Return etc of seized equipment

HC Deb 10 May 1996 vol 277 cc560-77

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)—

1. (a) the responsible local authority must return the equipment to any person who—
1. (i) appears to them to be the owner of the equipment, and
2. (ii) makes a claim for the return of the equipment within the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), and
2. (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—

1. (a) equipment is sold in pursuance of—
1. (i) paragraph 4(6),
2. (ii) directions under paragraph 5, or
3. (iii) this paragraph, and
2. (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

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: If a warning notice has been served in respect of noise emitted from a dwelling, any person who is responsible for noise which—

1. (a) is emitted from the dwelling & specified in the notice, and
2. (b) exceeds the permitted level, as measured from within the complainant's dwelling,

is guilty of on offence. 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 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. The Bill therefore gives local authorities the power to seize noise-making equipment used in the emission of noise leading to an offence.

Self-evidently, that is a very effective way of stopping the noise, and I have no doubt that those provisions will be welcomed by local authorities and noise sufferers alike. My amendments to the Bill have provided for a yet better schedule, which details the conditions on, and consequences concerning, an offender's forfeiting his or her noise-making equipment.

The Bill becomes more relevant with each day that passes. On Second Reading, I outlined—with the support and sometimes amusement of colleagues—how the development of dance music, characterised by the heavy bass drum beat, had branched into many forms. Much as I shall continue my efforts to persuade our national pop radio stations to playlist music by the Beatles, I fear that they are little use in the face of the increasing popularity of "jungle", "hard-core" and—I believe—"handbag", which currently prevail. That can be the most intrusive type of music—

Mr. Evennett

Give us a demonstration.

Mr. Greenway

If I did, I might be convicted of noise nuisance.

That can be the most intrusive type of music, and I warn my colleagues that it is no passing trend. I have warned the nation of that.

It is important to recognise the increasing availability, and falling prices, of powerful noise machines. A few tens of pounds can buy an instrument capable of being used at volumes way beyond a comfortable listening level. Previous legislation has tackled the disturbance caused by warehouse parties. It is vital that, in a similar way, we protect individuals from those who wish to throw a party with their powerful hi-fi equipment as the principal guest and centre of attention.

I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. colleagues who have participated in the important, constructive and effective—if occasionally lengthy—discussions held over four sittings of the Standing Committee. Several points were raised, all of which helped to clarify the meaning of the Bill and aided understanding of it.

Most important, I am delighted to remind the House that, following consultation with the Northern Ireland Office, and after much help from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)—to whom I am very grateful—the Bill will now extend to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am grateful that that is the case, and that many more individuals will be able to use the Noise Bill in their fight against selfish neighbours.

The Committee has amended the Bill to the effect that the penalty notice now costs the offender £100. I emphasise that that is an important adjustment, which will send out the message that such intrusion in the privacy of others is a severe offence, which will be dealt with accordingly. Should the noise persist, an offender will be liable to court fines of £1,000 at a time, and quite possibly the permanent forfeiture of equipment.

I have been asked by some people why the Bill should apply only to night-time noise. It is important to remember that we are attempting to tackle one specific problem at this stage. Daytime noise levels can be higher than night-time levels, but attempts to add provisions relating to daytime noise now might give us too much to do, and there would be a danger of our not achieving the considerable amount that we shall achieve, if we pass the Bill, in tackling night noise.

A start must be made; people are entitled to sleep at night. I am sure that each of us has received numerous complaints from constituents who are upset in some way or other, however great or little, by some form of audible disturbance at night. It is time to put an end to it. Much as I shall miss the hundreds of letters that I receive on the subject, we have an opportunity to do that.

I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that my Bill will provide important additional powers to tackle this widespread and pernicious problem. I am sure that we all have experience of the adverse effects of domestic noise on the lives and welfare of constituents.

I shall end by quoting a story from The Mail on Sunday of Jack Gott, a 59-year-old retired builder, who took his own life in desperation. Night after night, his teenage neighbour entertained guests who played loud pop music, slammed doors and often had violent rows. Those noises were ever present, and he believed that there was only one way of getting away from them. His sister, with whom I am sure we all wholeheartedly agree, said: There needs to be a change in the law. Only this will bring justice for the majority against those who just keep on taking liberties. I commend the Bill to the House.

11.40 am

Mr. Nicholls

The last thing I intend to do is sound a discordant note in a debate of this sort. If I raise a particular point, I shall do so quietly, and, I hope, reasonably.

I join in the praise given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. Those who have come to the subject relatively recently have had to read, in one fell tranche, the proceedings of the Standing Committee and the background briefing documents, all of which show that he has done a tremendous amount of work. Even with the resources from the Department of the Environment, to which he so generously referred, any Back-Bench Member who has introduced such a Bill will realise how much work is entailed.

At times, people may look at our deliberations on the Floor of the House and, when they see only 20 Members present, mistake quantity for quality. They do not realise just how much work has gone on behind the scenes. Therefore, in the one point that I want to raise, I do not wish to be obstructive or destructive. I am certainly not trying to raise the temperature—or the noise level.

I, like other Members of Parliament, have received numerous complaints over the years about the effect of noise on people's lives. I am fortunate that my local council, Teignbridge district council, is efficiently run. No council is perfect, but it is a great deal better than the average. I pay tribute to it because, when I take up complaints with it, it does its level best to solve them—although sometimes without the clear-cut powers that we would want it to have.

As highlighted in the excellent Library briefing on the Bill, what irritates people about noise and drives them to desperation differs to some extent. I remember living in a flat in Hammersmith: at about 4 o'clock every morning, a heavy pounding beat would come from the flat below. As far as I could detect, that song—which was obviously a favourite of the tenants—had only four notes, which never varied. It had the same bass all the time. It was intensely aggravating, the sort of nuisance that could drive people to distraction. Had I been an elderly, frail person confined to my flat, I cannot imagine what I might have done.

However, if what had woken me up at 4 o'clock in the morning was a radio that had been turned up a little too loudly by an elderly, frail pensioner, I might have been irritated, but it would not have driven me round the bend in the same way as that music from the flat below. What was annoying about it was that it was so unreasonable. It was the unreasonable and selfish nature of it that made me so angry.

When someone is annoyed by music in that way, we go much further and begin to imagine the motives of people who have such contempt for those around them that they are prepared to behave in that way. Therefore, it is not just the intensity of the noise that is the problem, but the motives behind it.

What troubles me about the Bill is that I can think of occasions when unreasonable people could use it for their purposes. I can find no reference in the Bill or in the deliberations in Standing Committee—other than two passing remarks—to, for example, an 18th birthday party. By definition, such a party cannot be justified every day of the week. It is not the sort of party encompassed by the example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North a few moments ago. It is a one-off occasion, which will not happen more than once in a lifetime.

There is no doubt that what constitutes a good night's entertainment for someone celebrating his first and only 18th birthday will not be seen in the same light by elderly neighbours. The last thing I want is for this excellent Bill to be turned into a "Meldrew's manifesto".

I recall a constituent coming to see me to complain about an extremely noisy event. That person had contacted the council, but, because the event had ended, nothing could be done. I looked into the case, and—to cut a long story short—discovered that it had been an 18th birthday party that had continued until about 4 o'clock in the morning, but that was it. It was as bad as that, but no worse.

When I said to my constituent that I had more or less got to the bottom of the problem, and that it was just an 18th birthday party, I heard a tirade about how young people should have more consideration for elderly people who are in bed by 11 o'clock, and that there was no reason why the young people should not be as well.

At times there can be a clash of cultures. Speaking personally, I could not in all conscience say now, in the middle of the day when I am feeling fairly cheerful, that, even on the nights that I want to go to bed at a reasonable hour, as befits someone of my declining years, I would object to my neighbour having a noisy 18th birthday party and say that he was acting unreasonably if that was the only time it was likely to happen.

Mr. Harry Greenway

My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Indeed, it was the first question on the Bill raised with me by the sixth form. I said in Committee that, with one-off parties, the people holding them should let their neighbours know about them, and even invite them to come. If they do that, they will be fairly well covered if any dispute arises. Of course, there is always the alternative of borrowing from a friend a property that is well insulated and away from people who might be disturbed by the party. It is all consideration and give and take.

Mr. Nicholls

My hon. Friend is an eminently reasonable and kind person, so he thinks that everybody will act in the way he suggests. However, I can recall another constituency case.

A friend of mine had a child who was having an 18th birthday party. My friend did as I am sure we would all do: he telephoned the neighbours and said, "Look, I've got bad news for you. James, Mark, Fiona or whoever is about to be 18 and there is going to be a ghastly party with long-haired people and dreadful music. We just wanted to let you know. Why don't you come on down at 8 o'clock, have a few drinks with us and take on board some anaesthetic and then it won't seem so bad?" What did those neighbours do? They telephoned the police and said that there was going to be a noisy party down the road.

I have read the Bill, but I cannot see anything that would provide a defence against that situation. The defence clause—4(2)—states: It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that there was a reasonable excuse for the act, default or sufferance in question. That is all well and good, but it will be a sad business if the few Meldrews in society find out about a party, disapprove of the time of night that it is being held, disapprove of the fact that it will involve young people with a lot of wretched noise and ghetto blasters, and decide that, at one minute past midnight, they will phone the local authority and say, "There's some noise, and I want you down here right now."

If it were my hon. Friend or me on the other end of that telephone, we might ask whether the noise had happened often and whether the person complaining had tried to discover whether it was a one-off 18th or 21st birthday party. What will that person's reaction be? He will probably say, "I am not interested in the motives. I am one of those difficult, awkward cusses who has been able to measure the decibel level. There is too much noise coming from that 18th birthday party, and I want it stopped."

It is all well and good for people to say that that would not happen, but I bet it will, and that is the problem. All of us who have been local councillors, and who are Members of Parliament and lawyers, know that one of the problems with legislation is not that we try to produce a set of regulations and directions to frame the activities of essentially reasonable people, but that we have to try to frame regulations that will not be misused by essentially unreasonable people.

I shall not labour the point, but, as I said, there is nothing in the Bill that I can see to stop a difficult, bloody-minded person saying that they are not going to allow a party to go on because they disapprove of such behaviour, and that they are going to stop it stone dead. I appreciate that nothing can be done today to address that, but it would be immensely sad if, in three, six or nine months' time, the Bill not only achieves what we want, but produces a Meldrew manifesto for the tiny number of unreasonable people in our society.

Mr. Harry Greenway

I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance. The local authority would have discretion over whether to proceed in the cases that he has cited, which is very important. An officer called to a scene may decide to attempt to resolve the problem informally. If he is satisfied that the noise constitutes a statutory noise nuisance, he is under a duty to serve an abatement notice under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There is discretion, and environmental health officers will be people like my hon. Friend and me, as he has described—reasonable, sensible and fair. The matter should and will be properly covered by that means.

Mr. Nicholls

My hon. Friend rightly has a grasp of the detail that I could not pretend to have. I only hope that that is right. Clause 2(1) states: A local authority must, if they receive a complaint of the kind mentioned in subsection (2)", ensure that it is investigated. The clause goes on to define the circumstances—excessive noise emitted from a dwelling during night-time hours.

Mr. Evennett

My hon. Friend is making some very good points. The problem is persistent noise nuisance, which the local authority environmental health officer has the right to investigate. That is the key. If the noise occurred on one occasion, the investigation would be made on that basis. If, however, a property was the venue of an 18th birthday party every weekend, the noise would be persistent.

Mr. Nicholls

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I first entered the House of Commons, courts never looked at our deliberations, but merely considered what was plainly in the Act and what Parliament intended. In a number of respects, that has been altered, and I am sure that our exchanges will be looked at by local authorities when they are considering how they should exercise discretion. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) for making that point.

If one is not careful, one can throw out the baby with the bath water. It was said earlier that the Bill follows steps that the Government have taken to proscribe rave and warehouse parties, where there would be illegal goings-on, which were obviously designed for, and have the effect of being, the venue for all sorts of illegal activity. Even in that context, some young people—curiously, sixth form students again—asked me a t the time whether I was absolutely certain that Parliament was not discriminating against a type of activity in which a generation of a certain age that most of us have long since passed might not want to indulge.

Although I thought that that was wrong in relation to rave parties because I was able to make the point that we were after not a good bash, but something entirely different, such comments sound a note of caution for us. The last thing we would want to do—because it would be wrong for the image of the House, which is important, but also wrong per se—is produce rules and regulations that discriminate against one particular age group in our society and favour another simply because patterns of activities and pastimes differ.

Although I am grateful for the points made about the element of discretion, I can imagine a certain type of person leaning very hard on the environmental health officer and making it abundantly clear that they knew all about events, saying, "They say that it is just a one-off party, but that is entirely wrong. We should be allowed to sleep, and you ought to get out there now."

Difficult cases will require some intelligent and firm guidance on why the Bill was passed. If my hon. Friends are satisfied that those concerns are properly reflected in the Bill, I shall defer to them. I certainly hope that that is the case, because it should be so.

11.54 am

Mr. Evennett

We have had a good debate this morning. I give complete support to the Bill on Third Reading; it is a much-needed and long overdue measure. We look forward to it completing its parliamentary stages and going on to the statute book. We shall then look to the local authorities to implement it and make it effective.

We do not want to be killjoys, but we must realise that we are dealing with a real problem, which has affected so many people. I welcomed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), to which I listened with great interest. We are not talking only about young people who make noise, but about a wide range of people. We are talking about the do-it-yourself experts who want to do it all the time. Their wives—[Laughter] We have a great opportunity for a bit of mirth at the end of these debates. Certainly there is a wide range of people who are noisy in their homes, which affects the health of many of their neighbours.

The Bill is a great step forward, although it is not the only answer. Education is needed to make young people and not-so-young people more aware of the noise they are making, to make them good citizens and to encourage them to turn down the radio and the television, so that less noise emanates from their dwellings. Education must play a part and there must be a sense of community spirit—the idea that the noise that a person makes may have a detrimental effect on neighbours.

The Bill is a great step forward. I welcome the debates in Committee and on Report; there have been some good and useful exchanges. The Bill was improved in Committee, and, as a result of the amendments that the Minister has promised will be tabled in another place, it will be a much better measure. It is a great start, and I am sure that many people will be pleased with it. I very much hope that it will be implemented, and that we use education to make people more conscious of the noise they make and the effect it has on their neighbours. I hope that people will turn down the noise.

11.56 am

Mr. Merchant

I welcome the Bill warmly, especially in view of the Minister's assurance that amendments will be tabled in the other place, which will overcome the problems about enforcement which rightly exercise people. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on his tremendous work in introducing the Bill and in piloting it through to this stage. I have participated, with great pleasure, in discussions on the Bill at each stage, because I strongly support my hon. Friend and believe that the Bill is so necessary.

The Bill is necessary fundamentally because the present law has failed the victims, and that failure needs to be put right. We are talking about an activity that is not just anti-social, but a form of mental assault. If the sleep deprivation that noise from neighbours brings was practised by the police or by the armed forces when interrogating people, it would count as torture. That is the seriousness of the problem.

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), to whom I listened with great care and who made some valid points, I believe that the primary importance of the Bill is that it deals with persistent noise makers, the sort of people who upset many of my constituents.

Mr. Nicholls

For the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely accept that the Bill is targeted against such people. It is an excellent Bill, and the sooner it becomes law the better. The sole point I made was that we should ensure that we did not inadvertently sweep up people we did not want to be caught by the Bill.

Mr. Merchant

I am greatly reassured by that.

I believe that the one-off noisy party will not normally be brought within the ambit of the Bill. Perhaps my faith in human nature is greater than my hon. Friend's, but I believe that, if sensible, ordinary, socially-minded people want to have an 18th birthday party, a wedding celebration or whatever, they will usually do what one of my neighbours did a year or so ago, and send everybody within earshot a little note saying, "On Saturday night we are holding a wedding anniversary party".

The people I am talking about were not young people; they were quite elderly, and the anniversary must have been a 20th or a 25th. They warned all the neighbours, and the neighbours, being reasonable people, thought, "Well, there's nothing wrong with that," and smiled to themselves—or, if they were a little more sensitive, they might have mumbled to themselves, but they would have been prepared. They knew that such an event would not happen often—probably only once in 25 years. Certainly it was the only time that such a thing has happened in my area.

When the night came, the party was rather noisy and it did keep me awake, but that did not bother me at all. I simply thought, "They're having a good time," because I was impressed by the fact that those people had been polite and thoughtful enough to inform the neighbours.

If people had objected, after all that, what would they have done? They would have contacted their neighbours and said, "Your noise is getting a bit much. It is 3 in the morning and I can't sleep. Would you mind turning it down?" Most people, being reasonable, would have done so.

Even if things had gone a stage further—although I doubt whether they would have done—and the local authority had been called in, it would have had a duty under the Bill to come, and that is right and proper. But the local authority employee would have had a word with the people holding the party, I imagine in a perfectly friendly way, and the volume would have been turned down, never to be turned up again. Even if all that failed, the party would not be stopped, because the next step would be the issue of a warning notice, and then the noise would stop. But I imagine that by then the party would probably have come to an end, anyway.

I do not believe that there will be any problem for the one-off party of that nature. The Bill will stop, and is aimed at, the persistent noise-maker and troublemaker who causes such great distress that he effectively ruins people's lives. The Bill will give relief and protection from such people, primarily because of its massive deterrent impact. As I have read and understood the Bill at its various stages, that is its prime purpose. Its target is to prevent and deter.

However, in the unlikely event of the deterrence not working, for the few extreme cases that will remain, the Bill has within it a mechanism for taking firm, effective and thorough action to stop the noise. Because of those two aspects, the deterrence and the effective enforcement, the Bill will achieve a great deal. It will protect our constituents, and the fact that the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will for ever be associated with it does him great credit.

12.2 pm

Mr. Thomason

Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I entirely support the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on the work that he has put in. However, I should like to flag up one or two issues at this stage.

I am disappointed in that the Bill does not go far enough. I realise that one has to be cautious in introducing such legislation, and take things a step at a time. But the Bill is limited to night time, and I have certainly had complaints from constituents about noise during the day. Noise in the daytime is especially difficult for people with very small children, who may need to sleep during the day, and it is also difficult for the elderly. I hope that, in future, it may be possible to consider extending the hours if the Bill proves effective.

The second point that concerns me is the fact that the Bill applies only to noise emanating from dwellings. We may be told that there are already sufficient statutory provisions governing noise from other areas, but people in my constituency have certainly had problems caused by non-conforming users, whose noise has come not necessarily from an industrial process but from ghetto blasters played by people who are working. In a residential neighbourhood, even a building site can create an enormous amount of unnecessary noise—that is, noise unrelated to building activities.

In future, I hope that it will prove possible to extend this type of legislation to sites that are not purely dwelling houses, in situations in which existing legislation may be defective, or at least not sufficiently powerful.

I should be grateful if the Minister will deal with another concern. The Bill is quite specific about what is a dwelling—it uses the words "in a dwelling". I realise that many complaints come from occupants of flats, and particularly from occupants of houses that have been converted to flats, in which noise regulations may be insufficiently tight to cover noise travelling from one dwelling unit to another.

Some of those complaints, however, relate to dwellings in what was described earlier as "the leafy suburbs", where people sometimes take radios out into a garden and have a party at night. If it is a matter of an occasional party, I accept that perhaps there should not be a complaint about it. But people sometimes have parties regularly, which spill out into a garden area around the dwelling, and people sometimes make other noises with equipment during the night that is not entirely conducive to their neighbours' sleep.

I wonder whether it would be appropriate to consider carefully whether "dwelling" for the purposes of the Act includes the curtilage of a dwelling? If it does not, I wonder whether it might be right for another place to consider that matter. I understand that the normal definition of dwelling is deemed to include curtilage, but provisions in the Act—I think it is clause 2—state "in a dwelling", perhaps implying inside an accommodation unit. I shall be happy if I can be assured that the normal concept of dwelling will apply here, and that it will include gardens. I think that that matter needs clarification, and I should be delighted to receive it.

Mr. Harry Greenway

I reassure my hon. Friend, on the important point that he is making, that the Bill will apply to dwelling houses, including gardens. That is written into the Bill.

Mr. Thomason

I am most grateful for that clarification.

I should like to mention one final point, which was touched on in some of the amendments I tabled that have not been called. I am a little concerned about threats that may follow from people making complaints. It is a difficult issue. People who play loud radios or whatever are not always aware of the concerns of others, and sometimes behave in an overtly violent manner. People are clearly frightened about making complaints against neighbours, and particularly against neighbours of that disposition.

If those neighbours observe local authority officers going into a complainant's house and recording noise in that house or flat, it becomes self-evident who made the complaint. However, if local authority officers were required to take measurements outside a dwelling, the complainant could not be clearly ascertained. Noise levels would, of course, have to be adjusted, because what one hears outside will be louder than what is heard inside a neighbouring dwelling, but that can be easily overcome by the manner in which the Secretary of State prescribes noise levels. The possibility of intimidation should be carefully considered, and I trust reviewed, during the Bill's progress.

I re-emphasise that none of my comments is intended to be destructive of the Bill. It is an important step in the right direction. In recent years, there have been 17 recorded deaths as a direct result of noise nuisance. In the past 10 years, some 10,000 disputes between neighbours have been resolved by mediation, and 60 per cent. of those disputes were caused by noise. Noise is a serious problem, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and his supporters on their work.

12.9 pm

Mr. Jenkin

I join in the general congratulations and the paeans of praises being heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who has done a tremendous job in getting the Bill this far. I greatly look forward to it receiving a Third Reading and moving to another place for them up there to see whether they can improve it.

The Bill has widespread general support, and it must be encouraging for people outside to see Members of Parliament discussing something that affects their everyday lives and is not a matter of party political dispute. There are plenty of issues that unite hon. Members of all parties rather than divide us, and it is important that people outside realise that.

I pay tribute to Tendring district council and Colchester borough council for the work that their environmental health departments already do in trying to control noise. As Mr. Coulter, the director of environmental and technical services of Tendring council, pointed out to me in a letter: Social indicators show general environmental exposure to noise has increased and there is a greater expectation now to live in a quieter environment. If the Bill achieves its objectives, we shall be helping local authorities such as Tendring to provide a quieter environment.

Colchester borough council said: We look forward, with interest, to the transformation of this Bill into an Act of Parliament. That is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.

However, in paying tribute to my hon. Friend and to people such as Colin Daines, the environmental control manager with Colchester borough council, I wish to draw the House's attention to something that we must not forget. If the Bill is successful, we shall increasingly be sending public servants into difficult and possibly dangerous situations. Confronting one party or the other in a serious dispute between neighbours can be extremely hazardous.

A letter from one of the local authorities in my area states: All the provisions, including service of both warning notice and fixed penalty and the seizure of equipment, would bring local authority officers into potentially highly dangerous conflict situations. There is a school of thought that the ability of the police to deal with night time noise in Scotland has its merits. If we get the Bill on to the statute book, we must be ready to encourage the police to play their part in noise abatement. It is not right that we should expect civilian local authority public servants to put themselves in danger, as they will undoubtedly have to do if they are to achieve the Bill's objective.

As has been said, the Bill's aim is to ensure that people have the right to peace and quiet. It is a right that most of us can enjoy, although most of us have at some time been deprived of it, especially at night, which is the main subject of the Bill. The Bill is therefore a very necessary extension of human rights in a very important sphere.

I am reminded of a distinguished former Member of the House, who regularly had his hair cut by the House barber. The barber at that time was a chatty man and used to talk garrulously to his clients. When the former Member, who left the House some time ago, was asked, after a long preamble, "How would you like your hair cut, sir?", he replied, "In silence." That serves as a reminder that we all value our peace, quiet and silence, and we should do our best to extend that to as many people as possible.

12.14 pm

Mrs. Bridget Prentice

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on piloting the Bill through the House. Many people up and down the country will welcome it when it is fully enacted. I also congratulate The Mail on Sunday and the Evening Standard on the campaigns that they ran. I am sure that all of us who have experienced the problem in our constituencies or in our own lives agree that noise nuisance must be abhorred. Every year, the lives of thousands of people are made intolerable because of persistent noise caused by selfish and unthinking neighbours. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) pointed out, some 17 people have been killed or have committed suicide in the past few years as a result of neighbourhood disputes about noise.

The scale of the problem cannot be ignored and is everincreasing. In 1993–94, local authorities received 130,000 complaints about noise from domestic premises, an increase of 10 per cent. on the previous year and the seventh consecutive year in which an increase occurred. Since then, I expect that the increase has continued remorselessly.

The Bill will address some of the problems by introducing measures to stop noise at night, but it is only a start. Letters from my constituents and from those of other hon. Members reveal how complex noise disputes between neighbours can be. A constituent recently wrote to tell me that her life was made intolerable by the tenant in the flat above, who stomped about all night, ran about shouting and threw things across the floor. My constituent became so miserable that she was forced to stay elsewhere with her children. But the noisy tenant was mentally ill, and had been moved into that accommodation as a result of the care in the community policy. Giving him a warning notice and fining him £100 would probably achieve very little.

The Bill is limited, but understandably so. It will help people who are suffering from the blasts of the stereo next door, but perhaps will not apply in sensitive cases where the situation is complicated by a more fundamental problem, such as mental illness. We need to look comprehensively at all the issues. However, it is time that we brought back the balance of rights and responsibilities that neighbours owe to one another, which at the moment seems to be out of kilter.

Labour fully recognises that every citizen and every family has a right to a quiet life, free from unacceptable noise, harassment and criminal behaviour from their neighbours. Last year, our document "A Quiet Life" proposed a new community safety order; a special form of injunction to restrain criminal anti-social behaviour by individuals or groups. Our proposals were tough—I see that the Under-Secretary is smiling. They are tough, but they need to be. It is time we recognised the hell that people's lives can turn into because of neighbours' irresponsible behaviour.

We all have a right to a quiet life and a responsibility to live quietly, so that others can enjoy their lives. I pay tribute to Val Gibson and the Right to Peace and Quiet Campaign, based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett). We in Lewisham have benefited from the campaign, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) was successful a year or two ago in our borough, with the support of Val Gibson. I should add that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who led for the Opposition during the Second Reading debate, cannot be here today but endorses Third Reading.

I should like to mention briefly the most controversial aspect of the Bill, which is about mandatory or adoptive measures. I said earlier that four out of five environmental health officers were worried that their authorities would not implement the new power if the matter were left purely to choice. We strongly feel that the problems caused by noise are so severe that the Bill should have been mandatory. I have some regrets that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford was not accepted. However, I take hope and assurance from the Minister's response, and I look forward to the amendments in another place that might make that provision a little more possible.

Noise disturbance in urban areas is particularly marked because of the nature of urban areas. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford mentioned that earlier. We are also concerned about the unfair situation that would arise when noise makers on one side of the street faced fixed penalty notices and those on the other could make as much noise as they wanted because the street was divided by a local authority boundary. So I welcome amendment No. 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, North, which will take account of that. To allow people such unequal rights to peace and quiet would simply be unfair.

Mention was made of Wandsworth and Lambeth. I would not want to see the council tax payers of Lambeth having to bear the burden of keeping Wandsworth a peaceful and quiet place. It works in both directions.

Of course, the problem of noise is not confined to urban areas. Mention has been made of rural areas and the difficulties that can arise there. Problems include loud music, raves and such like. We have to be cognisant of those things. Of course, the severity of the problem varies in different areas and there must be some flexibility of response so that resources are not wasted. None the less, I strongly believe that anyone suffering from unbearable noise made by their neighbours deserves the backing and support of his or her council in dealing with the problem.

Noise now generates more complaints to environmental health departments than any other subject, and lives are at stake. We have to take the problem seriously. One of the most important changes in the Bill is the introduction of fixed penalty notices. I am delighted that the penalty was increased from £40 to £100 in Committee, because I am aware that local authorities felt that, at £40, the level would have been derisory and would have undermined the financial penalties for statutory noise nuisance. I believe that the fixed penalty notice will have an instant deterrent effect on those making noise and will avoid a long wait for court time. The on-the-spot remedy is necessary to stop noise speedily at its source, but it is not without its problems.

As the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) said, when local authority officers are sent out, they may feel an element of danger. Some may be unwilling to enter a property without the support of a police officer. We know that many local authorities and police forces work well together in a number of partnership areas. I hope that that will turn out to be another such possibility.

That equally applies to police co-operation in using the powers to confiscate noise equipment. I can say to the hon. Member for Ealing, North that we were delighted that the Bill made provision for the seizure of equipment and that it now clarifies what can be taken. I am encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of senior environmental health officers believe that they will be very likely to use those powers. However, they would be worried about using them in some instances without police co-operation. I stress that we hope that the police will work closely with local authorities on the issue and that provision will be made for adequate police back-up when local authorities undertake the new duties.

The Bill applies only to England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Mention has been made of Scotland and I cannot resist picking up that point. The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 allows the police considerably greater powers on noise, including the power to stop people singing if it is causing others a nuisance. Perhaps when the Bill is reviewed one day, we should consider whether some of the laws that apply in Scotland should be extended to England and Wales.

The Bill refers to the making of noise above a certain level, which the Secretary of State will determine. We are currently talking about 35 dB, which I fear may be too high. Music and words may be clearly audible in someone's house and loud enough to constitute a nuisance at lower noise levels. While it is intended that the night noise provision is separate from, and in addition to, statutory noise procedures, there is a danger that the level chosen for the night noise offence will be regarded as acceptable and therefore used as a defence against statutory nuisance proceedings. That would make matters substantially worse for people who suffer from noisy neighbours. I hope that the noise level will be set as low as is reasonable.

The Opposition support the Bill. It is a first step to alleviate some of the most difficult problems that people face. I look forward to amendments being made in another place to enhance it further. I congratulate again the hon. Member for Ealing, North on getting it through. I hope that it will have a speedy passage, so that my constituents in Lewisham and those of other hon. Members can enjoy a quiet life.

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 is not being violated. That is the first step. Hon. Friends who are concerned about the Bill will see that a number of safeguards are built in and that it is not possible for an unreasonable person to take it into his head to persecute his next-door neighbour by alleging noise. First, there is the protection that the matter is in the hands of the local environmental health officer. It is up to him whether he decides to serve a notice under clause 2(4), which states: he may serve a notice"— 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 between 11 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.