---

Mr. John Carlisle: In his research into the Scottish situation, has my hon Friend come across the awful problem of noise from bagpipes, which must be one of the most horrendous instruments ever invented--I say that in the knowledge that certain hon. Members have a Scottish connection? Is that covered in those statutory arrangements?

Mr. Hawksley: I suspect that few magistrates in Scotland, or Crown court officers--

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): Does my hon. Friend accept that anyone who has had the privilege of living in Scotland and listening to the bagpipes would not regard them as making anything other than a beautiful sound?

Mr. Hawksley: Before I get brought back to order fairly quickly by the Chair, I must say that, not having lived in Scotland, I would not know whether the sound that bagpipes make is beautiful or not. I think, however, that one would have problems getting the judiciary there to take too seriously any complaints about the reasonable playing of the bagpipes. I should think that Scotsmen would show common sense on the matter.

Mr. Couchman: I hate to add to talk about the pipes, but I have the doubtful pleasure of expecting to be woken on Sunday at about 7 o'clock by bagpipes, played not by Scottish highlanders, but by Nepalese highlanders, for I have Gurkhas situated close by and they are definitely not as proficient on the bagpipes as Scotsmen. It is an unpleasant prospect on a Sunday morning.

I intervened because I wondered whether my hon. Friend wanted to say something about the incredible intrusion into one's life of badly set and faulty burglar alarms.

Mr. Hawksley: I gather that there is separate legislation that is supposed to cover that. I agree that,

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1259

in practice, it is not adequate, given the noises one hears not just from cars--I admit my car seems to make noises when it feels lonely, or something like that, as I can never understand why the alarm is set off--but from households. On many occasions, it is a false alarm, and that creates a lot of ill will.

I must move on to a few concerns about the legislation. We have already heard about the £40 fine and whether it is adequate. I do not think that it is. If it is going to be an effective deterrent, it must be more than £40. If three or four people are at a private party, which they are not paying for, they will all give 10 quid and be quite happy. That fine is not high enough and I hope the Committee will consider raising it to £100 or something in that region, as suggested.

I hope that the replies to the debate will deal with clause 10 and the power it gives for equipment to be seized. My local authority assures me that it has never had any problems on that. It still seizes equipment if necessary, and has never been challenged successfully in the courts. It was surprised that the introduction of that power was felt necessary.

My concern is the position under the schedule. The Library research paper states that the schedule provides:

"Where a person from whom equipment has been seized is convicted of a noise offence and the court is satisfied that the equipment was used in commission of the offence, the court may make a forfeiture order for that equipment. This may be done independently of any other penalty decided on by the court and without regard to restrictions on forfeiture in any other enactment, but the court must have regard to the value of the equipment and to the likely financial and other effects on the offender."

So far, so good. That I understand.

I am slightly worried, however, that the paper continues:

"Where equipment has been forfeited but an applicant can show that he had not consented to the offender having possession of the equipment and that he did not know or suspect that it would be used in the commission of a noise offence, the applicant may take proceedings for the recovery of the equipment. This must be done within six months of the equipment being forfeited."

The police will obviously have to store that equipment, should it be forfeited, for a considerable time. It goes on:

"Where no such application has been made, regulations may provide for the disposal of equipment and for the application of any such proceeds."

I am slightly worried that that could be a loophole. People could well lend friends their equipment and then say after it had been used, "No, I didn't know that he was going to use it for that." I can foresee that those people may get the equipment back. If that happens and it becomes common knowledge when people who are determined to make a noise are involved, we will find that they go on using their friends's equipment because they will know that, under clause 10, the equipment must be returned. I am slightly worried, not being a lawyer, whether that is the correct reading of the situation.

Mr. Robert Banks: What would happen if the equipment were leased or on hire-purchase?

Mr. Hawksley: As I have said, I am not a lawyer. It is a matter that concerns me, and it should perhaps be examined in Committee. In practice, I hope that the ideas behind this clause will be effective, and that, if someone uses equipment and makes an excessive noise, the courts

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1260

can take the equipment from them. However, I think that that clause might create an opening for people to get away from the Bill's intention. The question of leasing should be examined.

I conclude with the question whether the definition of "within the household" is the correct one, because I am worried about dogs in kennels. If one considers that there are almost as many complaints about dogs as about music, and that one of the murder cases that I cited involved a dog that was left outside in a garden barking all day and all night, one must ask whether that problem would be covered. I think that that is a problem that we should want to deal with to protect people against that type of noise--whether it comes from inside the house, from a kennel or from the garden--and that we should not want to differentiate between the origin of it. I believe that our intention in all those cases is for the dog to stop barking and to be kept quiet.

If I criticised the Bill in any way, it is not because I disagree with its purpose. I whole-heartedly support the Bill and think that it is very necessary. I question, to varying degrees, whether it goes far enough and does what we want it to do. I hope that it will be speedily accepted today in the House, that it will have a speedy passage through Committee and that it will soon become the law to protect all our constituents against the terrible noise nuisances from which they are currently suffering.

10.52 am

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): I can do no better than to start by continuing where the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) finished. I share his view and hope that the Bill obtains a Second Reading. Like the hon. Gentleman, I know that the Bill will be much appreciated. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who has had to leave the Chamber, for choosing this subject after he had the good fortune to win a high place in the top 20 in the ballot. This is an appropriate topic for a Bill.

I am sure that all hon. Members would like to join the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and the hon. Member for Ealing, North in the respect and condolences that they have expressed for the family of Philip Lawrence, whose funeral is today. As one who went to the memorial service in Westminster cathedral, I can tell the House of the family's great bravery. For the daughters and wife ofMr. Lawrence, that service was a wonderful tribute to their dad and husband. We wish them every blessing and support in the days and weeks ahead.

I am pleased to be a sponsor of this Bill. The only interest that I have to declare is that I am the hon. Member who represents the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, which has just a bit of an interest in this issue. However, I should add that it is always a bit cautious about such legislation. I do not want to misrepresent the situation and say that all these proposals have its full support.

In common with many colleagues, particularly those from the London constituencies with whom I have discussed the matter, I am a great supporter of the campaign that has led to this Bill's Second Reading. The National Society for Clean Air and the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign--which now feels that it can wind down because it has made its mark--and its leader, Val Gibson, have been great campaigners.

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1261

I also pay tribute to the press, because it has been very good on this issue. We all have local papers that have done a good job. My neighbours, the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Lewisham, Deptford(Ms Ruddock), are in the Chamber today. The South London Press has been a very good campaigning paper, as has my borough's local newspaper, the Southwark News. The national press, especially The Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Independent--newspapers across the spectrum--have also been very good. There has been much intelligent and informed support, for which we are grateful.

The only wry moment of amusement that I have so far had in this debate occurred when I was listening to Conservative Members hold forth on the music of our age. The hon. Member for Ealing, North stretched the imagination a bit as he spoke about techno music. I was amused by the general recollections of the Beatles by some hon. Members who, I should have thought, have outgrown that era. We must be very careful not to appear to be talking about things that we know relatively little about.

---