Clause 1.—(NOISE OR VIBRATION NUISANCE.) (Hansard, 27 May 1960)

§ Mr. MacColl
I beg to move, in page 1, line 19 leave out "land" and to insert "premises".
This again is a point which was mentioned upstairs in Committee in discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hexham. In the original form of the Bill, the word "premises" was used. The hon. Member removed the word "premises" and inserted the word "land". The point I tried to get cleared up, but have not yet succeeded in getting cleared up—that is why I am moving this Amendment—was that of a particular case where a number of people were occupying parts of a house. I can quite see that in the simplest case where there is a row of houses, particularly of owner-occupied houses, each squatting on a little piece of land, there is no doubt about who is occupying the land. It is occupied by the owner of the house. This difficulty would not arise in that case and house occupiers would be able to make a complaint under the Act.
The point which worries me a little is that where, particularly in London, there may be a four- or five-storey house which is leased by one person who is paying the ground rent for the whole house. He may be sub-letting each floor, or even each room, to separate persons who are occupying the premises as unfurnished or furnished premises. I want to be clear about who has the right to make a complaint. Is it each person who occupies a room in the house? Does it matter whether the room is furnished or 859 unfurnished? Is it only the person who occupies the whole house and pays the ground rent for the land as part of his leasehold interest in the premises?
I should have thought it would have been better to go back to the wording which, I believe, was used in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937. The words in Section 66 of that Act are, "occupiers of premises". That has worked quite effectively in London for a considerable period. Therefore, I should have thought it would be wiser to stick to it in this case. The hon. Member for Hexham has adventurously wanted to alter it and to introduce the words "occupier of land", although I believe no one in the Committee was clear about the significance of the alteration and about who in fact would have the right to make a complaint.
I have no desire to press the matter if the answer to the questions I have put makes it clear that everybody who is living in a house, in the sense of renting a room or flat, has an equal right to make a complaint that he is being subjected to a nuisance from noise. I hope that the hon. Member will be able to assist us.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)
I support the Amendment. I can say with confidence that it will be urged that "land" includes "premises" and no doubt there are good legal arguments for saying that. But it does not alter the fact that in many legal contexts one finds the phrase "land or premises" or "land and premises". These prosecutions will come before a local magistrates' court and I should feel happier if the word "premises" were included. It may be unnecessary caution, but it could not do any harm and will not even be bad precedent in legal drafting, because it already occurs many times. I would prefer to see both words, so that the phrase was "land or premises". If the House were willing and if you would accept it, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could have a manuscript Amendment to that effect. I think that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) will have to insert the word "premises" in other places on page 2 in that case as consequential Amendments.

§ Mr. Weitzman
I support what has been said in favour of the Amendment.
860 It is true, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir), that in the interpretation land refers to matters of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), but there is a host of cases where the word "land" is interpreted in a different way. I am particularly troubled when I see the words in the Clause itself: each of whom is the occupier of land and is in that capacity aggrieved by the nuisance?' When the matter is heard by magistrates, all sorts of legal arguments might be adduced to show that the occupier of a flat, for instance, was not the occupier of land and it would do no harm to insert the words "premises".
I am fortified in that argument because I notice that the hon. Member for Hexham has altered the words of other Acts which deal with matters of this kind. In the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937, the words used were householders or occupiers of premises. while in Section 99 of the Public Health Act, 1936, the expression is that a complaint can be made to Justices of the peace by any person aggrieved by the nuisance. It looks as though we are cutting down the matter and I do not think that we should cut it down too far.

§ Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)
I support the Amendment and reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, that it is a great pity that we cannot say "land or premises". There would then be no doubt whatever of the intention. I support the Amendment in every possible way.

Major W. Hicks Beach (Cheltenham)
There is an easy commonsense solution to this problem, which is to insert the words "or premises". As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, these matters will come before magistrates' courts and I can see no objection to adding the words to make the position clear and, if you are prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could insert the words "or premises".

§ Mr. Speir
I would have been horrified if I thought that the Bill was not 861 going to provide safeguards for all owners of property and was not going to apply to all occupiers of property, be they tenants of houses, flats or tenements. I want the Clause to apply to all who occupy property in the widest sense of that word, even if they are only paying lodgers. My advice is that Clause 1 as drafted with the word "land" will meet the case. After all, we are proposing that the Clause should be operated under the terms and provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, and Section 343 (1) of that Act defines "land" as any interest in land and any easement or right in, to, or over land. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) says that an additional word or two could do no harm. On the other hand, it is a great mistake to put in additional words when they are not necessary and we do not want to make the Bill too verbose.
Although I have no particularly strong feelings about this, I think that the use of the word "land" may be more comprehensive and more all-embracing than the word "premises." I am satisfied that the position of tenants of flats and of paying lodgers is fully and completely safeguarded with the use of the word "land."

§ Mr. Albert Evans (Islington, South-West)
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has not found it possible to accept the Amendment. We all accept what he has told us about the word "land" legally covering "premises" However, we will not be verbose by adding words or substituting words to make the meaning clear. The intention of the hon. Member and of everybody else is not to exclude anybody.

§ Mr. Speir
The word would be substituted not only here but in other places.

§ Mr. Evans
There will be consequential Amendments, but that can be arranged. We ought to avoid unnecessary legal argument when cases come before the courts and if the word "premises" is substituted for the word "land," that will cover every possible case which might come before the courts and will avoid possibility of dispute as to the interpretation of the word. 862 I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member will agree to accept the Amendment so that arrangements can be made for the words "or premises" to be included.

§ Mr. MacColl
I speak again by leave of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) has not taken a little more seriously the tremendous weight of legal opinion which has been raised against him. I was astonished to find such support, but if there is such a substantial amount of support to be found among practising lawyers about what the word means, it will create confusion among lay members of local authorities and among justices if the word "land" remains.
Any normal person reading page 2 of the Bill would find the reference to Section 66 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act which says that the occupiers of premises shall be construed as the occupiers of land. A normal person will think that there is some reason for the alteration, making the possibly pathetic attempt which laymen make to find some reason for what lawyers do. There will then be a tendency among local magistrates to produce decisions which will result in confusion.

§ Mr. Speir
I have a great respect for the legal profession, but surely lawyers do not operate in such a casual fashion as that. I am not a lawyer, but surely any lawyer dealing with a Bill will first see to what it applies and will look at the definition Section.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
May I, by leave of the House, add that I think that the point made by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is rather important? It has occurred to me since I last spoke that it is said in subsection (6): In section sixty-six of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937&occupiers of premises within hearing of the noise nuisance shall be construed as a reference to three persons each of whom is the occupier of land&". That would be confusing to a bench of magistrates. The bench would say that, whereas Parliament had previously said that they were to be occupiers of premises, it is now saying that they are to be occupiers of land. There is a real risk of people having to go to the Divisional Court to get it established 863 whether a lodger is covered. The addition of the words "or premises" is the right solution.
If the hon. Member for Widnes agrees to add the words "or premises" rather than what he has suggested and if you, Mr. Speaker, are willing to accept a manuscript Amendment, if the hon. Member for Widnes will withdraw his Amendment I will move my Amendment.

§ Mr. MacColl
I am merely anxious to make the Bill effective. I have no desire to hold it up or to be in any way obstructive. I certainly accept the weighty advice given by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). He and I have been members of the same local authority and we know the depths and heights of intelligence to which it can sink and rise. Therefore, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment and accept any form of words which will be clear to the ordinary person. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in page 1, line 19, after "land" to insert "or premises"

§ Sir K. Joseph
I intervene with some diffidence, but my job is made easier because at least we are now discussing only one Amendment on which two principal protagonists are agreed. Up till now, there have been four alternative forms of words. There was the form of words in the Bill, namely "land." There were the three alternatives which different hon. Members proposed, namely "land or premises," "land and premises," and "premises."
I maintain that the present phrase in the Bill, namely "occupier of land," is more general and more precise than any phrase which has been suggested. It is more precise because "land" is defined in various Measures, particularly in Section 343 (1) of the Public Health Act, 1936, as including messuages, buildings, lands, easements, and heriditaments of any tenure. I am advised that that certainly covers any occupiers other than a casual lodger and therefore makes the Bill effective in the full sense, as hon. Gentlemen on both sides require.

§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
Does that cover the occupier's wife?

§ Sir K. Joseph
It does not cover the occupier's wife unless she is the occupier, in which case it does not cover her husband.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) when he resists this because of verbosity. The proper reason for resisting the Amendment is because of confusion. We have here a definition which is general and at the same time precise. No court could possibly ignore the interpretation provisions laid down in the Public Health Act. The House would be most ill advised in this relatively casual way, playing about with four alternative forms of words, to disregard the very strong advice that I am able to give on legal backing that this form of words covers all that the House requires.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
Why should not the lodger be covered?

§ Sir K. Joseph
That would be quite all right if the House so wishes, but we should have to change the word "occupier." If the House so wishes there is another place where that could be done, but that is not the Amendment which the House is at the moment considering. It is "occupier" that would then have to be changed, and not "land."
I therefore very strongly advise the House that the Amendment would lead to confusion and not to precision and would not broaden the Bill in any way.

