| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Thomason: Only a limited number of environmental health officers, technicians or whoever, would be able to operate the noise equipment. Such equipment is quite expensive, and I am sure that most local authorities would not be happy if someone who was not trained had an opportunity to fiddle with the buttons and possibly damage it. Since only a limited number of people are qualified to use it, those authorised to do so are quite a narrow band. If, unfortunately, nobody qualified were available, the local authority would probably not be able to conduct an inquiry anyway.
Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an entirely reasonable point, and speaks, as I said, with great experience of local authorities. My concern is to make the provision as flexible and effective as possible for local authorities. That is the way in which I shall approach the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove made an important point about the identity of the person exercising the power when people were being investigated, particularly where powers are being exercised regarding entry and seizure under clause 10. It is important that the identity of the person exercising the power should be known. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 10(3), which meets concerns about identification of persons exercising the power by requiring the person entering a property and seizing any equipment to produce the authority if required to do so. I hope that that sets to rest any concerns that my hon. Friend might have.
I appreciate the points made, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove were to consider withdrawing his amendments, I would reflect further on them--without, of course, giving any guarantee that any further amendments would necessarily result.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North):
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) for his most kind remarks; they are much appreciated.
I too think that the amendments are extremely important. It is very important that it should be clearly established that anyone operating any equipment by which people may be found guilty of a criminal offence should be properly qualified to do so, and that the equipment should be properly checked, guaranteed against a check
sheet and efficient at the time of use. I understand that the very fact that we are saying so today in the House will help in any possible litigation in this area.
It is no good saying that the equipment was checked a year ago and that it was all right then, as has been said in one or two speeding cases. That cannot be right. The equipment clearly has to be right, or injustice could be done. The House is about avoiding such injustice, to ensure as far as possible justice for the citizens of this country. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has said that he will reflect on the matter, supports what I say.
The intention of the new clause is not absolutely clear, although what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said was important. The meaning of the word "identify" is not entirely clear, as I read it. As I understand it--I am sure that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong--the new clause would require each local authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to pass a resolution identifying the officers who were authorised to carry out the provisions on its behalf.
Personnel change all the time, so if an identification procedure was established, it would have to be updated regularly. There would be a serious possibility of dangerous slippage. If we accepted the new clause, we might create new bureaucracy, which we should seek to avoid. I think that my hon. Friend and I would, philosophically, oppose more bureaucracy.
I am sure that all hon. Members are aware that there will be occasions when, such are the demands on the noise complaints service of a local authority, an environmental health officer may have to be seconded from another area. That is a problem to watch. Anyone coming in from another area to undertake such work would have to be thoroughly competent.
The Bill lays a duty on local authorities to ensure that suitable people are appointed to the task. My remarks, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and the Minister, have underlined that point. If people are not competent, there will be a clear defence in a case brought under the Act, as I hope and believe the Bill will become. That point must be covered carefully.
I do not believe that the new clause would add to the effectiveness of the Bill, because of its lack of absolute clarity. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will reflect on the matter. I cannot make a commitment, but I believe that what my hon. Friend has said is important.
Mr. Jenkin:
Our big anxiety about the Bill, however desirable it is, is the cost and complexity of implementation. One of my local authorities, Tendring district council, has written to me pointing out that the obligation under clause 2 to take "reasonable steps to investigate" all complaints between 11 pm and 7 am would require the current voluntary out-of-hours emergency-only service to be replaced by a formal standby service staffed by paid officers.
If the paid officers must be people who have been nominated in a resolution passed by the full council, as proposed in the new clause, many people will have to be invested with powers under the Bill. Do we seriously imagine that, in managing a comprehensive service throughout the night every night, all the people involved will be expert in operating the noise-measuring equipment? Would it not be better for local authorities to have more flexibility?
If there is sickness or holiday absence, different people will be on standby duty attempting to fulfil the obligations. Councils may operate a system whereby they call out the experts after officers have visited the scene of a complaint. After a preliminary investigation, they may then call out the experts with the noise-measuring equipment. This is a complicated area, and local authorities will want to gain operational experience before deciding how to deploy their resources.
The new clause would further complicate matters--I share the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister--and we should pause before accepting it. When the Bill is considered in the other place, as I hope it will be, the matter will be further discussed, and further representations from local authorities may be heard.
Mr. Thomason:
In view of the comments made this morning, and especially in view of my hon. Friend the Minister's undertaking to look at the matter in more detail, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford):
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 6 to 18.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after 'authority', insert--
No. 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert--
Mr. Evennett:
I am delighted to be able to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North(Mr. Greenway) on promoting the Bill and successfully furthering it in Committee--a Committee on which I was pleased to serve. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for all the time and effort he has given, not only in Committee but in discussions with many of us, including discussions on the amendment. I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Department and hon. Friends who served on the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) who gave such stalwart service in developing ideas to deal with the problem.
Tremendous work has been done to deal with the problem of noisy neighbours and noise nuisance. The Bill is the culmination of many years of work, which has brought together many different people who have
suggested ways in which to deal with a growing problem. Noise nuisance, especially the problem of noisy and inconsiderate neighbours, is the scourge of modern life. It is a particular problem in urban areas, but it is not limited to them.
Over the past decade, my borough, the London borough of Bexley, has seen a tremendous increase in noise problems. Thamesmead, an exciting new development with new people and a new environment, is part of my constituency. Thamesmead contains a variety of properties, ranging from skyscraper tower blocks to small dwellings. There has been an increase in the number of people living close together, and thus an increased density of population. With that has come an increase in the problem of noisy neighbours. Modern properties are closer together than older ones and walls are thinner, which means that noise travels further and causes even more distress for our residents.
As my hon. Friend the Minister will know from our discussions in Committee, my reason for moving the amendment is not just the loud noise from music, which was highlighted in Committee and in discussions we had with my hon. Friend privately. Noise problems are also caused by do-it-yourself experts who work on home improvements very late at night or early in the morning so that they can finish the job. That is a problem that affects people across the country. Loud televisions and radios are also a problem.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that we had successful and good-humoured discussions in Committee, with contributions from Conservative and Opposition Members expressing all shades of opinion. We were constructive, and the amendments were an attempt to improve the Bill, which is a good one, but which needs more work.
My proposal in Committee that on-the-spot fines should go up from £40 to £100 met unanimous approval. Although I welcome the increase in on-the-spot fines, the general thrust of the Bill and the determination of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North to make it effective, I believe that we have not gone quite far enough. That is way I have moved the amendment.
If, after all the hours that we have spent not only in the House and in Committee but in discussions with outside organisations, including local authorities, which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned, the Bill is not implemented, we shall have wasted our time, and many hopes will be dashed. Good intentions are not enough. The remaining problems need to be addressed. The principles are excellent and the provisions are good, but implementation causes me some concern, which is why I tabled my amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has drafted a good Bill, but it has one flaw, which I want to emphasise again. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham emphasised it in Committee, and we cannot emphasise it enough.
'(a) if the local authority are the authority for an area which is a preponderantly urban area and have been so prescribed, or
(b) in the case of any authority not so prescribed.'.
'( ) Where a local authority receive a complaint under subsection (2) and the offending dwelling is within the area of another local authority, the first local authority may act under this group of sections as if the offending dwelling were within their area, and accordingly may so act whether or not this group of sections applies to the area of the other local authority'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |