| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Thomason: Can my hon. Friend explain the purpose of amendment No. 7, which deletes clause 11(1), which refers to regulations and prescriptions? It is my understanding that a number of powers are still conferred under the Bill, even as it is now amended, on the Secretary of State. Can my hon. Friend explain the wisdom of deleting clause 11(1)?
Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 7 relates to amendment No. 2, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). Once that amendment had been withdrawn, it was necessary for me to move amendments Nos. 7 to 12 to ensure that proper protection was offered.
Mr. Clappison: I support these sensible amendments, which protect the rights of third parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove(Mr. Thomason) asked an interesting question. He has obviously paid great attention to the Bill and has great interest in procedural matters. I am sure that he would not want the amendments to be defeated. He should bear in mind the important point that they provide additional protection for the rights of third parties--innocent owners of equipment, who, in certain circumstances, may have had their equipment used to cause the type of noise offence specified in the Bill. In those circumstances, the owner would lose his property. The combined effect of the amendments safeguards their rights. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove will rush to his feet to support them.
Mr. Thomason:
I was merely expressing concern about the technicality of deleting clause 11(1). I was not in any way attacking the rest of the amendments, which are right and appropriate. I was concerned that we might delete something that was still needed, but I am happy to accept the assurances given.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 7, in page 6, line 45, leave out subsection (1).
No. 8, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'Regulations, or'.
No. 9, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'this Act' and insert 'section 9'.
No. 10, in page 7, line 20, leave out 'regulations or'.--[Mr. Harry Greenway.]
Mr. Harry Greenway:
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I should like to thank most warmly colleagues on both sides of the House who have taken such a supportive interest in the Bill. I should like to thank the sponsors of the Bill, those who served on its Standing Committee and the Minister for his untiring support and the thought and care he put into the Bill. I should also like to thank the officials from the Department of the Environment and Baroness Gardner, who will take the Bill through another place.
I should like to thank in particular The Mail on Sunday for its valuable and important campaign on noise. It highlighted the sheer hell that noise has caused to so many people. It conducted a dogmatic and determined campaign and it was right to insist that something should be done. The Evening Standard, with which I campaigned in
London, brought equal force to the campaign. Those newspapers have contributed greatly to a much-needed improvement, and I pay a warm tribute to them.
I should also like to thank my researchers, Will McLaren and Peter Davies, for their splendid and special efforts.
The Bill creates a new offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to deal with excessive noise at night. It introduces for the first time an objective level against which noise can be assessed. The Bill seeks to provide an additional weapon in the armoury of environmental health officers in the fight against noise nuisance.
So often at my constituency surgeries, I am told of the dreadful and frightening conditions in which people find themselves too afraid to ask their neighbours to turn down the noise that prevents them from getting to sleep at night. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the support of hon. Members, who have obviously heard of such experiences. We are all entitled to proper sleep at night--how can anyone function without it?
The Mail on Sunday and the Evening Standard have highlighted stories of elderly ladies having to sit outside in the cold and rain, or to hide in cupboards, to escape the noise of a ghetto blaster being played upstairs or next door. It is alarming that they have had to resort to such extremes because there was no immediate and obvious source of help. That is utterly disgraceful.
At present, local authorities deal with complaints about excessive noise from premises, vehicles, machinery and equipment in the street by using the statutory controls in part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. In many cases, those controls are flexible enough to allow local authorities to deal successfully and effectively with widely differing problems of environmental noise--I just wish that some of them would exercise those powers as insistently as they should in all cases.
A growing body of opinion says that domestic noise, which causes such distress and anxiety, calls for swift action. It appeared that the current controls were not adequate. The process can seem excessively long-winded and leave the local authority and the complainant dissatisfied because nothing is really achieved. In a survey carried out by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in December 1994, just nine authorities out of 328 surveyed--equivalent to 3 per cent.--operated an immediate response service to complaints about noise. The majority aimed instead to act within a week. There was therefore no proof that an offence had been committed, and it was invariably difficult for a victim of noise nuisance to have any action taken on his or her behalf.
My Bill addresses those issues. Its will make it easier for local authorities to resolve complaints made during night hours quickly and effectively. The Bill provides that a local authority must take reasonable steps to investigate a complaint of excessive noise being emitted from domestic premises during the night hours 11 pm to 7 am. The serving of a warning and, should that be ignored, of a subsequent penalty notice are simple procedures which, in case of failure, are backed by powers of confiscation and court action.
The Bill says:
The "permitted level" has been set at 35 dB--a figure reached after much research and advice from various quarters.
I believe that the £100 on-the-spot fine will be effective. My first proposal was a £40 fine, but I am sure that we were right to decide, on reflection, that that was insufficient and that the amount should be £100. I am certain that we have strong, widespread support for that figure. It will act as a powerful deterrent to those who are likely to commit noise offences. Once such fines are charged, word will get around quickly and there should be rapid improvement.
When cases go to court, the Bill's approach--of using an objective standard--should make it easier to prove the offence. As I said earlier, we must ensure that equipment used to measure the standard in question is properly calibrated; that is fundamental to civil liberty and fairness. The objective standard that we are setting in the Bill is crucial and new, and will have a powerful effect.
The Bill's simplicity is important. It gives security and greater peace of mind to those who wish to make a complaint and reassures local authorities that might be uncertain of their legal position in regard to prosecuting for noise offences.
Although the Department of the Environment and the Home Office have previously suggested that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 might be used for temporarily removing noise-making equipment, the neighbour noise working party, in its 1995 review, stated that many local authorities are
The Bill therefore gives local authorities the power to seize noise-making equipment used in the emission of noise leading to an offence.
Amendments made: No. 11, in page 8, line 11, leave out 'regulations or'.
No. 12, in page 8, line 14, leave out 'regulations or'.
No. 13, in page 8, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (h)(iv) and (v) and insert--
'( ) in the Schedule, paragraph 1(b)(ii) and the word "and" immediately before it,
( ) in the Schedule, in paragraph 1(c), the words"or section 81(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as so extended)"'.--[Mr. Harry Greenway.]
Amendments made: No. 14, in page 9, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
No. 15, in page 9, line 13, leave out 'so extended' and insert
'extended by section 10(7) of this Act'.
No. 16, in page 9, line 17, at end insert--
'conferred by section 10(2) of this Act or section 81(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as so extended),
( ) "related equipment", in relation to any conviction of or proceedings for a noise offence, means seized equipment used or alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence,
( ) "responsible local authority", in relation to seized equipment, means the local authority by or on whose behalf the equipment was seized'.
No. 17, in page 9, line 21, leave out from 'if' to 'until' in line 22 and insert
'it is related equipment in proceedings for a noise offence instituted within that period against any person'.
No. 18, in page 9, line 29, leave out 'that noise' and insert
'the noise in respect of which the fixed penalty notice was given'.
No. 19, in page 9, line 32, leave out sub-paragraphs(3) to (5).
No. 20, in page 9, line 42, leave out from 'person' to end of line 46 and insert
'is convicted of a noise offence'.
No. 21, in page 9, line 47, leave out 'that' and insert 'any related'.
No. 22, in page 10, line 14, leave out from 'than' to 'make' in line 15 and insert
'the person in whose case the forfeiture order was made'.
No. 23, in page 10, line 25, at end insert--
'( ) Where the responsible local authority is of the opinion that the person in whose case the forfeiture order was made is not the owner of the equipment, it must take reasonable steps to bring to the attention of persons who may be entitled to do so their right to make an application under sub-paragraph (1)'.
No. 24, in page 10, line 30, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) and insert--
'(6) If on the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the date on which a forfeiture order was made in respect of the equipment no order has been made under sub-paragraph (1),the responsible local authority may dispose of the equipment.
5. If in proceedings for a noise offence no order for forfeiture of related equipment is made, the court (whether or not a person is convicted of the offence) may give such directions as to the return, retention, or disposal of the equipment by the responsible local authority as it thinks fit.
6.--(1) Where in the case of any seized equipment no proceedings in which it is related equipment are begun within the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1)(a)--
(a) the responsible local authority must return the equipment to any person who--
(i) appears to them to be the owner of the equipment, and
(ii) makes a claim for the return of the equipment within the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), and
(b) if no such person makes such a claim within that period, the responsible local authority may dispose of the equipment.
(2) The period referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a)(ii) is the period of six months beginning with the expiry of the period mentioned in paragraph 2(1)(a).
(3) The responsible local authority must take reasonable steps to bring to the attention of persons who may be entitled to do so their right to make such a claim.
(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), the responsible local authority is not required to return any seized equipment under sub-paragraph (1)(a) until the person making the claim has paid any such reasonable charges for the seizure, removal and retention of the equipment as the authority may demand.
(5) If--
(a) equipment is sold in pursuance of--
(i) paragraph 4(6),
(ii) directions under paragraph 5, or
(iii) this paragraph, and
(b) before the expiration of the period of one year beginning with the date on which the equipment is sold any person satisfies the responsible local authority that at the time of its sale he was the owner of the equipment,
the authority is to pay him any sum by which any proceeds of sale exceed any such reasonable charges for the seizure, removal or retention of the equipment as the authority may demand.
(6) The responsible local authority cannot demand charges from any person under sub-paragraph (4) or (5) who they are satisfied did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the equipment was likely to be used in the emission of noise exceeding the level determined under section 5'.--[Mr. Harry Greenway.]
Order for Third Reading read.11.24 am
"If a warning notice has been served in respect of noise emitted from a dwelling, any person who is responsible for noise which--
(a) is emitted from the dwelling . . . specified in the notice, and
(b) exceeds the permitted level, as measured from within the complainant's dwelling,
is guilty of on offence."
"uncertain about the legality of using this wide general power for the purpose. There is considerable agreement amongst local authorities, which was shared by the working party, that a specific power to take this kind of action . . . would be useful both as a quick remedy and a deterrent to noise makers."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |