Piped Music and Showing of Television Programmes Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing his Bill, and I congratulate him on the publicity obtained on television and radio this morning. It quite enlivened my breakfast. It is nice to have the opportunity to expand a little on the debate that arose from his Unstarred Question on noise pollution on 13 February this year. It is a shame that his Bill has not attracted the greater interest that was anticipated by my noble friend Lady Hanham at that time. Piped music, for me, stirs up images of wandering minstrels playing at wedding feasts in Tudor times or, indeed, pipes being played at Roman feasts and possibly orgies, although I was not there so I am not sure about that. However, if you search for its modern definition on-line, on Wikipedia you are directed to,"““Elevator Music, also known as piped music or Muzak, the gentle, bland instrumental arrangements of popular music designed for play in shopping malls, grocery stores, telephone systems, cruise ships and elevators””." The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has highlighted piped music and TV programmes which are found beyond that definition—in our hospitals, on buses, trains and planes and even in taxis, some of which now have ““Cab TV””, which I believe you cannot turn off. In fact, I have tried and you cannot. Indeed, muzak is the very type of music to which your Lordships all made personal reference in the last debate as ““irritating”” or, in the case of the Minister, as ““intrusive and pointless””. Far from soothing the savage breast, hanging on the telephone while being regaled by the ““Ride of the Valkyries””, can be a real pain. However, one’s attitude is sometimes coloured by the music itself. Is it, by chance, a favourite of the listener? Perhaps it is too loud? Very often it is, which is half the trouble. On the other hand, gentle background music can often be very therapeutic, provided it does not repeat frequently. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I smiled when I saw the piece about the plans of a council in Australia to play the supposedly calming tones of Barry Manilow, to drive young gentlemen away. It would have driven me away too. The article also referred to a shopping centre in Warrawong Westfield, Australia, which had succeeded in driving away other loitering teenagers by playing non-stop Bing Crosby. So the debate is split between the joys and uses of modern piped music. The statistical examples given by my noble friend in the last debate showed that it is clear that there is strong public reaction to this matter, and it is one of which businesses, organisations and authorities take note. For example, she highlighted the fact that Gatwick airport has stopped playing piped music since it discovered that 43 per cent of the people it surveyed disliked it intensely. The emphasis of the noble Lord’s Private Member’s Bill is to tackle situations where one cannot escape the music, where one has no choice but to listen, although in a public place. The question we must ask is: do we really need legislation to address this issue? Does a little light music do any harm? I am sure those of you who have had the horror of a tune repeating in your head all day because of one train ride would say, ““Yes””. However, on the whole there is little evidence at the moment of significant health and safety risks arising from piped music. I wonder whether anyone has gone to sleep as a result of too soothing a performance thus causing an accident. I would support some of the measures contained in the noble Lord’s Bill as I feel the same about some situations. However, I do not believe that legislation is the way to deal with the matter. On these Benches, we are forever mindful of over-regulation, and the need for proportionate legislation. The changes that are proposed could potentially be achieved by people power as we saw with Gatwick. It is important for passengers, workers, indeed all users, to have access to processes by which they can make their views known on both piped music and TV programmes in public spaces, such as in hospitals and on public transport. I hope the Minister can outline in his reply the procedure by which the public can currently do that with regard to the two areas highlighted by the noble Lord, and explain what steps are currently taken to ensure public awareness of those options, should they wish to use them.