|
Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his assurance.
Constituents often tell their MPs that they were not told about a planning application because the information was not extended to a wide enough area. How does the Minister expect people to be notified? It may be burdensome to send the notification by post to every area, and there will be costs, unless the mailing is sent out with the council tax bills, for example.
The Minister has already responded to the other point that I wanted to make. The amendments provide an opportunity for him to expand on how the proposal would work.
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution to the debate. I am happy to give her the explicit clarification that she seeks. The creation of an alarm notification area creates a legal obligation on anyone in that area with an audible intruder alarm to register with the local authority; it will be a criminal offence not to do so. In those circumstances, it is important that everyone likely to be affected is told of the plans to create an alarm notification area and of the decision to designate such an area. That is the reason for the provision that the amendment would delete.
As I said, failure in a mailing round, if that is the means adopted, by accident or exception, would not invalidate the order. Individual notification by mail is not the only way in which the information could be given. Individual notification at the outset of designation or undesignation would not necessarily have to be a dedicated mailing; notice could be included in council tax bills, as the hon. Member for Guildford suggested. I confirm that that would be acceptable within the provisions of the Bill. The notices could also be included with news letters or other mailings, provided that they were likely to be received in advance of the decision to designate or undesignate an area taking effect.
These are common-sense provisions that people should be aware of the requirement on them which it will be a criminal offence not to observe. If there was a prosecution, the court would take into account matters such as the fact that an individual had been unaware of the requirement. An individual omission could be dealt with in that way. It is surely sensible to ensure that as far as is practicable everyone in an area
Column Number: 257
knows that they have that obligation, not least so that they can observe it and the nuisance to the neighbourhood can be avoided.
I hope that, having heard my explanation, the hon. Lady will accept my assurance and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Sue Doughty: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the matter; it was the information we sought. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Installation of intruder alarms in alarm notification areas—
'(1) A person who installs an intruder alarm on or in any premises in an alarm notification area, shall comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(2) Regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) above may in particular include—
(a) requirements for an automatic cut-off mechanism to terminate the sounding of the alarm after a specified period; and
(b) requirements for the suitably visible display on the alarm or the premises of a telephone number by which the local authority can be notified of a noise nuisance from the alarm.'.
10.15 am
Sue Doughty: The new clause is intended to clarify matters. We already have some legislation in London relating to the issue. For example, it has been a requirement to register the name and address of a key holder with the local authority since 1991. In London, two key holders are required and there is a 20-minute cut-out system on alarms. Local authorities were made aware of that through the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. However, little use has been made of the legislation.
We want to ensure that those who may be ignorant of the person whom they need to contact when an alarm is causing a nuisance, can ring up somebody and say, ''We have a problem here.'' If the number is displayed somewhere prominently, it is easier for people to get on with the job and decide who to call. It is not much fun at 3 o'clock in the morning to be wondering who to contact. We are concerned that if the number is not displayed, people may ring the emergency services and waste their time. If someone is being driven up the wall by an alarm, they want to know whom they should ring, rather than disturbing people who do not have a duty to do anything about it.
The new clause is intended as clarification. The cut-off mechanism, which we believe is in place in London, is included, and mention is made of a telephone number so that the local authority knows who is causing the problem and can deal with it.
Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss clause stand part, which will put part 7 in context. My understanding is that the
Column Number: 258
clause sets out what the local authority must do to designate an alarm notification area. In particular, subsection (5) provides that an authority
''must consider any representations about the proposal''
to make a designation, and subsection (8) provides that when the authority decides to make a designation it must send notice of that decision to all premises in the area. Under subsections (8) and (4), the Bill makes it clear that
''The specified date must be at least 28 days after the date on which the notice is published''.
Elsewhere in the Bill, there are provisions for the nomination of key holders. To what extent will the obligation be on the local authority to inform the designated key holder? Or will it be for the householder or the business on whose premises the alarm is fitted to comply with the clause?
We have received a number of representations on that issue—not least from Westminster city council. The council responded to previous Government consultations and in its view a fundamental review of noise legislation is required to address what it sees as glaring deficiencies. I wonder why the Government chose to go down this path, rather than holding the fundamental review that Westminster city council would have preferred. The council does not consider that the minor proposals in the Bill, and which are addressed in the current consultation, meet the scale of the problem.
The Government's ''Clean Neighbourhoods'' document concluded that excessive noise is still regarded as a major problem by members of the public. The Library document includes the number of complaints. The latest figures show that in 2002-03 environmental health officers who, I understand, are those responsible for noise matters, received 224,502 complaints about noise at domestic premises and 305,090 complaints about noise in total. Confirmed nuisances for 2002-03 on domestic premises were 25,791 and complaints on all premises were 35,484. It is a big problem.
Westminster city council already has a 24-hour lawyer service responding to over 16,000 reports of noise problems a year. Its representatives are concerned that existing legislation provides insufficient disincentives to prevent excessive noise and that proposed measures fall far short of what is needed.
The city of Westminster council has found that the Noise Act 1996 has not provided much assistance. It relies largely on the application of statutory nuisance powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with noise problems and therefore it does not see much benefit in extending local authority powers under sections 8 and 9 of the Noise Act. Would the Minister comment on that point?
The council points out that the noise service operated by Westminster city council costs £927,000 a year. The service is well used, respected and appreciated by local people and it is all that they have to protect them when they are subject to unacceptable noise.
Column Number: 259
We also have representations from the British Security Industry Association, which has a number of concerns about the Bill to which I hope the Minister will respond positively. In particular, it believes that the Bill gives local authorities the ability to designate and undesignate alarmed notification areas under clause 69 at will and that this poses potential major logistical problems for both the local authority and owners of audible alarm systems. The owners must provide and send changes of key holder details to the local authority within the given 28-day period or face a fine.
The local authority has to maintain that personal data and therefore it is responsible for amending or deleting it, depending on the designated status. Will the Minister share with us the implications of the Data Protection Act 1998? We are led to believe as regards our constituency case files that it is normal to keep information for a maximum of three years.
For what length of time does the Minister expect that such information will be kept, bearing it in mind that in areas such as Westminster there will be substantial changes of ownership during a three-year period? Is it the Department's intention to ask local authorities to have and hold that information for one or two years or for the maximum three-year period, which is my understanding under the Data Protection Act?
A potential discrepancy in the Bill also brought to our attention by the British Security Industry Association is that, while only audible intruder alarms in alarm notification areas need to register key holder information, audible intruder alarms outside the designated areas can still cause a nuisance. We come to that matter later under clause 77. The authorised officer will have no key holder to contact while retaining the same powers of penalty as in alarm notification areas. Was it the wish and the intention of the Minister's Department to have that discrepancy? Should both clauses 69 and 77 apply in the same regard?
Owners of monitored audible alarms that are eligible for police response already incur additional costs and face possible penalties under the Association of Chief Police Officers' security systems policy for false alarms, which also requires them to register key holder details with their alarm receiving centre. As a result, owners who are in a designated area will have to notify both their alarm receiving centre and the local authority of key holder details. Would the Minister be minded to exempt them from the Bill?
Whereas in the past British Security Industry Association companies could advise customers to notify the local authority about alarm installations and the police about key holder information, they will now have to establish, via the local authority or the customer, whether the customer is in a designated area. That is subject to change at relatively short notice—28 days under the clause.
The clause introduces another level of bureaucracy for alarm companies and their customers, who already contend with a great deal of non-statutory regulation from the police. Local authorities may see it as an
Column Number: 260
opportunity to raise funds by charging for the registration of key holder information. Will regulations be introduced setting out detailed provision for that? The Minister will understand that such a move would be strongly resisted by the security companies, because it could be seen as a stealth tax on individuals who are investing in the security of their homes. We all know that where there is an intruder alarm on domestic premises, the insurance premium is slightly lower. I am sure that the same applies to business premises.
A disparity could also arise between local authority charges.
| 
