LEAD CONTENT (PETROL) BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 02 April 1974 vol 350 cc850-98

5.3 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, I beg leave to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope that in a few hours' time I shall be feeling as my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh is feeling now. The Bill I am now introducing is short and precise and I hope almost wholly self-explanatory. I would make an apology at this stage because some of your Lordships may have an incorrect, early copy of the Bill which contains a misprint: it occurred in Clause 1, line 6. where the very important word "shall" was somehow mistyped as "may". I acquit the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, of having anything to do with that typing error.

This Bill provides the Government with the opportunity of choosing their own machinery and their own way of carrying out what it lays on them to do; namely, to phase out and eventually eliminate the lead content of petrol. That is all it does. It provides for Parliamentary scrutiny in Clause 1(2), so this is something in which Parliament will have a voice, in contrast to what goes on at present whereby Ministers can alter the lead content of petrol, as I understand it, as they feel like it. Your Lordships may have had enough of me on this subject. I have asked Questions, Written and Oral; initiated debates; moved Amendments, and I apologise for raising the matter again. But the real apology should not, I feel, come from me. The apology really ought to come from the Department of the Environment and successive Governments, who, by their complacent acquiescence in the dangers of lead in petrol, have forced me to waste your Lordships' time, as you may think, by persistently bringing the matter up.

I want to assure your Lordships, without giving a lecture or preaching a sermon, that I am not pursuing a will-o'-the-wisp and I am not a lone ecological crank crying in the wilderness. The lead content of our petrol is a small but serious matter that needs urgent attention. Many of us may not be aware of the extent of the problem. We do not see lead in the petrol that goes into our cars; we do not hear it; we do not smell it. But I must get on the Record the scale of the problem, and I take first some figures which were not given to me by the Government. We must remember that in 1965 nearly 8,500 tons of lead—I repeat, tons of lead—went into petrol. In 1970 the figure was over 8,000 tons. In 1972 (and these are Government figures given me to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for which I am grateful) 11,800 tons of lead went into petrol. In 1973 the figure was 12,100 tons. "All right", your Lordships may say, "so that is lead in petrol. What is so worrying about that?" My Lords, when we measure the toxic amounts of lead in blood we measure them in thousandths of grammes. I would ask your Lordships to balance, on one side, the hundreds of tons of lead and, on the other, the thousandths of grammes used to measure toxic levels in blood. By picking some figures at random from the list that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has himself supplied me with, I hope I can show your Lordships that this is not a problem which is diminishing. There is a continuing rise in the amount of lead we put in our petrol.

I would at this point return to something which I am sure some of your Lordships may feel is wrong in my Bill. I have asked for the elimination of lead by December 31, 1980. I have asked for that elimination for the reason I have just given, that the problem is accelerating in its importance. Some correspondents have taken me to task and I have been told by the Conservation Society that my Bill is grossly inadequate and that the elimination should take place by the end of next year. In the debate to-day some noble Lords may feel that I have grossly exaggerated the ease and speed with which this could be done, and feel that it could not be achieved by 1980. This is a matter about which we could have much detailed argument, and I hope it can be explored in full, in Committee, if the Bill reaches that stage. If any noble Lord feels that the date prevents him from supporting my Bill, then I hope I can be flexible.

I should like to put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and to the House. I am not libelling the character of lead when I say that it is a poison. I am not saying something we think is innocent is guilty. We all know that lead is an evil if we imbibe it. What Lord Garnsworthy must do to-day is explain to us what are the good reasons for keeping lead in petrol. There are some economic reasons. I am not an economist; I am not an executive of an oil company; I am not involved in motor manufacture; I am not an exporter. Of course, there would be various difficulties if one were gradually to phase out lead. I accept that. But what I should like anyone who is going to mention these difficulties to do, and what I should like Lord Garnsworthy to do, is this. In mentioning the figures they think phasing out would cost—the costs to refinery plant the cost to engine manufacturers—will they say where they got them? Can they break those figures down, and can they measure them against the possible advantages derived from removing lead? Lead increases engine wear, as we all know. At the same time as they say that these things would be difficult to do, could they bear in mind that the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration Agency is already taking seriously a simple device invented by a British designer which, by using steam or water vapour injection, can remove lead from petrol.

Lead itself is a rare substance. The supply could run out, and it is certainly becoming more and more expensive. We have to justify its continued use on economic grounds; we have to justify its existing use on health grounds. I shall not attempt to anticipate the economic arguments at this stage; I hope I can deal with them when I wind up the debate. But if the present Government—and also the noble Baroness, Lady Young, if she uses the figure that she mentioned in the last debate—mention the global figures for refinery costs for the removal of lead from petrol by 1980. I hope they will also give the source of those figures. I hope they will break them down, and explain them to your Lordships in such a way that we can be sure that the fears of some of our larger companies are unfounded.

I am aware that the oil companies have been reducing the lead content—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned it previously—and I am also aware that the motor manufacturers know the dangers of lead. All I am trying to do is to eliminate the health hazards. I am not trying to tell motor manufacturers how to conduct their business, and if I am interfering with them I look to them to explain how they can overcome those problems while at the same time overcoming the health hazards.

There have been limits on the quantity of lead in petrol for a long time past. Can the Government explain whether they are going to continue the previous Government's suspension of the limits so far achieved, which the last Government imposed because of the oil crisis? What immediate proposals have they? Are they going to continue them or are they going to stop them?

There is another argument which I will not mention in detail now; I will try to answer it if anybody makes it. That argument says: "Oh yes, you have taken out lead. That's marvellous. But, of course, you are making things much worse. If you take out lead you then create a whole lot of other nasty things and fill the air with all sorts of other wicked substances". I think that argument is over-stated and I hope any noble Lord who brings it up will have good evidence for it.

I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, if she is going to continue with the line that she took in Government—whether the Government and the Opposition Front Bench are satisfied that lead in petrol is not increasing to such an extent that we are endangering the health of the community. Is it not the job of the Government to stand up for the individual citizen and his health and well-being against the legitimate economic interests of big companies and big corporations? If we are getting to the critical stage where the interests of the two are on the balance, will the Government take heart, in the knowledge that they will be rewarded for stepping forward and taking action when so many fears are growing in so many communities around the country. For example, can the noble Lord, Lord Gamsworthy, say to-day that we are not reaching a stage where there are dangerous lead levels in the community? I feel that lead is in the dock and we have to prove that it is safe. It is not the other way about, and I am worried by the increasing evidence that I hear from the scientific community that there is too much complacency in this country.

Your Lordships may have read about spaghetti junction. I do not like quoting figures in debates in your Lordships' House because I personally always find it difficult to absorb them, and I have not repeated the arguments about the dangerous level of lead in petrol in this country in too technical terms today. But I would ask your Lordships to accept that when lead comes out of the exhausts of cars it does not just settle: it spreads, it blows about, it goes into the country-side, it goes into the reservoirs and into the school playgrounds. It goes into the dust which goes into the houses and from there into the mouths of children via their sticky fingers, and it may go to their brains. There has been a lot of emotional talk about Gravelly Hill, spaghetti junction, but if your Lordships will bear with me for a moment I think there is good reason to believe that it is worth examining Gravelly Hill in detail. Gravelly Hill was not in the middle of a conurbation before spaghetti junction was built; it was open parkland. It was not near a factory which produced lead, so if we examine the results of lead levels taken round Gravelly Hill over recent years since the construction of spaghetti junction there is a fairly good chance that we are measuring lead that has come from car exhausts.

I believe that like me, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has been sent some figures concerning the lead levels in blood round the Gravelly Hill interchange, and I know that the Department of the Environment has up to now been very sceptical indeed about the various tests in that area to measure the lead levels in blood They said that the tests had been measured in different ways or that there were important differences in technique. This test was carried out by someone who I understand is a well-known expert. It is an analysis rather than a test, made by a Dr. Waldron, the author of a forthcoming book on sub-clinical lead poisoning.

It is always easy to dismiss lead levels in the blood of children because people say, "Oh, they have been chewing toys or licking paint that has lead in it", or that they have been eating all sorts of extraordinary things that children have a craving for. The children go to school and they come home again and one does not quite know where they picked up the lead. The same difficulty occurs in regard to men: has the lead in their blood come from their work, while travelling to and from work, or at home? Therefore I think we can attach a great deal of importance to the lead levels in the blood of women, who are more likely to stay in one place than their children or their husbands. Dr. Waldron's figures show that in May, 1972, the average mean for women in this test was 13.89 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. In March, 1973, the figure was 16.69. So it had risen from 13 to 16. In January, 1974, the figure was 19.21. So the figures were 13, 16, 19 in 1972, 1973 and 1974.

Dr. Waldron's analysis concludes: Whilst there can be no doubt that the design of these experiments could have been improved"— that is the point of the Department of the Environment— the analysis reported in this document demonstrated a significant upward trend in the blood-lead level of the Gravelly Hill residents". My Lords, I could speak for a couple of hours on this matter. I am introducing a modest measure (I am sure it is full of imperfections) to deal with an increasingly serious hazard to the health of the people in this country and their children. I would emphasise "their children", because we know that the small amounts of lead which are found in these women are not far from the dangerous levels causing permanent brain damage in children, especially when we consider the figures that I have quoted were only averages. That they are only averages means there will be some which are considerably higher.

My Lords, I do not want to beat my breast and claim a monopoly of wisdom or concern, but I am sure the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy (my friend at least until to-day) share the concern with me. I do think that this Government have a special reason for supporting this Bill, which is that the last time we debated this subject, which was on an Amendment in almost identical words, 31 Members of your Lordships' House on the Labour Benches voted for the Bill, including three Members from the present Government Bench, including the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy.

I do not want to exaggerate the importance of complete logical activity in public life; that would make prisoners of us all. I am not exaggerating when I say that on a subject of this importance, the country will be looking to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy (particularly from Birmingham, from which I have had many letters and where I know there is much concern about this matter), for a statement of the intentions of the Government on this matter. They will expect him to keep faith and to ban lead. If the noble Lord feels my Bill would be better incorporated in the Government's own Environment Bill which is on the way, I should be perfectly happy to withdraw my Bill (if necessary, to-day) provided the Government can guarantee my provisions will be included in their Bill. If the Government cannot come to this House to-day to say they will now support what they supported only a few weeks ago in Opposition, I hope they will not be in the position of turning their back on it. I hope that they will give this Bill a favourable passage in this House and a good wind in another place. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.—(Lord O'Hagan.)

5.25 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords have listened to-day with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said in introducing his Bill. We all recognise his sincerity and the great interest he takes in this subject. Indeed, in preparation for this debate I read (as I have no doubt other noble Lords have done) the debate on a somewhat similar Amendment during the Committee stage of the Protection of the Environment Bill when the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, carried the Committee with him and his Amendment was agreed to.

I should like to begin by echoing, his concluding words, because I shall also listen with great interest to what the Government have to say on this Bill. I know the advice that I received only two months ago! But at that time, when the noble Lord carried his Amendment in Committee, he did so with the support of the Labour Party. In the course of my remarks there are a number of questions that I should like to put to the Government, but I shall quite understand if it is not possible to reply to all of them to-day.

My Lords, the subject matter of this Bill seems to me to cover three wide areas. There is first the question of the environment, that is, lead emissions into the atmosphere with, secondly, the consequent problems of a possible health hazard. Then there is the problem of energy supplies. It is a question of weighing the balance of the arguments. Conclusive evidence in the course of the last debate indicated that lead is a poison. The effects of it in paint and toys have been measured and are well known. The matter on which I believe there is as yet no conclusive medical evidence is the effect of lead in petrol as emitted into the atmosphere. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will be able to tell the House whether any further evidence has come to light since we last debated the matter. Indeed, I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Platt, have to say on this matter.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, I did not quite catch what she said. Did she speak of the effect of lead on the environment?

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I said the effect of the emissions of lead into the atmosphere from petrol. As I understand it, that is at the centre of this Bill, and I am looking for conclusive medical evidence on the matter. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said and I understand (and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will correct me if I am wrong) that the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Denis Howell, has set up a committee to investigate the effects of lead emissions into the atmosphere at sphaghetti junction. I understand this is an area where a number of children play beneath the motorway, and that there is a report from the Birmingham health authorities which suggests the level of lead in the blood of these children has risen quite considerably. I think it would be very helpful to the House if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, could give us not only the terms of reference of this committee, but also explain further the reasons for setting it up, other than have been given in the Press. Perhaps he can also say something about the evidence of the sampling methods used by the Birmingham health authorities because this is the point that I think the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was making. It is a point on which it would be useful to have further information.

The only other recent piece of research I have come across is that which I believe has been quoted extensively in to-day's Guardian. I understand that this was a survey carried out with the support of the Department of Health and Social Security. I quote from the article, which says: Although it does not say so this report appears to embrace a large part of the child population of the Isle of Dogs, and in very broad terms seemingly exonerates lead as a cause of behavioural abnormality at blood lead levels. If this is true it does not give us the evidence for which we are looking. I am again referring to the newspaper report, but I should be glad to know whether there is other evidence that has not yet been reported. I believe there is a real measure of agreement on the fact that there could be a real danger to health from lead in petrol. I am sure that the value of a debate such as the one we are having to-day is that it allows the subject to be fully discussed, and enables us to hear any evidence there may be on health or, indeed, on the economic consequences of this Bill.

My Lords, I now turn to the other side of the question, which is that of energy supplies. My understanding is that an agreement was reached between the Government, the oil industry and the motor industry, in July 1972, progressively to reduce the level of lead in petrol. This was reduced to 0.64 grammes per litre by the end of 1972 and to 0.55 grammes per litre by the end of 1973. I understand that this standard is not, during the present fuel crisis, being improved upon, but that it is intended that the improvement that was expected by 1975 will be maintained and the level will be reduced to 0–45 grammes per litre. These standards have been agreed and are being implemented. Besides this, I understand that the European Economic Community proposals are that by January 1, 1976, the level should be reduced to 0.4 grammes per litre in premium and regular quality petrol, and by 1978 to 0.4 grammes per litre in premium quality and to 0.15 grammes in regular quality. The noble Lord's Bill would reduce the levels in both fuels to zero by 1980.

I believe, therefore, that the House should consider some of the consequences that would inevitably follow from this Bill. In the first place, it would increase the cost of petrol by as much as 5p per gallon; not perhaps a great deal, noble Lords may think, but an amount which could bear hardly on some individuals. Then, of course, it would inevitably have its effect on the cost of living index which, as we all know, is such an important factor in our economic life to-day. Secondly, in order to meet the volumes of gasolene that would be required—because, as I understand it, removal of lead from petrol requires greater refining and therefore a larger volume of crude oil—we should need to import approximately 12 per cent. more crude oil. This is at a time when there are already great difficulties with our balance of payments. It may well be argued that with North Sea oil available all this need not be too much of a worry. I do not intend in any way to embark on a discussion on North Sea oil. What I think is indisputable is that oil is a finite resource and we should consider carefully how we use it.

Then there is the question of capital investment, which has been estimated by the oil companies to be some £300 million in E.E.C. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked me about these figures, but I would return the question to him and ask him whether he has discussed his Bill with the oil industry. Perhaps he will tell us whether he has or not, and whether they consider that, if it were agreed to, it would be possible for them to meet the timetable he has asked for in five and a half years from now. Furthermore, to meet the standards set in this Bill I understand would mean that inevitably there would be some lowering in the quality of oil, which would have the effect that the average car would have a lower mileage per gallon of petrol. The figure that I have been given is that it would reduce the average from 30 miles to 27 miles per gallon of petrol. By 1980, given the average length of life of a car, estimated at 10 years, approximately 40 per cent. of the cars left on the roads would not tolerate the new oils and would fail mechanically. These cars would, therefore, need extensive modification or a new engine, the cost of which would presumably fall upon the car owner. Even if it is possible, and it may well be, that the motor industry will re-design all their cars, inevitably there would be a number of old cars on the roads, as there always will be at any given period of time.

I have stated these problems because I think they are real ones, and must be weighed in the balance of discussion on the Bill to-day. I think they are complex problems. As I said at the beginning, I shall be very interested to hear the Government view of this Bill. As well as hearing of the investigations into the health problems, I should also like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, whether he has any further information about the research that is being done into the use of lead filters in exhaust systems. I understand that the lead filter would take the place of a silencer, and that it is said that it should be capable of removing 90 per cent. of lead from the exhaust fumes. It would be most helpful to know whether this is accurate, and when the results are to be known and published, so that we may have some idea of the timetable for it; also, if it proved to be workable, what would be the cost of such a device, so that we can compare it with any other costs that might be thought to be necessary to reduce the lead content in petrol.

I would echo what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said. I understand we shall be having another opportunity to look at the Protection of the Environment Bill; I would ask whether or not the Government intend to include within their Bill a clause on this subject. I have tried to set out to the House what seem to me to be the principal arguments in this Bill. I think we have to weigh up what could be a possible health hazard—although, as I say, as yet we have no conclusive evidence upon it—against the economic costs. I think we are all agreed that while there is any doubt on this subject at all we should work towards a lowering of the lead content in petrol, and, as I understand it, that is what is being carried out, with the full agreement of everybody, at this present moment.

My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill, and it is, I believe, the usual practice of the House to give such a Bill a Second Reading. In this particular case we on this side will look upon this as an opportunity to hear the discussion and to listen to all the views expressed. We shall not vote against the Bill, but we should be very glad to know the answers to some of the big issues I have raised, which I think are very relevant to any future discussion of the matter of this Bill.

5.37 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has seen fit to introduce this Bill to your Lordships to-day, and I should like to say a few words from the purely medical point of view in support of the thesis he has put forward. I quite agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said about the need to obtain real evidence of the danger of lead in petrol.

On that point I should like to go back a little way and take a quick look at the tale of lead poisoning in this country. This, I think, was first described by Dr. Baker, when there was a well known disease prevalent in Devonshire called Devonshire Cholic; this was in 1767, a long time ago. Dr. Baker found that the cider makers in Devonshire lined their presses with lead whereas cider makers in the rest of the country did not. He managed to bring pressure to bear on the manufacturers in Devonshire; they removed the lead and the incidence of Devonshire Cholic vanished. That was really the first time that lead was implicated.

Then there was a great deal of plumbism, as one called it, in Newcastle-on-Tyne and Tyneside generally, due to the manufacture of white lead. That was investigated by a well-known physician called Sir Thomas Oliver towards the end of the 19th century, and because he introduced, or made the authorities introduce, certain protective measures he found that whereas in 1892, 44 people were admitted to the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle with lead poisoning, in 1900 the figure dropped to 14 and from 1900 onwards lead poisoning was a comparative rarity. At the same time one found an almost complete disappearance of plumbism, or lead poisoning, from water, because Oliver (I think it was again) found that if you got water which was soft and acid coming from moorland gathering grounds it was extremely solvent to lead, which a great many of the water-pipes were made of.

From that time onwards it was agreed that soft, acid water, should be treated with lime so that it would be hardened and therefore not absorbent and not give people lead poisoning. But cases do still occur. There was a fatal case as recently as 1940, when water was piped by a lead pipe three-quarters of a mile long from an upland spring, and one of the consumers died from lead poisoning. The amount of lead drawn from the tap was found to be considerably above the quantity which would be allowed now. It was said at the time in a report on this case: Small habitual intake of lead in drinking water may cause symptoms in certain hypersensitive individuals, who form a small minority of the community: its complete absence would seem desirable. I think that that sums up a great deal of what people think about lead now. I was interested to read in the paper the other day that they think that the water going to Balmoral Castle is lead solvent and contains a certain amount of lead, and at the same time some water in Caernarvonshire contains more lead than the World Health Organisation considers to be a safe amount.

To proceed a little further, in 1926 a Bill was brought in to prohibit or control the amount of lead used in paint. The Committee on which I think that that Bill was founded was presided over by my father, which is why I have a certain interest in it. The Act which followed the Bill provided that there should be certain medical examinations of people working with paint, there should be facilities for washing, protective clothing should be worn, and there were certain compounds to be prohibited. It was said at the time that women and young persons were particularly susceptible to plumbism, which I think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. That was doubted in the debates in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Haldane, who said that this was one of those medical fads for which there was no real proof. Whether your Lordships agree with that or not I do not know.

Further legislation and prohibitions came in, and among them the Industrial Injuries Act, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, referred. Several times there were cases where fumes from a factory contained excessive lead, and a certain number of children had to be taken away from schools in the neighbourhood because there was more lead in their blood than there should be. I read in a medical report the other day that they had been moved in time because it now appears that they suffered no ill effect from it; but that is merely a bit of good luck and not good management.

It seems that lead in dust can be a cumulative systemic poison. So far as one can gather children seem to absorb lead in a quicker way and in a greater quantity than grown-ups do, and they retain it in their bodies for a longer time than adults. It was found in the United States not very long ago that there was a large quantity of lead in some of the artificial milks which were given to young people. That point was taken up by the Drug Authority in the United States, and the amount of lead in these milks was reduced from a figure of 104 in 1971—I am not sure what the 104 is, but it was used as a kind of general index at the time—to 6 in 1972/73. This shows that much can be done, and if it can be done for milk why not for petrol?

It is generally accepted that lead is a cumulative poison, that it accumulates in bodies and does not all get discharged. I was interested to find a Report by the Ministry of Health which came out in 1938. It was written by an old friend and colleague of mine, who really sums up the point. I should like to quote one sentence from his summing up. He says: What we want to know is not so much the toxic limit as the safe limit, if indeed any limit, however small, before a cumulative poison can be regarded as safe.

5.46 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I must start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, but I fear greatly that I shall not be in my place when he comes to wind up. I have a long-standing engagement which I cannot possibly break, and I shall have to go before he rises to speak again. I hope that, when that time comes, the noble Lord will not insist on asking for a Second Reading for his Bill. I have one or two points that I should like to make, and I will do it as shortly as possible.

The first point is a constitutional one if you like. I am reluctant to agree to a measure which confers even more power upon Ministers than they have at present. I am not relating that particularly to this Bill, but in all sorts of matters Ministers take wider and wider powers, and one of the devices they use to do that, no doubt with the best of motives, is to take power to make regulations. This Bill is not alone in conferring that power on Ministers. Some of your Lordships may have read the memoirs of Mr. Harold Macmillan, and on that point he bears out what I say: that the Governmental or Parliamentary process is not best served by giving Ministers powers of this sort indefinitely. I accept that the noble Lord proposes in his Bill that the regulations which the Minister should make shall be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament, but that is not necessarily the answer. Although it is true that we might have the power to annul the regulations, we should not have the power to amend them; and I think that is the most important point. All we could do would be to reject the Order or let it pass. Your Lordships will recall better than I those occasions when this House has seen fit to reject an Order of one form or another and almost precipitated a constitutional crisis. I cannot see that your Lordships would want to precipitate a constitutional crisis on the lead content of petrol, which I submit somewhat detracts from the power that the noble Lord has sought to write into his Bill.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, is it not the case that this Bill would merely allow a Minister to proceed on a certain number of steps at a defined moment, which is a very different thing from the sort of Order to which the noble Lord referred?

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is indeed right: the Bill simply gives the Minister power to state the date by which a certain lead content must be achieved. But that does not detract from the main point I am making, that if your Lordships sought to disagre with the proposed date by which a certain lead content must be reached, for perhaps very good reasons, you would be unable to do so except by annulling the Order. It would not be possible to amend the Order. I believe that this is a defect in the Bill. As I said before, it is not a defect confined to this Bill, but the fact that it is a defect that exists in other Bills does not mean that we should therefore permit it in this Bill.

My Lords, the second point I would make is only echoing what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she pointed out that if we reduce or eliminate the lead content in petrol we shall have to obtain the supplies of high octane gasolene by increasing the intake of crude oil at a time when supplies of crude oil are not always predictable and when the cost is rising all the time. I need not go into any more detail on that point, I am sure, but it is a matter that we should consider.

Thirdly, I should like to raise the question of aircraft, on which I often raise points in your Lordships' House. I find that there is no provision in the noble Lord's Bill for any exemption for aircraft. It is inconceivable, I must tell the noble Lord, that sufficient quantities of aviation gasolene can be obtained without using lead to some extent. I am advised that the environmental hazard of the lead content of the exhaust fumes from aircraft is not the same as it is for surface vehicles, and I hope therefore that if the noble Lord, despite my pleas, presses his Bill and secures a Second Reading for it, he will listen sympathetically to an Amendment which I shall seek to move at the Committee stage to exempt aviation fuel from the controls he seeks to impose.

The final point I would make is again, I am afraid, an echo from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she asked the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, who is to reply, what is the position on the question of the lead filters which we gather are being looked into by, I think, the Department of Industry. I, too, shall listen with interest to that reply, because I believe that is a better solution to this problem than to impose upon the motor industry the serious economic and mechanical difficulties involved in restricting the quantity of lead that can be injected into fuel.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as he is going away perhaps I could say something about one or two points that he mentioned? Would he accept that, as I consider, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has answered his constitutional point? On the question of the environmental effects of airfields, will he accept that his advice that this is not a real hazard would not be shared in many quarters? I am sure he will accept that other people do not take his views. Is he aware that civil aviation authorities issue airworthiness notices saying that people should try to get petrol for aircraft engines which does not contain lead, because lead has the effect of clogging up the works of engines? And I do not see how this squares in with his remarks. Perhaps I should not have tried to answer in midcourse.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, if I can take the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I will, if the House will permit me, answer the point raised.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

Is this in order or out of order?

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I should have thought that both noble Lords were going a little far. I think the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was probably tempted unduly and succumbed a little too easily.

5.55 p.m.

VISCOUNT HANWORTH

My Lords, I am afraid that I too have to apologise that if this debate goes on at all long I shall, for the first time since I have spoken in the House, have to leave before the end. We are subjected to many poisons in our life, and small quantities of some of them are not harmful, and may even be beneficial, but I would not for one moment say that under present knowledge that is so with lead and the other metallic poisons. We may later, of course, find out that even radiation in small quantities has some benefit, though all the signs at the moment seem to indicate that it has not. I think we can reasonably conclude that the same may well apply to lead.

However this may be, I think that the human body does tend to develop tolerances against a number of so-called poisons to which it is exposed. For centuries there has been a considerable quantity of lead in people's blood. Having said that, however, I am sure it is right that we should regard this at the moment as a possible problem and should keep a very careful watch out and, if possible, prevent the levels of lead increasing in people's blood to any significant extent. I therefore go some distance with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. But from there onwards I part company with him, because, as always, one has to balance the possible advantages, say, of eliminating as much lead as one can, for example, in petrol against the very considerable disadvantages of doing so. I feel it is a matter which we should keep under constant review, but on present knowledge there is no need to panic over it. It may be that in the next few years we shall find that any fears we have are less than they are at the moment; or they may be more. Certainly there is not a case for taking drastic action, and I should not like at the moment to prescribe any firm date for the complete abolition of lead. If I had to put a date on it, as I shall explain later, it would be 1984, at the earliest.

As I was saying, the balanced view, based on existing information, would seem to be that although lead is not a desirable element in our environment the present levels, except in extreme cases, are unlikely to be harmful. I am not, however, suggesting that it might not be desirable to reduce the amount of lead in the atmosphere, and that includes in petrol, on a "play safe" basis, were it not for the considerable economic and other disadvantages that any drastic reduction would be likely to have at the present time. Do not let us forget, my Lords, that life is never completely safe, and that is never more true than when we consider road casualties. It is in our hands to reduce these by any amount we wish. The cost, if we go to the extremes, is quite unacceptable to the community. So it is as well to remember that one can play completely safe only when there is not very much cost in doing so.

What are the disadvantages in abolishing lead? First, it would be impracticable to produce very high octane fuels and there would have to be a substantial lowering of compression ratios in cars, with a consequent reduction of engine efficiency and far greater fuel consumption. There is an equation here between how much extra it costs to refine high octane fuel and how far down you reduce the compression ratio. It is very easy to look up in any textbook the loss of efficiency caused by reducing the compression ratios on cars, but it is much harder to estimate the cost of refining to a higher octane value. So one cannot really look at the one without looking at the other. My own guess is that we could reasonably assume that the loss of efficiency through reducing the compression ratio to a reasonable level would probably be of the order of 10 per cent.

Secondly, the continuance of, say, 4-star fuel, which is required by a large proportion of the cars at present in use, would mean that a much greater quantity of crude oil was needed. Here again, one can take only the rough estimates that have been made, and one figure which has been given is that at present it would be at the rate of £425 million a year. But all these figures are of course highly debatable. Anyway, it is quite certain that there would be a considerable increase in the requirement of crude oil at a time when it was still in short supply. Furthermore, the refineries would have to make considerable alterations and additions to their equipment in order to produce high octane fuel without lead. Again, I throw out the figure which has been quoted of something like £300 million.

Thirdly—and this is a point which impresses me very much indeed—existing engine design depends on lead for reducing wear on the valves. Lead does not increase the wear on engines, and in fact in existing designs it is essenial in small quantities for increasing valve life. Engines cannot be easily modified to take a much lower octane fuel, and to modify them satisfactorily would require new low compression pistons which in some cars would be an impossibility. Do not forget, my Lords, that there are still on the market and being sold cars requiring 4-star fuel, and though the manufacturers are no longer making any that require 5-star there is to be no immediate stop on those needing 4-star fuel. So if you assume that the life of a car is at least ten years, you will be in real trouble if the lead is cut off completely by 1980. It may be just possible to refine a 4-star fuel at very considerable cost, but it will be getting very near the limit of technology to do so. Therefore, if this Bill gets a Second Reading—I am afraid that I shall vote against it—I will certainly table an Amendment to put the date forward to 1984 or 1985.

We are always a little short on facts in any debate about a subject of this sort and we were certainly short of them during the last debate, but for what they are worth I shall give your Lordships a few. The average adult takes into his body and temporarily retains between one-sixth and one-half of a milligramme of lead per day. Of this an absolute maximum of one-tenth of a milligram me comes from the air—not by any means entirely from the lead in car exhausts. One can reasonably take the higher figure for ingested lead, because it is only when the volume is fairly high that one begins to get at all worried. We can therefore assume that the lead which we are getting from the air does not represent more than one-fifth of the total intake. It seems that in normal conditions all this lead is discharged from the body and there is no build-up in older persons, except to some extent in the bones. Of course this may not be true when taking in excessive doses of lead. I am afraid that that is the best information that I could obtain, and it does not entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said, although I have no doubt that we could reach agreement there.

It is fairly well known that in normal conditions there is an equation between the ingested lead and the lead that is actually disposed of on a daily basis through one means or another. We are very short of information on what proportion of lead in the air is taken into the blood stream, and experts' opinions vary very widely indeed. There have been studies showing that lead levels in the blood have gone up when there has been a high lead content in the air. But, strangely enough, some very responsible surveys which have recently been carried out in the United States do not confirm this belief at all. Taking measurements in various cities and elsewhere, those surveys found no correlation between the average value of lead in the air and that in the blood. In any case, blood levels vary widely and in the case of adults it is said that between 10 and 40 microgrammes per 100 grammes may be considered normal. It is interesting to note that the figure for the primitive people in New Guinea is 22, which is almost exactly the same as the average figure for England, although one must admit that in some parts of the world the figure is under 10. It seems that individual blood levels of lead tend to reach the point where fairly massive or continuing doses are needed to raise the figure above a certain plateau.

A good deal has been made of the fact—I think rather emotionally—that the difference between the level of lead in people's blood and the increased level that causes symptoms is smaller than that with any other poison. This, I believe, is almost a complete irrelevancy. What one is concerned with is the amount of extra lead that can be taken in which will cause symptoms over and above what is normal. I conclude, therefore, that there does not seem to be an immediate cause for anxiety and I believe that the Government are pursuing a Sensible course as regards petrol. What they were trying to do before the fuel crisis was gradually to reduce the amount of lead in petrol, so that it did not increase due to the growing number of vehicles on the road. That seems to me a sound and sensible policy. It may be that we can without harm live with a rise in lead; it may be that in the next five years we shall be more worried about it—in which case we can then take further measures. But I would certainly deplore any attempt to pre-empt a decision five years ahead, or for that matter ten years ahead. I am quite sure that the Government, of whatever complexion they are, and the environmentalists will keep us up to scratch if any new developments occur which cause any more alarm. There is one thing that we can do at no cost—and your Lordships will remember that at the beginning of my speech I said that if we could remove lead from petrol at no cost I should be the last person to say that we ought not to do it. There is being developed and working rather satisfactorily an exhaust silencer which removes a considerable amount of the lead content. In fact it reduces it in most conditions to about half. I would think it well worth introducing such a system. I believe the cost would be relatively small and it would have definite advantages. Finally, if it is proved—and it is highly debateable at the moment—that there is trouble at "Spaghetti Junction", I think once more we should say, "O.K., if the situation is exceptional there we must move people from it." I am sure they would all be delighted, considering the, noise and the fact that their view has obviously been spoilt, if they were reaccommodated somewhere nicer. The cost of doing it would be minute compared to that of taking more drastic action over lead than we are at present proposing to take.

