NOISE IN STREETS (Hansard, 19 July 1974)

§ Mr. Arthur Jones (Daventry)
I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 76, line 30, after ' purposes' insert: 'by a water authority in the exercise of any of its functions'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment it will be convenient for the House to consider the following amendments.

§ Mr. Jones
This amendment relates to a minor matter of the use of broadcasting equipment and the limitations involved. The Bill refers to use of broadcasting equipment for police, fire brigade, ambulance and local authority purposes. It would be perfectly reasonable for a water authority to be added to the list. There may be circumstances in which it is necessary to have an evacuation. We feel that this proposal is not likely to be opposed.

§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
With regard to Amendment No. 56, the Bill seeks to take action to control pollution and noise in particular. But it does absolutely nothing about traffic noise. It leaves a huge area uncovered. The Minister said to me earlier today that he thought I was opposed to the concept of noise abatement zones but, on the contrary, I welcome their concept. However, it is not sufficient for us to go away from here patting ourselves on the back that we have created a new form of noise control which will make certain areas of towns and cities more bearable to live in, when we will have done so little that many people will not be aware, once the Bill is passed, that they are living in noise abatement zones.
I have already referred to the question of trying to impose a single noise standard which could be reduced progressively. I am now concerned with traffic noise within noise abatement zones. I entirely accept that in at least one of its reports, that dealing with neighbourhood noise, the Noise Advisory Council 988 considered that traffic noise was outside its terms of reference, but the Association of Public Health inspectors, in a memorandum on noise control areas, did not. The views of the Association are worthy of consideration.
In 1969 new traffic noise levels came into effect. Their levels were to be imposed by a noise meter and there were carefully specified dimensions laid out as to where, at the side of the road, the meter should be positioned. Yet the Minister will know, as I know, that, although there are more than 50 counties in England and Wales, there are only 26 metres spread throughout those counties simply because we cannot enforce that part of the regulations.
4.45 p.m.
The Minister may say that my amendment is slightly out of order. But traffic noise is not being progressively reduced as we like to persuade ourselves that it is. Therefore, if we are serious about noise abatement zones, we must accept that the amendment goes a long way to meeting this point.
The Association of Public Health Inspectors proposed that in some areas it would be possible to place restrictions on traffic. I support that suggestion.
The association envisages that heavy lorries should be banned from using particular roads through those zones. I support that proposal, too. Indeed, I suggest that local authorities should be allowed to impose noise levels within noise abatement zones covering the use of road traffic.
Let us take an arbitrary figure from the motor regulations—85 decibels. That would mean that "at a stroke", to use a phrase that has already been used in debate, a mass of commercial vehicles, not just heavy lorries, would be precluded from roads within noise abatement zones. It would also almost certainly guarantee that a large number of motor bikes could not be driven through those zones at whatever hours the local authority specified.
It is a fact, which we cannot escape, that the single most objectionable, insidious and penetrating noise within our towns and cities is that of road traffic. If the Minister is serious—and I believe he is—about controlling pollution, particularly noise pollution, he must make 989 noise abatement zones something more than attractive titles on paper. Therefore, I ask him to consider allowing local authorities to impose restrictions on traffic according to a noise level. I assure him that if he is able to indicate that something along those lines will be included in his future plans it will be a badly needed jolt to all those who persuade themselves that traffic noise is diminishing. The regulations about traffic noise cannot be enforced because we cannot enforce the setting up of noise metres, and without them it is impossible to impose noise levels.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
I want to shock and astonish the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) by accepting Amendment No. 54. We think that it is in every way eminently suitable. I hope, therefore, that he will not wish to add any other comments on it.
I must tell the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that Amendment No. 56 is unworkable on the sensible ground that vehicles travel about. The hon. Gentleman is asking that local authorities should have powers to make orders about noise levels for vehicles. It is clear that if they did that we could have local authorities making different orders and that vehicles, as they went from one local authority area to another, might be stopped and dealt with rather differently. That would be a totally unsatisfactory situation.
The problem of vehicle noise is well recognised, but it has to be tackled on a national rather than local basis. There are already national noise standards for vehicles, and those standards can be progressively reduced by use of the existing powers.
In practical terms, it is difficult to contemplate a lorry which met the appropriate national standards being stopped at various points on its journey. Vehicles are specifically designed to move about the country. We have to approach this matter by means of research and by talking to manufacturers. We must have a practical and pragmatic outlook.
Local authorities already have power to limit or ban the use of vehicles of various classes on specified streets or in specified zones. It may be that they should be encouraged to use those powers more 990 widely. The judicious use of those powers would probably have a greater immediate impact on noise levels than could be achieved by any other method, without giving rise to the problems which would flow from acceptance of the amendment. I am not able to accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I am sorry that the Minister has been unable to accept the amendment, but I understand why. Let the Minister be under no illusion that noise levels in country areas are being controlled. If he came to Derbyshire at any time he would hear the noise of lorries going through the villages and towns. The police do not seem to apply the existing regulations for keeping down the noise level, save in exceptional circumstances. Day after day people are gravely disturbed by the noise of heavy vehicles going past their houses.
I accept that the amendment was not so well drafted as it might have been, but the Minister should be in no doubt that noise is a grave problem in many areas, particularly in small villages on trunk roads and in small towns where there is great congestion. The noise is intolerable, apart from the fumes of badly adjusted diesel engines.
Should an election be held in the near future, I assume that Clause 58 will not prevent candidates from using loudspeakers—or will it?

§ Mr. Denis Howell
The noise from loudspeakers is covered by Amendment No. 55 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) who is not able to be with us. I should have objected to the excessive restriction of Amendment No. 55 on the ground that it would have stopped us all buying lollies during lunch-time, because the clause covers the mechanical noises emitted by icecream vans.
I have thought about the use of loudspeakers for political purposes. I have been subjected to excessive noise late at night by my political opponents who are not represented in the Chamber at present. It depends on the time of year when the election is held. Parents who put their children to bed early do not want to hear loudspeakers used by political candidates. When the Liberal Party uses loudspeakers in Birmingham in this way, it is counter-productive. We do not seek 991 to restrict the use of loudspeakers by political parties, but we do not wish them to be used at improper hours.