Noise Abatement (Hansard, 26 February 1986)

§ Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to compel employers to provide adequate protection for employees and the public by reducing sound levels at work and by preventing exposure to harmful noise levels.

I declare an interest on two counts. First, I am sponsored by the General and Municipl, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, which has fought very hard over the years to ensure that its members have their hearing protected and, when it has been unsuccessful, has obtained substantial compensation for its members. Secondly, having worked in the shipbuilding industry for a considerable time, I suffer from industrial deafness.

I have no doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that sometimes not being able to hear everything in this Chamber has advantages as well as disadvantages, but noise-damaged workers pay for their employers' neglect by social isolation, friction with friends and family in appearing not to listen, putting the television or wireless on too loudly, and so on. They also suffer from ringing in the ears and head as well as from other stress problems. There is greater potential for accidents and loss of pleasure through failing to hear music or even birds singing.

Being deaf is not funny. Any Member who thinks that it is should try spending a weekend with earplugs in his ears and see how comfortable it is. That is what those suffering from industrial deafness have to endure all the time. If noise levels at work were reduced from 100 decibels to 90 decibels, 21 workers in 100 would be saved from severe hearing loss because only 11 instead of 32 in 100 would be damaged by exposure to that level over the years. If the level were reduced to 80 decibels there would be a further saving of eight workers in 100 because only three in 100 would suffer at that level. Employers also pay through reduced productivity, higher accident rates, more absenteeism, compensation claims and poorer industrial relations.

Manufacturers and designers of noisy equipment may suffer loss of markets because many countries now insist on quieter machinery. Indeed, many United Kingdom manufacturers already supply quieter machines for export and noisier ones for the home market.

Some employers have made improvements, but many have done nothing at all. Many talk about the cost of reducing noise levels, but the cost would not be so great and in many cases there need be no cost at all. For example, noise control for tractor cabs costs less than 2.5 per cent. of the cost of a new tractor. The new, quiet road drills cost the same and in some cases less than the noisy ones. Improvements can therefore be made at a cost of hundreds, not thousands, of pounds.

Not long ago the Minister sent out secret instructions to the health and safety inspectors which said: Where engineering controls are considered reasonably practicable, but the employer has opted for the provision of ear protection, further enforcement action should not be considered … provided the protection is effective and worn in noisy areas at all times. This is a blatant example of failure to enforce the law properly. It contradicts the 1972 code of practice, the spirit of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the policy of the Health and Safety Executive. That instruction condones employers who have broken the law. It is reminiscent of the infamous Home Office instruction to 956 inspectors in the last century, which asked them not to enforce the then law on fencing dangerous machinery above 7 ft from the ground. That instruction was based on the spurious belief that there was no danger once the minimum safety precautions had been taken. It was the result of pressure from what Dickens called "The society for the mangling of operatives" and, because of the many fatal accidents that had occurred near drive belts many feet from the factory floor, that instruction was withdrawn several years later.

Do we have to wait for several thousand more workers to become deaf before the present instruction to the health and safety officers is withdrawn? According to the Trade Union Studies Information Centre, which is based in Newcastle, there are 45,000 people in the Tyne and Wear area waiting for hearing tests. It is believed that it takes on average 49 weeks for a person to have a hearing test.

The present control limit of 90 decibels is unacceptable because it will allow 11 per cent. of exposed workers to suffer a severe health handicap—a 50 decibel hearing loss. That is accepted by the DHSS as a reason for a disability pension. An example for hon. Members of a 85 decibel noise level is being in a train going through a tunnel. Workers have to work in those levels for up to eight and a half hours a day. I accept that, because of the employers' and Government's neglect of noise control and hearing protection over the past 50 years, the economic cost of saving all but 1 per cent. of exposed workers—which a limit of 75 decibels would do—is a task that is too large and would take a number of years to achieve. My Bill proposes a threshold of acceptable harm of 80 decibels and a duty to reduce noise levels above that limit to as low as is reasonably practicable.

There should be an upper limit for impulse noise and a ceiling of noise beats peaks of 115 decibels. Employers should have a legal duty to reduce future noise levels from machinery, processors or work systems, when they are creating new work. Noise surveys should be carried out every two years by competent persons in consultation with safety representatives. Reports should be made available to those safety representatives. However, hearing protectors should be a temporary last resort and part of a timed programme of noise reduction. There should be a duty on the designers of machinery to reduce noise levels to the lowest practicable level and in any case to 85 decibels by 1987.

There are over 3 million workers in the manufacturing industry, construction, agriculture, forestry, mining and quarrying, who are exposed to noise levels above 80 decibels. That is why occupational deafness is the most widespread industrial disease and over a quarter of a million people in Britain suffer from this severe health handicap. Fifty years ago the Newcastle-based leader of the boilermakers' union, Jack Hill, took this issue up on behalf of the TUC. I hope that this year, Industry Year, something will be done to rid industry of the scourge of industrial deafness.