Piped Music and Showing of Television Programmes Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First, I feel that I owe the House an apology for the Title of the Bill, which I am afraid has given in some quarters the mistaken impression that it is a frivolous Bill put forward to air my own prejudices. Far from it; it is a deeply serious Bill designed to protect the health of vulnerable people. Of course, like many of your Lordships, I dislike most forms of noise pollution, including wallpaper music. I come from a deeply liberal tradition—six generations of Liberals in Parliament on my father’s side, excluding only my father, who was an extreme right-wing libertarian Tory, and two on my mother’s side, the last of whom died on the Bench where the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is sitting. However, he was deemed not to have died until he got to hospital, of course. The central purpose of the Bill is to protect vulnerable groups, principally hospital patients and minorities, on public transport. At the moment, people attending hospital, whether as out-patients or confined to a hospital bed, have no control over piped music systems or over where television systems are installed in the public and waiting areas of hospitals, such as clinics or accident and emergency departments. Indeed, only this morning I had a rather tearful submission from a lady who had just recently watched her husband die in a hospital bed while ““Match of the Day”” was being broadcast rather loudly from a television set in the next cubicle. It is the same situation on public transport systems. The use of these captive audiences for advertising purposes is another example of growing intrusion into people’s lives. It was reported in the Times on 9 February 2005 that passengers were demonstrating against train companies’ plans to install television screens in each carriage. It takes quite a lot of provocation to make railway passengers demonstrate. Before turning to the main clauses of the Bill, I need to explain briefly why piped music needs to be prohibited in these particular circumstances. When we listen to a sound, whatever that sound is, including music, if the listener does not want it, it is noise. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The World Health Organisation, the global authority on health matters, states in its guidelines for community noise, which were published in 2000:"““Vulnerable subgroups of the general population should be considered when recommending noise protection or noise regulations. Examples of vulnerable subgroups are: people with particular diseases or medical problems (e.g. high blood pressure); people in hospitals or rehabilitating at home; people dealing with complex cognitive tasks; the blind; people with hearing impediment; foetuses, babies and young children; and the elderly in general””." The WHO guidelines also go on to describe in detail how noise affects people:"““Acute noise exposures activate the autonomic and hormonal systems, leading to temporary changes such as increased blood pressure, increased heart rate and vasoconstriction. After prolonged exposure, susceptible individuals in the general population may develop permanent effects, such as hypertension and ischemic heart disease associated with exposures to high sound pressure levels. Sounds also evoke reflex responses, particularly when they are unfamiliar and have a sudden onset””." Piped music is not just confined to hospitals or public transport; it can also be found in retail shops and restaurants. However, in most instances, people have a choice: to walk out of a shop or to refuse to frequent a restaurant. This Bill specifically relates to piped music and the showing of television programmes in the public areas of hospitals and public transport, because those are places where people do not have those choices. From surveys and anecdotal evidence given to campaign groups such as Pipedown and the UK Noise Association, we know that where piped music is not desired, it is not a minor irritant but an extreme annoyance. An annoyance leads to stress and stress has an impact on our health. In recent years, some train companies have responded positively to complaints about the nuisance caused by mobile phones on intercity trains. Many train carriers, such as Virgin Trains, offer a choice for travellers wanting peace and quiet by providing quiet carriages. That move is very welcome; it is even more welcome when it is observed by the passengers using the trains. Music can be a wonderful thing, as we all know. Indeed, it has its positive uses in healthcare. For example, recent research reveals that listening to music can have a significant and positive impact on perception of chronic pain. US researchers tested the effects of music on 60 patients who had endured years of chronic pain. The patients had suffered from conditions such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and back problems. Half the group spent two weeks listening to music for 20 minutes a day and the other half spent 20 minutes sitting quietly. A scientific analysis found that pain levels in the music group were cut by 50 per cent. As a strategy for coping, there is no doubt that listening to music for the control of pain will help. But the crucial factor is that patients must have control over the music that they listen to. The Montefiore hospital in New York is working towards cutting noise levels to provide a better environment for its patients, so that they can heal faster. That decision followed the findings of a study of cardiac patients, which showed that patients in rooms with sound-absorbing ceiling tiles were less likely to be readmitted to hospital within 30 to 60 days than those patients in rooms with typical hard, sound-reflecting tiles. That is proof that a quieter environment aids the healing process. It is important to clarify the difference between wanted sound and unwanted sound, and our reactions to both. If we choose to listen to a sound, have control over it or desire to listen to it, then our response may be positive. If we consider that a sound is annoying or that we have no control over it and are unable to turn it off, our response will probably be negative. Some medical conditions are particularly vulnerable, such as tinnitus and epilepsy. The Bill sets out clearly and precisely the scope for removing the use of piped music and the showing of television programmes in the public areas of hospitals and on public transport. It also allows choice for those who want to listen to music, by requiring the use of headphones. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to control the evils that I have identified after wide consultation and to lay a plan for that before Parliament. Finally, I pay tribute to Robert Key, who introduced in another place a 10-minute rule Bill along these lines; and I was extremely grateful to those who advised me in this matter. But I and they are acutely aware that we are not parliamentary draftsmen. We seek a Second Reading so that your Lordships may turn it into a Bill that is worthy of becoming an Act of Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House. Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)