---

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend a shareholder?

Mr. Evennett: No, I am not a shareholder.

It would be a welcome move if radio disc jockeys and presenters encouraged young people not to turn up the music, but to turn it down. I very much regret that some disc jockeys suggest that one should turn up the music to appreciate it.

We heard earlier about the Beatles in the 1960s. In the 1960s, I was a soul fan and liked Dusty Springfield and people like that rather than the Beatles. However, the important point about music in domestic establishments today is, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, that the equipment is far more effective than the little record players and transistors that many of us had in those dim, distant days. The noise that one can get from modern equipment is incredible.

The parents, as the primary educators, the schools and the media should encourage people to think. There are concerts, parties and discos where people can hear loud music, if that is what they want. However, people should be taught that when they are at home, the volume should be turned down in the interests of good neighbourliness and in the interests of the rest of the family.

Although I support almost all the Bill, I would like the instant fines to be increased from £40. An instant fine is a good step forward, as we are looking for instant action. However, in today's society, a £40 fine is inadequate punishment for people who persistently make a loud noise and it will not deter them; it will not even hurt in many cases. It is therefore important that, in Committee, we have discussions to see whether we can up the fine to a more realistic figure. Some hon. Members today have suggested £100; that is a possibility.

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1278

There are variations in how good local environmental health officers are. In some areas, they are extremely good; in Bexley, we are fortunate in having a good department. However, people in other areas have written to me, because of my role in the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, saying that their environmental health officers are apparently not interested in dealing with the problem.

Although I welcome the fact that environmental health officers will have more powers and opportunities, I have two concerns. First, I am concerned about the safety of the environmental health officer on the front line who has to go to a noisy property--a point that must worry us all. Secondly, we do not know whether, as the Bill is an adoptive measure, local authorities will adopt the provisions in their area. We as Members of Parliament shall have to educate local authorities and encourage them to adopt the provisions. Local authorities will, however, have the choice.

Mr. John Carlisle: The other thing that local authorities will inevitably do is squeal that they do not have the funds. Perhaps my hon. Friend will suggest to them that they will be more popular if they spend time on implementing the provisions in the Bill rather than zealously enforcing certain regulations, especially those concerning health and safety and food. Regrettably, that takes up a lot of their time, upsets many people and causes the loss of many jobs. Local authorities would be better spending their time on the Bill.

Mr. Evennett: I endorse that absolutely, and I hope that local authorities will not whinge, but will--

Ms Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) rose--

Mr. Evennett: I thought that we might get a reaction from the Opposition Front Bench.

I hope that local authorities will use their budgets in the most effective way. I believe that they can take action within the budgets that they have been allocated if they establish priorities, and I think that noise control should be one of those.

Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman said that he endorsed what his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said. Will he reconsider that? Surely we do not want local authorities to do anything less than their duty under health and safety law, especially in connection with food, which the hon. Member for Luton, North mentioned. We do not want to have to choose between foods poisoning and noise.

Mr. Evennett: Right. I did not endorse that point; of course local authorities must carry out their statutory duties. I endorsed my hon. Friend's fear that local authorities would whinge that they did not have enough money. I think that they have enough if they channel those resources, of course into health and safety, and into food hygiene, but also into dealing with noise nuisance and the problems that so many of our constituents have suffered. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) misinterpreted what I said.

The Bill represents a great step forward. If it became law, procedures would be quicker and a third party,the local authority environmental health officer doing the

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1279

measurement, would be involved. We have all had letters from individual sufferers--elderly people, single parents and others--who are frightened of the neighbours who are making a noise and perpetrating the problem.

Under the Bill, those people would not have to take the action in court themselves, or be responsible for gathering the information, presenting it and pushing the local authority. It would be down to the local authority to take the case over. I am sure that that would encourage many more people to present their problems rather than suffering in silence as many of them have done, at the cost of their health. That is good news.

The Bill represents a positive move. We must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North for the work that he has put in and for the way in which he presented the Bill today. We have a good Bill before us, and it has had almost universal support on both sides of the Chamber. That is welcome, because the problem has affected all our constituencies and all our people.

I believe that the Bill will deal with the problem of noise nuisance. It appears relatively uncomplicated and workable--both essential ingredients in any legislation. But some doubts and concerns remain. We need the Bill to reach the statute book as soon as possible, and we must campaign to ensure that local authorities implement it, and that its provisions are used to the full for the benefit of all citizens.

Today we have seen an important step forward in the fight against noisy neighbours, and I am delighted to support the Bill. However, education by parents, schools and community organisations, as well as legislation,is necessary. Legislation cannot cure all problems. Education, information and publicity can all help to make society better, so that the people suffering from noisy neighbours have some respite.

However, legislation is important, and the Bill is good news. But there is more to be done, away from the sphere of legislation, in educating people about their community responsibilities and in encouraging them to turn the volume down. Once the Bill is law, many people who now suffer from noisy neighbours will get some respite, some action and some results. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the legislative process, and I look forward to its implementation.

12.13 pm

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North(Mr. Greenway) on his success in the ballot, and on his wisdom in choosing this subject for his private Member's Bill. It is a privilege for me to be associated with him, as a sponsor of the Bill. In passing, I also pay tribute to him in his role as a constituency Member of Parliament, because I had the privilege of living in Ealing for several years, and I remember that, when my hon. Friend was selected for Ealing, North, it was regarded as a marginal constituency. It is a tribute to him that, by 1987, he had a majority of 15,000--although that may have been helped by the fact that his opponent in that election was named Benn.

Tens of thousands of our constituents listen to an Australian soap opera whose musical jingle runs

"Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours",

16 Feb 1996 : Column 1280

but they do not seem to pay much attention to it, because the problem of noise is generated by bad neighbours--by anti-social, selfish, thoughtless individuals who put their pleasure first and do not consider the impact of their thoughtlessness on other people.

Those people may enjoy loud music, but they forget that the music they enjoy may be a pain for someone else. Noisy parties may be fun for the drunks who take part, but they are preventing other people from sleeping and from exercising their right to enjoy the privacy of their own home.

That fact was brought home to me during one of my surgeries, when 20 or 25 people from one of the high-rise blocks that were one of the great innovations of the 1960s came to see me. When I asked, "What is your problem?", they replied, "Mr. Campbell." Mr. Campbell's particular skill was to turn his hi-fi unit on at 8 o'clock at night and to keep it going until 8 o'clock in the morning. That meant that the neighbours all too often had a sleepless night, and were always worried that they would have to go to work the next day unable to do as well at their jobs as they would have liked.

There is no doubt that the problem of noise has been aggravated by social trends in recent years. The problem is worse in the high-rise flats in which so many people live. In many such blocks, anti-social behaviour multiplies, and one has only to go to any council estate to see graffiti on the walls. One hears also of many other forms of anti-social behaviour, of which drugs and noise are but two.

It is a tragedy that the local authorities have been so slow to react to the mushrooming of anti-social behaviour. By their failure to react quickly, they have given an incentive for such behaviour to continue.

The problem has been aggravated elsewhere, as well as in modern high-rise blocks. Those of us who have lived in the modern purpose-built flats that have appeared over the past 25 years have frequently found that they are not as well insulated against noise as they might be. That means that a record player in one flat can be heard only too easily in another.

The provisions of the Bill are not mandatory for local authorities, but permissive. There is no doubt that some local authorities will say rightly that noise is not a major problem, as noise and noisy parties is more of an urban problem than a rural one, but some urban local authorities do not treat the problem as seriously as they ought to. When the Conservatives controlled Barnet council, they instituted a noise patrol that dealt with a large number of cases. When Labour and the Liberal Democrats took control, they redirected spending and wound up the patrol. The patrol was doing a lot of good work, and its absence has annoyed a large number of my constituents.

---