§ Mr. Weitzman
I do not understand the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. He says that this will lead to confusion, that the word "land" is precise, and that therefore we should reject the Amendment. The words "occupier of land" are in the Bill. If the Amendment is carried, the words will be, "occupier of land or premises." Therefore "occupier of land" will remain. Where will the confusion be then? If there is a doubt, we should add the words "or premises." It is certainly no argument to say that, if we accept the Amendment, there will be confusion.
One of the things which troubles me about it is that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) said that "occupier of land" includes a paying lodger. There might be a legal argument about 865 that. If the words "occupier of premises" were in the Bill, they probably would include a paying lodger. In any case, I agree that the word "lodger" ought to be considered in another place. I cannot for the life of me accept the argument that, if the words "or premises" are adopted, there will be confusion.

§ Sir K. Joseph
May I, by leave of the House, intervene again? I think that the confusion arises because both "land" and "premises" have slightly different interpretations in the Acts which define them. Therefore, if there is a question of a change in the Bill, I should far prefer the proposal of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). The addition of words leads to a possibility of confusion which one single word which is well defined in the Public Health Act does not.
Since I find that the addition of words is even more confusing than the substitution of words and since no one has been able to show that the word in the Bill, namely "land," omits any single person except a lodger, who cannot be introduced by the Amendment, I suggest that the House would be wise to accept the Bill as at present drafted.

§ Mr. Weitzman
By leave of the House, may I say that I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Secretary interrupted me or I interrupted him. May I finish what I had intended to say? If the words were "occupier of land and premises," I could understand the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary, but the words proposed are "occupier of land or premises." They therefore cover both and there cannot be the slightest risk of any confusion.

§ Mr. MacColl
I am in the unusual position of not having spoken at least twice on the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted the definition of "land" given in the Public Health Act, 1936. That Act by and large does not apply to London. The appropriate legislation in London is the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, in which "land" is not defined but "premises" is.
After the two 1936 Acts were passed, Parliament, fully aware of the definitions
866 given in those Acts of "land" and "premises", in the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1937, used the word "premises". That word was in the original draft of this Bill as presented to the House, but it was taken out in Committee. To say that the Bill is clear, which is what the Parliamentary Secretary says, is over-simplifying it. It is not clear. The word "premises" would not have been used in this context in the 1936 Act if that Act would have been clear without it and it would not have been used by the hon. Gentleman in the first draft of the Bill if it was unnecessary. I will not fall into the trap of being led to believe by the flattery of the Parliamentary Secretary that my drafting is better. I have made my alliance with the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), and I will stick to that alliance.

Major Hicks Beach
I regret to have to say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that, in my view, the advice he has received is wrong. His argument in support of it is equally wrong. He said that the word "land" was more general than "land or premises". That is not sense. Of course "land or premises" is much more general than "land". It is the House which legislates, and not the Civil Service. I strongly recommend hon. Members to support the Amendment. I shall certainly vote for it if it comes to a Division.

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
Having listened to the debate, may I express my own opinion for what it is worth? My opinion is that there will be less confusion if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is accepted. I feel convinced that there will be confusion unless it is accepted. I am very impressed by the fact that there is a difference between the language of the Public Health Act, 1936, which applies outside London, and the language in the Public Health (London) Act which applies to London.
Since the Bill which we are now considering is intended to apply inside London and outside London, I should have thought that the arguments were convincing that, in order to avoid any possible doubt or obscurity, we should in Clause 1 substitute the phrase "land or premises" for the word "land". I 867 hope that the hon. Member will take the view of the House.

§ Mr. Ede
The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the question which I put to him. In the plethora of legal advice we have had no one has attempted to deal with it. Would it be a good defence for a person prosecuted to say that one or more of the complainants is either the wife of the occupier and not the occupier or the husband of the occupier and not the occupier? The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) wants to include a paying lodger. Would it be a good defence to say that one of the complainants, being a lodger, has not paid any rent for the last six weeks?

§ Mr. Speir
With the leave of the House, may I say that I have since been advised that the lodger is out? I had contrary advice before, but I understand now that the lodger is out, so the right hon. Gentleman's question does not arise.

§ Mr. Ede
if the lodger is out, he cannot have heard the noise. Let us face the reality of the situation. It is most likely that the complainants will be three wives whose husbands are away at work. There is no dispute that in those circumstances the prosecution is bound to fail.
I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is attempting to advise two lawyers. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) is capable of advising and even instructing the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South is only entitled to tell them what is his opinion and hope, in the confused state they are now in, to get fresh instructions, either from them or my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I supported the hon. Member for Hex-ham on his Litter Bill and I know that next Wednesday I shall see what a complete failure it is, in view of what I saw on television on a recent Friday.
There is nothing worse than to face legislation so worded as to make it very difficult of application and likely to lead to interminable arguments in the magistrates' room, when they have retired, as to whether the prosecution has been validly launched having regard to the exact terms of the Section.

§ Mr. Speir
With the leave of the House, I should like to say that, in view of the strong arguments put forward and the powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and in view of the assistance which he gave me during the passage of the Litter Bill through this House, I would be prepared to accept the Manuscript Amendment.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
The object of the Amendment in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "land" to the end of the line, is to avoid any awkward marginal cases. At present, if the nuisance arises in the district of one local authority, the three objectors have all to be occupiers of land or premises.

§ Mr. MacColl
On a point of order. I think that at this point a further manuscript Amendment would be required. I am wondering whether when we move to the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we shall not get into difficulties with consequential Amendments.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Before moving my Amendment, I think that we should be moving backwards if I did not move to insert the words, "or premises". This is one of two places where the consequential Amendment on the Amendment we have just passed will have to be inserted.
I would ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move a manuscript Amendment, in page 2, line 28, after "land" to insert "or premises".

§ Mr. Speaker
I will tell the House what I feel about it. The point of inserting the words "or premises" has been established in the view of the House this morning. I would personally be rather relieved if I did not have to bother about 869 consequential manuscript Amendments this morning. No doubt that can be done in another place.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
I accept your Ruling. Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speir
Further to that point of order. If the Bill is to be amended, surely it ought to be amended properly here and now, because we might get into difficulties if it were amended in another place. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps you would like to reconsider your Ruling, and allow my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) to move his manuscript Amendment?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not want to create difficulties for anyone, of course. I do not follow this. If it is right in one place it would seem to me to be right in another place. I do not know at the moment what consequential Amendments are necessary or unnecessary. I do not follow why there should be any difficulty about it in another place. The Bill has to go through another place—but I would welcome guidance.

§ Mr. Bell
I am quite willing to comply with any course. I thought that if I moved the manuscript Amendment it would 'be passed "on the nod" and would perhaps avoid difficulties on Amendments at a later stage. If, Mr. Speaker, you would be willing to accept that course, I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment, in page 2, line 28, after "land" to insert "or premises".

§ Mr. Speaker
This is not about betting and gaming. Is the hon. Member sure that I have received a sufficient number of these little bits of paper?

§ Mr. Ronald Bell
I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out from "land" to the end of the line.
The object of the Amendment is to deal with the marginal case that would otherwise arise Where the nuisance is in the area of one authority and two of the three objectors are in that authority's area but the third is not. As the Clause is drafted, all three have to live in three houses contiguous to the noise, so that in such a case those people could not make a valid objection to the authority, and the machinery of the Bill could not 870 operate. There seems to be no particular reason for these words to be in the Clause. In any case, I believe that this Amendment is acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir).

§ Mr. Speir
I am glad to say that this Amendment has been approved by the Scottish authorities. I am, therefore, able to accept it, and I hope that the House will agree that, in this case, silence is golden.

§ Mr. MacColl
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that line 47 in page 2 will also require a piece of paper.

§ Mr. Speir
I beg to move, in page 2, line 48, at the end to insert: (7) Nothing in this section or the said section sixty-six shall apply to noise or vibration caused by aircraft.

§ Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)
Mr. Speaker, I notice, in page 2, line 45, the phrase: …householders or occupiers of premises… Should we not there insert the word "land"?

§ Mr. Speaker
We can do many things, but we cannot go back.

§ Mr. Speir
I emphasised during Second Reading that this Bill is a compromise Measure, and in the Standing Committee I emphasised that it does not seek to cover every possible noise nuisance. It is in the nature of a stopgap Measure and I have never tried to hide the fact that, as a result., it is full of quite large gaps. That, I think, is quite inevitable in the circumstances.
At the same time, it is obviously wise for Parliament to tread warily—and I address my remarks more particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell)—in what is a somewhat complicated matter. Nevertheless, I believe that the Bill is a big step forward in the right direction, and that, in spite of the gaps in it, it is still a worth-while Measure.
One of the gaps to which I drew particular attention on Second Reading was the noise caused by aircraft. I pointed 871 out that the Measure would not apply to aircraft; that they were Statute-barred under the Civil Aviation Act, 1949; and that it would require international agreement before we could hope successfully to tackle this very large, important and urgent problem of seeking to prevent and to eradicate noise and vibration caused by aircraft in the air and at aerodromes.
I am advised that, as the Bill now stands, proceedings could not be taken in respect of Crown aerodromes or aircraft, and that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are adequately safeguarded as statutory undertakers, but that other air firms, other aerodromes, and foreign aircraft—whether of the U2 variety or other kinds —will not be so protected unless this Amendment is incorporated in the Clause. That being the case, I am afraid that I must advise the Committee that, for the time being, and until there has been more research and inquiry into this problem, aerodromes and aircraft should continue to be exempted from the provisions of Clause 1.
The House will know that the Government have already set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to examine the nature, sources and effects of noise, and hon. Members will be glad to hear that the Committee has been asked especially to study and report on this aspect of the problem. That being the case, I think that we have no option but to await the Committee's report. We would be well advised to give it a free hand to see what steps can and should be taken to diminish the noise caused by aircraft, and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment.