Lead in Paint (Hansard, 11 July 1984)

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that all paint sold for use on private residential accommodation, or for public institutions where people gather, shall contain less than 600 parts per million of lead in the dry film; that all cans of new paint shall clearly indicate their lead level and all cans containing more than 600 parts per million bear a conspicuous health warning and information on statutory restrictions on use; that all consignments of paint to retail outlets shall contain advice and guidance to customers; that all advertising and publicity shall contain information on lead levels and health warnings; and that all sales to the general public of paints with high lead content shall be prohibited. The Bill is based on the simple proposition that lead is toxic; in another word, it is poison. It accumulates in the body and the environment and that accumulation is correlated with reduced IQ in children. Thus it is our duty to reduce emissions of lead into the environment from whatever source, including petrol, water pipes or paint. The ninth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution of April 1983 reporte: We do not know of any other toxic substance which is both so widely distributed in human and animal populations and present at concentrations greater even than one tenth of those at which frank symptoms may occur. We consider this reason enough to seek to reduce the exposure of the general population to lead". It continue: We consider that the safety margin between the blood lead concentration in the general population and those at which adverse effects have been proven is too small, particularly in view of the great variation in the response of individuals to lead. It is our view that it would be prudent to take steps to increase the safety margin of the population as a whole. When this is viewed against the background of the universal occurrence of lead and of its accumulation in the environment … we are convinced that it would be prudent to reduce further its anthropogenic dispersal and man's exposure to it and we so recommend. That is the aim of the Bill. I am following the Royal Commission's recommendation that Government and manufacturers should work towards reducing the maximum permitted concentration of lead in paint for household use to 600 parts per million, which is the maximum level permitted in the United States in paint which is accessible to children under the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act. I should very much have preferred voluntary self-regulation by the industry and the industry to do the job rather than the House to do it. I should have preferred the industry to set its house in order, but it has not done so.

The Campaign for Lead-Free Air has purchased and analysed new paints. Its research shows that 67 per cent. of the primer paints that it purchased had more than 600 parts per million of lead. The analysis ranged from Dulux Universal, which was effectively lead-free, to Berger All-Purpose, with more than 7,000 parts per million of lead. Seventy two per cent. of undercoats had more than 600 parts per million of lead. Eighty six per cent. of glosses had more than 600 parts per million of lead. The survey ranged from Decco Super Liquid, which was effectively lead-free, to Dulux Pure Brilliant White with 11 times the level I recommend. One hundred per cent. of varnishes had more than 600 parts per million of lead.

That proves two things. First, lead is not necessary, even as a drying agent, as the manufacturers claim. Some 1051 paints low in lead dry as well as others. Secondly, the public has no idea about what it is getting inside a can of paint.

Another point that emerged from the study by the Campaign for Lead-Free Air was that shops did not know about either the lead content of the paint they were selling or the dangers associated with it. The manufacturers have compounded the problem by misleading labelling. Some paints are labelled "lead-free" when they contain lead; others are labelled "non-poisonous", even though they contain comparatively high levels of lead; and others are labelled "contains no lead pigment" when the paint contains more than 7,000 parts per million of lead—for drying purposes. As a final insult to our intelligence, the manufacturers have said: the addition of lead level information would in our firm view not add helpfully to anyone's knowledge". Of course, it would add helpfully to anyone's knowledge because it would allow the consumer to know whether the paint was safe for his purpose. That is a vital part of consumer information.

In the light of that response and behaviour pattern by manufacturers, I have reluctantly introduced this Bill to show them the way in which they should go. Under the Bill, all paint that is sold for use in or on private residential accommodation or for public institutions where people gather, such as hospitals and schools, should contain less than 600 parts per million of lead in the dry film. Manufacturers will be asked to label in categories all cans of paint according to the lead level of the paint. Cans containing more than 600 parts per million of lead in the paint will have to carry a conspicuous health warning and information about the restrictions in the use of the paint. The Bill will provide for all consignments of paint to retail outlets to contain advice and information for customers on lead levels. The Bill will prohibit the sale to the general public of high lead content paints.

I commend the Bill to the House, just as I commend the efforts of the Campaign for Lead-Free Air in highlighting, researching and effectively campaigning on this problem.

1052 Mr. Vernon Hook, the director of the environmental health services division of the American Centre for Disease Control, made a telling argument when he said: We need neither formulae nor mathematical models to project increased exposure in coming years if lead is permitted to be used in residential paints. Every toddler is observed to have hand to mouth activity. Lead in paint undoubtedly contributes markedly to the lead content of dust around the house … We believe that 0.06 per cent. lead offers a margin of safety to the child, is achievable, enforcable, measurable and reasonable". So do I, and I believe also that in focusing on the comparatively rare problem of acute lead poisoning from paint, such as that caused by children eating or drinking substantial quantities of paint, the manufacturers have sought to avoid discussion of the real issue. The issue involves the low-level effects of lead on mental health and, above all, the fact that any lead added to the over-large quantity of lead already in the environment increases the quantity to levels which are unacceptable in the bodies of many children and contributes to the environmental buildup of this non-degradable neurotoxin. I urge the House to act.