| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hughes: Yes. Some of us may know a little more about musical things, from various experiences, than others.
We have moved relatively quickly, for this place, in bringing the Bill to this stage. We legislated in 1990, with the Environmental Protection Act 1990; we legislated again in 1993, in relation to such matters as car noise; the working party was set up, after a bit of pressure, in 1994; it reported in 1995; and we have a Bill in 1996. Although that might appear slow to the public, for this place we have moved very quickly.
As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said to me a moment ago, this Bill will receive a great welcome. I agree with her comment that, for people on estates in Lambeth, and for my constituents in Southwark, this Bill is probably far more significant than the Scott report, although it may be a bit provocative to say so. In terms of immediate impact, this Bill matters far more than the complicated ramifications of who is accountable in the civil service and the Government. Therefore, if we get this Bill through quickly, we can spend more time on Scott afterwards.We certainly cannot forget about Scott, and we will not. However, legislating on noise will generally be easier, and more popular and will receive more unanimous support from hon. Members.
The evidence on the number and severity of complaints has been mentioned. I should like to make two quotations. The first comes from a very good article inThe Independent of 30 December 1992 about people who deal with the prospects of mediation. The article ran:
In today's South London Press, entirely coincidentally, there was a short article entitled "Row over rock led to stabbing", which said:
Those of us who have been involved in the campaign have heard from many people of the deaths, suicides and violence to which people have been driven. I pay tribute to people such as Spike Milligan, among others, who have campaigned to bring attention to the way in which noise can be the most devastating intrusion into peoples' private lives and homes.
Mr. Couchman:
Can the hon. Gentleman say, from his expertise in following this campaign through from its early days, whether car alarms will come within the scope of the Bill? I believe, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, that noise from cars can be just as devastating as noise from within a domestic property.
Mr. Hughes:
The Bill deals only with noise from domestic premises and noise created at night. The Minister will no doubt deal with this point later, but, generally speaking, noise from vehicles is dealt with under the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. Whether that is adequate is something that we can consider. We should, however, definitely examine the proposal made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall that noise from cars on estates should be included in the Bill. Existing legislation covers noise from cars on the street but, as the hon. Member knows, estate roads are not really the street, so noise from estates, which are private property, that is not from the home is not covered. Perhaps an appropriate amendment could be tabled in Committee.
I shall say a word or two about good precedent.The Scots have a criminal law to deal with noise, and their experience of it has been good. Yet again, we must pay tribute to the Scots, who are ahead of us in matters of legislation, and learn from their experience.
The Bill must provide three things: the right penalty, the right procedure, and the necessary protection for people who complain. The three penalty options in the Bill are a warning, a fine and then confiscation. I take a very hard line on this and believe that most people who live in the middle of the inner city, surrounded by estates, do, too. I agree with the "two strikes and you're out" view.
I accept that there should be a warning followed by the possibility of a fine and confiscation of equipment but, after a second offence, we should put the offender inside for a night or two. That person has usually deprived not only his neighbour, but hundreds of people of their liberty and the enjoyment of it. I shall press the Minister in Committee to agree that a second offence committed within a reasonable period should result in a night or two
in gaol. I am not suggesting long sentences, but people should know that, if they deprive other people of their liberty in this way, they risk a night in gaol.
Mr. Banks:
Could not we toughen up that proposal a little by putting offenders away for a night and playing them heavy metal music all night at full volume? Perhaps we could play them Iron Maiden or AC/DC, as that is the sort of music that can drive people insane.
Mr. Hughes:
I take the general point, but Iron Maiden is a good south London band and I would not want a word said against it. When I was a youth leader, I used to follow it around the country. Such was my wayward youth.
To be serious, though, we have to make people understand what they are doing. The danger of the fine option, as we know, is that fines are often not paid. That leads to a long, involved process of chasing the fine and trying to get people to court when they do not pay. Many offenders do not have readily available cash, and getting £1,000 from them might not be easy. It might be quicker, cheaper and easier to put them in a local police station cell for a night. Whether they experience a great deal of noise or absolute silence, either would be preferable to their making a nuisance of themselves at home.
Mr. Couchman:
The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way. From his experience in his south London constituency, he will be aware of the danger of intimidation and retaliation by people who create excessive noise against people who complain. Would he care to comment on that?
Mr. Hughes:
I was coming to that point; it relates to the third of the points that I outlined earlier.
I said that the Bill needed to provide the right procedure. The working party left the matter open, so I pay tribute to the Government for being persuaded that a criminal procedure is likely to be far more efficient and effective than the current statutory nuisance procedure. The current process is very lengthy. Someone has to keep diaries and give evidence, but there are no immediate implications for the person who is creating the nuisance, who can then serve counter-notices. That is often not effective.
One of the problems is that the time that elapses between the commission of a crime or anti-social activity and its punishment is that the two appear unrelated. Kids often feel that they have got away with something because they are not dealt with until a year after the offence. Society's response to anti-social activity needs to be much quicker. I reaffirm the hope that we can add to the Bill a proposal to deal with noise from private property such as estate roads, rather than from houses alone.
My next point relates to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman). The weakness of the current system is that people are often terrified of giving evidence. If a 75-year-old woman lived next door to a flat inhabited or visited by a muscular 6 ft 21-year-old who played loud music all night, we could not get her to court in a month of Sundays, and nor should we--if she did go, her life might not be worth living. In any event, many less vulnerable people have the same difficulty.
Noise nuisance is not a victimless crime--indeed, it is a victim-intensive crime. We must ensure that victims do not have to put themselves in the front line. The Bill is
rather ambiguous in places. The police, environmental health officers and others who are recognised officers in the community should give the evidence. We must separate the complaint from the verification, and the evidence should be given by the verifier, not the complainant.
"Prolonged exposure to domestic noise can make people desperate. Seven months of relentless disco music drove a south London market trader to shoot his neighbour in the stomach, and months of nightly misery from a car alarm provoked an east London resident to vent his feelings on the offending vehicle with a metal pipe."
16 Feb 1996 : Column 1262
"A heavy rock fan stabbed to death a neighbour who complained about his loud Led Zeppelin records.
An Old Bailey judge heard that Billy Clark, 44, had to be up for work at 5 am but was kept awake by music from David Ravenhall on September 14 last year.
In a row that followed the complaint, Mr. Clark head-butted Ravenhall who then plunged a knife into his heart.
Mr. Clark was rushed to hospital from the bedsit block at Newlands Park, Sydenham, but his life could not be saved.
The judge told Ravenhall, 'Your music started this.He over-reacted. You picked up a knife and stabbed Mr. Clark in the course of the struggle.
'You are going to have to live with that death for the rest of your life.'"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |