| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.18 am
Mr. Warren Hawksley (Halesowen and Stourbridge): In following the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), may I say that I agree not only with the concerns that he expressed, but with some of his concerns that the Bill perhaps does not go far enough and may result in some problems. I apologise to the House, as a constituency engagement this evening means that I may have to leave before the debate finishes. I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that that may be the case.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having chosen for a private Member's Bill such an important issue, and one that seems to have cross-party support.
The problems that are reported to us as Members of Parliament by our constituents are massive. One point that has not yet been made is that the problem of noise becomes worse during the summer months, as it did over the hot summer of last year, and over such periods, we receive even more complaints. That summer, I received regular surgery complaints about not only noise, but general public order.
The windows of houses are left open more frequently at that time of year, and more drink is consumed--perhaps as a result, people make louder noise. There are considerable problems, and the present system is found to be wanting. Like the hon. Member for Tooting, I have slight reservations about the implementation of the proposal, whether it goes far enough and whether, once it is on the statute book--as we hope it will be--it will be effective. We shall have to debate that issue later--perhaps we shall have to deal with it in Committee.
I shall put the matter in perspective in local constituency terms. The Dudley metropolitan borough area covers Halesowen and Stourbridge constituency,and I am told by my officers that, during the past year,27 blues parties have led to complaints and problems and, overall, there have been 900 complaints. Of those complaints 200 were what my officers called hard-core complaints, for which there were serious grounds for follow-up action. As we all know, some people who are elderly and particularly nervous may make complaints that, on investigation, one would accept as perhaps not entirely justified.
On a national scale, the figures for complaints are probably even more alarming, particularly as they show the terrific increase of the past 20 or more years. In 1967, only 976 complaints were made to local authorities about noise. According to the figures published by the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the figure had soared by 1992 to 111,515. In between those dates,
there was a steady increase, with a figure of 25,000 in 1979 and 33,014 in 1982. I do not think that it is just that people are complaining more willingly; it also has a lot to do with the fact that people have less respect for their neighbours.
Mr. John Carlisle:
My hon. Friend may like to comment on the remarks of our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who said that, in the past few years noise had increased, partly due to the equipment now used. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) mentioned the year 1967--when most hon. Members other than myself were not even born. Since that time, the range of equipment and the types of music played, particularly the sort that used to be known as heavy metal music, has increased. Although the numbers of people complaining about noise has increased, the noise itself has become intolerable to many people. My hon. Friend may not remember 1967, but several of us do, and it was relatively peaceful.
Mr. Hawksley:
I remember 1967, as I am slightly older than my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North(Mr. Carlisle). I agree entirely with his point. We were given the example of what happened in Norfolk--I was in rural Shropshire in those days, when one was more likely to hear cows than music from gramophones, as they were then called.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North):
Is not 1967 around the period when I seem to recall that a great group called the Beatles was giving a concert on the roof of a building in London and was removed for causing so much noise? It is somewhat untoward to impose on the House a view of generational superiority; all generations have experienced the problem. Perhaps what has changed is the nature of society--there is a bit too much of the "me generation" among our generation, with too much selfishness and not enough responsibility, which is what we need.
Mr. Hawksley:
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but I fear that we are straying out of order, so I shall not follow up in too much detail his point about the Beatles. I seem to remember that problems were caused not just by the noise of the group, but by the crowds that it attracted--many hundreds of thousands turned up.
Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Beatles made an extremely good noise and everyone enjoyed listening to the group? Perhaps the crowds of people enjoying the noise created the other noise that caused the problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just music that aggravates neighbours, but often marital problems, where husbands and wives scream at each other night after night or somebody uses an electric drill or somebody hoovers his or her flat in the early hours of the morning? We should widen the scope of debate of the noise problem, not confine it simply to music.
Mr. Hawksley:
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.I was about to widen the scope of the debate and consider some of the many surveys on noise problems conducted
The building research establishment undertook a survey of 14,000 adults in 1986-87 in England and Wales. Neighbourhood noises that disturbed people were shown in percentage terms and amplified noise came top of the list, at 34 per cent. Noise from dogs generated 33 per cent. of the noise nuisance; domestic activities--I suspect that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) was referring to when he talked about domestic disputes--created 9 per cent. of noise disturbance; voices created 6 per cent.; do-it-yourself activities generated 5 per cent.; car repairs generated 3 per cent.; and a variety of other noises generated 10 per cent. That survey shows that there are a variety of causes of noise even within the home.
Apart from the damage to people's health caused by acute stress and sleep deprivation, regrettably, noise pollution from neighbours often leads to violence.
Mr. John Carlisle:
Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of domestic noise, perhaps he will take note of a recent case in my constituency. A lady with a coal fire was warned by environmental health officers that she should not riddle the fire to keep it going in the extremely cold weather that we have had recently, and a notice has been served on her to that effect. When considering domestic noise, we should be careful--that poor lady could have to stay cold and, if she were old, she might lose her life as a result.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
What was she riddling it with--a telegraph pole?
Mr. Carlisle:
The hon. Gentleman should understand what riddling is. The lady was riddling with an instrument used for riddling fires which, in global terms, is called a riddler. She was riddling her fire and had a notice served on her by her local authority. While riddling her fire, she was upsetting the people next door, who were probably riddling with something else in their bedroom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge(Mr. Hawksley) should take note of that case--an important one, which hit the national headlines. I am a little fearful of a Bill that may restrict the activities of the lady who riddles her fire and of other riddlers throughout the country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. I hesitate to intervene, because I am enjoying this, but that was a long intervention.
Mr. Carlisle:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a matter of national importance that hit the papers and is directly affected by the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
It was still a long intervention.
Mr. Hawksley:
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is always diligent in looking after his constituents' interests. I am sure that he checked at what time the riddling took place. If it were at 4 am, there might have been legitimate grounds for complaint. If the noise was more than 35 decibels, one can understand why action was felt to be necessary.
More than 20 people have died as a result of noise disputes with neighbours since 1992. I pick out two cases from some newspaper cuttings that I have received. Until I looked into the matter on a constituency basis, I had never thought of noise leading to such serious repercussions.
The first case dates from 19 December 1995.A newspaper reported:
"A roofer killed a neighbour with a crowbar in a row over a barking puppy, Winchester Crown Court was told yesterday. Nicholas Farnell, aged 32, lost his temper in an argument with Willy Pottage, aged 56, and his wife, after they went out leaving their puppy in their garden in Waterlooville, Hampshire."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |