HL Deb 22 May 1996 vol 572 cc955-70

9.29 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate my honourable friend Mr. Harry Greenway on his work in guiding the Bill through its stages in another place.

It may be helpful if, before describing the Bill in detail, I set out some of the background to it. I am sure that many of your Lordships will be aware of the growing concerns relating to the problem of environmental noise. The number of complaints of noise from domestic premises to local authorities in England and Wales continues to rise steadily. They account for more than two-thirds of all noise complaints made to local authorities. In 1993–94, the total stood at 131,153 complaints, which represents more than a threefold increase in the past decade. Of additional concern is the fact that less that 0.3 per cent. of those complaints led to a conviction.

This is not just a question of steeply rising complaints. Domestic noise, particularly at night, can lead not only to the disruption of everyday life through lost sleep and illness, but also directly to tragic cases of murder and suicide.

At present, the main responsibility for dealing with noise complaints rests with local authorities, using the statutory nuisance controls under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That can involve a time-consuming process which can be unsatisfactory both for the complainant and indeed the local authority. I am sure that we all know personally of cases to which this applies.

Concerns about the way in which the system was working—or rather not working—led to the establishment by the Department of the Environment of a review of the effectiveness of neighbour noise controls. The report of the working party made a number of recommendations, including the possibility of the introduction of a specific offence of making excessive noise at night and clarification of the powers of local authorities to seize noise-making equipment. This Bill takes up these important issues.

Excessive noise can be distressing for those who are being disturbed, particularly during the night hours. The Bill aims to address excessive noise during those hours and to deal with complaints in a speedy manner. However, in aiming to provide a more efficient service, the different requirements of local areas must be recognised. It is right, therefore, that local authorities should be able to adopt the powers where they believe it will be of benefit to the local residents.

I shall now turn to a more detailed examination of the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 is relatively straightforward, providing that local authorities shall choose to adopt the new offence. Where the local authority decides to adopt the new offence it will be required to advertise its decision in a local newspaper. That will help to ensure that local people are made aware of their authority's decision.

There was much discussion in another place about the adoptive nature of the new offence. My honourable friend the Minister undertook that a review of the workings and take-up of the new offence would be carried out after two years. He also said that the Government would accept an amendment to provide a reserve power for the Secretary of State. This would allow him to require the introduction of the new offence, should that be appropriate in the light of the review. I shall be considering this matter further before bringing forward a proposal.

Clause 2 requires those authorities which have adopted the new offence to investigate complaints which relate to excessive noise from a dwelling during the hours of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. The Bill defines these as "night hours". Local authorities already have a duty to investigate complaints relating to possible statutory nuisances. However, this clause provides, in those areas where the powers are adopted, that the local authority has to investigate complaints about excessive noise from dwellings at night. As part of the investigation, the officer will initially make an assessment of whether the noise exceeds, or is likely to exceed, the permitted level. He may then serve a warning notice in respect of the noise—I shall come back to that later—and decide whether to measure the noise.

Clause 2 enables the local authority to deal with complaints where the affected dwelling is in its area, but the noise coming from the dwelling could be heard in another local authority area. I believe that that is quite a valuable point because so often boroughs tend to view themselves as complete entities. People can be adversely affected on borough boundaries. That will ensure that the complaint can be dealt with as though both authorities were in the complainant's local authority area.

Clause 3 deals with the service of a warning notice. Where an officer of the local authority has made a decision to serve a warning notice, it is clearly most desirable for that notice to be served on the person responsible for the noise. However, we must realise that it will not always be possible to find that person. That could be due to something as basic as the door remaining firmly shut or else it may be that no one is willing to admit responsibility.

Recognising the potential difficulties in the service of a warning notice, it can be served on the premises from which the noise is being emitted where it is not possible to serve it on the person responsible. The warning notice cannot come into force less than 10 minutes from the time of service and it remains in force until the end of that night period, that is, the following 7 a.m.

Clause 4 details the new night noise offence. In a situation where a warning notice has been served and the noise from the offending dwelling has continued above the permitted level—and this is a major problem in many cases now—the person responsible for the noise under this Bill is guilty of an offence. Where a person is found guilty of an offence that person can be fined up to level 3 on the standard scale, which is currently set at £1,000. I would like to emphasise to your Lordships at this juncture that there is a defence for a person charged with an offence to show that there was, a reasonable excuse for the act, default or sufferance". This would ensure that, for example, where the person who would be liable for the offence was not present at the time the noise occurred, he or she would have the ability to make his or her defence to the courts. It could also be a possible defence in cases where the noise came about because essential works were having to be carried out to the property. This is an important safeguard.

Clauses 5 and 6 enable the Secretary of State to establish the permitted noise level and approve devices for the measurement of the noise. This is the first time that a definitive level will be set for the assessment of neighbourhood noise complaints. One of the major benefits of using an objective standard against which the noise can be assessed, is that it will help to provide a simpler route for the speedy assessment of complaints about excessive noise at night.

To assist in the assurance of regularity in the assessment of noise at night, Clause 6 provides for the approval of noise-measuring equipment. Approval of noise-measuring devices by the Secretary of State will ensure that they are capable of carrying out the measurement procedure as defined and providing evidence to prove that an offence has occurred.

That leads me to Clause 7 which provides for documentary evidence of an offence under Clause 4. Included in this is a requirement that the measurement of the noise has been carried out in accordance with any procedure which might be defined and with an approved measuring device.

Clause 8 provides for a fixed penalty scheme. Where an offence has been committed under Clause 4, the local authority may serve a fixed penalty notice on the person responsible for the noise. The level of the fixed penalty is initially set at £100. I should like to emphasise that the fixed penalty is just one option for dealing with offences under this legislation. Local authorities will be able to prosecute offenders where they believe that would be a more effective option.

Clause 9 is supplementary to Clause 8, allowing the form of fixed penalty notice to be specified by order. Where a fixed penalty notice has been served on breach of a warning notice, the local authority cannot serve another fixed penalty for a further breach. In such circumstances, however, the person may be convicted of the further offence. This clause also enables the Secretary of State to amend the level of fixed penalty.

I shall now move on to the other major area of the Bill—the power to seize noise-making equipment. Clause 10 and the schedule allow local authorities to seize noise-making equipment where it is believed that the equipment is used in the commission of an offence.

Where required, a Justice of the Peace may issue a warrant allowing entry to the premises, if necessary by force.

As a Justice of the Peace, now on the supplementary list, perhaps I may say that it is important that local authorities know where to locate their local Justices of the Peace and when they are available. Frequently, local authorities have the addresses of people who are never available at the weekend or on public holidays although those are often the times when most offences are committed.

The power of seizure will also be available for use where a local authority considers noise to be a statutory nuisance under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and it decides that seizure is the best option to secure abatement of the noise. The schedule provides for the retention and return of noise-making equipment and allows a court to order forfeiture of the equipment. It provides safeguards for third-party rights in noise-making equipment, so that equipment can be reclaimed where appropriate.

The remaining clauses of the Bill are technical. Clause 11 provides definitions and an order-making power. Clause 12 provides protection from personal liability for local authority members, officers and any person authorised to take action on behalf of the local authority. Clause 13 relates to financial matters. Clause 14 provides the short title, deals with commencement and extends the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

This Bill aims to deal with what can be the most disturbing and distressing types of noise. It will provide local authorities with an additional power to deal with complaints about noise at night. This will he in addition to the existing statutory nuisance controls which will remain available to all local authorities at all hours of the day and night.

I should emphasise that the aim of the Bill is not to encourage killjoys. I do not wish to stop people having a party to celebrate a 21st birthday or a wedding anniversary, for example. Nevertheless, I think that there is a need to strengthen the law. Although most people are tolerant of a single event it is the persistent noise from some adjoining properties which is often just too much for people to tolerate. Indeed, looking across at the noble Lord, Lord Graham, perhaps I may mention the Pink Elephant. I am sure that he will not have forgotten that nightclub, although I understand that it has long since gone.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

It was at Southgate, on the Circus.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, yes, and it was a constant source of complaint. People could not live within any range of it. The noble Lord and I happened both to be associated with the area at the time.

I believe that this Bill is a major step forward in dealing with what is one of the most common pollutants in our society today—and something with which so many people can identify. The Bill is a great step forward in dealing with complaints and I commend it to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I should like to take this opportunity to raise one point. Unless a noise intensity measurement is written on to the face of the Bill, I think that it will be very difficult to enforce.

Noise is often measured in decibels or the 10th part of a bel. A bel (spelt with one 1, by the way) is a measure for comparing intensity of noise, electric currents, etc., based on a logarithmic scale.

9.43 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for her explanation of the Bill. It occurs to me that I should declare two interests. First, I am a member of a local authority. Secondly, professionally, I and my firm act for a great many musicians who create the subject matter of the Bill, although I am sure that very few of them set out to cause offence.

In expressing concern about the Bill, I am not saying that noise is not a huge problem. I entirely agree that it is, but I do not believe that the Bill will be quite the panacea that some of the speeches in another place seemed to indicate. I understand that noise can drive people to distraction—literally, in some cases. I shall confine myself to one anecdote, although I cannot resist commenting that, when looking at the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I have never thought of pink elephants. A new vision appears.

I have a vivid mental image of what must have occurred over a bank holiday weekend, following which one of my colleagues, a very senior lawyer, came into the office and said that he had been approached by a neighbour, a High Court judge, holding a hammer and asked whether he would support a step ladder while the judge took the hammer to a ringing alarm. That is the kind of distraction to which upright members of society can be driven. I assume that ringing alarms fall outside the Bill since they are outside premises. There are other measures to deal with them, which I believe are cumbersome and probably inadequate.

My concern is whether the Bill will prove to be a workable measure. I was glad to hear the comments of the noble Baroness about the need for local discretion. I would be concerned if the provisions became mandatory. If so, I believe that that should arise only if the local authority had discretion as to the level of service to be provided. Many local authorities have anti-noise patrols and take decisions about the resources to be devoted to the service and the need to be met. Understandably, they provide the service on certain days of the week—the weekend—or times of the year. For example, the second and third quarters of the year tend to provoke more complaints because of outside parties and barbecues, which are matters that fall outside the Bill. I mention matters that fall outside the Bill because they indicate the breadth of the problem and the difficulty of dealing with just one sector of it. I believe that the need for investment in the service must be measured by local authorities against other needs. It is a matter for each local authority to assess.

I have indicated my concern about what is covered by the Bill, not least because of the problems caused by other sources of noise. An insufficiently comprehensive Bill may lead to the law and law-enforcers being brought into disrepute. Perhaps the noble Baroness in her reply can give an indication of the "nuisances" to be covered by the Bill, in particular whether the vibration or beat from music, which is often a source of real irritation, albeit at a relatively low sound level, falls within the Bill. I believe that it comes within the Environmental Protection Act.

I wonder whether the noble Baroness can also comment on the connection between the level of noise which constitutes an offence and ambient noise levels, which the noble Earl has already raised. If the level is 35 dB(A)—which I understand is the level that has been debated and is the WHO guideline—in urban areas it may well be that existing levels exceed it. Further, I understand that it will be necessary to establish that the noise which is the subject of the potential offence exceeds the background noise by at least 10 decibels. I should be glad to receive information about background noise in an area where there are many overhead flights. For example, in west London the noise created by aircraft flying into Heathrow can be considerable during both night and day. I should be grateful to receive confirmation that that is not part of the ambient noise; in other words, that the noise is measured against the gap between aircraft, not against an aircraft. Comment has also been made that, where there is low background noise, noise of less than 35 dB(A) may create a disturbance.

Perhaps I may read one comment made by the environmental health officer of a London borough, who pointed out: In the case of persistent noise nuisance, a true background level is bound to be difficult to determine since the offender is unlikely to oblige the local authority by turning off the noise to enable the background noise level to be measured". That summarises well some of the concerns of the officers who will have to operate the Bill. The measurement must of course be technically unimpeachable. It is that type of comment which makes me wonder whether that will be possible.

I have been struck also by comments about the duality of the enforcement system. These provisions running alongside statutory nuisance measures may, I am told, lead to increased administrative effort, as both may have to be followed in case one procedure is not effective. I hope that that is an unwarranted fear.

I believe that local authorities will have to work with the police in enforcing these provisions. That is of course at a time when the Home Office review of police core activities recommends moving away from police involvement in local authority enforcement. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell us—I appreciate that she may be unable to do so—whether the police have made any comments about the Bill.

This is an area close to home for the noble Baroness, but has she received any comments from the Magistrates' Association? I ask that in the context of the level of the fixed penalty. I agree with the views of another place that the original proposal of £40 was rather low, but I wonder about £100. Perhaps from her own experience the noble Baroness can say whether that is likely to lead to more people opting for a court hearing, and the costs, delays, and so on that that will provoke. I shall be interested to know whether the magistrates have any comments.

Finally, if the fixed penalties are to go to the Secretary of State, as the Bill provides, one must ask why. If it is unobjectionable for the Secretary of State to collect the penalties, then I do not see that it is unobjectionable for the local authority to collect them. Enforcement and the penalty should be decoupled to avoid financial incentives.

I am aware that I have come out with a string of concerns. I call them concerns rather than criticisms because I do not want to pitch them so high as to appear to be entirely unwelcoming. I welcome the provisions relating to the seizure of equipment. I am sorry that I cannot he unreservedly enthusiastic about the Bill, because I am unenthusiastic about the problem of noise which the Bill seeks to address.

9.58 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I begin, as is customary on this side of the House, by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. This may not be "Gardeners' Question Time", but it is an appropriate time to ask some questions. I start, as others did, by welcoming the initiative of her honourable friend in another place, Harry Greenway, whose parliamentary activities are well known to me. One can see from reading the reports that he has been most assiduous.

I see that four and a half hours were devoted to the Second Reading in another place. The Bill was discussed for a further eight and a half hours in Committee and four hours were spent on Report. There were 17 hours of discussion in all. That indicates, as the record shows, that many Members of Parliament wanted to contribute to the debate. They all brought to it, as do the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Hamwee, and myself, experience at the sharp end from listening to constituents who have undoubtedly suffered. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that local authorities had received 130 complaints.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, 130,000.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, that is right. The figure is rising. There are probably at least that many complaints that have not been reported because much fear is engendered in communities by people who are blatantly noisy, sometimes threatening and often violent. People sometimes keep quiet and do not complain in those circumstances. This is a serious problem. However, I share the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the Bill. We welcome the Bill and shall not in any way inhibit its passage, but we have to be exceedingly careful that there are not people outside who think that the Bill constitutes an automatic solution of their problems. Local authorities have my highest regard and I should not wish them to be the butt of complaints from communities and individuals as a result of people believing this Act of Parliament means that local authorities should take certain action.

It is right that we should place on record our questions as regards the Bill, but in this area it is easier to mention the problems than to find solutions to them. I do not think that Harry Greenway MP is expecting this measure to achieve a great deal immediately. The kind of noise people are subjected to arises from noisy parties, drinking parties and summer events. However, people who live in flats are subjected to other noise. I was proud to represent Edmonton which has many tower blocks. However, the first tower blocks in the London Borough of Enfield were built in Southgate. I attended the opening ceremony. In those days tower blocks had not acquired a bad name.

People who live in flats may suffer from noise which emanates from their neighbours. That noise may not arise as a result of parties but flat dwellers may still suffer from the noise created by their neighbours. I understand that the Government welcome the Bill and will do nothing to inhibit its passage. I have a briefing from the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection which appears to be a reputable body. The briefing asks whether, the legislation would effectively mean a 11 p.m. curfew on all parties—is there no discretion for allowing one-off celebrations"? It would be helpful to be told whether that is the case.

There is also the matter of the resources which will be required by local authorities to enable them to carry out their responsibilities in this area. I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as regards the role of the police. No one, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would wish to criticise the police for wishing to carry out what they consider to be more important work. However, it is the local authority officer who has the power to issue warning notices. Unless he has the co-operation of the police and is accompanied by a policeman when necessary, he and councillors will be frustrated as regards taking action and residents will despair of their problems being resolved. I hope that we can be told more—at a later stage, if not tonight—about how the police view this matter. I believe it was the honourable Member for Bromsgrove who said in another place that 17 people had been killed either through suicide or in disputes arising out of noise. We are discussing a matter which affects the health and mental stability of a great many people.

I wonder whether the noble Baroness has taken into account some of the information which the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection has gathered. It contacted senior officers of local authorities on the Noise Bill prior to its introduction. It received some interesting and I would say depressing answers to its questions. To the question, "In addition to these new prosecution powers, would you also be likely to use the proposed fixed penalty powers?" 103 replied, "Unlikely to use"; 102 replied, "Too early to say"; and 34 replied, "Likely to use".

Another question asked, "If the Government clarified the law on powers of equipment confiscation, how likely is your authority to use these powers?" To that, 181 replied, "Likely to use"; 21 replied, "Unlikely to use".

The most significant question asked local authorities to select what they considered to be the major constraints on their ability to control noise nuisance. Thirty-four said lack of police co-operation, 169 said lack of staff and resources, 47 said lack of effective legislation, and 35 replied that there were no major constraints.

The noble Baroness, who is always fair in these matters, will recognise that we should not indicate that the Bill is an instrument which will be welcomed by local authorities. The general intention to do something about noise is welcome. In my continuing role as joint president of the Association for London Government, I keep in touch with London local authorities. They have a horrendous task trying to sort out finances and priorities.

On this side of the House, we welcome this initiative. I realise that there are time constraints on the Government but had this been a government Bill it would have been taken much more seriously by local authorities. However, the Official Opposition welcome the Bill and we shall do nothing to inhibit its progress.

10.2 p.m.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for bringing this Bill to the House. I congratulate her and my honourable friend Harry Greenway on giving it life in another place. I hope that its passage here will be speedier than it was in the other place and that it will attract fewer amendments than the Bill whose Committee stage we have completed this evening.

It is surely right that there should be an adequate system of controls on noisy neighbours. Where education and guidance no longer work, we need to address the problem through legislation. Local authorities already have powers to abate noise nuisance but they are slow and expensive and do not work as well as they might. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, this Bill is no panacea but neither is it a white elephant. It will fulfil a useful purpose in addition to the existing powers, and we welcome it.

My noble friend explained the provisions of the Bill in some detail. I shall not repeat what she said, but I should like to offer some comments on particular aspects of the Bill and on how we see it working in practice. After that, I shall make a few comments in response to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham.

As regards whether the provisions of the night noise offence be adoptive or mandatory, it was decided in the other place that the offence should initially be adoptive but that this should be reviewed after two years. We also agreed that the Secretary of State should be given a power to direct local authorities to operate the new offence should that become appropriate.

That seems to us to be the right balance in the long term. The 24-hour complaints service required to fit in with this Bill is likely to be inappropriate for areas where night-time noise nuisance is uncommon, such as many rural areas. In those areas existing powers continue to be available, as elsewhere.

Next, I emphasise that there must be an actual sufferer from whose dwelling the nuisance is measurable. This Bill is no charter for busybodies or officious local authorities. There will be objective standards (determined by the Secretary of State) for noise nuisance both as to the permitted level and as to how that is measured.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, our proposals for the permitted noise level are that to trigger the offence noise would have to exceed 35 decibels and would have to exceed the underlying noise level by at least 10 decibels. That underlying noise level would be measured over a period of five minutes and would, therefore, include the "long lows" as well as the "short highs" of a building under an aeroplane flightpath.

We have not set the figure of 35 decibels or of 10 decibels on the face of the Bill. We believe that the figure should be flexible and one which can be adjusted from time to time as the technology advances or, indeed, as people's views of the offence change. Therefore, I disagree on that point with my noble friend Lord Balfour. Thirty-five decibels is typical of night-time noise levels in bedrooms with closed single-glazed windows fronting a busy suburban road. Just how many bells there are on a pink elephant I would not know.

Research indicates that 90 per cent. of the population of England and Wales is expected to experience noise levels of less than 35 decibels inside rooms on the front of their dwelling at night. The World Health Organisation issued guidance in 1980 that, a level of less than 35 decibels is recommended to preserve the restorative process of sleep". I am sure that that is something that we are all looking forward to.

A possible measurement protocol, including the permitted level and the manner in which the noise is measured, has been tried out in a number of local authorities in England and Wales. Those trials have shown that the new offence is likely to apply to prolonged excessive noise such as that produced by amplified music.

The trials show that noise from conversation held at a reasonable volume or from listening to television, radio or amplified music in the normal course of life would not usually exceed the proposed permitted level. Intermittent or impulsive noise such as sporadic hammering, slamming of doors or dogs barking will not be measurable for technical reasons. As the owner of three peacocks, seven guinea fowl and a couple of dozen bantams, I must say that I am grateful for that fact.

The local authority officer, once he has established that an offence is being committed, will have a wide discretion. Such discretion will enable him to deal appropriately with cases where, for instance, an offending noise is simply the result of a one-off celebration such as a wedding, anniversary or a birthday. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that we expect those people to act with common sense.

The local authority officer may conclude that it would be inappropriate to take action in such circumstances. He may allow time for the event to finish; he may require the noise to be reduced to a reasonable level—and, indeed, may advise on what that level is; and he may seek to resolve the problem informally.

If a local authority officer issues a warning notice under the Bill and that notice is not complied with, he has the alternatives of taking the matter to court, where the maximum fine will be level 3—that is currently £1,000. We agree that that strikes the right balance and reflects the seriousness of the problem of neighbour noise. Alternatively, he will be able to serve a fixed penalty notice which not only provides a more immediate sanction on offenders but also prevents less serious cases reaching the court. The level was set in another place at £100. That is higher than any other fixed penalty currently in place. The Government's acceptance of that level for this offence should not be seen as a precedent for other fixed penalties.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked who would keep the money and why it should be the Government and not local authorities. It is a simple matter of it being a criminal offence. We do not believe that there should be a financial incentive for the people who are charged with creating, so to speak, that criminal offence. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to respond. I give way.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. However, my point was whether it was appropriate for the Secretary of State, presumably, of the Environment to do so. I assume that he would be a conduit into the Treasury and that, therefore, it would in fact be no different from the Home Office or another department collecting the money.

The point is this. Should the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Home Office collect the money? I am not clear where fixed penalties normally go. However, I should have thought that they would not necessarily go to the particular Secretary of State. I said that I thought it important to decouple any financial incentive from law enforcement.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. I can assure her without reading what is in front of me that the money goes to the Treasury.

The Bill also clarifies the law on confiscation of noise-making equipment. I can think of no more appropriate sanction against those who commit such offences than to deprive a persistent and thoughtless noise-maker of the source of the noise. The Bill provides safeguards for third party rights; and we welcome that.

I turn to some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Lord referred to the NSCA survey. That was undertaken before local authorities had had an opportunity to examine the detail of the Bill. We agree that the Bill is only part of a solution. It is also necessary to improve local authority practice and the liaison with the police.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of alarms. Those will be covered by the Bill under Clause 11(2)(b).

The noble Baroness referred to the issue of vibration which may be difficult to measure under the protocol in the Bill. However, it may still be possible to take action under statutory nuisance.

As regards whether the level of the fixed penalty is too high, it is a balancing act. If one sets the level too low, people do not take it seriously. If one sets it too high, people wish to take their chance in court. The other place has taken a view on it and we are content to see how that works out in practice. But we shall keep the matter under review.

As regards co-operation in practice with the police, in line with one of the recommendations of the neighbour noise working party, a joint code of practice is being prepared by the professional bodies of the environmental health officers and the police. This will offer best practice advice on effective liaison between the police and the local authority in environmental noise control. Currently police involvement in noise control enforcement is almost exclusively required where there is a threat of breach of the peace, public disorder or violence or where confiscation of noise-making equipment is being attempted. Where the threat so described continues to exist, I am sure that the police will still seek to attend as at present. However, in many instances I am told that the police involvement largely reflects the uncertainty felt by many local authority officers about the legality of their position in undertaking confiscation of sound equipment without specific power. We believe that the clarification provided by the Bill of the powers of temporary confiscation and forfeiture of such equipment may reduce the need for police involvement in such cases.

I turn now to resource implications for local authorities. The Government recognise that those local authorities which adopt the provisions of the night noise offence will need to provide a noise complaints service 24 hours a day. One of the messages from responses to the consultation paper on neighbour noise control was that those authorities with the greatest need for out-of-hours noise complaint services already tend to provide them. Indeed, in 1993–94, 35 per cent. of local authorities already operated a full 24-hour service.

The additional cost of manpower for local authorities to enforce the night noise offence is estimated to he £1 million in the first year, rising to £3 million per year in the third year. Our calculation of these additional costs is based on a gradual take-up of the night noise offence provisions by those local authorities not currently providing a 24-hour noise complaint service.

The Government have undertaken that those additional costs will be taken into account in the revenue support grant settlement.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, although the additional cost is designed to take account of the additional take-up, will those authorities which have already voluntarily started a service be recompensed? Alternatively, will those who have been doing the job well for a short time have to soldier on paying their own costs, while the Johnny-come-latelies get a subsidy of some kind?

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I do not believe that we will differentiate between those who came first and those who have yet to arrive. However, if there is any question about it, I shall write to the noble Lord.

The Bill before us will give local authorities an additional weapon in their attempts to address the distress and suffering that are caused by night-time neighbour noise. The Government welcome it as providing a suitable balance of increased controls on the thoughtless and persistent noise-maker, with provisions to ensure that the rights of the individual are not unduly curtailed.

10.16 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation in the debate and for the many interesting points that have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, brought up the technical matter of defining the decibel level. I shall look into it to ascertain the technical answer for which he asked.

Another interesting point raised is the decibel level permitted at work by the Health and Safety Executive. It is a relevant point and we shall seek an answer to it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the problem of alarms, which I thought was already under control, and the Minister responded. Nowadays one has to have a 20-minute cut-off point on an alarm. Only someone whose alarm is defective or who has failed to replace it with one of the proper type will be an offender. For many years I suffered over long weekends when an alarm rang for three days. I quite understand the events which the noble Baroness describes.

Whether local action should be mandatory or discretionary is an important point to which we should return at Committee stage. The fact that it is discretionary at the beginning makes it clear that people will be able to determine whether the action suits their area and the demand for it.

I support the point made by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that local authorities must balance tight budgets and assess value for every penny they spend. In this city, London, there is a 24-hour noise patrol which has proved hugely successful. It is so valued by the ratepayers that they would give up most benefits for it except the rubbish collection—that is the first priority on every resident's list. The noise patrol has been hugely successful, but it has experienced difficulties in getting a successful prosecution under the present law. It is more difficult when one has to establish nuisance than when there is an objective assessment, as in this case.

Another advantage of the objective assessment is that the complainant would not have to appear if the case goes to court. A certified report would be issued by the qualified person. That would be helpful because many people are frightened to complain about a neighbour. We know from the road rage cases recently that people are often intimidated and do not wish to fall foul of their neighbours. Tempers can get very hot and recently there have been bad incidents with people who live near each other. It is a good point. There will be a more objective assessment which will be certified. There will be cases like the drink driving cases where people prove that the equipment is faulty. Hordes of people got off because the equipment was established as being defective. Plenty of cases will be argued on that basis.

The noble Baroness asked for my views regarding the £100. I have had no information from the Magistrates' Association, so I do not know its views. I quote only my own. A penalty has to hurt a little. By the time I had stopped being an active magistrate, parking fines did not mean a thing to people; they were just accumulated by the dozen. But what really upset them were wheel clamps, because those hurt; they were an inconvenience. I therefore think that a fine of £100 would be something of a pain to pay, while £40 would probably not be enough.

The other day I heard someone say: "I had to pay my dentist £40 for my treatment". I do not know whether it was national health treatment; it probably was. I heard people complaining about it on a television programme. Yesterday I paid the washing-machine man £40 to walk through the door—and he did not have to do all the years of studying that dentists have done. Forty pounds these days is the call-out fee on most appliances. Therefore the £100 proposed and accepted in the Commons is about right.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, perhaps I might intervene to pass on the advice I have heard that dentists ought to charge while the tooth is still hurting and not afterwards. Then people would be more willing to pay. I also want to ask whether my point about the views of the Magistrates' Association might he taken up during the Bill's passage through this House. I take the personal comments of the noble Baroness, but I am concerned about the balance between the fixed penalty hurting and the provocation to resist it and take the matter through the courts.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very valid point. I certainly hope that we shall be able to get the information from the Magistrates' Association. That would certainly be the body to give such advice.

Money values have changed so much. In my day, the old-age pensioner came for a half-a-crown extraction. You took the tooth out for that amount. Whenever I quote something at an old price, my sister tells me that I am still thinking in the days of the threepenny meat pie. That is true. It is possible to forget how money has changed in value. We will seek those views. They would be very interesting.

The noise patrol that I mentioned is a 24-hour, seven days a week service. The local authority had chosen to fund it as part of its expenditure. It may be that in another area the call-outs would be few. In the case of the Pink Elephant, which we both knew well—it was not exactly a disco; in those days such places were called late night music and dancing establishments—the licensing control lay with the Greater London Council. Every time we used to bring in a busload of local people to explain how awful it was. The case was heard across the water. The people sitting there frankly did not believe it. There was no objective evidence. Had the decibels been measured it might have been rather more effective. Measurements could have been taken in any one of 20 houses in the area. Since then, licensing has moved to the local authorities. The London Borough of Enfield would now know what was happening. In fact, the London Borough of Enfield opposed renewal of the licence, but that had no effect at all because it was seen as the view of "Big Brother" without anyone being informed. It is very important that control now genuinely comes under the local authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned being outdoors in the summer. As I understand it, the Bill will not cover noise out of doors; it will only cover noise affecting people within a building. I find the one-off celebration the most difficult. I would hope that in most cases people would go round to see their neighbours and say that they were having a 50th wedding anniversary or 21st birthday party. It depends on an area, but very often people will ask those who live locally to join in. Then there is a great tolerance of such an event. Even if that were not the case, the officer could issue a warning, or could call first and give a verbal warning before entering into any of these formal procedures.

In the past, for years I knew people on whom the police had called before the nuisance legislation came in. People would turn the music down until the police car had gone round the corner and would then immediately turn it up again to its previous level. The only way the police could have stopped the noise would have been to stay there all night, which would of course have been impossible. So the one-off celebrations would, I hope, be dealt with by common sense.

Walkman radios have affected people's hearing to the extent that sounds now need to be louder than they used to be. One is meant to use the Walkman radio in one ear at a time so as not to damage the hearing too much. But the people who sell Walkmans do not ever advise that. However, it means that people's hearing has in fact been damaged, as research in America shows. Also, people's sensitivity to sound differs greatly. That is why an objective amount above the noise level is an appropriate objective assessment. Traffic in general is covered by different regulations and does not come into the Bill at all.

I believe that I have covered all the points raised. Certainly, there will be much more discussion at Committee stage. I thank all those who have taken part. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.