| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has talked about individuals. Is not part of the problem the fact that, under the present legislation, council environmental health officers insist on a diary being kept so that evidence can be brought forward? In many cases, only one person in the street will have the time to write the diary or the courage to produce it. Even though there may be a common problem, it often comes down to a neighbour against neighbour problem because only one person is willing to record the noise nuisance that emanates from the house.
Mr. Banks: We would all like to be able to resolve these problems speedily, but the process that we have at the moment--and even the process laid out in the Bill--will not achieve the speedy resolution that we would all like. There are many problems. For example, by the time someone can come around and hear the noise it may have stopped. The individual who complained then feels like an idiot, and says, "Well, you should have heard it before." That is why it is necessary for them to keep a diary.
When there are extreme cases, one would like to have faster methods of dealing with the problem. We all know that this is an appalling problem, and various examples have been given of people being pushed completely over the edge by noise pollution. It is one of the most intrusive, destructive and disruptive forms of pollution.I experienced noise pollution in a flat in which I lived,and I know how close I came to wanting to be aggressive--indeed, violent--towards the individual concerned. My privacy was encroached on--in fact, I had no privacy. I was trying to read, and all I could hear was the television and the music from the flat next door. I felt that they were living in my flat with me.
I well understand when people come to me and are in an advanced state of nervous breakdown. They say, "You don't know how bad it is". I can sympathise entirely with people such as that, because I have experienced it myself. In April 1994 the Newham council set up a special noise team, and there is now an out-of-hours service. However, budgetary restraints limit the size and the effectiveness of
that team. The environmental health service in Newham received 1,300 noise complaints in 1993-94; 2,000 in 1994-95; and 2,370 so far in 1995-96.
Mr. Robert Banks:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the construction of so many blocks of flats and multiple occupation dwellings has not incorporated sound-proofing materials in the walls and in the floors? That area is sadly neglected by architects and developers. Should not that issue be tackled?
Mr. Banks:
The hon. Member for Hall Green made that point, and I had also planned to make it. There are two points in this regard. The first is the increasing technological specifications of hi-fi equipment--one can get far more speaker output with smaller speakers. Secondly, how could the architects who build the tower blocks understand, appreciate or anticipate technological developments in music reproduction?
Obviously, one could talk about adaptation schemes and insulation, but that involves big money. There are well over 100 tower blocks in the London borough of Newham. At the best of times, they are not the most comfortable places in which to live. Will the Government give us the money to insulate those tower blocks to avoid noise pollution problems?
One thing that the council could do is try to ensure that it does not jumble up the social mix of people who live in tower blocks. When there are a lot of elderly people in a tower block and the council moves young families--most of whom own hi-fi equipment--into the building, everyone is affected. The noise can carry and affect people on other floors, not just those who are next door, so a significant number of people can then be affected.
If we cannot get the resources to put in the sound insulation that is necessary, we need instead to look at housing policy to achieve the right social mix, especially the age mix. I only hope that architects are now paying much more attention to the problem than was possible previously. They could not have been aware of the problems in the 1960s, when so many of the tower blocks were constructed in my part of east London.
I have quoted some statistics to show that noise is a growing problem in the east end. The increase may be due in part to a number of factors, such as decreasing tolerance levels brought about by other, but allied, social problems such as unemployment, being on social security, being in poverty or suffering from overcrowding.Not only does being unemployed mean spending more time in one's accommodation, but that and the other social factors lower tolerance to other people's habits.
The problems often arise because of a mix of factors. Quite often it is not just the noise that upsets people: it is something else that eventually causes those suffering from noise pollution to crack. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green mentioned some cases where people actually died because of noise pollution. Given my experience, I can almost understand that people could be pushed to such a point that they resort to extreme physical violence. There is no excuse for that, but we understand that people might be tipped over the edge.
One reason why Newham is getting more complaints is that the council has run an extensive and commendable campaign to draw attention to the sort of action people
can take to resolve noise problems. Of course, once something is drawn to people's attention, there will be an increase in the numbers taking up the various suggestions.
The specialist noise team in Newham tries to provide an immediate response wherever possible, but it must operate a priority system. It tends to prioritise those sources of noise disturbance which could end up causing a breach of the peace or where the noise does not just affect one flat or property but a whole range--an example of that is the tower block, which I have already mentioned--or where the council thinks that the noise is part of a deliberate attempt at harassment. I will not bore the House by citing numerous examples, as no doubt other hon. Members also receive complaints about noise being used deliberately to force someone out of his home.
That sort of harassment is even more unacceptable than someone making a noise without realising that others might not appreciate the music or the level of output.Of course, one problem is trying to get someone to the property at the time that the noise is being suffered, especially late at night. In Newham, the council tries to get someone out on at least four occasions to hear the noise and then serve an abatement notice.
I am a sponsor of the Bill. The hon. Member for Ealing, North quite often--well, perhaps not that often--comes up with good ideas, and this Bill is one of them. I was pleased to put my name to it. Unfortunately, once the Bill had been published, I sent it to my local council, and, although it generally welcomes the Bill, it also has many criticisms of it. They are generally matters that are better taken up in Committee. I volunteer my services for the Committee, if the hon. Member for Ealing, North nominates me.
One criticism was about the fine. Another was that the Bill would require measurements to be carried out that would substantially increase the amount of time involved in investigations. Another was that the offence would be committed only if the fixed criteria were to be breached in the property immediately adjacent to the source of the noise. As the council pointed out, that has two effects:
and
One reason they might be unwilling to complain is if they feel physically threatened by neighbours. We need to consider that point. If we ask people to come forward with complaints, we must be able to offer them the necessary protection.
I understand that the three London boroughs that took part in the pilot scheme all reported many instances in which the night-time noise offence could not be proved,but where a statutory nuisance had been established.
Mr. Couchman:
When the hon. Gentleman took up this matter with his local council, did it have anything to say about the measuring devices that would be necessary if the Bill is to be effective? I understand that they are expensive and not all that easy to use. Certainly, at one point they were not that accurate.
Mr. Banks:
As a matter of fact, the council did. It said:
I am sure that people of good will, who are mindful that this Bill is a good measure, can work together in Committee to make it a better one that will meet the hon. Gentleman's points.
"(i) the anonymity of the complainant on the night is compromised"
"(ii) disturbance suffered in other nearby properties would not constitute an offence where the immediate neighbours were unwilling or unable to complain."
"The requirement is that two separate 10-minute readings are taken to differentiate between the usual background noise in the household being disturbed and the noise being complained of.
16 Feb 1996 : Column 1273This would be very difficult to carry out where there is no let-up in the noise source and it is almost impossible to ensure that the people complaining about the disturbance do not talk to the officers making the measurements in this period and so interrupt this procedure."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |