HC Deb 06 December 1972 vol 847 cc1542-56

3.55 a.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Walthamstow, East)

Under the Vote on Account, Class IV, Vote 11, for the Department of Employment, I have chosen to speak on industrial noise because in April this year the Department produced a code of practice for reducing exposure of employed persons to noise. It was the first time that such a code had been produced for this country. However, since the production of the code, apart from a certain number of parliamentary Questions little or nothing has been said in this place or elsewhere about how effective the code has been in encouraging industry to put its house in order, at least in noise terms, and although only eight months have elapsed since the production of the code, perhaps it is time to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State whether he can give a progress report on the implementation of the code and shed some light on the future publications which may come from his Department since these are referred to in parts of the code.

In his foreword, on page 1 of the code, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) says: I regard the publication of the code as the first important step in the prevention of loss of hearing due to noise at work". The words "the first important step" suggests that the Department has other steps in mind. Therefore, my first question to my hon. Friend is whether he can shed some light on what those other steps might be and say how much the Department intends to spend on producing whatever it has in mind.

In order to reinforce those words in the foreword, I come to the introduction of the code. Page 4 describes the code as being specifically about the reduction of noise exposure of employed persons and then points out: It does not include advice to machinery manufacturers which will be covered separately or on the medical management of noise-exposed personnel, or on the place of audiometry". That again suggests that the intention is to publish in the near future documents covering those separate subjects. Can my hon. Friend state what those publications may be? I should like to touch on the question of the Department's possible priorities for expenditure and to consider whether the Department should be considering legislation as part of its anti-noise package.

No one to whom I have spoken has anything but praise for the code of practice. It is felt to be a badly needed first step. But, at the same time, most of that praise is qualified and perhaps the words of one journalist will give my hon. Friend the flavour of the qualification. He described it as doing little more than give some authority to the standards set out in 'Noise and the Worker' published by the then Ministry of Labour in June 1963. In one way it is not as good as "Noise and the Worker", because that publication said, on page 7: It is generally agreed that if workers are exposed for eight hours a day, five days a weeks, to a continuous, steady noise of 85 decibels or more in the speech range of frequency"— that is, 500 to 4,000 cycles per second— it is desirable to introduce a programme of noise reduction or hearing conservation". The figure was 85 decibels in 1963.

In 1972, nine years later, the code of practice, at page 6, says: If exposure is continued for eight hours in any one day, and is to be a reasonably steady sound, the sound level should not exceed 90 decibels A. The A, of course, means A-weighting.

In fact, we are accepting a higher noise level nine years later than we appeared to be willing to accept in 1963. I do not know why there should have been that slippage of noise levels. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, each successive three decibel increase in sound pressure level represents a doubling of the sound energy. Although it may appear to be a margin of five decibels, it is a much greater amount of noise than that would suggest, because of the logarithmic scale that is used in computing a decibel reading.

There may be a good reason, which my hon. Friend will be able to tell me, why there has been a slippage in the noise danger level. But whether it is 85 or 90 decibles, the fact is that at least 500,000 work people of the 6½ million people employed in manufacturing are at risk at the 90 decibel level every day of the week, and another 500,000 are exposed to 90 decibel-plus noise levels intermittently—that is to say, for less than six hours a working day. In other words, 1 million people in manufacturing every day are exposed to noise levels over the danger level set out in the code of practice. That figure in itself is something that should give us all cause for concern.

The Robens Report on Safety and Health at Work refers at page 111 to industrial noise. The report says that cost and competition factors make this a special case where the influence of an authoritative code of practice is unlikely to have a sufficiently rapid effect unless underpinned by legislation. The Robens Report considers that cost and competition factors are the reasons why the voluntary basis of the code of practice is unlikely to be successful. I find myself in agreement with that finding. Why should a manufacturer who is faced with narrow profit margins spend money on noise control measures unless he has to? It is not a matter of such an employer being a hard-faced industrialist who is anxious to wring the last farthing out of his factory and workers. It is simply that the additional cost which effective noise control measures will impose upon him will push up the cost of his product and make him uncompetitive. The same argument runs through the whole of the environment case when it is applied to industry.

It is no good reading lectures to industry about what it should do unless everybody is to be brought under the same disciplines and restraints. It seems unreasonable to ask some employers to spend money and to make themselves uncompetitive.

If the Government are serious about reducing noise in industry they must consider whether they should lay down the ground rules for industry by way of legislation which will affect every company and will mean that all the manufacturing industries which the code of practice is designed to affect will be carrying the same burden. If that approach is adopted, there will be no question of one man getting an advantage by not bringing in noise control methods, as he will not have that option.

I do not doubt that some parts of the code of practice can be implemented without great cost. In a number of factories I have seen protectors which are worn when particularly noisy types of machinery are in use. I have also seen noise hazard areas clearly marked out. But ear protectors and the notice which denotes a noise hazard area are not expensive. Unfortunately, they may well be considered to be just the adequate gesture which needs to be made by industry to persuade the Department that the code is being implemented, and therefore may allow the Department to become complacent, which is a real danger.

I remind my hon. Friend, as the code does, that in any case there is as yet no British Standard for ear protectors, and that therefore one must accept that they vary in efficiency. If we are really anxious to get the best out of ear protectors we should go for a British Standard which industry can accept.

Apart from ear protectors and the notices to warn people of noise danger, will industry put in all the equipment and sound insulation material which the code suggests it should? I am afraid that this is unlikely to happen because of the cost, but again perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me how successfully the Department believes that the code is being implemented.

My second question is: what further publications does the Department intend to introduce to support the code? Does my hon. Friend envisage a booklet for the worker rather than the factory manager? The code is a booklet for the manager. It advises him what he should do, but it does not warn the worker what he can do if he is in a high noise level danger area. Of course, other physical diseases besides deafness are caused by noise, but it is deafness, in particular, that we know as the greatest and most obvious diagnosed disease caused by excessive industrial noise. Is such a pamphlet for the workers in the pipeline?

I suggest that such a document for the workers might be useful for the trade unions as well, because—surprisingly enough—they have shown extremely little interest in the noise question in industry. Indeed, in view of the damage done to workers' hearing it is remarkable that so few trade unions have initiated or invested in reports to discuss the effects of noise. There are, of course, exceptions. There was the well-known study by Mrs. Jean Stone at the request of the National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers, published last year, and the work by Mr. Ted Tullock, of the Associated Metal Workers Society. Presumably, Mr. G. H. Lowthian of the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers, who was on the sub-committee which created that code, must have been appointed because of his interest in the subject.

Leaving aside these exceptions—and there may be others—the great bulk of the trade union movement has shown little or no interest in the subject. To quote the words of a constituent who suffers from industrial noise-induced deafness, the unions, like management, have turned a deaf ear to noise.

At the Trades Union Congress this year, as ever, there was no debate on noise in industry. Therefore, that million of working people who work in noise hazard areas apparently do not yet rate for particular consideration by the congress. I find that very disturbing.

If the delegates had read Mrs. Stones' booklet they would have read that of 87 employees she tested 55 had some degree of hearing impairment attributable to noise exposure—that is, 63 per cent. of the people she tested suffered from working in excessive noise. These worrying figures ought to be publicised widely. Loss of hearing caused by excessive noise is not accepted as an industrial disability for which compensation is paid.

I admit that in 1971 an employee at Stone Manganese Marine—a Mr. Frank Berry—won damages in a common law case because of deafness caused through his work. He shaped bronze propellers with pneumatic hammers, working sometimes in 120–126 decibels. But it was a common law case. He could not then—and even today could not—claim any industrial deafness payment. Only this week I received a letter from Mrs. Stone in which she asked me about the present state of the law. She said: The latest information I have is the recommendation of the Robens Committee. I wonder whether the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council has reached a decision on the prescription of occupation deafness as an industrial disease. Right across industry people are going deaf simply because of their working conditions; the lorry driver whose cab will often have a noise level of 93 decibels; the hosiery worker in 81 to 94 decibels; and the bottling plant worker up against 94 decibels. The weaving industry has the traditional saying "as deaf as a weaver."

There is the woodwork industry. Recently, when I visited a factory close to my constituency where some of my constituents work, I was unable to speak to those who took me around. The management proudly told me that the machinery was brand new, having been bought recently from West Germany. But the workers had to wear ear muffs. I accept that they were advised to do so because the noise level was so excessive.

The drop forge industry, the construction industry—all of them have workers working in these dangerous levels. Engineering and machine shops—the list is endless.

What protection have these people? Only the permissive code of practice and the undermanned factory inspectorate, which I am told on average visits a factory once in four years. Even if they are trying to see that the code of practice is implemented, once in four years hardly amounts to much of a check. Some employers have a philanthropic attitude. There are some who, despite the additional cost, will put in noise-reducing measures.

It is not enough, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. What is more, the code of practice makes no reference to the fact that hearing deterioration is progressive with advancing age. In other words, older people will suffer a greater hearing loss as a result of noise than will younger persons. That leads me to suppose that the code of practice should have suggested that older people should not work in conditions in which they are likely to be exposed to excessive noise and that this should have been made specially clear to managements. It highlights the need for more information in the Department.

What I have said makes it clear that I do not think that the code of practice goes far enough. I hope that the Department has plans for spending more money on information about noise, and on what might be described as an education campaign. I have also said that I share the view of the Robens Committee—a view widely held—that there should be legislation to support the code.

The code aims to tell factory managers how to reduce noise levels in their works. What is needed is the other pamphlet mentioned on page 4 of the introduction to the code—to advise machinery manufacturers how to quieten the equipment that they sell to industry and which is the cause of all the noise. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me that this pamphlet is just about to be published, and can also say how much will be spent on it.

In conclusion, I want to quote some words of Professor B. L. Clarkson, of the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research at Southampton University. He said: The only really satisfactory way to reduce noise, or to control it to a certain level, is to ensure that quiet designs are produced in the first place. In the long run this is also likely to be the most economic method. Thus noise should be considered as a design parameter and steps taken at the drawing board and product development stage to ensure that a satisfactory machine is evolved. This may not be much more expensive and will certainly be cheaper than trying to fix something which has turned out to be unacceptably noisy. In some cases where the noise is due to sound radiation from vibrating structure, an increase in the life of the machine may be produced by reducing the vibration and hence sound radiation. In the interests of overall economy a noise criterion should be imposed on new designs. This should best be done perhaps by establishing noise certification procedures for new products. This is already coming in for new aircraft and motor vehicles, and should be extended to all machinery which is capable of making noise. Thus new designs would have to meet a specific set of noise requirements just as they have to meet safety requirements. I think that Professor Clarkson is right.

To try to tamper with machines which make noise when they have been installed in the factory is, at best, only a palliative. What is needed is to get at the noise at source. I shall be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.

4.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)

Even at this late hour, I am not ungrateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) for giving me the opportunity to explain something of the activities being undertaken by my Department to deal with the undoubted risks to health arising from noise in industrial undertakings, and especially to comment further on the code of practice for reducing the exposure of employed people to noise. My hon. Friend has taken a keen interest in this subject and it is clear from the wealth of detail that he has produced tonight that he considers these matters with great seriousness and study. We are grateful for his interest in this category of difficulty that can affect the industrial worker.

As the House knows, the historical background is that the Wilson Committee on the problem of noise identified industrial noise as a serious cause of annoyance but could not establish its effect with any precision—especially the effect on the health and safety of workers. However, this area of uncertainty was clarified by the publication in 1970 of "Hearing and Noise in Industry", by Professor W. Burns and Dr. D. W. Robinson. It summarised the results of the investigation commissioned in 1962 by the former Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.

The report concluded that the hearing loss to be expected to occur in an average population from varying occupational exposures could be predicted by the application of a principle which has come to be known as the equal energy principle, by which is meant that hearing is impaired by the combined effect of the intensity of the noise and the duration of the exposure. I know that my hon. Friend understands that, even if many others do not. Identification of the problem offered an opportunity to establish the basis on which it could be tackled. The reduction of either the intensity or the duration of the exposure will reduce the deafness arising from industrial noise.

The report was considered by my Department's Industrial Health Advisory Committee, which set up a noise sub-committee to advise on action to be taken. The TUC and the CBI are represented on both the main committee and the sub-committee. Others are co-opted because of their specialised knowledge about noise, and they, too, sit on the sub-committee.

Its first achievement—I emphasise that its task is a continuing one—has been to produce the code of practice, which was published in April, as my hon. Friend said, and which I had the honour to introduce on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The code sets out what needs to be done to protect those at work from noise severe enough to produce a serious risk of deafness, and applies to anyone in industry who is exposed to noise. Of necessity, it is a fairly technical document in part, but I shall take this opportunity to summarise some of its contents.

First, the code sets out a limit for exposure to noise without ear protection, and describes the methods of measurement to be used. The limit is 90dB(A)—that is, decibels measured with an A-weighting—where exposure is for eight hours in any one day, and "equivalent continuous sound levels" are given for shorter exposures by means of a formula under which the exposure duration should be decreased as the continuous noise level increases. For instance, at 99dB(A), maximum exposure would be one hour. Maximum noise levels of 135dB are also given which should never be exceeded without ear protection in any circumstances. A rough and ready formula, one might say, is: the louder the noise, the shorter should be the duration. This is extremely important.

My hon. Friend asked whether we had slipped in choosing this level, as compared with the levels which were recommended some years ago. I am advised that the 85dB limit is on octave point levels, and is roughly equivalent to 90dB overall on the A scale. Thus, there has not, in fact, been a change in standards. I hope that my hon. Friend will be somewhat reassured.

Secondly, the code of practice recommends measures to be taken by management. It should first aim to reduce noise emission at source, or to remove workers from the noise. Where this cannot be done immediately, areas should be identified in which ear protection is required. Entry into these areas should be controlled and individual ear protection provided for everyone entering.

My hon. Friend asked about ear protection and the need to relate it to British Standards Institution levels. I understand that a BSI committee, on which the factory inspectorate is represented, is producing a standard test technique. Testing is very difficult. Progress is slow. Nevertheless, the matter has not been neglected; it is being looked at. I am hopeful that the committee will come up with some useful suggestions.

Thirdly, the code recommends that employees should comply with these measures and, in particular, should wear the ear protection provided.

In general, the code deals with noise as a health hazard, as it affects hearing; it does not attempt to deal with noise as a nuisance, trying as that may be, and as all of us, as members of the public, have experienced. But it does advocate, as a general principle, noise reduction in all circumstances.

Since the code deals with the engineering aspects of noise reduction it does not cover the medical management of noise-exposed personnel or the place of audiometry in an industrial noise conservation programme. It tackles the hazard, as we have learnt to tackle other problems of environmental pollution, by setting up maximum acceptable limits of exposure, advising the means by which these limits can be reached, and advocating measurements to check that acceptable standards are achieved.

Obviously the first need in the factory is to identify those areas where people are exposed beyond these limits. This requires someone trained in the use of instruments and time allowed, with the support of management, for the carrying out of the survey.

The code's recommendation that areas and machines which exceed the stipulated levels should be marked is a breakthrough in the concept of identification of industrial risk which has aroused surprisingly little adverse comment. It recommends that records of the survey should be kept where exposure is not continuous, so that the equivalent continuous sound level may be calculated.

Regretfully the code has to acknowledge that protection of the worker by means of ear defenders is often the only immediate step that can be taken to limit his exposure and therefore the risk of his incurring noise-induced hearing loss. Such protection must be carefully selected. The choice between ear muffs, various types of plugs and more sophisticated ear protectors must take into account the noise levels to be encountered and other relevant circumstances.

To make available the devices is not enough, as I know my hon. Friend appreciates; provision must be accompanied by a careful programme of education and training of workers in the need to wear the protection, the purpose it serves, how to look after it, and records of the issue and purpose of issue advocated. I have found many factories where these pieces of equipment are issued. All too often one sees people not using them, and not aware of the real dangers that they are running by not having them.

There is no disguising the fact that no one would wear ear protection if it could be avoided. Employees cannot be expected to wear it correctly and conscientiously unless they have been brought to realise the need. They are likely to accept the inconvenience more willingly if they can see that at the same time a determined effort to reduce the noise levels is being made.

All this means that there is an immense task to be performed in educating managements and industry generally, and these are the kind of practical problems on which factory inspectors are concentrating in giving advice.

I emphasised at a Press conference which we held to launch the code that it was not the end of the story, and I am glad I can repeat that assurance tonight. The work does go on.

We are now well aware of the extent and seriousness of the problem of noise in industry. The Factory Inspectorate has established, from a carefully conducted pilot survey carried out on a statistically random sample in 1970, that practically no manufacturing industry is without a noise problem. The survey showed that approximately half a million people are exposed to 90 dB(A), or above that level, for more than six hours per working day, out of a total of about 61 million people who are employed.

A further 500,000 are exposed for less than six hours per working day. That shows clearly how widespread the problem is, and we certainly do not rule out legislation in the future. It is a very relevant point in consideration of the Robens report, which is now under detailed examination. The technical problems of association with noise control are complex, however, and we felt that it would be essential to gain experience with a voluntary code before attempting to consider the form which legislation should take. That decision has proved a wise one, and from the discussions we have had on putting the code into practice we are building a firm basis on which to consider in detail the recommendations of the Robens Report that there should be basic statutory requirements on noise control.

In his foreword to the code the Secretary of State said that it was a first important step in the prevention of loss of hearing due to noise at work. In addition to considering the question of legislation the noise sub-committee at its meeting this Friday will consider other related aspects of the problem, some of which my hon. Friend mentioned. I can tell him that when it meets on Friday it will have before it in draft a code for machinery noise, which I am sure he will welcome, and I believe that this will make an important contribution in this sphere.

Audiometry is a much more complex subject, but this is being looked at by the sub-committee, and Messrs. Burns and Robinson are in the midst of a research project in depth. It is not yet complete, but again these matters are certainly not being ignored. The important measures which they are considering will deal with the design and the noise emission of machinery, and all the aspects of the medical management of noise-exposed personnel.

I conclude by saying something of the implementation of the code so far. I thought that my hon. Friend did us less than justice when he said that we had certainly launched the code with a good deal of publicity but that little had been heard about it since. I can assure him that this was not just a once-and-for-all action, and that the work has been proceeding satisfactorily. More than 17,000 copies of the code have been distributed, which makes it a best seller among safety and health publications. These are copies which are actually being used, not just consigned to the wastepaper basket. Factory inspectors have brought it to the attention of industry on every possible occasion. My hon. Friend raised the question of leaflets for workers. A leaflet has been produced and distributed freely to workers. The trade unions have also played their part in distribution. The leaflet was produced at the request of trade union members on the noise subcommittee, so that they have again been playing their part.

During the first six months following publication factory inspectors have visited over 1,000 factories with serious noise problems and have advised the managements concerned what they need to do to carry out the advice contained in the code. The response so far has been good, and it is making a favourable impact, but it is still too early to make a judgment as to the future and about exactly what should be done. Specially trained inspectors equipped with precision-grade sound-level meters have undertaken noise surveys and inspectors and officials of my Department have taken part in seminars and conferences all over the country to spread the message about the code. Plans are in hand to improve the instrumentation of the inspectorate and include the provision of high-grade noise-level meters in every district, numbering about 120 in all.

The joint standing committees which advise the Secretary of State on matters of health and safety in industry, on which representatives of both employers and unions sit, have given useful encouragement to the code. For example, the committee for foundries has set up a subcommittee which is now going on to look closely at ways in which noise can be reduced at machines used in that industry. The committee for cotton has sent a letter to all occupiers of cotton mills advising them to protect their workers in the terms of the code. I am particularly heartened by accounts which come in from factory inspectors of actual examples where, by a change of process, by redesign of a machine, or by the enclosure of the plant, the creation of noise is being reduced.

We have evidence to suggest that in all sections of industry it is now being recognised not only that noise is a serious problem but that something can be done to reduce it. There is much work ahead, but I have no doubt that the implementation of the code will achieve a significant reduction in noise-induced hearing loss among those who are now at risk. It is a problem with which we have lived for generations, but it has become significant only within the last decade or so, and we now know far more about it than we did. Far more sophisticated and intense research is going on into the problem, as we have been reminded tonight.

The Department is certainly not complacent in any way obout this and it intends to pursue very vigorously the initiative it has shown by producing the code.

Mr. McNair-Wilson

Is this new recognition of the problem of noise in industry and the harm it can do permitting the Industrial Health Advisory Committee to consider the loss of hearing because of noise as an industrial injury?

Mr. Smith

That, of course, is not my direct responsibility as a Minister at the Department of Employment. The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act provides benefits in the event of incapacity or disablement because of accidents or disease prescribed under regulations made under the Act, and deafness is not a prescribed disease. The question whether noise-induced hearing loss satisfies conditions for prescription under the Act is currently under investigation by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I can go no further on that. All these matters are kept under genuine review, and I emphasise again that my Department is determined to press ahead with every possible initiative to make a success in this sphere, and reduce the risk to which workers in industry are exposed.