Cameron insists the culture department will survive, but in what form?

Maria Miller refuses to deny that her department will lose some of its responsibilities in the Spending Review.

Will next week's Spending Review see the abolition of the culture department? Last month I reported on speculation in Whitehall that the DCMS, which small-staters have long had in their sights, could be scrapped by the government. Shadow culture minister Dan Jarvis told me that while he was "not convinced" that significant savings could be made by scrapping the department, "the government could go down this road to demonstrate that it is 'leading by example' in these tough times and has found way in which 'to do things more efficiently'."

But in response to a written question from Jarvis on whether "he has any plans to abolish the Department for Culture, Media and Sport", David Cameron has offered an unambiguous "no". That, however, doesn't rule out the distribution of some of its responsibilities to other departments. Asked on The World At One to comment on reports that the DCMS is "at risk of having some of its responsibilities taken away and even abolished altogether", Maria Miller gave a notably equivocal answer:

Our department does a huge amount of work, not just in this area [internet pornography] but across the board with arts, media, sports, equalities and women's issues. These are the issues the government is working hard on, I think as a department we've never been busier, we've never had more to do, so I think actions speak louder than words. 

Asked whether she was "sure" no responsibilites would be taken away, Miller, whose aides have been promoting her status as "the only mother" in the cabinet in a bid to save her job, refused to say that she was:

I know that the work that we're doing, whether it's on the equal marriage bill that's going through the Lords at the moment, whether it's the work we're doing around the internet, or, indeed, the work that we're doing supporting, actively supporting the role of the arts, culture and our museums in this country are of incredible importance and, as I say, I don't think there's even been a busier time in our department and I don't think we've ever had more to do which really matters to the future of this country.

Based on that answer, it seems that the DCMS, at least in its present form, may well cease to exist. 

Maria Miller, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, speaks at last year's Conservative conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.