome that. But there are others who say--the hon. Gentleman referred to this--that noise is a part of modern living: while it may be a bit unpleasant, we have to put up with it, as we cannot have everything in life. We are not asking for everything in life, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are asking for a reasonable period during which people will be able to live in their homes without disturbance. If the Bill is passed and becomes law, I hope that local authorities are made clearly aware of the wishes of the House.

The research paper goes on to comment:

"In 1993/4--

I understand that that was the most up-to-date figure available when the report was prepared in November 1995--

"180 out of 300 local authorities who submitted returns to the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health . . . ran out-of-hours noise teams."

Of the 180 authorities that replied, 86 ran a 24-hours-a-day service, seven days a week; 19 ran a weekend service--that is, Thursday to Sunday; 74 ran other unspecified services; and one authority had no response.

The other crucial point is the speed of an authority's response. Of the 382 authorities surveyed on this issue, nine had an immediate response and 51 responded within 24 hours. But the response of 206 authorities varied from two to seven days. Someone suffering the absolute hell of excessively loud music will expect a speedier response from their local authority than that. Indeed, nine authorities took more than seven days to get round to the problem. I wonder how concerned some authorities are about this matter.

The problem affects not just inner-city constituencies such as mine, but rural areas. I have a sister who lives in a small town in Norfolk, and that town suffers from the same problems as my south London constituency. This is a nationwide problem, and I give credit to the hon. Gentleman for getting the Government to agree to include Northern Ireland in the proposals of the Bill.

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1252

I am sure that this will be one of those days when the House shows its concern on a matter and when hon. Members--irrespective of what side of the Chamber they sit on--will try to help all constituents with an on-going problem. Some of us know that the problem exists; it does not matter if one is the local Member of Parliament or not--if people want to play loud music, they will do so.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North on promoting the Bill, and I certainly support it. I hope that Opposition Front-Bench Members will also give the Bill their full support, because I genuinely believe that the Bill will help to overcome the problems to which the hon. Gentleman and I have referred.

---