Noise Induced Hearing Loss (Hansard, 19 January 1982)

§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for persons suffering from noise induced hearing loss. I declare an interest. Before coming to the House I worked in a newspaper machine room and was subjected to between 106 and 108 dB of noise and my hearing suffered as a result. Many of my former colleagues still work in such conditions.

Noise induced hearing loss is one of society's most common diseases. The social cost of being deaf is enormous to the individual. It causes tension, fatigue, nervousness, sleeplessness, stress and, perhaps above all, social isolation. It is a strain to communicate at work and at home. Terrible loneliness and isolation can result.

If deafness were an unavoidable handicap for a few, perhaps our indifference and lack of concern would be understandable, if not forgivable, but it is estimated that between 1 million and 2 million people have had their hearing damaged as a result of noise at work. The terrible fact about this type of deafness is that it is preventable. Perhaps because it does not cause physical disfigurement, it is neglected. It can and must be prevented in future. It is a classic case of prevention being better than cure, because such deafness is incurable.

The connection between noise and deafness has been understood for many years. As far back as 1886 a certain Dr. Barr studied boilermakers in Glasgow and discovered that nobody engaged in boilermaking for any length of time escaped injury to hearing. In 100 years our progress has been very slow indeed.

The industry and the factory inspectorate have at various times argued that industry should be encouraged to reduce noise on a voluntary basis. The voluntary approach was epitomised by the 1972 code of practice for reducing the exposure of employed persons to noise.

How successful was that voluntary approach? A study by the factory inspectorate in 1971 showed that 9 per cent. of workers in manufacturing industry were exposed to over 90 dB. Three years later, despite the code, the same companies were exposing 8 per cent. of workers to over 90 dB. The study showed not only that the effect of the code was minimal, but that in 1971 18 per cent. of workers exposed were offered ear protectors and that three years later that figure had risen to 50 per cent. That means that not even the 1 per cent. improvement was the result of reducing noise levels. Industry adopted the short-term, cheap solution. It put people in ear muffs.

My conclusion is that the voluntary approach has failed. The Health and Safety Commission recognised that last year when it issued the first comprehensive set of 168 regulations for the reduction of noise in Britain. Will the regulations put right the toll of years of neglect in many industries? I regret that it will not.

The TUC has stated that a 90 dB limit is far too high to protect most workers. It asks what is the point of introducing a set of regulations that will not achieve an acceptable level of protection. The TUC does not argue that that can be done immediately, but it is unwilling to accept a standard that is patently unsafe in case we are still arguing about new regulations in another 100 years' time.

The other main criticism of the draft regulations is that they do not place sufficient weight on reducing noise at source. Trade unionists know that employers will opt for the cheap solution. That is what they did in response to the 1972 code. There is no doubt that they will do it again. Techniques exist to reduce noise in industry to below the level that is dangerous to workers. Noisy machines can be insulated acoustically. For example, newspaper presses can be put in sound-proof boxes.

What is the substance of industry's objections? Why has the CBI obstructed progress on the regulations for 10 years? The reason is the cost involved. On one level that is the employers' perennial excuse. Such an argument can be used to oppose every social advance, from the abolition of child labour to the reduction of the working week.

In all my discussions with those involved I have the overwhelming sense that the problem is not just one of cost but of the lack of priority and will in relation to noise reduction. It can involve reorganisation only, rather than expensive noise suppression. Designing noise out at source is relatively cheap, but employers do not demand quiet machinery so manufacturers do not design it.

Unnecessary noise is allowed to creep in everywhere. A print room such as that in which I worked may be noisy, but we turn quiet office environments into "print rooms" with new word processors. The printer does not need to be in the office but somebody, somewhere, decided that deafening office workers was not important—if it was considered at all.

The time has come to make the issue a social and political priority. The Government must give the lead. They must emphasise to the Health and Safety Commission that the new regulations must be tightened in the two crucial respects that I have mentioned. Many other parts of the regulations are uncontroversial and should be welcomed.