Piped Music and Showing of Television Programmes Bill [HL]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on his tenacity. He clearly regards this as an extremely important matter, which is something that we must respect. An old joke asks, ““What do you get if you play piped music backwards?””; the answer, of course, is, ““Piped music””. Piped music, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Luke, may be very annoying. Gatwick airport stopped using it after a survey found that 43 per cent of its travellers disliked it. A national opinion poll in 1998 found that most people over 45 absolutely hate it, and I am one of them. However, piped music and television programmes played in public buildings and on trains are most likely to be issues of internal ambiance management, which can be resolved through talking to the people in charge of them. Operators of buildings and trains create the atmosphere that they want or that they think their users and visitors want. Sometimes piped music masks other even more undesirable noises. Legislating against piped music—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Luke—and television programmes would, in our opinion, be heavy-handed, open the Government to charges of discrimination—some people might like or, at least, not mind it—and be extraordinarily burdensome to enforce. Far more effective is for people who dislike piped music and television programmes to communicate that dislike to the operators of those buildings and trains. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, spoke at some length about noise and health. We recognise that, for those with hearing aids, if there is particular sensitivity to a noise or a preference for silence, any background music can be extraordinarily irritating. It is also accepted that people who are hard of hearing may find it more difficult to understand speech where piped music is playing. But there is, I am afraid, absolutely no convincing peer-reviewed evidence that exposure to piped music significantly harms health. It is a legitimate concern that loud noise at work can have significant health implications. However, we must keep a sense of perspective. By ““loud””, I mean that there may be a hazard to hearing from prolonged exposure to noise at 85 decibels over an eight-hour average period. Such levels and exposure are most likely to occur in specific industries such as construction and engineering. At levels below 80 decibels, such as from a typical lift or lobby speaker, there should not be a health and safety issue. I stress that I am talking about health and safety here and not annoyance to an individual. Where noise presents an occupational health and safety risk, the new Control of Noise at Work Regulations and supporting guidance, which came into effect on 6 April 2006, aim to eliminate new cases of occupational deafness. Because good occupational health and safety is so important to us, it is vital that we regulate wisely. Health and safety legislation should focus on matters of significant risk and not what some may perceive as annoying noise from piped music or televisions in public buildings or on trains. The proposed Bill does not, therefore, appear to be a suitable matter for health and safety regulation. I would like to begin with some words of reassurance on the public transport aspects of the Bill. The fact is that piped music and other types of nuisance noise on public transport are very much the exception rather than the rule. We have no reason to expect that situation to change. I would like to explain why. There was speculation recently that one train operator, at least, was considering fitting TV screens on its trains. The suggestion was that they would be used to broadcast a mixture of news, travel information and advertising. There was a small but vociferous public campaign against the idea and it seems to have gone no further. I firmly believe that this sort of decision is best left to transport operators. It is not an area in which Government should seek to intervene. The noble Lord probably fears that this means that the further spread of piped music is inevitable. I am far from convinced that that is the case. On the contrary, it is clear that operators will need to take passengers’ views seriously if they are not to upset their customers. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Luke, a small number of taxis, mainly in London, are fitted with screens capable of showing a variety of programmes and advertising materials. However, I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong: you can turn the television off. It comes on automatically as the taxi door opens. To your left is a little control panel and you can either get rid of the sound, the picture or the lot. That is what I always do. Another major element of the public transport section of the Bill is the provisions which would require transport users playing their own music to use headphones. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, may be delighted to hear that railway bye-laws already prohibit the playing of music on the railway. That covers the use of personal stereos and laptops without headphones, and applies on trains and at stations. Similar regulations apply to bus passengers. In both cases, enforcement is a matter for operators in the first instance, but with police back-up where necessary. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured to know, therefore, that there are already adequate powers to deal with this nuisance. Before I conclude, another small but important issue has been raised by the Bill and by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Luke. It is the evidence that piped music is an effective deterrent to people—especially young people—who might otherwise be liable to hang around shop entrances in town centres, increasing both crime and the fear of crime. Transport operators, not only in Australia but in some cities in Britain, have not been slow to learn the lesson, and piped music of that sort is now a modest but useful means of deterring anti-social behaviour. Although piped music and television on trains may be an irritation, it is not, as I have said, an area in which the Government support regulation. As I said, there is no peer-reviewed evidence that piped music or television on trains can adversely affect people’s health or constitute a significant occupational health and safety risk. The Government advocate sensible and proportionate regulations where there is sound evidence of risk and current law does not adequately address that risk. The evidence suggests that, where the public make their views known to businesses and organisations playing unwanted music or programmes, that can be sufficient in itself. Solutions to the internal noise environment of public buildings and trains can be found between operators and users locally. Piped music is almost certainly an irritation to a very large number of people, but it is not an area in which the Government believe that we should regulate.