| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.26 pm
Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) fully deserves the warm congratulations that have been showered upon him from both sides of the House. We heard on Second Reading and in Committee how widespread is the problem of noise in everyday life, especially in urban settings. There is already a substantial body of legislation to protect people who suffer from noise and noisy neighbours, but I am sure that his Bill will be recognised in the fulness of time as an important addition to existing protection. It will help local authorities and environmental health officers to tackle the problem of noise and, most importantly, give relief and protection to members of the public who suffer from the problem of night-time noise.
We have had an important but short Third Reading debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge(Mr. Nicholls) made a valuable contribution. We must be wary of the people whom he described as the Victor Meldrews of society--people of an unreasonable disposition. I invite him to take as a starting point the right of members of the public and householders to peace and quiet at night. We cannot go into their minds and examine their motives, dispositions and reasons for wanting to uphold it, but that right exists and if it has been violated, they deserve protection and to have it upheld. In most cases, there would be more to it than that. In fact, the Bill will relieve people who suffer from the sort of problems described by my hon. Friends of persistent noise makers--especially involving loud music, but including other sorts of noise--who behave unreasonably.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge made a valuable point. We must all be reasonable and considerate. An obvious and good first step for someone having a party would be to contact neighbours and possibly to think of inviting them.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport):
Although I did not have a chance to involve myself with the Bill previously, I have been following the debate today. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made an important point. I am not satisfied that the Bill contains any protection against the persistent complainant. We have been talking about the persistent offender, but what happens if someone does not behave reasonably and keeps complaining? Clause 2(1) states that a "local authority must" take action if it receives a complaint. What will happen if someone unreasonably complains time and again?
Mr. Clappison:
It is up to the neighbour to ensure that there is no substance in the complaint and that the right
he is not obliged to do so, but the power is there.
I also invite my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) to consider the fact that a notice must be served before there is any question of a fixed penalty or any other fine being incurred. That notice gives the person who receives it a warning that the amount of noise coming from his or her premises exceeds the fixed permitted level, and it is up to that person to do something about it.
Frankly, if someone who receives such a notice pays it no heed and continues to make noise above the permitted level between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, he or she is clearly violating an established right. I suggest that safeguards are there in the form of the notice and the discretion. It is up to people to think about their neighbours and to respect their right to peace and quiet.
Mr. Jenkin:
With the greatest respect, the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was the vexatious complainant and the initiation of the process. Clause 2 contains protection for the local authority against having to investigate every vexatious complaint. The obligation is to take "reasonable steps". If the initial complaint is unreasonable, in that it is a repeat of a complaint that has been found wanting time and again, I think that there is no obligation on a local authority to continue to investigate. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would confirm that.
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. He will know that local authorities already have the power to investigate complaints against those who are breaching statutory noise nuisance regulations, which apply around the clock and not just at night. No doubt they can adopt the same practices with regard to offences under this Bill, with the same result.
It is important to establish that, if someone is making noise above a certain level at night, he or she is violating a right. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East(Mrs. Prentice) referred to the level of noise, and it is an important point. It is set at a level that is thought to be intrusive and to affect a good night's sleep between11 pm and 7 am.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove(Mr. Thomason) asked what would happen about noise made at other times. We are all aware of the problems of shift workers, people with young children and babies and so forth. He should be aware that the existing law of statutory nuisance will apply on such occasions. As I understand it, a duty is placed on local authorities to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance, which can be brought before the courts and proved in the same way that that is proved now. This offence clarifies the situation with regard to night-time noise, by introducing a fixed limit and other provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North(Mr. Jenkin) made an important point about police officers--I think that the hon. Member for Lewisham,
East mentioned that, too--and how they fit into the scheme of things in the Bill. That was debated at some length in Committee.
Of course, police officers may at present play a role in the investigation of statutory nuisance by local authority officers. In Committee, hon. Members spoke from their experience of situations in which local authority officers needed the assistance of the police, especially when there might be a threat to order. The hon. Lady may know that the Association of Chief Police Officers is working with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health to develop a code of practice on liaison. Obviously, we hope that that work brings worthwhile results and assists in liaison. Local authority officers should receive help when there is a threat to order in such situations.
The Bill will be of assistance in setting a fixed level of noise--it does not leave scope for argument about whether noise is too loud. When the noise measurement is taken, the environmental health officer will be able to point out to the noise maker that the noise is above the permitted level. The Bill introduces a level of clarity, which will be helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove asked for the definition of "dwelling", and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred him to clause 11(3)(a). I hope that that definition satisfies my hon. Friend--he is nodding in agreement.
There have been questions whether the Bill would apply, for example, to commercial kennels, stables, cowsheds and the like. The Bill deals with domestic sources of noise. Trials of the technical aspects of the night noise offence have shown that the method cannot readily measure intermittent noise, such as a dog barking or a horse neighing. As I have already said, avenues are available to people through the existing law to deal with such situations.
Dogs may bark in the night and caravans may move on, but the Bill will be a lasting tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. He is concerned for his constituents. He will have the satisfaction of having brought before the House a measure that will protect the right of people to a peaceful night's sleep. The measure will be widely welcomed in the community.
Mr. Harry Greenway:
I warmly thank the Minister for his consistent support and for his kind remarks. I also thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, East(Mrs. Prentice) for her kind remarks. I thank my colleagues for their support, which has been greatly appreciated. We have had great teamwork in this regard--we are working to gain a better life for our constituents, and that is what matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Order for Third Reading read.
Sir Anthony Grant (South-West Cambridgeshire):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am encouraged by the warm welcome that the Bill has received. It had good cross-party support on Second Reading and in Committee. However, three points have arisen during the passage of the Bill and I would like to clear them up.
The National Art Collection Fund wrote to me, and to other members of the Committee, saying that the Bill does not go far enough, and, in particular, that it fails to provide protection to all archaeologically significant objects. The scope of the Bill has always been constrained by the need to avoid any resource implications.
"he may serve a notice"--
12.37 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |