AMENDMENT RELATING TO NOISE (Hansard, 26 July 1974)

The Deputy Chairman
It is suggested that the debate should also cover Amendment No. 36, in Schedule 6, page 73, line 26, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 27 and insert: (1) In section 53 of that Act (testing of condition of vehicles on roads) in subsection (1) (authorised examiners may test motor vehicles to ascertain whether certain requirements are complied with) in paragraph (b) after the word "of" there shall be inserted the word "noise". (2) In subsection (2) of that section (persons who may act as authorised examiners)'.

§ Mr. Mulley
This clause was inserted in the Bill in another place. Although we all have sympathy with its objective the great difficulty is that noise testing equipment would have to be provided in testing stations and it is at present not technically possible to carry out the kind of checks that are necessary. We are reviewing the whole question of the testing of vehicles, but I am advised that the clause could not be effectively implemented for a considerable time.
The amendment adds noise to the list of testing requirements for vehicles at testing stations, but we consider that spot checks are likely to be more effective than the method envisaged in the clause.
No one would wish to turn down a clause which is directed to the reduction of noise, but I have to ask the Committee to vote against it and to substitute the more practical proposal in Amendment No. 36.

§ Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South)
There is little in the Bill which is related to noise, and the one clause that is about to be forcibly extracted. The clause was introduced in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I cannot see why it is not technically possible to introduce noise testing at testing stations. If man is capable of projecting his fellow men to other planets, surely our scientists and technologists can devise machinery for testing the noise level of vehicles. The noble Lord said that he was not concerned about the date of implementation and accepted that it might be 1975 or 1976. He was concerned about acceptance of the principle and a Government commitment to the cause of noise abatement.
We suffer in all our constituencies from noise emitted by mopeds, motor cycles, cars and juggernauts. Legislation gives insufficient recognition to the cause of noise abatement. There must be more stringent testing of motor vehicles which emit excessive noise, and the clause would go a long way towards giving the Department some teeth. The existing regulations are not being observed, the number of prosecutions is derisory and people do not get the protection to which they are entitled from officers of the law.
Lord Elton's amendment has a great deal of merit. I accept what the Minister has said, but I still think that much more stringent blanket testing should take place, not just spot testing.

§ Mr. Goodhart
I found the Minister's remarks disturbing. We are, rightly, spending millions of pounds on the reduction of aircraft noise and I do not grudge one penny of that. But a noisy motor cycle or sports car can create just as much disturbance as a noisy aircraft. One noisy motor cycle can disturb the sleep of hundreds of people.
It is nonsense to say that the necessary technical equipment does not exist to carry out adequate tests on these vehicles. The Minister is saying in fact that the Government are not prepared to give sufficient priority to obtaining that equipment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this again and that he will give priority to obtaining equipment and installing it in testing centres. Obviously it is much easier to test a vehicle in a centre than to carry out random checks 2025 on the roads. We already have the equipment to do this, and I cannot understand why the Minister says that it is technically not possible to provide the necessary equipment for these centres in the next 18 months.

§ Mr. Mulley
I do not want to make party points. However, the present Government have been in office only four and a half months. We have done a great deal, but we cannot do everything at once. I thought that the strictures of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) were such that I ought to make that point to the Committee.
It is all very well for people to say that this and that should be done. I remind the Committee that we have been reminded already from the Opposition benches that the money will have to be found for all these purposes. Someone has to pay for all this very expensive equipment. The cost of testing will be involved as well.
When I advise the Committee that the Government do not feel that we can make satisfactory arrangements for this highly technical testing, I do not mean that it is not theoretically possible. The situation is rather like that of the old lady who, on hearing about the first man landing on the moon, said, "Perhaps with all this advance in science, I shall now be able to get an electricity supply in my cottage."
We hear a great deal about vehicle testing generally. Everyone knows that a vehicle can be put into a suitable condition to pass the test. But what about the remaining 12 months? I am trying to get round what is a difficult problem by spot testing. I hope, for example, that the additional powers in the first five clauses will mean a saving in police time now taken up trying to enforce fixed parking penalties which can be devoted to other purposes.
We shall do what we can. I have no doubt that we shall come back to this point in subsequent discussions on road traffic legislation, by which time we hope to have a better answer than we have at the moment.
We have tried to meet the point. I hope that the Committee will agree to delete the clause and to accept the halfway house solution which is contained in 2026 what I shall be proposing when we reach Schedule 6.