§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
11.30 pm§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)The lead level in Scottish water supplies is not a new problem. I remember debating the need for action on it when I was a student at the university of Glasgow.
One remarkable aspect about the problem is that, despite the improvements made, the numbers of Scottish people affected by drinking water containing lead has not changed in the past 20 years. The reasons for that are straightforward. While some remedial efforts have been made, standards regarding the acceptable level of lead in water have risen. Therefore, the number of people affected by water with above the tolerable standard has remained stubbornly high.
My purpose tonight is to point out that remedial efforts are no longer enough and that only eradication of the problem will suffice. That must be done through a properly financed and organised lead pipe and tank replacement scheme together with the Government's implementation of the European Community standards for lead levels in drinking water. The people have a right to expect that Governments will supply wholesome and healthy water for everyday drinking.
In the past decade, the public have been exposed to intolerably high levels of lead in drinking water. In that time, the Government have done everything possible to avoid bringing water standards into line with the European water directive. I intend to expose the Government's shameful record on this and to seek to persuade the Government to reverse their previous policy of inaction and comply with the European directive in the shortest possible time by means of a programme of lead pipe replacement.
It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that resources are available to local authorities to ensure that all lead plumbing is identified in public and private housing. Evidence that lead, even in low quantities, is damaging to health has been mounting since the early 1970s. Scientists in Europe and in the United States have produced study after study to show that the only safe level of lead in water is zero. Even at low levels, lead is a poison which has demonstrable effects on children's health.
More than 8 million households have lead in their plumbing systems—about 45 per cent. of British households. Those households are at risk only if they are in areas which suffer from the water characteristic known as plumbo-solvency, which refers to the ability of soft and acidic water to dissolve lead. About 2.5 million such households are located in plumbo-solvent areas. The combination of lead-solvent water and lead plumbing produces the unfortunate consequences of tap water with a high lead content.
For those with a historical frame of mind, there is an interesting parallel. I am told that the combination of soft water and lead is exactly similar in action to the wine and pewter combination which poisoned the Roman aristocracy and led to the fall of the Roman empire. While the people of Edinburgh are happy to share architectural style with the ancient Romans, there would be massive opposition to sharing their lead poisoning. Indeed, in a constituency next to that of the Minister, the results of a 390 survey carried out this week show that people are drinking water with five times the European limit of lead while others produced levels of twice and three times the limit. One Leith tenement had 22 times the permissible limit under EEC regulations. Such water is being drunk daily by Edinburgh families. That is the problem.
Within the United Kingdom, Scotland has by far the largest population living in old, unmodernised houses in soft water areas, and therefore the largest population at risk from lead contaminated drinking water. Within Scotland, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the populous central belt are most at risk. Limited funds have meant that all renovation work, including pipe replacement, has been slow and piecemeal.
One company which specialises in lead pipe replacement work states that it has been
in touch with Glasgow district council grants department over the past few months. The situation at present is that they are not processing any new applications and have not been since mid December 1989. They cannot give any idea in the near future when anything will be processed. West Lothian district is in a similar situation with no funds having been available since January 1990. No date in the foreseeable future is expected from West Lothian district council for grants to be processed. Other areas in which we do work are now saying that due to demand, the allocation this year will not be sufficient, and they are not hopeful of getting further funding.Work in the areas most at risk is coming to a grinding halt. I put the blame firmly on central Government who alone have the resources and the ability to fund and to run a proper lead pipe replacement campaign. The current grant system does not encourage builders or house owners to replace lead pipes. Indeed, public housing has suffered from a long period of spending restrictions imposed on local authorities by the Government. That has obviously meant that lead pipe replacement has been reduced to a snail's pace or has ceased.Housing departments are often in the unfortunate position of having to choose between initiating programmes to eradicate dampness or to replace lead pipes, even though each poses a significant public health risk. In Glasgow 80,000 public sector houses and 81,000 privately owned homes still contain lead plumbing. In Edinburgh the respective figures are 20,000 and 45,000. The rate of local authority grants to private home owners has been small compared with the size of the task. Only 58,000 grants were made throughout Scotland over the six-year period between 1982 and 1988. At that rate of grant allocation, it will be well into the next century before Scotland's private houses are completely rid of lead plumbing.
In the early part of the decade, lead contaminated the tap water of about 35 per cent. of households throughout Scotland, yet there has been no co-ordinated, properly funded programme of remedial action to rid Scotland of lead plumbing. It is typical of the Government to prefer making economic savings rather than paying for a once-for-all solution. Water treatment can provide relief from the higher range of lead levels, but now that higher quality water standards are required to safeguard public health, water treatment no longer provides an attractive, cheaper option.
Additional reductions in lead cannot be achieved through treatment processes. Therefore, to improve the quality of drinking water to a level considered safe, all remedial action programmes must switch to lead pipe replacement.
391 By thinking that they can save money by choosing water treatment instead of lead pipe replacement, the Government are inflicting a double injustice on the public. First, they will have to pay for lead pipe replacement in addition to the money spent on the now redundant treatment facilities. Secondly, the public have been unnecessarily exposed to lead during the time it has taken the Government to be bullied into such effective action.
As the costs involved in partial, as opposed to complete, lead pipe replacement are relatively small, the correct option has to be the final and complete eradication of such lead piping. Instead of action to protect Scotland's public health and produce wholesome, lead-free drinking water, the Government have dragged their feet over implementing the 1980 European water directive, which resulted in Scotland's drinking water failing to achieve a standard of quality by the stipulated deadline of July 1985.
A year later, Friends of the Earth in Scotland sent a letter of complaint to the European Commission, drawing to its attention the long list of actions and standards that the Scottish Office had failed to achieve over the six years since the United Kingdom signed the directive. The Commission has now brought a prosecution against the United Kingdom Government. I compliment the Friends of the Earth in Scotland on authorising a survey that showed a shocking level of lead-polluted water in Scotland and on its initiative in running a pure water campaign for Scotland.
The Friends of the Earth survey does not attempt to provide the detailed analysis for which official agencies and authorities are responsible and which they should be producing. However, in the absence of any other relevant data, the survey provides an estimate of the numbers of people affected by different levels of lead. The Minister, when he replies, will no doubt seek to play down the survey's significance by claiming that the size of the sample is too small and that it is not statistically valid across the whole population. If that is the case, let the Government compare like with like and produce the true figures.
The Government's response to environmental pollution has been piecemeal and confused. They have largely ignored the recommendations of the 1983 Royal Commission on environmental pollution that deals with home improvements and repair grants, as well as publicity. Lead in petrol is a much more controversial debate, yet the Government have acted on petrol but not on the scientifically more proven water problem. Different Government Departments have adopted different recommended standards. While the Minister gallops at a snail's pace towards the 50 micrograms per litre standard, his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recommend a lower safety level of only 30 micrograms per litre. Which is right? I would claim that both standards are inadequate compared with the United States' Environmental Protection Agency's final target of zero lead and its current working target of 10 micrograms per litre.
The Government claim that they are environmentally conscious and Ministers regularly declare, "How green is my policy." Yet here before them is the lead standard test. Will this be another case of mere Government greenwash or will they take real action? The Government have dragged their heels for 10 years over the implementation of current European lead levels, which are now being superseded. The only safe level of lead in water is no lead. Greenwash or action—which is it to be?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on securing an opportunity to debate the extremely important subject of lead in drinking water in Scotland. As I shall demonstrate, it is an issue that the Scottish Office has tackled effectively, and it will continue to do so. That applies not only to lead in water but to the quality of water supplies generally. We set great store by the quality of Scottish drinking water, and considerable progress has been made over the past decade in improving it where necessary. Further improvement works are necessary to achieve the strict quality standards in the new water quality regulations that we brought into force on 1 May.
It may be helpful it I describe the nature of the problem of lead in water and the particular difficulties that we have to overcome in Scotland. Lead was widely used for water pipes and cisterns in domestic dwellings up to the early 1960s. It is seldom naturally present in water supply sources, and the water put into supply by Scottish water authorities, regional and islands councils contains little lead, if any at all.
As the hon. Member for Angus, East pointed out, some waters—particularly soft, acidic waters—are plumbosolvent: that is to say, they dissolve lead through contact with lead pipes and plumbing systems. There can also be a short-term problem with the lead-based solder used in jointing copper plumbing systems. Plumbo-solvency is a problem in many parts of the United Kingdom, but it has been particularly marked in Scotland because of the nature of our water supply sources.
A second factor is the traditional pattern of housing in Scotland, which is something on which the hon. Gentleman also touched. It is a pattern of high-density, tenement property with a heritage of lead plumbing, particularly in urban areas. Later, I shall describe how that problem has been tackled.
Particular concern about the health implications of lead in drinking water began to develop in the 1970s. At that time, it was considered that a lead level of up to 300 microgrammes per litre was acceptable. As a result of growing concern, a nationwide survey of lead levels in drinking water supplies was undertaken in 1975–76, and the results were published in 1977 as "Pollution Paper No. 12".
In 1978, the use of lead for new pipes was prohibited by byelaws, but its use in that way had already generally ceased many years earlier. In the same year, a number of expert advisory groups were established to examine various aspects of lead in water, including the identification of plumbo-solvent supplies, monitoring procedures, and water treatment processes. Those groups produced four reports on lead in water in 1980–81, and another in 1984.
Additionally, the 1975–76 national survey led to a number of medical studies throughout the United Kingdom in the years that followed. In Scotland, the most significant were undertaken using population groups in Glasgow, Ayr, Dundee and Edinburgh. I will not describe or discuss the details of those studies but I shall highlight some important points.
The Glasgow and Ayr studies confirmed the significant contribution that lead levels in water made to blood lead levels. They also clearly demonstrated that the treatment 393 of water by pH adjustment significantly reduced the lead levels both in drinking water and the blood of the study subjects. The Edinburgh studies undertaken over the past six to seven years have contributed greatly to our knowledge of the health implications of lead, particularly for children.
I emphasise that the Scottish Office has always taken full account of the medical evidence as it has developed over the past 10 years or so, and the medical advice based on that evidence is reflected in the increasingly stringent measures that have been taken to tackle lead in water.
§ Mr. WelshDoes not the Minister accept that remedial action will not solve the problem, but only the complete removal and replacement of lead pipes and tanks? It has taken the United Kingdom 10 years to catch up with European standards, which themselves will be made stricter still over the next few years. When will the Minister take action?
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI agree with the hon. Gentleman that the complete removal eventually of lead piping is highly desirable.
It has often been claimed, and as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that little was done to tackle the problem in Scotland before the European Community's drinking water directive came into force in 1985. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have already mentioned the range of medical and other studies that started in the late 1970s, but practical measures were also under way by that time.
The first priority was to reduce quickly and effectively overall exposure to lead in the population. The treatment of water supplies to tackle plumbo-solvency by pH adjustment—and subsequently by orthophosphate dosing if necessary—was clearly the most suitable proven method of reducing lead levels to the benefit of the maximum number of people.Throughput the period up to 1985 the water authorities, encouraged by the Scottish Office, took effective action to improve their supplies by water treatment, particularly those serving major population groups.
For example, Strathclyde region installed lime dosing for the city of Glasgow before 1980—including the Loch Katrine scheme, which alone serves more than 730,000 people. All the major supplies in the region had pH control installed before 1985, by which time more than 70 per cent. by volume of the water supply in the region had such treatment in place. Similarly, all the main works in Lothian had lime dosing installed before 1985 and the main supply to Aberdeen was treated from 1978. The supplies to Dundee and most other areas of Tayside region had pH control before 1982.
It is clear that the problem was recognised and effective action undertaken in the main population areas in Scotland in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, in 1983 the Government initiated surveys in all the water authority areas to identify all supplies at which remedial works were necessary. The survey results showed that, in 1985, 103 supply areas—many of them small and rural—should be treated. I should emphasise that, even within these areas, only a fairly small proportion of the population might have tap water with a lead content above the prescribed level. Of these 103 supplies, 86 were scheduled for completion by the target date of the end of 394 1989. Of the other 17, representing about 16 per cent. of the 103 supplies that needed treatment, 16 are in Strathclyde and one serves part of Edinburgh. Twelve schemes, including that in Edinburgh, are due to be completed this year, four are due for completion next year and the last, which is a major scheme involving work other than lead, is due for completion in 1992.
As the hon. Gentleman may know, it is these 17 supplies which form the basis of the application to the European Court of Justice alleging non-compliance with the lead standard in the drinking water directive. Perhaps I should say something about the case which the European Commission has raised in the court, alleging non-compliance by the United Kingdom on a number of counts related to the drinking water directive, including lead in water in Scotland. It is our strong view that the Commission's application is misconceived. It certainly does nothing to reduce the amount of lead in drinking water. Considerable progress has been made in tackling the problem, and we have made strenuous efforts over the years both to satisfy the Commission's information requirements and to reach agreement on the timetables for improvement works. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom will be mounting a robust defence to the Commission's allegations on lead and, indeed, on the other issues before the court.
The work undertaken by the water authorities to improve their supplies by treatment over the past 10 years or more represents major progress in reducing levels of lead in drinking water, but that is not all that has been done. The Scottish Office recognised that the long-term solution to the problem of lead in water was the removal of lead piping, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. The water authorities have for many years been replacing their lead communication pipes between the mains and individual properties when it is possible to do so in the course of other works and when house owners are replacing their own lead pipes. The authorities are now obliged by statute to replace their pipes at the request of a consumer who is replacing his lead pipe when there is a risk of the lead standard being breached at the consumer's tap. In 1982 the Government also extended the housing repairs grant scheme to include grant assistance specifically aimed at tackling lead in water.
§ Mr. Andrew WelshWill the Minister give way?
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonNo. I propose to answer the point clearly made by the hon. Gentleman.
Grants became available for the replacement of domestic lead plumbing under more favourable conditions compared with other repair grants. At the outset, the rate of grant was pitched at 90 per cent. for a temporary period in common with the other categories of repair grant, but when the general rate reverted to 50 per cent. in 1984 the Government held the rate for lead pipe replacement at 75 per cent. in recognition of this particular problem. Between 1982 and 1989, nearly 67,000 such grants were made to owners in the private housing sector in Scotland. In the same period, some 475,000 dwellings were improved by public sector agencies, such as local authorities, Scottish Homes, the Scottish Special Housing Association and New Towns, and by housing associations, and many of these dwellings will have had lead plumbing replaced as part of the overall improvement works.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI should like to develop what I am saying, as I have a lot to say. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak later when I have got through my key points.
The steps taken by the water and housing authorities are sound, positive measures to tackle the lead in water problem, but we are not content to leave it at that. The new water quality regulations which came into force on 1 May introduce a tighter quality standard on lead than is required by the EC drinking water directive. The water authorities will have to reassess their water supplies in the light of the new standard by the end of 1991 and, where necessary, improve their treatment works to meet that standard by 1995.
The new regulations also implement the Government's long standing policy of reducing exposure to lead in the environment and the recent medical advice that it is prudent to continue to reduce such exposure. Regulation 24 places a new requirement on water authorities, whenever there is a risk that the lead standard may be exceeded because of lead dissolved from consumers' pipes, to treat the water in most circumstances in order to eliminate the risk or reduce it to a minimum. This provision is expected to bring about treatment of water to reduce plumbo-solvency in many areas which are not covered by improvement programmes designed to meet the less rigorous standard set in the EC directive.
The Scottish Office has played its part in this, and has demonstrated its commitment to improving the water environment generally, by increasing capital expenditure for water and sewerage programmes by 50 per cent. in recent years, from £95 million in 1985–86 to £142 million in this financial year. Expenditure is set to rise even further to £170 million next year and to £190 million in 1992–93. In setting these substantial increases, we took into account the possibility that the water authorities would need to carry out further treatment to reduce plumbo-solvency to meet the new lead standard.
I was interested to read in The Scotsman of 21 April a report which quoted Mr. Roger Mullin, the SNP's environment spokesman, as saying that, according to local authority estimates, £800 million was needed to improve water and sewerage over the next five years. This was claimed to be £300 million more than the Government were prepared to spend. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are allocating more than £500 million over only three years and are therefore well on the way to exceeding the figure quoted by the SNP. If that rate of £500 million over three years was carried forward, it would be over £800 million, but we plan for only three years at a time.
The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that I met representatives of COSLA's water committee 396 last Friday to discuss expenditure on water and sewerage. I listened very carefully to what they had to say, and assured them that their views will be fully taken into account when we set capital allocations for future years.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have also asked the local authorities, Scottish Homes and the new town development corporations to estimate the number of public and private sector houses which contain lead plumbing, and the cost of replacing it. This information should provide a more accurate assessment of the scale of the problem and inform our consideration of what further steps might be taken to reduce exposure to lead in water. When all the returns are received, we will be collating arid publishing the results.
§ Mr. Andrew WelshWhen?
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonWe shall get on with this as soon as possible, because it is extremely important.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the survey and report on lead in water by Friends of the Earth (Scotland). A copy of the report was sent to me, and I have today sent a full reply to the Friends. I should be happy to provide a copy to the hon. Member. However, the report reveals considerable ignorance and misunderstanding of the issues involved. In addition, the Friends' survey is so seriously flawed that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from it.
I am pleased to say, however—this is to its credit—that there is much about which we can agree in the Friends' 10-point programme for action. Indeed, the Government have implemented seven of the action points, and the other three were already under active consideration.
§ Mr. WelshInstead of attacking the Friends of the Earth, will not the Minister accept that the authorities were involved? At least the Friends of the Earth produced figures. In 10 years, the Government did not get round to producing the figures on which positive decisions could be taken. Five years have passed since the European deadline was reached, and only now are the Government producing the figures. They should have done so long ago.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI have made it clear that we are implementing seven of the action points and that the other three are under active consideration. I can respond at length on the figures.
To sum up, the Scottish Office has always recognised the health implication of lead in water. We have taken practical and positive steps to tackle the problem in the light of the developing medical evidence and advice. We are certainly not complacent in any way. We are actively considering what further measures we might take. We shall certainly go ahead as quickly as possible. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at 12 o'clock midnight.