| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.6 am
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the Bill. Perhaps unusually, I wish to associate myself with everything that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. I fully endorse the principle and purpose of the Bill.
It is common ground among all hon. Members that noise is an increasingly prevalent complaint with which we have to deal at our surgeries. Like the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), I have heard endless complaints about noise on estates and in tower blocks, where noise seems to reverberate due, perhaps, to the concrete structure and the lack of thick interior partition walls--in any event, noise there seems to create a particular type of hell.
The increase in noise has a number of causes. One is undeniably the increase in the amplification power available with modern stereos. There is no doubt that modern equipment produces far more noise of greater intensity, and there has been a tremendous increase in the performance of speakers, especially of the bass sound, which can produce a thumping that can be felt through walls and make glasses chink in neighbouring flats. Such noise can be extremely penetrating, and can create an absolute nightmare for neighbours.
Another problem is the general lack of respect for neighbours shown by people who play loud music.We should take every possible step--I am sure that the Bill will be one of them--to remind people of their social responsibility to their neighbours. Demographic changes sometimes make the situation more difficult. More younger and older families live together than perhaps was the case in the past and it is inevitable that, friction may arise from the proximity.
There is also a greater awareness among the public that they should be concerned about noise. Why should their lives be made a misery by other people's thoughtlessness? It is right that Parliament should take the matter up. As I have often said, Members of Parliament should be the representatives of individuals who are struggling against something that they feel they cannot overcome and cannot
even complain about for fear of intimidation, retribution and violence--all the problems that hon. Members have already outlined.
I strongly endorse the basic principles of the Bill. I have problems with certain aspects, which I have already mentioned, and I hope that those problems will be addressed in Committee. However, the idea of confiscation is excellent and we must ensure that it is an easy, practicable remedy. The Committee must ensure that local authorities feel that they have the power to confiscate equipment, irrespective of whether it is leased, hired or borrowed from a friend. I am sure that the Committee will be able to clarify that if necessary.
Mr. John Marshall:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important not just to pass the Bill, but to ensure that local authorities carry out their permissive powers? In the London borough of Barnet, when it was under Conservative control, the council set up a noise patrol which dealt with many complaints. When a Liberal-Labour pact took control of the council, one of the first things it did was to get rid of the noise patrol. Is that not a thoughtless and anti-social action by the council?
Mr. Hargreaves:
I entirely endorse that point.We must have uniform standards and guidelines which establish a duty of responsibility on local authorities and by which they can be measured, in the same way as charters measure other areas of responsibility. It is perfectly reasonable to do that for local authorities.
Confiscation is extremely important. The suggestion that we have heard from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey who has temporarily left the Chamber, of a possible brief term of imprisonment,if other remedies fail, is very sensible. Furthermore,I entirely endorse the suggestion that the Bill should concentrate on the night hours. The Committee can examine which hours comprise the night hours, but 11 pm until 7 am is a particularly sensitive time, in which the restorative process of sleep does its work, and would be a sensible beginning.
Many hon. Members have said that they do not feel that the £40 fixed penalty is sufficient. I agree with them and I hope that in Committee we shall be able to increase that sum dramatically. I say that for an especial reason. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who has also left the Chamber temporarily, will forgive me and I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will bear with me for a minute, as I have some personal comments to make.
A while ago, like other hon. Members, I received a number of threats. It was threatened that I would be blown up and killed. The threats were delivered to my local Conservative club and might have needed to be taken seriously. I was advised, as hon. Members are, to install a number of security measures. These included an intruder alarm on my premises in London and in my constituency. Last summer was very hot and there were many complaints about noise. That is perfectly understandable because people have their windows open.
For some totally unexplained reason--it was thought afterwards that the cause could have been a large butterfly or a fall of soot down the chimney--the alarm in my house went off. It created a nuisance and, although I was not at home, I was served with a statutory nuisance order,
and a matter of hours afterwards, the police and local environment health officers broke into my house, tore out the alarm and silenced it. I was later presented with a bill for some £240, and it cost me double that to reinstate the alarm. Had I not been able to pay, I could have been fined £5,000.
The Bill proposes a £40 fine, with a maximum of £1,000 at a later date. I speak for my constituents and not just for myself. In one street in my constituency, householders have their houses or cars broken into,on average, six times a year. They have all had to install some sort of alarm. Alarms of that kind, which the police, the Government and all responsible people encourage people to install to protect their property and to lower the crime figures, may go off accidentally through no thoughtlessness or carelessness, but perhaps through shoddy workmanship, while people are visiting sick relatives or away for a weekend. A distinction should be drawn between that type of incident and those involving thoughtless and deliberate behaviour, which is what we are trying to tackle in the Bill.
I believe that the penalties for thoughtless and deliberate noise pollution and aggravation--for example, when people continue to play amplified music after being asked to turn it down--should be greater than in those cases which are covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and its amendment by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), when he reads what I have said in the debate, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, can consider in Committee whether we have the balance right.
There is a tendency in all local authorities--obviously, more in some than in others--to pursue soft targets. The property owner and responsible citizen is a soft target. He is likely to pay up, as I did, and the local authority is likely to recover the costs of the operation. That gives the local authority the opportunity to say reasonably that it has done its job on noise pollution and statutory nuisance, and that it went out on so many occasions and dealt with the problem.
However, the local authority may be picking on soft targets. For example, in Bristol, a surgeon held a party for a son or daughter and he was fined £900. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) mentioned the case of the lady who was riddling a fire. In Camberley, Surrey, a lady was fined a significant amount of money because her dogs made too much noise. Again, she was an easy target, because the local authority knew that she would pay the bill and do something to remedy the noise. Perhaps it is right that she should do that, but we should get the balance right, because the Bill is designed to deal with those who are not responsible.
A dog or an alarm may make more noise than is reasonable while people are out, but such people do not deliberately intend to make that noise. The Bill is designed to deal with those who flagrantly ignore other people's rights to privacy and quiet. That means people who play music loudly and aggressively, and sometimes with intimidation, disturbing the peace of others solely because they enjoy noise at that level.
Mr. John Marshall:
My hon. Friend seems to be ignoring the fact that the Bill deals with noise that is made between 11 pm and 7 am. I do not believe that many people riddle fires at that time. Surely it is more
Mr. Hargreaves:
I am simply saying that the balance in the Bill is wrong. People should be subject to a greater penalty for making noise at night rather than accidental noise that may be caused during the day. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will consider that. It is wrong that those who create noise and disturb other people's sleep and quiet at night are subject to a smaller penalty than those who may cause noise accidentally during the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) says that people with house alarms should give a house key to someone else. In my case, that someone was in hospital undergoing treatment for cancer and could not be reached. I had taken every precaution, as I am sure my constituents also do with their house alarms.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |