§ Motion mode, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
§ 10.1 pm
§ Mr. David Evennett (Erith and Crayford)I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to raise the important issue of neighbourhood noise pollution and to explain some of the work of a dedicated group of people—the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign. The group is endeavouring to improve a difficult situation which is experienced by many of my constituents and by a vast number of people throughout the country. The issue is noisy neighbours.
We live today in an age of greater affluence and greater opportunity. In general, the vast majority of people are far better off in all respects than were their parents, their grandparents or similar people 50 or 100 years ago. We also live in an age of greater awareness which is due in the main to a better education system and to the mass media. We hear a great deal today about the environment, about pollution and the ozone layer. All those issues are widely discussed and extremely important.
Far nearer to the lives of individuals in this country is the issue of noise pollution, which is an equally important and immediate problem. It is a problem that destroys the quality of life for many people. I will speak about neighbourhood noise pollution this evening. It was because of the problem of noise in our society and especially the noise from neighbours, either intentional or unintentional, that the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign was established.
At my constituency surgeries in Erith town hall on a Friday evening, I regularly see people who suffer from noisy neighbours. The problems of the loud use of radios, televisions, cassette players and compact disc players are well known to us all. There there are the frequent parties which disturb neighbours and go on long into the night —perhaps all through the night; the do-it-yourself home improvement addict who seems to be drilling away at all hours of the day and night, causing noise, disturbance and problems; the dogs that bark constantly; the revving of car engines late at night; the slamming of doors; and, of course, domestic rows. All are examples of domestic noise nuisance, and cause annoyance, stress and even despair to neighbours who want only to enjoy the peace and quiet of their own homes. They do not want to hear what is going on next door or down the street. They are not only uninterested; they are annoyed by such disburbance.
Day after day, individuals trying to live their lives in their own homes are harassed by unpleasant, unwelcome and often unceasing noise. The word "nuisance" is probably an understatement. "Nightmare" might be a better word. Quite often the noise makers are unaware of the nuisance that they are causing but, regrettably, sometimes the noise is deliberate. Other noise may be the result of mere thoughtlessness or a failure to notice the noise being made. Noisy people get used to their own noisiness. In some cases, the noisy neighbour may just not care. In highly populated urban areas such as my constituency, 'where many people live in flats and houses with relatively thin walls, the noise carries to many dwellings and affects many homes and people.
Let me say a little about the formation of the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign and its aims and about how those who, like myself, who are involved in the campaign 1236 are hoping for more help from my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government. No history of the campaign and its origins could begin without emphasis being placed on the work of Val Gibson, who lives in my constituency and who founded the campaign with a few friends in May 1991. She had herself been the victim of noisy neighbours and had been forced to move home because of the intolerable situation in which she found herself. She enlisted my support and that of John Cartwright, then the Member of Parliament for Woolwich, who, like me, was well aware that many of his constituents suffered a plight similar to that of Val Gibson. In addition, certain show business personalities and celebrities, such as Spike Milligan, Barry Fantoni and Dr. Alan Maryon-Davis were swift to give their support to the campaign.
I am pleased to report that the campaign has gained backing from all sections of the local community and has spread beyond my area of south-east London across the country. It commands support from members of all political parties and people from all backgrounds.
The first meeting of the campaign was held at Woolwich town hall in July 1991. Its aim was to see what could be done about neighbourhood noise pollution, to consider how best to campaign to highlight the problem, and—it was hoped—find some solutions. Subsequent activities have included meetings with Ministers, the promotion of a noise-free day, a noise awareness day, press campaigns and the distribution of a leaflet entitled "Everybody Needs Good Neighbours", which includes a community code listing a number of dos and don'ts to encourage harmony between neighbours: "Don't mow your lawn late in the evening. Do be co-operative if asked by a neighbour to reduce noise. Do realise that your pleasure should not lead to your neighbour's distress. Don't take a radio or hi-fi outside. Don't use domestic appliances such as vacuum cleaners or washing machines late at night. Please don't carry out DIY after 9 pm on any day and before 10.30 am at weekends. If possible, never carry it out on Sundays. Drilling into and hammering on walls are particularly disturbing." The "Good Neighbours" leaflet has been widely circulated.
The local radio campaign in August culminated in the presentation to Radio Wyvern, the Worcester-based radio station, of the noise awareness award 1992 for being the most noise-conscious radio station in Britain. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that we had a very useful meeting with him in his Department about a year ago to discuss those issues. He was sympathetic and gave us a good deal of his time, for which we were all grateful.
The Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign was established to achieve certain fundamental objectives. They are many and varied and I will refer only to the key objectives tonight.
First, it has allowed people who are suffering the constant and wearing pain of noise nuisance to contact other people in the same or similar situations. People who are suffering will realise that they are not alone. The campaign can, and does, give considerable support to those people. The practical advice is greatly valued. I am aware of that from constituency cases in which people have contacted the campaign and have been put in touch with people in similar circumstances so that they can discuss the issue to discover how they can improve the situation.
Secondly, the campaign believes that there is a need to amend the law to give the police and environmental health 1237 officers more powers to deal with the perpetrators of noise nuisance. I realise that I cannot press for a change in the law in this debate, but the campaign continues to urge my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department to consider the law and noise nuisance carefully to discover what can be done and how the law might be amended.
I have pressured my hon. Friend the Minister in earlier discussions and correspondence, and I hope that he will look at the matter again and take note of our concerns. I believe that the police and environmental health officers should have more powers to help alleviate the suffering of those who are being harassed and distressed by neighbourhood noise pollution.
The campaign's third aim, which is possibly generally accepted as the most important objective, is to raise public awareness of the problems of noise nuisance and to develop noise neighbourhood watch schemes. In particular, we need to educate the public to be better citizens and to be more aware of the noise that they make and the effect of their actions on their local environment.
We must endeavour to get people to reduce their noise output and, for example, to turn down the volume knob on radios, stereos and televisions. I am not being a killjoy. I regularly listen to popular music and to Capital Radio. I am often disappointed to hear disc jockeys urge young people to turn up the volume without thinking of the consequences and the effect on neighbours or other people in the house. It is irresponsible for such people to encourage an increase in volume to an unacceptable level.
I have children who enjoy music. We constantly ensure that the volume on their stereos and television is turned down to an acceptable level. I regularly play tapes—Dusty Springfield, Annie Lennox or whatever—on my way home in the evening. However, I do not allow the volume to rise too high and I do not leave my windows open and blast out noise which might be disadvantageous and unacceptable to other people.
We have an excellent radio station in Erith and Crayford called RTM Radio on 103.8 FM which, under the financial support of Thamesmead town and the capable leadership of Rodney Collings, does an excellent job. It entertains and keeps people informed of local issues. It does not encourage listeners to turn up the volume. It is community radio at its best. It informs the community, but it does not offend it through the level of noise.
We must be responsible and educate people to be more considerate. People should think about noise and the effect that their actions have on neighbours who may be elderly, have young children, be unwell or merely want to enjoy peace and quiet in their own homes after a demanding or stressful day at work.
I know from personal experience in discussions with him that my hon. Friend is extremely sympathetic to victims of noise nuisance and disturbance and supports the aims of the peace and quiet campaign to encourage people to be more considerate. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to take more action. The aim must be to eliminate unnecessary and unwanted noise from our neighbourhoods so that all residents can enjoy peace and quiet in their gardens and homes or going about their daily business.
Members of the campaign, myself included, are grateful for the Government's interest in the problem, and in 1238 particular for the attendance of my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde at several of our functions. We are grateful also for what the Government are endeavouring to do to reduce noise disturbance. My hon. Friend is concerned about the problem. I have already urged him to be more positive, and I do so again this evening.
At present, there is relatively little that individual citizens can do to improve their situation in respect of noise nuisance. Regrettably, noise nuisance is an increasing problem and many people are looking to the Government to take more action to help them to deal with the problem. The Government have a very good record on environmental issues in general. I hope only that the alleviation of neighbourhood noise pollution will have higher priority in future Government policy. I call on my hon. Friend to be positive, helpful and effective.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) has raised an important topic which affects the quality of the environment for each and every one of us —that is, neighbourhood noise. Most of us at one time or another have experienced the intrusive noise problems to which he referred, such as the wild and noisy party or the inconsiderate DIY addict—the problem of noisy neighbours. It is absolutely right that people should now insist on ever higher environmental standards to contribute to an ever improving quality of life, for all people, wherever they live, are entitled too the quiet enjoyment of their own homes.
I have met my hon. Friend on several occasions to discuss those issues and find possible solutions. My hon. Friend has rightly paid tribute to the work of the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign in raising the profile of neighbourhood noise problems. I join him in that tribute and in his tribute to Val Gibson. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Strathclyde, attended the launch of the leaflet entitled "Everybody Needs Good Neighbours" and gave full Government support to Noise Awareness Month which the campaign ran in August in association with the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers. As my hon. Friend said, it is essential that the public are aware that noise can be prejudicial to health and a nuisance. The Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign has recognised that fact and acted on it.
We take all forms of environmental noise pollution very seriously. We paid particular attention to the specific problems of neighbourhood noise. Complaints about neighbourhood noise have increased significantly over the past 10 years and they continue to increase. It is therefore vital that continuing action is taken to tackle the problem and that people should be aware that the Government are providing the framework for successfully reducing and tackling the problem of neighbourhood noise.
It was because of increased concern about neighbourhood noise, together with the fact that there has been no review of noise policy for some time, that in February 1990, the Government set up the noise review working party to examine every aspect of noise.
In October 1990, the working party produced a most comprehensive review. The review devotes a whole chapter 1239 to the problems of neighbourhood noise. This report forms the basis of the Government's noise policy. The noise review working party made 53 recommendations, many of which have now been incorporated in legislation.
One of those recommendations was that the duty of local authorities to investigate noise complaints should be clarified. The Government implemented that swiftly in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities are now under a duty, not only to inspect their area from time to time to detect statutory nuisances, but to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate all complaints. There is nothing more frustrating than when the constituents of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members telephone or contact the environmental health department of their local authority to find that there is no immediate response. Environmental health officers must now take all reasonable steps to investigate those complaints.
The 1990 Act also provides environmental health officers with extensive powers to control noise by the serving of abatement notices which, if ignored, can result in a considerable fine. Indeed, on 1 October this year, the maximum fine was increased to £5,000, plus £500 for each day the offence continues after conviction. If a local authority believes that summary proceedings in the magistrates court would not afford an adequate remedy, it may seek an injunction in the High Court which could ultimately lead to a much higher fine—or even a prison sentence in an extreme case—if the noise maker is considered to be in contempt of court by ignoring the injunction.
I appreciate that the threat of prosecution may not always be enough to end the disturbance of, for example, a noisy party. So our first priorty must be to take measures that enable local authorities to take immediate action against neighbourhood noise disturbances. The 1990 Act provides environmental health officers with the power to remove temporarily articles such as audio equipment, hi-fi equipment and radios where a noise abatement notice has not been complied with, thereby stopping the nuisance immediately.
I do not underestimate the practical difficulties of dealing with noisy parties. It is for this reason that a small working group was set up to consider whether there was a need for further measures specifically to tackle the problem of noisy parties. Both environmental health officers and police are represented on the group.
In addition to the implementation of the 1990 Act, we announced in June our proposals to strengthen and extend the laws on noise. The proposals seek to give local authorities increased powers to deal with three aspects of noise pollution. First, there will be an extension of the noise abatement procedures so that environmental health officers will be able to serve notices in respect of noise nuisance in the street. This will mean, for example, that environmental health officers will be able to take action to deal with the problem caused by vehicle alarms.
Secondly, there will be tighter controls on the use of loudspeakers in the street. Thirdly, local authorities will be able to adopt powers to require owners of domestic and commercial burglar alarms to fit mandatory cut-out devices and to notify the police of the names of keyholders. We hope that the result of this legislation will be that few, if any, burglar alarms will continue to sound for longer than 20 minutes. Provision will be made for environmental health officers to access premises where an alarm continues to sound and no keyholder can be contacted.
1240 Those are some of the legislative changes that the Government have made to create a framework for dealing with noise. Let me now turn to the advice and information that we have prepared in order that the legislation can be enforced to its full effect and in order to give people the fullest information on their rights.
In July my Department issued a revised version of its booklet "Bothered by Noise: What you can do about it." This summarises the latest legislation on noise and explains in practical terms what steps can be taken by any individual to eliminate noise problems, including the procedure for taking action against noisy neighbours.
In September we issued a substantial guidance document for local authorities on the roles of environmental health officers and the police in dealing with noisy parties. That had been a recommendation of the noise review working party.
Recently, we prepared a draft planning policy guidance note on planning and noise, which offers advice on how the planning system can he used to minimise noise impact on people, especially when at home, in educational establishments, and in hospital. We expect that guidance to be issued early in the new year.
I hope that the House will realise that we have taken steps to get the framework of law, advice and information right to help to reduce neighbourhood noise. We accept that we need to go further to make that effective at the practical level of repeated noisy parties, dogs that bark all day next to a worker on night shifts, and stereo systems which are turned up too loud in rooms where the windows are left wide open. As my hon. Friend made clear, people must become aware of the need to become good neighbours. That must also be tackled at a personal and local level.
One of our initiatives to get down to that personal level was the noise awareness project that we recently sponsored in Forest Hill, a small residential area of south London, among a group of local residents. That resulted in the production by the residents, with the help of consultants financed by my Department, of a community code to help to reduce noise problems within the community. The project encouraged more co-operation between the residents, the tenants' association, the local authority and the police.
Additionally, my Department's environmental grant fund is supporting a noise counselling and mediation scheme in Bristol. That project enables help and advice to be given in cases in which the environmental health officers may not be able to take action for one reason or another. All the parties involved in the dispute are contacted in an effort to resolve it by negotiation.
We have also supported a research project carried out by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, to increase noise awareness among schoolchildren in Nottingham. The results demonstrate that schoolchildren are receptive to the subject, showing genuine concern about the fact that noise could be damaging their bodies without their realising it. At the end of the project, those involved showed a marked change in their attitude to noise.
All those are examples of initiatives that may be taken elsewhere in the country. I am sure that many other areas will wish to take similar initiatives to ensure that the message of being a responsible and good neighbour is encouraged at a local level.
My hon. Friend has expressed concern that the police have no direct powers to stop noise makers. On previous 1241 occasions several hon. Members have compared the situation with that in Scotland where, under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, a uniformed police officer can request a noise maker to desist. If that person refuses, he or she can be charged with an offence. Since the offence can fall within the Scottish definition of a breach of the peace, the offender may be arrested on the spot, rather than being summonsed.
I understand that the police in Scotland exercise the right to ask noise makers to desist, but seldom use the power of arrest. The differences between north and south of the border are therefore not as great as they might at first appear. Issues of civil liberty also arise, as does the difficulty of defining an offence. How noisy must one be before one is liable to be arrested? The abatement notice procedure diminishes those problems, and it is for the courts to determine how they wish to apply the considerable fine levels available under those procedures.
It is also important to recognise that the noise review working party considered the idea of making "deliberate, sustained and excessive" noise a criminal offence. It rejected the idea, in favour of strengthening the existing statutory nuisance procedures—a measure which was subsequently incorporated into the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
1242 We now wish to find out whether all those initiatives improve the practical application of the 1990 Act, before considering any other measures, such as extending the criminal law along the Scottish model and thereby increasing the burdens on the police force.
The Government recognise that the problem of neighbourhood noise must be tackled quickly and effectively. We shall listen carefully to reports of problems which are encountered in using the powers conferred in the Environmental Protection Act to control neighbourhood noise. Any information that my hon. Friend or the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign have we shall carefully consider. Equally, I hope that we shall hear positive comments where the application of those powers—perhaps in association with mediation—produces positive results.
As my hon. Friend may have noted from the second year report of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", the Government have fulfilled the majority of the commitments that they made in the White Paper with respect to noise and have committed themselves to further action. My hon. Friend, those whom he represents and those involved in the campaign to tackle the problem of noisy neighbours can rest assured that we shall continue to work towards a more peaceful local environment, keeping in touch with the views of voluntary organisations, such as the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.