HC Deb 05 April 1974 vol 871 cc1692-702

4.1 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the subject of lead pollution, lead poisoning as it almost is to those who live near the urban motorways, particularly the M6, as it runs through my constituency in Birmingham and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman). Evidence has recently come to hand to show that there has been a drastically significant increase in the blood-lead level of those living around the M6 in Birmingham. A control group was tested before the motorway was opened, and ongoing tests have been continued during the few months that the motorway has been open to traffic.

The increase in the blood-lead levels of a sample of 100 women rose from 11 to 19 mgm/ml. This is classed as a significant increase, and, although the level is not near the so-called danger level, the women concerned are now accumulating lead in their blood at a faster rate than hitherto. We must pay tribute to those who subject themselves to these tests for the benefit of others who may benefit in the end, but it is not satisfactory that they should need to be part of such an experiment.

The number of microgrammes per millilitre of blood does not mean much to the layman, but the figures mean that for every half mile stretch of the M6 in Birmingham on each carriageway per month 361bs of lead comes from the exhaust pipes of motor cars. Only 1lb of that falls on the road, and the rest goes into the dust and into the atmosphere to be breathed by those who live nearby, or into food grown in the gardens and allotments adjoining the motorway.

There has never been a major investigation of the problems of dust-lead in this country, but it is one of the subjects on which I should like the Minister to comment and one of the matters into which I hope he will institute an inquiry. The solution is simple and it would prevent what might be a major environmental health hazard in the next few months—lead poisoning on a substantial scale. The easy way is to take the lead out of the petrol. It was not there when we took the oil out of the ground. It was put in quite deliberately for what in the past were technological reasons, but there is now no justifiable reason for leaving it there.

Unless British lead in petrol behaves differently from foreign lead in petrol we shall have to remove it, because this country will have to follow the example of others. Sweden has eliminated lead from petrol, and many years ago Russia banned the use of lead petrol in major cities, while America has a major programme for the use of lead-free petrol and Japan has had to fall into line. In America the anti-pollution device which it is wished to fit to cars will not work if there is lead in the petrol, because there is a reaction from the lead.

Oil is now important to Britain, not least in terms of the balance of payments, and will become even more important in the next few years. There has recently been another big oil find in the North Sea and we shall be exporting oil by the end of the decade, but the balance of payments and North Sea oil would not be affected by what I propose.

We need an independent assessment of the cost of removing lead from petrol, as all sorts of figures are at present bandied about. An extra 5p on a gallon of petrol has been suggested, but I have evidence showing that the increase might be only 4p on a gallon. The estimates on this from the oil industry will not suffice. We need estimates which we can all regard as reliable.

An alternative to not taking the lead out of petrol—assuming that we do not want to poison that part of the population living alongside motorways—would be much more expensive and is horrific to some people. It would be to enclose motorways in urban areas. This would involve major engineering, and tunnels or domes would have to be constructed, but it would prevent pollutants, particularly lead, from getting into the atmosphere. However, problems could arise if there were crashes on these sections of motorways, such as an accident a few months ago in which sulphuric acid was spilt. This idea would be much more expensive than removing lead from petrol.

Evidence and research in the past two years have shown that dwellers in the great cities and inland towns suffer more from this pollution problem than do people living in the country or in seaside towns. By removing lead from petrol we would benefit the major part of the population, those who live in the urban areas.

It is short-sighted to think about covering in sections of motorway, but we may have to consider this if action is not taken on the lead content level in petrol. One advantage of enclosing motorways in urban areas might be elimination of noise —a problem which affects people in my constituency and in neighbouring Erdington. There was a two-hour debate on this matter in another place earlier this week, but it has not been raised very often in this House.

New evidence published in March by Birmingham Public Health Department and Birmingham University gives cause for concern. We cannot allow lead accumulation to continue at present levels because people whom it affects would reach danger level in a year or 18 months. Lead poisoning is a classified industrial disease. Last year 50 people in industry were classified as suffering from lead poisoning, which is a major problem in some factories, but there has not been sufficient research into this and the House has not shown the concern it should have done about what is a serious health hazard.

There is plenty of evidence about the dangers. It is not only from this country but from many other countries, of all political spectrums, in many parts of the world. They are all major countries, where petrol is used in cars, and in which there are large built-up areas.

It may be suggested that part of the motor car should be redesigned to help combat the problem. Very well, let us do that. If we do nothing thousands of people will suffer from lead poisoning. Lead is a toxic, bone-attacking metal.

I hope I have been able to draw attention to this problem. I shall not exceed the time I set myself as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington wishes to participate in the debate.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Erdington)

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) both on being successful in the ballot and on raising this extremely important subject, which is of vital importance both to his constituents and to mine. I have the distinction of being the Member of Parliament for "Spaghetti Junction" which is the greatest conglomeration of road junctions anywhere in Europe. Many roads meet there and the discharge of dirt, dust, smoke and lead is greater than anywhere in Europe.

I have been concerned about this matter for some time. I. have a correspondence file about it going back to 1972, when the then Under-Secretary of State wrote to me that his conclusion at the time was that the general levels of lead in our cities are not currently a hazard to health and that those levels have not shown a tendency to rise. I hope that the new Minister is not as complacent as that. It is quite clear that in the area around the Gravelly Hill interchange there has been a distinct tendency for levels to rise. In my correspondence are letters from people who have come within the control group and whose level has risen in some cases as high as 25 or 31 microgrammes which would, as far as we know, appear to be at any rate approaching danger level. The matter is therefore of very serious concern.

I was present at a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister of State at Birmingham Council House a few weeks ago when the matter was discussed. I understand that a statistical examination was suggested and that this is now proceeding. How far has it got? What, in the present view of the Department, is the danger level for lead? The people in my constituency ask me that question. I am asked "Am I at the danger level with a level of 25?" How far have we got with our research?

I have areas which are extremely close to the motorway. Copeley Hill is now right at the top of the motorway. The Minister has seen it. It used to be a quiet, undisturbed road away from traffic, but now the greatest levels of lead in the blood are among people in that road. I hope my hon. Friend will give special attention to this because it is generally assumed that the danger is greatest the nearer one is to the motorway, because the deposit of lead, as of dirt and dust, is also greater and diminishes when one begins to get 50 to 100 yards from the motorway. This is of great concern to local people.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on taking a special interest on this matter. He took the trouble, within two weeks of being appointed, to come to Erdington to see the situation for himself and he showed obvious concern about the problems being faced there.

How is the matter to be dealt with? Apart from the question of lead in the petrol, this is not the only source of pollution of the atmosphere. A large amount of dust and dirt is deposited as well. The people in the area have complained to me that apart from noise, which has been their major consideration, the dust and dirt affect washing on clothes lines, the woodwork in the house and so on, and that it generally accumulates.

The Minister will remember that he and I served on the Committee which considered the Land Compensation Bill and he moved an amendment suggesting that people living in such areas should have the option of moving away. Unfortunately that amendment was not accepted by the then Government. Clearly, if this lead menace is established as a reality, something like that will have to be adopted. I hope that it will not be necessary because we do not want to lose good houses, but it may have to be considered if it is established that there is a risk of lead and dust poisoning.

One measure which could diminish the risk of such poisoning is the installation of insulation and extractors in houses, for which provision is made in the order made under the Land Compensation Act. It is nearly two years since the Gravelly Hill interchange went into operation. Progress on the installation of extractors has been extremely slow. Until recently the Government had not even approved their design, but I understand that at long last it has been approved. The installation of extractors would mitigate the danger of lead poisoning, apart from the danger which arises from dust and noise. Perhaps the Minister will give us some news about how this matter is progressing and when people who live by the M6 and around the interchange may have alleviation of their problems by the installation of extractors.

If the domes which my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr suggested cannot be erected, perhaps the construction of barriers will be considered which might not only exclude noise, dust and dirt but presumably would have a substantial effect on the emission of lead from the motorways. I do not know what progress has been made in this matter. I understand that one experimental barrier has been constructed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr. I should like to know what the prospect is of the erection of such barriers being extended, because in my view they could have a considerable effect in not only excluding noise but in alleviating the new danger of lead poisoning which has emerged.

These problems vitally affect my constituents. I have no need to tell the Minister that because he was present with me when we heard people's reactions. We do not want to create panic and alarm, but we want to show that the House and the Government are concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some useful information on these matters.

4.18 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell)

I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for raising matters which are of increasing concern, because the Government have taken the view since we came to office—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) for paying tribute to the Government and to me— that people have a right to know what is happening to their environment. Information on the matter is essential, and it is the Government's responsibility to make available from time to time such information as it is possible to give on pollutants, noise nuisance and environmental hazards.

An interdepartmental working group has recently undertaken a comprehensive survey of lead pollution, examining sources of dispersal of lead in the environment, the ways by which it reaches man, its toxic effects and the action which is needed to reduce the amount of lead pollution. Its report will be considered by Ministers and I hope that it will then be published. In keeping with the general philosophy I have laid down, it is our intention to give the public as much information as possible.

The questions that have been raised about noise and extractors, although they are not the main subject of the debate, are important. I cannot say much in 10 minutes about extractors because extremely involved and technical questions arise. I have taken note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington said about extractors and I shall write to him as soon as I can.

I can be a little more specific about noise and about the insulation of houses and flats under the Noise Insulation Regulations approved in July 1973. We hope that the new Birmingham District Council will agree to act as the Government's agent in respect of the motorways in its area which go through the two constituencies of my hon. Friends. There seems to have been delay in issuing maps and lists which identify the properties which might qualify for insulation work on Gravelly Hill and in other areas associated with the motorways. We have arranged for these to be sent to Birmingham shortly.

Mr. Silverman

Are the lists complete?

Mr. Howell

I should like to keep to the wording I have used. They will be sent quickly, and I believe that they are complete. The lists will take into account any sound barriers that may be erected alongside the motorway.

Birmingham is already carrying out, on behalf of the Department of the Environment, a pilot scheme in another part of the city, and maps have been produced for that area. When the maps are passed over, we shall ask Birmingham to carry out a survey on each of the eligible dwellings so that a grant for insulation may be made. Our hope is that the survey will proceed quickly. Knowing as I do Birmingham City Council, which is working as our agent, I am sure that the work will proceed speedily.

Lead pollution is a matter for concern but not for alarm. It is necessary not to alarm people, although we express concern about the growth of the problem. Concern has been expressed by the Department since 1971 when the Chief Medical Officer sent a letter to all local medical officers of health on the subject of lead pollution. A great deal of work has been undertaken, but it is too soon to come to conclusions. The problem is new, as is the public's concern with the problem, and it is too early to produce valid scientific conclusions that will be useful to the House.

We have drawn some provisional conclusions on the subject of atmospheric lead. One conclusion has shown that the lead content is higher near motorways but that the concentration rapidly diminishes. There are also seasonal fluctuations which have to do with the prevailing wind.

I went myself to Birmingham to ensure that the work should have the degree of priority that it merits and to ensure that my officials and the Birmingham officials were talking the same language and using the same criteria. One result of those constructive talks was the establishment of a joint working party. I asked for its report in three to four weeks' time. That time is nearly up and I hope to have it soon. I am told that the working party has got down to work very well and is likely to produce information which will be useful to the local authority and the Government and will help the Government to make sensible decisions.

I said that although we should be concerned about the rate of growth of lead in the blood of people living near Spaghetti Junction, we should not be alarmist about it. There have been two measurements of people in this area between October 1972 and January 1974. Analysis of these shows that the increase was about four to five microgrammes of lead per 100 millilitres of whole blood. I have been asked the question, what is the danger level? I quite agree that that is the lay question which I also ask, because it is the question about which people concern themselves. There are people in parts of the country having quite naturally much higher levels of lead found in their blood than is yet the case at Spaghetti Junction.

To get this matter in proportion, I have been told that although the danger level cannot be rigorously defined—this is one of the things which concern me, because we do not absolutely know and cannot absolutely assure anyone—for industry, where this has been a problem much longer than it has among the general community, the following levels are given in the British medical Press. It regards up to 40 microgrammes as normal, between 40 and 80 as acceptable, between 80 and 120 as excessive and over 120 as being dangerous.

The levels we found at Spaghetti Junction were about 25 microgrammes, so they are well below danger and alarmist levels, from the information that we have. But I agree that the matter of concern is that the levels are rising at a rate of four to five microgrammes annually. For that reason alone the working party is justified, as is the raising of this matter. This problem will have to be kept under constant observation. The joint working party is getting on very well with its work.

Regarding lead in petrol generally, in 1972 the previous Government announced a voluntary programme to reduce the lead content of petrol from 0.84 grammes per litre down by stages to a limit of 0.45 by the end of 1975. The present limit is 0.64 grammes per litre. The second stage of this reduction programme was due by 1st January but unfortunately, because of the oil crisis, had to be postponed. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be considering very early indeed how that programme can be reinstituted. We want to go on by progressive stages if we can and we are proposing, as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows, to introduce legislation which will permit the Secretary of State to seek additional powers to control the amount of lead that is put into petrol and to do so by order.

One of our great difficulties—I must not mislead the House or the country—is that this is a very considerable cost on the balance of payments burden. If we eliminated lead from petrol, the probable cost would be about £300 million—at 1971 costs; thus it would be more today—for extra refining capacity, and an increased oil import requirement of 10 million tons a year, which would cost £400 million on the balance of payments deficit. So here we have a classic case of balancing the question of the economy against a more desirable environmental situation.

I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr about experience in other countries. I understand that in Japan the lead content of petrol is a little below 0.4 grammes per litre—somewhat less than we expect to arrive at by 1975. The level which has been fixed is not fixed on health grounds, although it helps, but because it reduces the incidence of smog which is a special environmental circumstances there. In the United States present level are about twice as high as they are here, and although it is planned to reduce them shortly they will nevertheless be coming only to levels as much as we have at present here, and we regard those levels to be high and to need considerable reduction.

One hopes that we can make progress in other ways apart from the elimination of lead in petrol. Exhaust filters interest us. We may be able to filter the lead out of the exhaust, which would be, certainly from a balance-of-payments point of view, much more preferable. We have not made much progress there, but a commercial manufacturer has recently produced a filter for motor vehicle exhausts which is designed to trap particles of lead and the Department is sponsoring a comprehensive test programme to determine its effectiveness. If this filter is proved effective, we shall certainly be taking action on the matter as one other way of dealing with this problem.

I can, finally, assure the House that apart from the work around Gravelly Hill now initiated by the new joint working party established between the Government and Birmingham City Council, and other works taking place around the country—Fleet Street, for example, is being studied in great detail —we have a national network of sites where the Government and university workers are meeting to study the effect.

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock.