Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this Private Members' Bill from the Green Party. I regret that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, having been in the Chamber for a number of other debates, has left for this one. I hope he will read the debate and that he will have a chance to contribute later in the proceedings. Alternatively, the Minister of State at the Department of Transport could relay many of the concerns expressed by my colleague when introducing this Bill.

The legislation regarding noise clearly requires amendment. It has already been argued clearly that inappropriate sound — which is what noise is — should be under the control of a single authority, rather than the current situation in which several State agencies are responsible for identifying and prosecuting its existence in local communities. It is an instance of anti-social behaviour, which is all too prevalent in many communities, that local authorities could go a long way towards tackling if provided with the resources and legislative means.

I recently had the privilege of attending a 40th anniversary commemoration by the Cork Deaf Association. In respect of noise legislation, Members tend to forget that just as inconveniently-placed street furniture constitutes an intrusion on those who are partially sighted or visually impaired, the existence of any inappropriate sound for those who are hard of hearing makes life more difficult. The need for stronger legislation in this regard was made clear to me at the aforementioned commemoration, which included a speaker from Denmark who outlined how changes had been made to Danish legislation and how ongoing campaigning continued in Denmark to improve their advanced legislation in this regard. His presentation noted the existence on Danish public transport — and on trains in particular — of designated carriages. Where there used to be non-smoking carriages, many European countries now have public transport carriages in which people are not permitted to use mobile telephones or other extraneous sound material. This gives people the option of travelling in a better environment, particularly those with partial or impaired hearing.

Another issue that must be raised in this debate is that for too long the legislation pertaining to noise has been concerned with the volume of a particular noise at a given time. This debate should be concerned with inappropriate sound. I refer to continual and persistent car and house alarms, as well as the noise from kango hammers. Moreover, for many people who live adjacent to our ever-expanding road network, the sound volumes that can be reached simply by passing traffic — which is now practically a 24 hour activity — can be extremely difficult to live with. I live next door to a road that is part of the inner city road network in Cork, namely the south city link road. In recent years I have recorded noise levels from traffic there between midnight and 6 a.m., in excess of 100 decibels, which is far above existing permitted levels. These are examples of simple quotidian noise with which people live. I refer to the inconvenience of being woken up unnecessarily and to the cacophony associated with living with noise in one's garden or household that is not of one's choosing and over which one has little control. Consequently, the need for this legislation becomes all too apparent. The Minister of State or whoever will speak for the Government should articulate its understanding that the legislation under discussion is badly in need of reform.

The real problem with the existing noise legislation is that it is virtually impossible to secure a proper prosecution regarding individual citizens' complaints because it is so cumbersome. First, there is an obligation to have the volume levels recorded. Members are aware that local authorities lack both the technology and the resources to properly record volumes on an ongoing basis. Often, the requisite machines must be imported or leased on an ongoing basis. While I am open to correction, I know of no local authority that possesses decibel recording equipment as part of its arsenal of matériel used to police the public realm. They simply do not exist and there is too much reliance on other agencies and private companies to carry out such recording on behalf of local authorities.

If complainants are sufficiently lucky to have their complaints accepted as having validity and to have the sound recorded, the law obliges the sound to be recorded on three separate occasions, namely, when the sound is at its highest, at a time deemed to be in the middle of the day and at a time deemed to be the quietest period of the day. The latter is usually in the middle of the night. When the existing legislation puts such an onus on individual citizens to prove the burden under which they live in terms of inappropriate sound, the Government must realise this is simple legislation that can be changed quite easily. If the will exists, the House can act collectively to put in place some necessary changes that will improve the quality of many people's lives.

This Bill is not concerned with the quality of sounds and I still wish to have the ability to play my Sex Pistols' CDs at an appropriate volume without disturbing my local neighbours. It does not pertain to how people choose what constitutes good or bad sounds. The current legislation determines that volume is the main basis on which people may use the legislation, albeit in a cumbersome manner. There are good health and safety reasons for volume to be the key determinant. However, as my colleague has already noted, the legislation should be broadened to encompass inappropriate sounds. I refer to the persistence of particular sounds that have become part of the sound track — particularly in urban areas — of too many people's lives. Unless Members are prepared to make such changes, I fear that public unhappiness regarding living in such a fashion might be translated into other types of activities. As legislators, Members would not wish to see such developments in their local communities.

It is curious that the first ASBO issued in Northern Ireland was to a person who was deemed to be playing his record player or CD player too loudly. This legislation is not about that. It pertains to the fact that in many communities, people who live in housing that is not effectively insulated hear the aforementioned sound track of urban life coming through their doors and windows. I refer to heavy vehicles rumbling along roadways and to other sounds that might be linked to industrial installations. These sounds are in addition to the type of sound track with which people in such communities live in any event. Moreover, this legislation does not pertain to groups of young people hanging around street corners and engaging in boisterous activities. It is to try to induce the Government to understand that a problem faced by too many people in too many communities can be solved easily through a simple piece of legislation.

I accept the Bill requires further definition and would require passage through Committee Stage. Deputy Cuffe is willing to engage in this process and since publishing the Bill, he has identified another section that could be added to this Bill on Committee Stage with regard to the sound threats posed by low-flying helicopters. This risk appears to have arisen from the Celtic tiger. On these grounds, there are compelling arguments for the Government to accept this Bill graciously. It could be worked on collectively by Members and could be enacted to add to the existing legislation in this area, which Members have learned from experience is not effective and must be dramatically changed for the public to gain confidence in it. This should be done in order that in future, individual citizens and communities who live with unnecessary inappropriate sounds can identify a route to remedy such problems and can seek quick and easy alleviation. The Government should be prepared to respond graciously.

See this speech in context