DETERMINATION OF STANDARD LEVELS OF NOISE (Hansard, 19 July 1974)

§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In his report on noise in 1963 Sir Alan Wilson referred to a questionnaire which he sent to local authorities about noise abatement legislation and about how successfully it was operating. In the replies received local authorities complained about the absence of prescribed standards 938 of what constituted noise nuisance. That was in 1963, and since then I do not think that anybody—certainly no one in any Governments during the period—has sought to establish exactly a level of noise nuisance. Therefore, it is proposed in the clause to give the Secretary of State power to do so, because without maximum noise levels being laid down within the new noise abatement zones we shall, I suspect, have a patchwork quilt of noise levels throughout the country.
As I suggested on Second Reading, if maximum noise levels are not set, how on earth can we know whether we are achieving reduction in noise in the noise abatement zones? We have to start somewhere. It is not good enough to leave it to individual local authorities to decide how keen they should be on creating maximum noise levels appropriate to local amenities.
My proposal is not just my own idea. In a draft Bill so carefully set out in its report, the Noise Advisory Council suggested that the local authority would be required to specify the level to which it was the authority's intention to restrict the emission of noise from any premises in the area to be designated.
2.30 p.m.
I like that phrasing. It seems to be about right. I am sorry that the previous Government and the present administration have run away from it and created in Clause 59 the statement that there shall be a noise level register stating noise levels from industrial factories and, in Clause 61, that if the level of noise emanating from any premises to which a noise abatement order applies is not acceptable, having regard to the purposes for which the order was made, and that a reduction in that level is practicable for a reasonable cost and would afford the public benefit, a notice to reduce the noise level may be served.
Those two clauses, but particularly the second, have all the ifs in them to make them so permissive as to be without teeth.
In the smoke control concept we had the simple idea that a certain colouring of smoke was unacceptable. Therefore, anybody could have a Ringelmann chart and use it to decide whether a particular smoke emission within the Clean Air Act was beyond the law. 939 We must have something similar for noise. We must start somewhere. We all know what an acceptable noise level is. If we are to make speeches about the control of pollution we must be serious and accept that we can reach a common noise level which will create the right environment within what we euphemistically call a noise abatement zone.
Therefore, to produce permissive clauses and allow a local authority all the ways out that it may choose to take will not do much to improve the old Noise Abatement Act 1960.
My intention is to seek something a little stronger and more definite that the local authorities will accept as the first noise level that they must achieve. I hope that we can then get a progressive reduction in that noise level so that our noise abatement zones will be as quite as we all want them to be.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
I cannot advise the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like our new ideas about noise abatement zones which appear later in the Bill and our approach to them. They represent a radical new concept that we are writing into the Bill. I think that we all agree that a local authority should have power to register or record the totality of noise in a certain zone and ensure that nobody adds to it. Then, from time to time, orders may be made reducing it.
The idea has lots of ifs and buts. However, with any practical approach to a problem there must be ifs and buts. We have had great success with this kind of approach to smoke abatement and preventing atmospheric pollution. We have only to look at London, with its buildings cleaned up, to see the success that has been achieved. It has taken a few years, but that practical approach has produced considerable benefits. This is true not only of London but of many other cities.
We are trying to achieve with noise what we achieved with atmospheric pollution. In doing this, we realise that people have businesses and industries to run and must work in places which create noise. Therefore, we approach these 940 matters sensibly and in a practical manner. That is not what the clause does.

§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
The Minister is making my argument for me. The Clean Air Act sets the same standards throughout the nation. That is what my clause would do. Secondly, the noise abatement zone is not the brainchild of either this or the previous administration; it is the brainchild of the Noise Advisory Council which drafted a clause which led to the point of my clause.

§ Mr. Howell
If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will come to the second point.
On the first point, we did not approach the clean air concept in the way that he suggested. We gave local authorities the powers and they interpreted them in accordance with circumstances in their areas. We did not say that on some day the Secretary of State shall make an order that the only colour of smoke coming from chimneys shall be light grey, dark grey or any other shade of grey. That was not the way with which we dealt with the matter and it is not the way with which we propose to deal with noise.
It is true that the Wilson Committee suggested that certain standards should be established, but, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, that was more than 10 years ago. We have made a lot of progress since. There have been great technological advances and more information is available.
If we accept the proposal, there are two ways in which the Government could establish these noise levels. They might be too high or too low for various parts of the country. If the limit was to include industrial premises it would need to be very high—unacceptably high for other parts of the country which do not suffer from industrial noise nuisance. Therefore, that would be unsatisfactory. If the limit was too low it would put large numbers of industrial concerns out of action. Therefore, we are left with the conclusion that the best way to approach the matter is to ask local authorities to deal with industries in their areas on their merits and to move as fast as we know they wish to move to meet the situation. There is no practical alternative to establishing these zones than allowing local 941 authorities to deal with every case on its merits. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept the clause.

§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.