§ Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone)I am pleased to have secured the debate because, although this may not be the sexiest of subjects, tens of thousands of workers are exposed to excessive noise levels every day. I am also pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield(Mr. Meale), is to respond. I know that before becoming a Member of Parliament he worked in industry, and that at one point he was a workers safety representative. He would have been appointed under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, which were introduced by a Labour Government. In the ensuing years, the safety of British workers improved, but evidence suggests that in the late 1980s and 1990s the working environment deteriorated in many establishments.
According to the current Health and Safety Executive estimates, 1.3 million workers are exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 decibels. That is the threshold—any increase will affect hearing. The connection between noise and hearing loss is well documented. According to an earlier HSE study of self-reported working conditions, 170,000 workers suffered from some form of deafness, such as dullness of hearing or tinnitus—ringing in the ears.
I think that anyone would find those figures alarming, and they prompted the Royal National Institute for Deaf people and the Trades Union Congress to act. They concluded that there had been insufficient compliance with the regulations, and that the regulations had not been applied properly, perhaps because of a lack of awareness among employers. The guidance accompanying the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 makes it clear that all hearing loss caused by exposure to noise is preventable.
When the all-party parliamentary occupational safety and health group, which I chair, met on 16 March, it heard evidence from manufacturers of personal protective equipment, and some interesting statistics were given. For instance, 300 million earplugs are used each year in the European Union. In Germany, the figure is 85 million, and in the UK it is 65 million. Interestingly, although Sweden has a much smaller population, it uses 2.5 times as many earplugs as the UK. The man who made the presentation said that he thought that that was due to an increasing awareness resulting from teaching in Swedish schools, which motivated young people to protect their hearing with earplugs and similar equipment rather than merely complying with the law.
The RNID and the TUC decided to join forces and conduct a survey of UK industry. They issued 6,000 questionnaires, and the replies resulted in a report entitled "Indecent Exposure". The findings confirmed the worst fears of both bodies. Nearly a quarter of respondents reported listening to uncomfortably loud sounds for more than four hours a day. Nearly one in five construction workers, more than one in 10 manufacturing workers, and a number of oil rig workers said that they were exposed to such sounds for more than eight hours a day. A third of respondents said that their tasks left them with dull hearing, and 16 per cent. of those said that the dullness of 353 hearing continued after work. Twenty per cent. of respondents reported that their tasks left them with ringing or rushing noises in their ears or heads for at least five minutes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take those findings seriously.
The survey also found that new workers, as well as those in the traditional industries, risked hearing loss. That confirmed earlier research—which my hon. Friend may well have seen—by the Labour Research Department, which found that workers in call centres, couriers and workers in restaurants were at risk. The police are also at risk, as they now use phonac devices that fit into the ear canal and pipe noise directly into the ear. The noise to which those newer workers are exposed comes from a different source: it is not the ambient noise with which the 1989 regulations were intended to deal.
Alarmingly, the RNID and the TUC found that people working in call centres were given no advice about the risk to their hearing, and that none had been given any hearing tests—although, as things stand, tens of thousands of people are likely to become deaf in their 20s.
"Indecent Exposure" is not just about statistics. Its aim was to show the impact that deafness has on people's lives, and, to that end, a number of case studies were conducted. I shall refer to a couple of those, but the Minister and his officials can examine them at their leisure. One is the case of a young woman working in a call centre. Most names are published in the studies, but this person wanted to remain anonymous. She does a 40-hour week at a centre, working eight hours per day.
Every aspect of that lady's job was monitored, from her toilet breaks to the time it was taking to deal with calls coming in. The one thing that was not monitored was her hearing. She talked of being subjected to a high-pitched bleep through her headphones whenever new calls came in; it told her that someone was in the stack waiting to be put through. There was much background noise: 80 to 100 people were working in the call centre. Consequently, the sound coming through the headphones needed to be turned up, so that she could understand the message.
After a while, that lady began to notice that she had hearing loss. She went for a hearing test and it was diagnosed that she had a 10 decibel hearing loss. She went back to work and, within five years, she found that her hearing was deteriorating further and that she was having trouble understanding some of the messages, so she went to her medical adviser for further diagnosis and was found to have a 20 decibel hearing loss. That young lady is 29 years old and has been told that she will have to wear a hearing aid.
The name of the person involved in the other case is in the study "Indecent Exposure". She is a 48-year-old retired police officer. She had to retire because of hearing loss that was later ascertained to have been caused by the phonac device that she used in her ear. Although it was agreed that she was incapacitated to work in the police force, she had to fight in the courts to establish that her incapacity was the result of an injury at work. When the phonac device was tested for the court case, it was found to emit noise levels of 100 decibels.
One theme runs throughout all the case studies: people were afraid to raise the matter with their employer. That says a lot about the need for robust fairness at work 354 legislation. People were afraid for their jobs and afraid to raise the fact that they were working in conditions that were endangering their hearing.
What can be done? I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind five points. First, the 1989 regulations, which deal with ambient noise, but are nevertheless important, need to be enforced. We need to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive takes on board the need to enforce them. Secondly, will my hon. Friend request that the Health and Safety Executive provides guidance on the use of earphones and other devices that pipe noise directly into the ear?
Thirdly, will the Minister call for more research to find out the ways in which noise that is piped directly into the ear affects hearing loss? I think that if noise is piped directly into the ear, hearing loss occurs more quickly. Fourthly, such research could uncover an engineering solution to the problem. It is an issue which needs to be looked at. If he asks the Health and Safety Executive to undertake research, will he ask it to look particularly for an engineering solution to the problem?
Finally, the disease is prescribed, but the prescription is not wide enough to cover new industries. It needs widening. We need to involve the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. I realise that that is not within the Minister's remit, but I hope that he will bring the matter to the attention of his colleagues in the Department of Social Security because there is a need to look at that aspect.
Although much of traditional industry has disappeared or radically changed, as was shown by the figures that were produced by the Health and Safety Executive, and particularly by the findings of the report "Indecent Exposure", noise at work is still a big problem. Thousands of call centre workers in their 20s could lose their hearing, as could many police officers and couriers, another group of workers who use earphones. They were also referred to in the report.
The message that needs to go from the debate is that employers should comply with their duties to protect their staff, that the Health and Safety Executive needs to enforce the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 and that it needs to undertake more research into the matter.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate, which is aimed at raising awareness of the risks associated with exposure to loud noise at work. He has campaigned on health and safety matters since the first day he was in this place. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. Before coming here, he spent most of his working life doing exactly the same. His is a voice worth listening to in every respect.
It is timely to discuss health and safety issues such as noise at work, particularly as we approach the 25th anniversary of the Health and Safety Executive, which was established following the Robens report. I am familiar with the RNID-TUC report entitled "Indecent Exposure". It contains much with which I agree, so I add my support to the report and to the RNID campaign on noise at work. I am sure that many other hon. Members will support the report, including my hon. Friend the 355 Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), who is also deeply involved in investigating noise issues. I apologise sincerely for not being able to attend a recent event—I think that it was last week—to highlight all the problems concerning deafness and to launch the report. That was because of a prior engagement.
Hearing loss is a terrible thing. Deafness or partial hearing has a major effect on the quality of life of those affected by it. Some people lose their hearing as they grow older, but the hearing of far too many people becomes impaired due to a working environment that is plainly too noisy.
Many people do not understand how big the problem is, but last night, yet again, I experienced the problems that are caused by deafness. Not many people in this place know that my hearing is below 50 per cent. in both ears. I go through life with people around me becoming slightly amused because I do not seem to have heard, or noted something that they have said. That is a dilemma. It is a problem which many people experience. Having said that, in my profession such an ailment can sometimes be an advantage. It is probably the only profession where that is so.
Noise-induced hearing loss that is caused at work is a serious and significant occupational health problem. Although many cases result from exposure before current legal controls were in place, too many people at work are still potentially at risk. Exposure levels for many workers remain considerable. Research by the Health and Safety Executive in "Self-reported work-related illness in 1995: results of a household survey", which was published in 1998, suggests that as many as 170,000 people in Great Britain consider that they suffer from a hearing or ear problem that is caused or made worse by their work.
The Health and Safety Executive estimates that about 1.3 million people, in 88,000 workplaces, continue to be exposed to damaging noise levels. The "2 m rule" is simple—if people less than 2 m away find it difficult to hear one speaking, there may be a noise problem. Exposure to loud noise at work is covered by legal controls and guidance. I believe that there is no excuse for anyone's hearing to be impaired because of loud noise at work. A range of legislation deals with noise at work and with making noisy machinery quieter.
As my hon. Friend said, the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 are the mainstay in tackling noise problems at work. The regulations implement a European Union directive, so that legal controls on noise are common across the European Union. The regulations require employers to reduce noise risk to the lowest reasonable and practical level, and to take specific actions at certain noise levels. The actions include reducing noise, conducting noise assessments, providing information and training for employees, and providing personal ear protection when appropriate. The action levels have been determined on the basis of dealing with practical risk and cost.
The regulations apply also to all people at work in Great Britain who are exposed to loud noise, except on ships at sea and on aircraft that are taxiing or in flight. Last year, the regulations were extended to cover the offshore industry. Therefore, the regulations cover all the industries that we associate with noise, such as foundries 356 or engineering businesses. Unfortunately, as yet they do not cover this place or places like it, although such places are covered by other protection.
The regulations also cover the noisiest workplaces, such as call centres and those in the leisure industry. All employees in those industries are protected by the legislation, and it is the job of employers in those industries to ensure that the legislation is properly applied. There are legal duties also on manufacturers and suppliers of noisy equipment to reduce noise levels and to provide the information to buyers.
The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992 specifically require manufacturers to reduce noise from new machinery and to provide noise data. Such action is important, as one of the main ways—undoubtedly the best way—of reducing exposure to noise is to reduce the noise at source. As one might expect, design safety is good safety. I note my hon. Friend's point that engineering solutions to noise are the best way forward. I shall inquire into whether work should be done on the matters that he mentioned.
Rest breaks from noisy areas are, as my hon. Friend said, an important part of dealing with noise. The Health and Safety Executive recommends rest breaks, which can be good in helping employees to recuperate and in providing a rest from wearing ear protection.
Noise levels have to be averaged over an eight-hour period. The longer people have to work, the lower are the levels of noise to which they are allowed to be exposed. The legal requirements, if followed, would substantially reduce the risk of hearing loss. I reiterate that it is for employers to apply the regulations, and that the Health and Safety Executive will take appropriate action to ensure that they do just that.
We all, however, have a responsibility to recognise noisy workplaces and to work together to protect people's hearing. We have to be aware particularly of people with hearing difficulties, who may be more vulnerable in the workplace and have to be managed with additional care.
My hon. Friend will know that, shortly after the Government took office, we asked the Health and Safety Commission to re-examine the issue of occupational deafness and to devise new ways of minimising the incidence of hearing loss. I tell my hon. Friend that the Health and Safety Executive will continue to target noise at work as one of its priorities, and that it has developed a long-term strategy to tackle the problem. The Government support that strategy—which is to increase awareness of the risks to health; to ensure compliance with current requirements, and to prosecute when appropriate; to offer practical advice on ways of reducing noise levels; and to control exposure at the place of work.
The Health and Safety Executive has been pursuing that strategy since 1995, as part of its "Good Health is Good Business" campaign. The campaign now has renewed impetus, aided by the significant new resources that the Government have invested in the Health and Safety Executive. I assure my hon. Friend that noise will continue to be highlighted in the planned next phase of the campaign.
My hon. Friend also mentioned health and safety guidance. HSE guidance on noise includes revised guidance on legislation, entitled "Reducing Noise at Work", which was published last year. A Health and Safety Executive book, entitled "Sound Solutions", 357 includes 60 case studies of real examples from industry of how successful noise-reduction methods have been introduced. A range of free leaflets on noise, for both employers and employees, is available.
Securing compliance with the law is crucial. The HSE's long-term strategy aims to improve the quality of risk assessment of noise by employers. Risk assessment will be stressed by inspectors. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have made more resources available to the Health and Safety Executive—so that there will be more inspectors to enforce health and safety law, such as that on noise, and so that inspectors promote more effective control of exposure to noise by encouraging the introduction of quieter machines or processes and by improving compliance with the supply-side legislation. Inspectors will also promote the effective use of purchasing policies and application of control measures. The correct use of ear protection is vital. Employees, too, have responsibilities to protect themselves by complying with notices and wearing ear protectors.
The aim of my reply to the debate has been to reassure the House of the Government's commitment to tackle noise at work. I hope that I have given my hon. Friend some comfort on the concerns that he expressed. Three specific matters seemed to trouble him—in what he has described as the new sectors of the economy—and I should like to say a little about each of them.
First, the "Indecent Exposure" report, which my hon. Friend mentioned, rightly emphasises the worries of those who are employed in call centres about the risk to their hearing. A study is in hand to identify the health and safety aspects, including noise hazards, of working in call centres. The results of the study will inform decisions by the Health and Safety Executive on what action has to be taken.
358 Secondly, the problems encountered by motorcycle couriers are similar to those of people working in call centres, as both jobs involve using communication headsets or ear pieces. Previous Health and Safety Executive research has drawn attention to the problem, and, in its "Reducing Noise at Work" guidance, there is general advice on measuring noise exposure to workers wearing headsets or ear pieces. There is also the prospect of a new international standard on such exposure.
My hon. Friend's third concern was the effect of excessive noise on employees working in pubs and clubs. He will be aware that I take a personal interest in the issue, particularly as it affects those working in areas in which large numbers of people gather. The Health and Safety Executive has completed some research on the matter, and plans are well advanced for a study of the leisure industry to discover more about real noise levels for those working in pubs and clubs. That research, too, will inform the HSE on what action has to be taken to combat the problem. Such initiatives are important.
I make it clear that the Government are not complacent about noisy workplaces. There is legislation to tackle the problem of noise at work, and there will be more inspectors to enforce health and safety law. The Government and the Health and Safety Executive will do all that we can to reduce noise-induced hearing loss, and we intend to work closely with the RNID and the TUC to that end.
I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he asked for on the three or four matters on which he asked for further information and research. I should like again to pay tribute to him. His history of dealing with an important subject should be a lesson to us all—and one which hon. Members, both old and new, should follow if they can.