Noise at Work

HC Deb 07 December 1983 vol 50 cc420-39 10.51 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)

I beg to move the motion on the Order Paper That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10322/82 setting out proposals for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work and of the Department of Employment's explanatory memorandum of 1st December 1983; and welcomes the Government's intention to seek agreement on harmonised, practicable and enforceable legislation to minimise those risks without imposing unreasonable burdens. I greatly welcome the opportunity for a debate on the European Community's important proposal on an important subject. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) is leaving. I know that it is a matter that he would like to hear discussed because it relates to noise in industry, and not least the mining industry which he repesents in his constituency.

Hearing damage is a serious injury, although it is not taken seriously by a large proportion of the population. It is unfortunate that jokes about hearing are acceptable whereas jokes about blindness are rightly thought to be in bad taste. People do not realise the serious affect that severely damaged hearing has on ordinary life. They also do not realise that damage to hearing is normally irreversible. I feel strongly that we should be interested in the prevention of such damage rather than go in for what sometimes seems to be a fetish—the measurement of hearing damage. We should be seeking ways to protect people from deafness.

I welcome the debate in March tabled by the former Member for St. Albans, Sir Victor Goodhew, when we were able to discuss these issues at some length. I am very conscious in what I say that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is here. He more than anyone else will be able to tell the House the serious disadvantage that hearing loss brings, and the remarkable way in which he and others overcome that serious disability.

Since March, I have had the opportunity to visit a large number of places where there are noise problems and several industries where the noise problems are acute. I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I may dare to refer to your previous existence, that you will have known how all pervasive is the problem of noise in industry.

I visited one firm where the management and the unions were proud of the way in which noise was being monitored and they sought to put forward a progressive view of how people should protect their hearing from noise. Indeed, as one went in through the door ear plugs were available to all. I am afraid that as I went round I did not see very many people wearing the ear plugs, although the noise was very high. Eventually I discovered a lady who was wearing the ear plugs in front of an extremely noisy machine. Unfortunately, she was wearing them up her nose because she did not like the smell of the oil in which she was working. I tell the story not to pillory her but to point to the way in which people do not take hearing and hearing loss seriously. Here was someone who preferred to protect her convenience and pleasure rather than her long-term life.

Damaged hearing in youth is very often not noticed. The lowering of ability to hear occurs at a time when one's hearing is particularly acute. However, there is a natural tapering off of hearing ability in middle and later age and very often people whose hearing was irreversibly damaged in youth but not noticed face retirement—and in these days where we live longer it is a long retirement—without hearing and there is nothing so isolating or antipathetic to normal human relationship than being unable to hear. People with physical injuries who can stagger to a pub can sit down, converse and have a pleasant evening. If a person cannot hear, the ability to enjoy normal activity is very much harmed.

We have already done a great deal in this country, but we have not done enough. A code of practice was published by the Department of Employment in 1972. This is an excellent publication and has had a good deal of effect upon industry. I do not believe that it is enough, but it has meant considerable progress in British industry. There is a limitation on it because it is based upon the general rules of the health and Safety at Work etc. Act. We need to take that code of practice further.

It would have been the Government's intention to bring forth legislation on the British scene had it not been for the proposals of the European Commission. I welcome the decision of the European Commission to move in this direction. One of the great advantages of our membership of the European Community is that we are able to raise the standard of health and safety not only in this country but among our competitors. This enables us usefully and effectively to ensure that health and safety does not become a cost to be borne by one country and undercut by another country. I therefore support the concept that we should operate on a European level.

In looking at the proposals of the European Commission which I do not wish to give in more than very brief outline, as many hon. Members will wish to intervene in the debate, I believe one or two clear problems lie within the present proposal even though I welcome the intention enshrined in it. I intend to work to produce the kind of directive which we in Britain may welcome without exception.

The proposal would set a noise dose limit at 85 decibels and require that whenever reasonably practical this be complied with by noise reduction rather than reliance upon ear protection. The proposal would also mean other measures being taken at this level, including noise measurement and compulsory hearing tests which may be referred to as audiometry, as these technical terms sometimes add a certain lustre to what is a fairly normal activity for workers. The requirement to do what is reasonably practical is important, because it permits the cost factor to be taken into account and does not imply the taking of unreasonable measures that would threaten the viability of industry. We must accept that the problem of deafness is sufficiently serious for us to expect to take measures even though they be expensive. On the other hand, it would obviously be ridiculous to lay such burdens on industry that people are not deafened because they have no jobs to go to. There is a real balance to be struck in this matter, and the Government seek to do that.

We welcome the directive, but we have serious reservations about some of the details. First, the nature of the level. I do not believe that one level is a sensible approach. The level at which audiometry is necessary might be thought to be a different level from that at which other measures should be taken. There is no reason why we should be fixed on one level.

Nor does it seem reasonably practicable to limit noise exposure by technical means to as low a level as 85 decibels in a number of industries. One can get round that by derogation, and that is the proposal, but it is not satisfactory because the practical effect of the Commission's proposal would be to compel the wearing of ear protection by workers where there is only a low level of risk and where, it follows, there would be considerable resistance. I have found it to be a common view on both sides of the House and on both sides of industry that to insist on workers wearing ear protection at a point where most workers would feel that it was an encumbrance and not a protection would mean that many people would be subject to a criminal charge in circumstances that would be indefensible.

It is therefore vital to fix the right level. In saying that, I am not for one moment derogating from my basic belief that this is a vital area of health and safety. I hope that by sponsoring and pushing a major change in the approach to the matter—by having a campaign of noise awareness and all that is associated with that—I have shown that it is an area in which I am particularly interested. We must get the level right, and that does not mean to say that we are trying to back out of any responsibility in the matter.

We accept the need for the maximum exposure limit to be set at a reasonable level above 85 decibels, a limit that can be enforced and will not require provision for extensive or loosely controlled derogation to deal with particular problems. We have not yet reached a decision on what that level should be. We are in negotiation and we want the view of the House, of the European Parliament and of the other member states before we reach that decision. The dangers of too low a level are that enforcement would be ineffective and in some cases downright non-existent.

It would also mean, if we were to have the same level for audiometry, that we should spend a great deal of money on compulsory medical examinations, with a problem about human rights—they are connected with compulsion in this area but not in others — and we should require such examinations at relatively low levels of risk. The costs would be high, as I say, and we should be measuring deafness rather than protecting people from going deaf, and I am not interested in mere measurement. I am interested in using measurement where it might save people's health and improve their opportunity for protection. Therefore, we should not hinge all actions on a single level of noise. We should seek for uniformity between member states, and that is more likely if the directive is realistic and is not one that clearly cannot be enforced.

The awareness campaign that we have started will also help us to achieve the other objective that is conceived within this approach, and that is to have action at the level of design. We want to see that new machinery does not make the same noise as old machinery and that we gradually design out the noise that afflicts people and creates deafness.

Therefore, I commend this to the House. We can by proper negotiation produce a sensible answer which will be an enforceable directive which will bring all the countries of the European Community into line. We can make sure that the very serious damage done to so many of our fellow citizens by noise in industry is eradicated. We can increasingly ensure, principally by noise attenuation and secondly by hearing protection, that people who work in noisy atmospheres will not go deaf and will know that new machinery, when it replaces old, will itself be more silent. If the House can support what I believe to be a commonsense and common approach on both sides to this issue we can make a great deal of difference to the health and safety of the people of Britain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Before I call the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), may I point out that a large number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye? We have approximately 75 minutes of debating time left. The arithmetic will be obvious. If hon. Members behave with restraint, we may get all or most of them in.

11.6 pm

Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North)

Many hundreds of thousands. possibly millions, of people in this country suffer from an impairment of their hearing. Not all but many of them have been affected by excessive noise at their place of work. That fact is accepted everywhere by every scientific and medical body, and by every employer group and trade union group. It was not always so. Indeed, people like myself and some of my hon. Friends who worked in industries such as shipbuilding, shiprepairing, steel and heavy engineering suffered terribly for many years because of the appalling noise problems at our place of work.

It was sad to watch men in the shipbuilding and shiprepairing industry lose their hearing as the years passed by. One of the saddest sights was to go into a workmen's club, a social club or a labour club and see elderly retired shipyard workers sitting in a world of their own having a pint because they could not engage in conversation or a game of dominoes or do the other social things which they should have been able to do. Because they could not hear, they could not join in the general entertainment and relaxation.

This important Community directive is attempting to take a major and decisive step to removing this industrial hazard which affects so many hundreds of thousands. It is important to appreciate that noise does not simply bring about an impairment in hearing or even deafness. Studies have shown that excessive noise creates hypertension and can be damaging to the nervous system. Often it entails a substantially lower work performance and creates higher accident rates in work places. Often much time is lost through higher sickness rates. All this can be laid at the door of excessive noise.

Taking all those factors into account, I was disappointed that the Confederation of British Industry in its consultation paper in the parliamentary briefing took such a negative attitude. It is regrettable that it could not find anything worthwhile to say about the directive and damned it at every level. When such an organisation has not a single word of praise for the directive one suspects its motives.

Accepting the Commission's 85 decibel level proposal has a financial cost. Each of us is well aware of that. Not implementing the directive also has an enormous cost, as I have already related. The cost is not just financial. The CBI seems to have lost sight of the enormous human cost. The Minister and I are at one in our concern about the social impact of hearing loss on many thousands of people in this country.

All who participate in this debate should appreciate that the Commission's proposed 85-decibel limit will almost treble the number of workers protected by the legislation. There are always problems in persuading some workers to use the protective clothing and equipment offered, but that does not mean that we should do nothing. As I shall explain later, a great deal more needs to be done.

The 90-decibel limit allegedly operating in the United Kingdom does not have the force of law. It is merely a voluntary code of practice and we all know that it is ignored in many industries. Industry must also bear in mind that workers employed in areas of excessive noise need to get out of the area from time to time to rest their ears and their nervous systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) will confirm my experience. Working on vessels under construction on the stocks with three or four caulking operators around, we had to get off the ship for half an hour occasionally to save our sanity if not our ears. That, too, is part of the additional cost of excessive noise.

The heart of the EC proposals is article 4.2 which lays down the 85-decibel limit. The Opposition support that, although the Government seem not to be too happy about it. The Minister spent some time rubbishing the proposed limit and failed to commit himself or the Government at this stage. I hope that they will agree to go below the 90-decibel limit which some sectors of industry did not favour originally but rallied round when they saw the proposal for a lower limit.

Any proposed legislation must also cover other important proposals. Article 7 refers to the installation of signs informing workers of noisy areas. The Minister himself described the experience of opening the door to a plant and being hit by a wall of noise. The provision of signs would not cost a great deal.

Article 8 stresses the necessity to ensure that correct hearing protectors are available and that a choice is offered. Employers sometimes seem to believe that if they provide just one type of hearing protector their duty is done. It would not cost a great deal more to give the workers a choice.

Article 9 is extremely important, referring to the necessity for medical surveillance of workers in the noisiest operations and of all workers who have to wear ear protectors due to excessive noise. Regular audiometric examination, to use the Minister's term, is essential, as all who have worked in noisy industries and suffered ear problems recognise.

Article 11, which is equally important, requires that workers should be informed of the risks and should be supplied with the maximum information. If the dangers inherent in industrial noise were made clear to young workers, and they knew of its likely impact in later life, there would be much less resistance to the wearing of ear protection. At present, younger workers may think that it is not macho to wear ear protectors, or fear that their fellow workers will think them less than manly. We know that that is nonsense, but we must get the message across to workers, especially to young workers.

When the Government introduce legislation, they must initiate and sponsor research into the reduction of noise from machinery. They must examine the new techniques that can be used to reduce noise, and better working processes. Careful thought and planning could begin to reduce noise, but, unfortunately, even today, machinery is installed and work processes are adopted without any thought being given to the impact of noise on workers.

The House should recognise that although tonight we are talking about the protection of workers in future, the Government should also consider those workers who have already lost their hearing. The Minister will have read the judgment in the case of six Newcastle workers who lost their hearing.

Mr. Roger Freeman (Kettering)

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, but is he saying that he favours the acceptance of an 85 decibel limit, whatever the employment consequences? Does he agree that in some cases, including some examples in my constituency, if the directive were applied there would be a reduction in work, which would be resented by those who work, for example, in the sawmills in my constituency?

Mr. Evans

I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's point later, because I now wish briefly to mention the Newcastle judgment. I appreciate that some of the points that I have raised may not be enshrined in the Government's proposed legislation, but, as the Minister has a powerful influence in the Conservative party and in the Government, I put it to him strongly that until now the tests and conditions for qualifying for industrial benefits have been too stringent. The judge in the Newcastle case said that if the tests were too stringent—he believed that they were—it was a matter not for the courts but for Parliament. The judge also found that 1963 was the operative guilty date, if I may call it that, for employers. That is not a satisfactory way of establishing the date from which employers can be found guilty in common law of neglecting the requirements of their workers. We need more evidence about this matter. The Government should also consider the derisory awards made to the six Newcastle workers.

The classic test of deafness is no longer of someone visiting the doctor and saying, "Eh?", "What?" and "Pardon?" Skilled medical practitioners can now measure the smallest degree of deafness, so there is no question of people rooking the Government or the state.

I urge the Government to accept the Commission's proposals eventually to implement the 85 decibel limit.

The 85 decibel limit is already a factor in West German and French legislation, and they are two of our major competitors, as well as two of our major partners in the EC. I hope that the Government will accept that as a basis for the future, rather than the other suggestion of the 90 decibel limit.

I recognise the force of the Minister's point, and legitimately, derogations could be used for particular industries.

Mr. Harry Cowans (Tyne Bridge)

I draw my hon. Friend's attention, and that of the Minister, to the fact that the same arguments were used years ago when we were talking about fitting guards on circular saws, and we are still fighting for them.

Mr. Evans

My hon. Friend is correct. One of the problems is that when any organisation suggests an improvement of safety at the workplace, someone always says that the cost of the safety element is far in excess of what is required and would probably put the company out of business and everybody out of work. We have faced that argument in the past, and we shall face it in the future.

For some places because of the special nature of the work, a derogation can legitimately be given within the terms of the EC proposal, and I am sure that the Minister will be looking for such things. I hope that we can move towards acceptance of the 85 decibel limit. The EC talks of five years, and I am sure that, if necessary, we can have discussions with our European partners about whether that is a realistic limit.

It is important that we signal our long-term intentions to industry as early as possible, so that it can start taking the necessary judgments and decisions on the capital investment that it will need to make. If we do not, and we accept the 90 decibel limit, then there is no doubt that in five years' time, when we wish to move to a lower decibel, we shall be told that we should have said so five years before, because industry has since made all the capital decisions, and a new level will cost a fortune.

If we were to consider the views of everyone involved in industry, the undoubted view of the work force would be, "The lower the decibel limit, the better." The House has a duty to listen to those workers and respect their views.

11.23 pm

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on his excellent speech, made all the more valuable by the fact that he has personal experience of the shipbuilding industry, which has always been a noisy one. I am sure that the House will applaud the campaign by the Health and Safety Commission to alert British industry to the dangers of noise at work. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on applying that evangelical zeal that has become the hallmark of his political career to that campaign and now to the issue of the EC directive on the harmonisation of the regulations on noise.

I was encouraged to see my hon. Friend's answer to an oral question on 8 November from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) who asked whether, as well as protection from noise, he did not also feel that it was important to protect the jobs of the workers and the competitiveness and existence of the industries in which they work. That might not be possible if the EC regulations are imposed precisely as they are presented to us today. I was pleased to see the optimism of my hon. Friend the Minister, when he replied to that question by saying that he thought that it could be done without damaging the competitive edge of British industry and that he would see to it that the terms proposed in the directive will be changed considerably." [Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 138.] What he has already said shows considerable flexibility of approach, and I am glad about what he said about balance.

The number of workers exposed to loud noise is staggering. A level of 105 decibels, which is the level of a loud pop concert, a drop forge or even a Young Conservatives Christmas party, is a dangerous one, if continuous. According to the Health and Safety Executive, more than 25,000 workers are exposed to noise like that. I say "noise like that" because many more than 25,000 Young Conservatives attend parties at Christmas time.

More than 7,000 workers are exposed to 90 decibels—that is enough to make shouting necessary when talking to someone at arm's length. Hon. Members who have been into factories to talk to constituents know that having a conversation in that sort of environment is quite impossible. Another 1.7 million workers are exposed to a daily dose, or eight hours, of 85 decibels, and 2.5 million are exposed to 80 decibels.

There is general agreement that more needs to be done about noise protection. I can understand the European Commission's desire to harmonise occupational noise levels to a common maximum. However, I do not agree that the maximum should be 85 decibels. That would represent a drop of about one third in the noise intensity, because the measurement is logarithmic rather than linear.

The proposal will endanger the viability of some industrial processes, or even whole companies. There would be an adverse effect on employment just when companies are struggling out of recession. An article in the Financial Times of 15 September gave many examples of what I mean. It said: A major UK steelworks would have to spend about £55m to meet the 90 decibel norm, and £145m to get down to 85. A shoe factory employing 350 people would have to spend £300,000 to reduce machinery noise to 85 decibels. A cable-making factory employing 1,900 people would need to spend £500,000 to meet an 85 decibel limit. The cost of meeting a 90 decibel limit in a heavy chemical plant employing 100 people would be £1.5m, reaching 85 would cost £3.5m. Some industries, such as paper and board and textiles, fear that productivity could suffer severely because machinery might have to run more slowly to reduce noise. Estimating the cost to British industry of such reductions in noise is extremely difficult. The Confederation of British Industry has suggested a total of £1 billion. Estimates of job losses are much harder to make. In the timber and woodworking industry, noise is a special problem. There is one such company in my constituency in which job losses can be estimated. The general manager of Burt Boulton (Timber) Ltd, Mr. Bob Garton, wrote to me this week saying: the jobs of over 100 people will be at stake if we are forced to comply with the 85 decibel limit. With some of our woodworking machines, this level is not achievable and the technology is not available to further reduce noise at source. If this lower level does become law it would be totally uneconomic for us to work and we would not be able to sustain the continued losses that it would cause. One cannot be much clearer than that. That company would be hard hit, even though woodworking establishments in Britain are already subject to statutory noise limits under regulation 44 of the Woodworking and Machines Regulations 1974. It requires reduction of noise to the greatest extent that is reasonably practical and the provision and use of ear protectors where people are likely to be exposed to noise at or about 90 decibels. It is interesting that even that noise limit is impossible to achieve on 40 per cent. of existing woodworking machinery. Such machines have a life of about 20 years.

Improvements have been achieved on band resaws at a cost of £500 to £2,000 per machine by the enclosure method, but that leads to loss of production. The technology to reduce noise by engineering means is simply not available. The timber trade wants a prescribed maximum noise level of 90 decibels rather than 85 decibels. I am told that extensive research by the CBI and other organisations has shown that severe hearing loss does not begin to occur in any numbers until there is continued exposure to noise levels above 90 decibels. There have been very few claims for industrial deafness, as hearing protection of a high standard is provided and the work force in the timber industry is well educated to wear that protection.

Secondly, and notwithstanding what I said about the sense of the work force——

Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East;)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what evidence he is quoting?

Mr. Colvin

I am quoting anecdotal evidence from a company in my constituency and evidence produced by the CBI and the woodworking industry. It is anecdotal evidence. I cannot give statistical evidence. If statistical evidence had been prepared, I am sure that it would he available, but it is not.

I should also like a specific duty to be placed on employees to wear the protection that is provided. It should be acknowledged that hearing protection is a perfectly adequate and acceptable means of complying with any legislation, whatever level of noise is agreed.

If a limit below 90 decibels is set, the lead- in time should be at least 20 years, and financial assistance should be given to the manufacturers of woodworking machinery to aid research into noise reduction. Dare I suggest that that might be one way in which we could get back from the EC some of the excess money that we now pay into the Common Market budget.

Lastly, I hope that the trade will be assured that compliance with any directive in other EC countries is as high as it is in the United Kingdom. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that our European partners are nothing like as strict as we are in enforcing regulations.

Mr. Cowans

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I have much sympathy with what he says. He gave many statistics—I do not complain about that—but can he give the one that is missing from his case: how much is industrial deafness costing the National Health Service and the nation? If he can do that, he will put the other statistics into context.

Mr. Colvin

I shall leave it to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans), when he makes his own speech, to give that figure. I am sure that he has it in his pocket.

I want to say a word about the current situation in Europe on the draft directive. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, has now produced a report on the draft, and has recommended that the action level be reduced from 85 decibels to the 90 decibels proposed by industry in this country. As a rider to its report, however, it states that hearing protection should be worn at noise levels over 85 decibels. The opinion of several Members of the European Parliament is that that report will be accepted by the European Parliament, but the final decision on the directive will, of course, remain with the Council of Ministers. If the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), puts the case for the United Kingdom, I trust that he will bear in mind not only the wording of this motion, which I support, but the suggestions that I have put to the House about the important timber and woodworking industry. I am sure that he will fight his corner hard on behalf of those whom we represent.

11.33 pm

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

I strongly disagree with much of what the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said. He has put forward the classical arguments of the employers and raised every conceivable objection to any real progress or significant progress that is necessary. When he quotes the figures and the damage that can be caused, he should consider not only the noise levels but the numbers of workers who are exposed to those noise levels. Of course, there are fewer at the higher level, but there are millions at the lower level. We are concerned about those people, as well as those who are at greater risk.

I welcome the change in attitude to deafness, which has been a seriously neglected handicap. The growing awareness of the problem is warmly welcomed. I also welcome the EEC recommendation of an 85 decibel level. However, the good old CBI suggests a 90 decibel level. Trust the CBI to go for the worst for the workers. Trust the CBI to go for the employers and to do anything at the expense of the workers. That is a typical CBI attitude. I hope that hon. Members will disregard the CBI.

I was disgusted that the Minister should say that the Government are determined to see that any final directive shall not place unecessary or uncompetitive burdens on industry. That sounds fine, but it only considers one side of industry. When the Minister speaks of competition he should bear in mind the possible damage to workers' health when only one side of the equation is considered.

It is estimated that about 500,000 people could be helped if the level is set as the CBI suggest, but 2,500,000 people could be helped if we set the level at 85 decibels. Even that level is inadequate. My union, by which I am proud to be sponsored — the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union — has declared that 80 decibels should be recorded as "threshold of harm". It is right. Professor Coles, of the Institute of Hearing Research has said that that is the only completely safe level.

I do not suggest that the problem can be solved overnight. I do not think that any magic wand is available. No one suggests that we should place burdens on industry which cause collapse. However, the hearing of men and women in industry is being sacrificed for cash. That is the basic issue. Their hearing is being stolen simply for cash. We must face the fact that decisive action is required.

The CBI has been moaning for years about every type of progress. I know members of the CBI and one or two are good personal friends, but it is one of the worst organisations in Great Britain in terms of industrial progress. Every conceivable objection is put in the way of workers by the CBI. The CBI is like a bookmaker who always whines about his losses. The CBI is always moaning about the problems and the terrible cost of helping workers with safety. I hope that the Minister will disregard the CBI's rubbishy proposals.

I challenge employers and Conservative Members. They talk about the undue burdens of competitiveness. Why should not we in Britain adopt the EEC level of 85 decibels? What is wrong with British industry that it cannot compete in Europe? Is our management so incompetent that it must have the subsidy of deafening workers so that it can compete with its European counterparts? The argument for refusing to accept 85 decibels is nonsense.

Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle)

Will the right hon. Gentleman present his evidence to suggest that other member states of the European Community are in favour of a level of 85 dB(A)?

Mr. Ashley

If I may so, that is a silly question. Each side has asked the other for its evidence. It is rather like asking whether someone has stopped beating his wife. Has the hon. Gentleman stopped beating his wife? That is the sort of question which the hon. Gentleman has asked. It was a naive question because he knows that the relevant document is being considered by all EC members. The Minister told him, if the hon. Gentleman was listening, that he would listen to this debate and to the debates in the EEC. If the EEC countries accept the document, and I believe that they will, there is no reason why we should refuse to accept it.

I hope that the Government will move on this issue. If they do not, the consequences for workers in Britain will be extremely serious. Workers whose hearing is damaged receive only derisory damages from the courts. There are some of us who are determined to step up the fight to obtain proper compensation, and my union and others share that determination. However, that is second-best compensation. We want to prevent the damage in the first place. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon the moves to prevent damage to workers' hearing.

11.41 pm

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)

I shall comply with your wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make my contribution as brief as possible, unenviable though my task is in taking up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley).

I shall start by making three brief assertions. First, I accept and share the laudable objectives of the proposals that are before us. The letter from the Commission to the President of the Council refers to the objectives of limiting exposure to noise and making provision for health surveillance of workers whose exposure is likely to exceed the limit. Secondly, I accept the principle of harmonisation in this sphere of Community activity. There is a universality of health and safety care and in this area there can be no national frontiers. Harmonisation lays an equal burden on all member states and promotes equality of opportunity in competition.

Harmonisation regulates the market within the EC for the manufacturers of what can conveniently but somewhat flippantly be called "noisy machines".

I am consciously but voluntarily voicing the interests of the timber and sawmill industry, which has strong interests in my constituency of Basingstoke. Having said that I move on to suggest that there are inherent weaknesses in the proposals that are before us.

First, I am doubtful whether the proposals are what they claim to be or what they set out to be. They are not a harmonisation of national laws, they are an intensification. They are not an approximation of national laws, they are an extension. The reduction to 85 decibels is stricter than any existing national legislation; and the proposals on audiometry are stricter likewise than any existing national legislation. It is my understanding that there is no existing national legislation on noise anywhere in the Community which requires audiometric surveillance to the standards laid down in the proposals; nor is there any legislation in any Community country requiring technical or organisational measures to be taken to reduce sound exposure level to 85 decibels or even to levels between 85 and 90 decibels throughout industry and without exception.

I turn to the second inherent weakness in the proposals. With respect to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), I am attracted by the argument that the proposals overstate the risks of damage to hearing in the 85 to 90 decibel range.

A recent survey has established that only 3 per cent. of people who have been exposed for 40 years to a noise level of 85 decibles have suffered adversely.

Mr. John Evans

Will the hon. Gentleman observe the normal practice of stating the source from which he obtains the information?

Mr. Hunter

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the survey was produced for the CBI earlier this year.

Surveys in other member states do not reveal any evidence of substantial hearing loss from exposure to the 85 to 90 decibel range. Moreover, I have had the good fortune to read some of the letters sent to some hon. Members by the Department of Employment, which assert: The justification for setting this exposure limit"— that is, 85 decibels has not been established. Moreover the proposals deal statistically with a category called "perceptible handicap.". That is defined as a 15 decibel loss averaged over one, two and three kiloherts; but no such loss nor such a category is recognised either by the World Health Organisation or the International Standards Organisation. The proposals should therefore be discarded as irrelevant.

Thus, I would argue that to conform with the accepted Community approach and to ensure that effort and resources are devoted to tackling the priority area of hazard, the Commission's proposals for Community legislation should continue to seek to secure that the maximum sound exposure limit is 90 and not 85 decibels.

The third inherent weakness in the proposals is that practical difficulties are ignored. First, the Government, despite the comments of Opposition Members, should bear in mind that noise surveys and audiometric surveillence will impose an excessive administrative burden on employers, especially on "outside" works such as building sites, shipyards, farms and quarries.

Mr. John Evans

Tell us about the shipyards.

Mr. Hunter

Secondly, the technical measures required to reduce noise to 85 rather than to 90 decibels would be costly in design and manufacturer of enclosures and in modifications at source, as I have learnt in my constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said that the estimated cost of reducing the noise level to 85 decibels exceeded El billion. I understand that 1.7 million people are employed in that category. To reduce and maintain a noise level of 90 decibels would affect 0.7 million people and the cost would be barely £0.5 billion. I submit that as we emerge from recession to increase the burden on industry by £0.5 billion would border on insanity.

Thirdly, the requirements of the proposals would endanger the viability of some industries, especially the timber and saw mill industry in my constituency of Basingstoke. This would be in an even more disadvantageous position in tackling non-EC competition. My conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the proposals are noble and laudable in principle and aspiration, but they are unacceptable in detail.

11.50 pm

Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)

I am glad to have the chance to speak in the debate. I am interested in industrial health and safety matters and noise is of considerable importance to my constituents, particularly those who work in shipbuilding and heavy engineering.

I was glad that the Minister acknowledged that deafness is a disability which is often treated with a lack of seriousness or understanding by those who do not suffer from it. Hearing loss isolates its victims and denies them much of the richness of human existence. When it is an illness, we have a duty to try to understand the victim's hurt and to respond generously. When it is a disability which we allow to be induced in substantial numbers of working people, we have a duty to feel shame at our complacency to date. We also have a duty to respond wholeheartedly to the European Commission document and to accept its contents.

One adult in six can expect to suffer some form of noise-induced hearing loss during his or her working life. Of course, those in some industries are far more susceptible than others.

Before becoming an hon. Member, I was a full-time official with the GMBATU, serving its northern region. Among my many responsibilities, I was responsible for the region's 4,000 potential common law claims. mostly covered by the Iron and Steel Trades Insurers and all relating to noise-induced industrial deafness.

The common law aspect is important in any debate on industrial health and safety, but equally important from the victim's point of view is the financial solvency and freedom from state interference of his or her trade union. The trade union movement is the only effective force in our society for challenging employers on behalf of working people who have no substantial resources of their own and have suffered injury.

The common law is important, because it is the vehicle for obtaining financial compensation for the usually irreversible injury. Recent court cases in Newcastle on noise-induced industrial deafness in shipbuilding are very important. The court found that there had been no contributory negligence by the employees, that there had been a breach of duty by the employers towards the employees, that the Limitation Act 1980 did not bar trade union members from having their cases heard and that working people in the shipbuilding industry had been exposed to excessive noise. Those findings were all in favour of the injured parties— the working people in shipbuilding.

However, the court also found that the date of guilty knowledge—when employers could be held first to have been aware that by exposing their employees to noise they were causing them injury—was 1963. The court made that finding in spite of the fact that the medical profession is on record as having identified noise-induced industrial deafness at least as long ago as 1952.

The Newcastle judgment holds that employers could not have been expected to know about noise-induced industrial deafness before 1963, so they were not negligent in exposing their employees to it before that date.

Many industries have employment patterns that fluctuate by generation. That is true of shipbuilding and, to a lesser extent, of heavy engineering. There is a considerable group of working people in those industries who suffer from industrial deafness that was noise-induced before 1963 and they will be unable to gain any financial compensation for their injury. I mean financial compensation through the common law rather than through the social security provisions. Those circumstances will never arise again, but I ask the Minister to consider the plight of the older industrial workers who are denied compensation through the common law for their injury.

I urge the Government to introduce a scheme, similar to that introduced for the sufferers from pneumoconiosis under a previous Government, to ensure that those injured prior to 1963 — the date of guilty knowledge— obtain some financial recompense for the permanent disability that they now endure. Financial compensation is no substitute for the prevention of injury, but in those cases the injuries have already been caused and those who have been hurt are entitled to financial compensation. I hope that the Government will treat that argument seriously.

I welcome the Council document that we are discussing, including the proposed directive. I welcome the emphasis on noise reduction, supplemented by ear defenders. I firmly believe that inducing the worker to be more careful is no substitute for providing a safer environment.

I also welcome the commitment to regular audiometric examination, but with a reservation. The document provides for workers suffering from noise-induced industrial deafness to be removed in some circumstances from the job, and provided with another job if possible. Caution is called for here. In some industries, suitable alternative employment will not be available, and we are therefore discussing the possibility of depriving a man of his livelihood.

The document contains a valuable commitment to explanation and to consultation with employees. Like our health and safety at work legislation, it gives employees a duty to co-operate. That whole section of the document is valuable, and not just the "Put your ear-muffs on" part of it or—as the Minister might say—the "Take the plugs out of your nose and put them in your ear" part. I hope that the Government will accept the whole section, and its implications, rather than just part of it.

The Minister said that the daily dose limit was a key issue. I understand that the Government's view is that it should be above 85 decibels and—although the Minister did not state this—below 90 decibels. The Minister said he intended to consider specific evidence and might even move towards a sliding scale. I shall follow the matter with interest. I hope that the Minister will consider the evidence that the GMBATU will wish to put forward, advocating a threshold limit of 80 decibels, as well as considering evidence from industry advocating a much higher threshold. The difference is not marginal. Decibels do not increase in an arithmetical progression, and 90 decibels is more than twice as loud as 85.

Mr. Hunter

Four times.

Mr. Brown

That is right. I applaud the Minister's commitment to noise reduction, as opposed to protection, which is a considerable advance. It was called forth earlier in the debate when the commitment of our European partners to a threshold of 85 decibels was called into question. I refer hon. Members to the document under discussion. Page 4 of the explanatory memorandum says: In the Federal Republic of Germany, accident prevention provisions make the reduction of exposure to noise compulsory, where the equivalent continuous level exceeds 85 dB(A). On the same page it is stated: In France, the … labour code … states that the intensity of noise must be kept at a level which is not damaging to health; 85 and 90 dB(A) are laid down as warning and danger levels respectively". There is, therefore, a commitment to 85 decibels in the two major Common Market countries.

I do not want to end on a churlish note. I welcome the Minister's attitude. It is not everything that the Opposition would wish for, but it is a considerable step forward by the Conservative party.

12 midnight

Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle)

Before I refer to certain aspects of the proposed European Directive with particular reference to the engineering industry, may I say how encouraging it is that from the outset there has been general agreement among hon. Members that industrial noise can be an extremely serious problem unless efforts are made continually to reduce its effect?

I must confess that I am associated with the company to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred where a lady was wearing her ear plugs up her nose. I assure the Minister that everyone else wears his ear plugs in the right place.

As hon. Members have said repeatedly during the debate, noise is an occupational risk for hundreds of thousands of workers each day of their working lives, which can result in lasting damage to their hearing. As such it is properly regarded by employers and employees' representatives on the safety committees of most manufacturing companies as a danger to be kept at bay.

Although noise is an old problem in industry, there has been a growing awareness of the threat to hearing, and a great deal has been achieved to increase protection. The current code of practice was drawn up before the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was passed. Factory inspectors have not been lax in encouraging the application of the code.

In 1981 the Health and Safety Executive published a challenging consultative document on noise protection. The fact that the draft of the European directive has captured attention has kept the subject alive. That must be a good thing because the more publicity there is about industrial noise the greater awareness there will be of its dangers.

What can be made of that awareness falls into two categories. First, workers can be encouraged and required in their own interests to wear ear guards. That means more than the occasional reminder on a works notice board. It calls for permanent warning signs about noise protection zones, an adequate supply and choice of reliable equipment and materials, and a disciplinary procedure followed with equal zeal by supervision and shop stewards without exception, even for visitors who briefly look into a factory.

Secondly, numerous remedial steps can be taken to reduce noise by what the Commission calls "technical means". Although the cost of enclosing large machines already set down on the shop floor — for example, power presses and heading machines — is prohibitive during a recession, and in some cases, such as with forging hammers, it is downright impossible with the technology available, many small improvements can be made. The use of insulating materials, ducting, cushioning to reduce vibration, lining to muffle hoppers and feed chutes, the replacement of worn parts and a changed lay out for plant and machinery cna bring significant benefits to the working environment.

Much is being done in those directions by British industry, but no one would dispute that further progress is desirable. The Health and Safety Commission, the CBI and, I think, the TUC would agree with most member countries that a directive on occupational noise control is needed and that legislation should be harmonised throughout the Community. As the proposal stands, however, that is in some peril. Accepted practice on noise control in most member states, with the possible exception of France, is based on 90 decibels as an action level. The directive proposes an action level of 85 decibels. The difference between 85 and 90 may not seem large, but 90 decibels is the equivalent to the noise of a bulldozer at about 10 metres range and 85 decibels represents the sound of a typical car radio being played normally. Whereas about 700,000 men and women work in noise conditions of 90 decibels or more, the number working at 85 decibels is much greater—probably another 1 million people.

The administrative costs of enforcing controls including audiometry would be enormous at the lower limit, but the CBI, supported by an opinion of the Royal College of Physicians. suggests that the evidence of risk to hearing from prolonged exposure to noise levels below 90 decibels is uncertain, to say the least. My evidence for that is a note from the safety policy division of the Health and Safety Commission.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

Does the CBI brief indicate the cost to the nation of deafness caused to people at work who are exposed to the noise levels that would exist on the basis of his recommendation but not on the basis of the draft directive?

Mr. Wardle

If the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has some figures with which he can quantify what he said, will he enlighten the House? As I understand the CBI recommendation, it is that we tackle what is practical with all practical haste. That approach is the most sensible one. Hon. Members who are involved in industry want to do all they can to see that noise protection is increased, but let us deal with practicalities.

If the proposed European directive were to call for action at 90 decibels, industry would inevitably have to meet considerable costs. I believe the target would be accepted as realistic and worthwhile and genuine efforts would continue to be made to bring about the necessary improvements. That would be an action level for special noise protection measures that I believe would be met with approval throughout the European Community, whereas at 85 decibels the viability of many engineering processes —indeed, of companies—would immediately be called into question with consequential effects on employment, a point already alluded to, not only because of the huge capital cost of the noise protection systems involved, but because it would result in slower tooling changes, greater machine down-time and further loss of competitiveness.

The proposed directive also calls for audiometry tests at 85 decibels as a mandatory requirement. That remains an imprecise technique that can only monitor deterioration in a person's hearing after damage has been done. I suggest the technique should be employed at a considerably higher decibel level, perhaps 105 decibels, as the CBI recommends.

I think that the TUC is mistaken to resist the introduction of audiometry tests. I hope that what could be a very useful initiative by the European Commission will not undermine its own value and purpose from the start by setting unrealistic goals. The Health and Safety Commission and the CBI feel that other member states, including Germany, Holland and Denmark, recognise this possibility, and they are worried by it. It is too ambitious as it stands and will bring discredit to a campaign about noise protection that is widely recognised as important to all those who work in British industry.

12.9 am

Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)

I wish the House had heard fewer speeches defending the position of the CBI. I exempt the Minister from that remark because his speech faced up to both sides of the issue rather well.

I object to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) comparing the damage caused by high noise levels with the damage that may be experienced at a young Conservative Christmas concert. That was an outrage and an insult to those people who work at high noise levels not just for one evening a year or, if the enthusiasm is maintained, for one evening in two consecutive years, but for 40 hours of the week year after year. To make that the opening gambit of one's speech in defending some of the exemptions that I suspect will be required indicates how serious the intention of the hon. Member is and his lack of good will in trying to solve the problem.

In a previous incarnation, I worked for a company that manufactured rock drills. At one time, as an employee of that company, I had to measure the noise level of a rock drill in what is called a closed end in a hard rock mine. We recorded 132 decibels, and my colleagues and I were working in that noise without ear muffs. As a young man, I was rather more prepared than were some of my colleagues to express a view. I told the manager what he could do if he thought that I would again expose myself to 132 decibels. Ear muffs appeared and I am glad to say that after a bit of bludgeoning, everybody in that department used ear muffs.

That example convinces me that compulsion is required in this matter. Many of the people with whom I worked had put up with that degree of noise for a decade or more. They insisted that they were not deaf, but one had to shout at them to make them hear. Often they were not aware of the damage that they had experienced and, as has been pointed out, the tragedy is the deterioration of life as time goes by. It means that their deafness will get worse, even if they are not exposed to such noise in future. Legislation is required and compulsion and pressure must be imposed by those in authority because of the reluctance that undoubtedly exists.

The argument is really between 85 and 90 decibels. I suspect that some Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate would not recognise a dB if it walked in through the door of the Chamber. I cannot believe that they have asked people to set up an example of noise at 85, 90 and 100 decibels so as to obtain an appreciation of the differences. It is recognised that between 85 and 90 there is an energy factor of three and that even if we were to compromise somewhere between the two—say, at 87 to 90 — that would represent half the energy level reaching the ears.

I support the European approach to the subject. We should fix a low level — perhaps one that we admit cannot be achieved now in certain industries—so that those who cannot meet that requirement must argue for an exemption. If, for technical reasons, such exemption is granted, the industry concerned should be made to monitor the noise levels that the people concerned experience. I cannot see anything wrong with that approach.

I assure the Minister, speaking as an engineer, that if the pressure and determination exist, the companies that manufacture the products that create the noise will have every economic reason to increase their research and development to overcome the technical problems. I fear that without such continual pressure — without the determination on the part of Governments throughout Europe to reduce noise levels in the end—little progress will be made.

While I would not support every aspect of it, I find the European document interesting and fundamental and we should agree that, on the whole, it is a good rather than a bad document. I hope that something like it will become the law of the land in the near future.

12.13 am

Mr. Gummer

Many hon. Members have wanted to take part in the debate. Perhaps we can have an opportunity at some future time to extend the discussion, because it is clear that this is a subject to which we must return.

Mr. John Evans

I welcome the Minister's opening remarks. I hope that he will persuade his colleagues to bring the matter back to the Floor of the House soon. I also hope that he will persuade them to have it debated at a more reasonable hour.

Mr. Gummer

That is a matter not for me but for the Leader of the House. I will use what influence I have to bring the hon. Gentleman's comment to his attention—perhaps in relation to the general subject rather than this specific matter — for it is clear that hon. Members regard this as a subject of great importance.

The comments that have been made show that there is a wide degree of support for action. Real arguments have been advanced about some parts of the Commission's recommendation. The comment of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) might receive support in many parts of the House in that, in general, it is a good proposal because it seeks to achieve an aim that we can all applaud. There are things which are difficult. I agree that we have to have a balance between the two pressures. Perhaps I may put it this way. If it is shown that action should be taken to save people's hearing, then that action ought to be taken. The argument is not about that but about the level at which action should be taken and the level at which damage is done.

The problem of the decibel scale and the way in which it is measured is difficult. One decibel makes an appreciable difference. That is why I was careful to say that I am listening to people's views and that I am not suggesting that it is a simple choice between those two figures. The two figures are so far apart that the idea that it can be treated in that way is wrong.

As an old-fashioned Anglo-Catholic, to be called an evangelical by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) was unusual. I hope that he will not take too much to heart the figures about how much money it might cost. They are all based upon the principle that every machine has to be altered and every alteration has to be made when the proposals would enable people to wear hearing protection if that were the only reasonabale way of dealing with the problem.

It is not as unreasonable a proposal as some people have tried to suggest. I still do not think that it fits the bill. I still hold the reservations which I mentioned. I should not like industry to feel that this is so unreasonable because it has not looked at the two key phrases. One is "reasonably practicable". We have a clear view in English law where we are about it. Secondly, some people have not considered that it is not laid down that noise attenuation is the only way to come within the rules. It can be done by the not as satisfactory and, in my view, second-best method of the use of the kind of ear muffs which saved the hon. Member for Truro from the damage done in the rock cutting industry.

It is always of value to us when we hear the personal concern of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in this matter. Would he in that spirit take one word from me? Some of us have tried hard in this area. Many people in the Health and Safety Commission and in the Health and Safety Executive are working hard on it. Occasionally it is important to give them plaudits for what they are trying to do rather than always suggesting that everything is bad. Many people in the Confederation of British Industry have supported me strongly in the efforts that I have made to try to do something about this. The CBI is not the organisation that the right hon. Gentleman drew it to be. Many in it have worked hard in this area and I give them considerable credit for it. I want to support them and thank them for what they are doing rather than suggest that everybody is of the kind that he suggested.

Mr. Ashley

There was a pinch of salt about it.

Mr. Gummer

I merely suggested that it sounded as if it were more than a pinch of salt at the time.

The point my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) made about 85 decibels is important. There is a real argument—not one that we can hide—about the point at which damage is done. We cannot ignore it. I am not saying that that leads us inevitably to 90 decibels, but it means that 85 decibels is not the fixed figure which some people suggest that it should be. Those who seek a different level need not do so because they wish to grind the workers or any other section of the community to the ground. It may be that they are trying to get the right level. We should have further discussion on that and try to come to an answer.

I was pleased to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who has taken a particular interest in this. I shall consider his proposition. We had the pneumoconiosis debate this morning. I am pleased that once again in that area we have been able to raise the question of the compensation amounts. There has been a considerable advantage there.

A great deal has already been done about compensation, In October the Department of Health and Social Security announced improvements in the compensation available. The whole House will agree that there have also been important improvements in the ease with which compensation can be obtained.

The period over which noise must have been suffered has been shortened and the extension of the provisions to people who have worked around rather than just with machines removed an artificial and damaging restriction. The Government have done a great deal already, but I appreciate that many people wish us to go further. I shall certainly study the proposals made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) was right to say that a great deal was being done and to point out that the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) was unwittingly a little misleading. Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act the code of practice has been successfully used in court to establish that employers have not carried out their health and safety responsibilities and they can be fined heavily as a result.

In this context, the Health and Safety Commission has announced that after this campaign for getting to know more and spreading the gloomy news about the effect of noise we shall be much tougher in imposing the existing rules.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business)

Question agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10322/82 setting out proposals for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work and of the Department of Employment's explanatory memorandum of 1st December 1983; and welcomes the Government's intention to seek agreement on harmonised, practicable and enforceable legislation to minimise those risks without imposing unreasonable burdens.