6.11 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I think that some of us would agree we are on rather familiar ground this afternoon. In fact we have talked of this subject so often that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, begins to quote parts of the speech which he says I always make because he found it so impressive. I propose to quote it again to-day. One thing that gives me great joy is to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, say that the Opposition will not vote against the Bill. That indicates tremendous progress in this House. Once we have got to the stage when both Opposition and Government are agreed upon a reform there is great hope that in our lifetime—not in 1985—we will see the Bill on the Statute Book.

This is a short Bill but it embodies tremendous progress in the field of public health. I must confess that I was profoundly disappointed this afternoon by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I have always thought of him, despite the fact that he sits on that Bench, as a rather progressive man, but he devoted most of his speech to the suggestion that we must keep lead in petrol for the sake of the machine and then, in his concluding remarks, said that of course if it cost nothing he would immediately say, "Take the lead out of petrol", so indicating that he knew in his heart that lead in petrol was a danger to the community. His case for keeping lead in petrol was for the sake of the machine. My Lords, I wish to put the case for taking lead out of petrol for the sake of human beings.

When it comes to the question of costs, may I remind the noble Viscount—and I am familiar with most of the health reforms that have taken place in this century—that I have never known a great reform in the field of public health costing nothing to the community, and that when it has been proved, as it often was proved, that it would cost a certain amount, there have always been politicians, either in another place or here, who have condemned the reform on the ground of cost. I am sorry to say that, after his speech, the noble Viscount is now in that category. In all these speeches on the environment it seems to me so shortsighted to discuss the environment in the abstract and to fail to take action in matters of this kind when we know that lead has a toxic effect. On the question of cost I am beginning to think we are confronted with a conspiracy of business interests which are determined to avoid progress in this matter.

May I again remind your Lordships of the South London factory about which, only last year, there was a great outcry, finally, because it had been found for some years that small children living in the vicinity were developing curious symptoms which were difficult to diagnose. At last the progressive medical officer of health of the area got together with the children's doctors and they recognised that there were symptoms associated with the central nervous system, symptoms which might be associated with the kidney. They reached the conclusion that the result was probably due to these children either inhaling or ingesting lead—and there, right on the doorsteps of the houses in which they lived was a factory which was emitting lead. In the debate to-day I have seen noble Lords sneering at the blood lead level, but the blood lead level of these children was taken and it was found to be very high.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, disappointed me. I have always felt that in these matters women have a greater feeling and human understanding than men, but she said there was no conclusive evidence about these incidents. However, the examinations made in that case by technicians who had conducted similar examinations on many occasions, proved, of course, that those children were suffering from incipient lead poisoning. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said he read in the British Medical Journal—I must look up my B.M.J.s again after this—that it was stated that fortunately those children were not showing the final effects of lead poisoning, but that they were suffering from incipient lead poisoning. Fortunately, the local authority did not sit back and say, "This will cost money if we take action." They evacuated all the families concerned. The families were well housed; nevertheless, they regarded the risk as of such a serious nature that the families were subsequently evacuated. That is the proof of the seriousness of this matter.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, will the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, forgive me interrupting her, but the point I was making about health hazards was not, as she is suggesting, in regard to the case of the factory in South London which was emitting some lead into the atmosphere, but on the issue in this Bill, which is principally the subject of lead in petrol emitted from the exhausts of cars. It is on that specific issue that we look for the evidence.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had been a little patient she would have discovered that I never avoid points which need answering. She had already announced that the last Government had decided that the amount of lead in petrol should be reduced. As I understand it, they decided last year that the amount of lead in petrol must be reduced because of these dangers. If it has been decided that lead in petrol is a danger, it does not satisfy me to say, "Well, let us have a little less lead in petrol; perhaps then people would not suffer from these various complaints." Of course the noble Lord is absolutely right: we have to work towards the elimination of lead. That is our objective, and for the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, to talk about "1985" before we can eliminate lead from petrol is a most reactionary statement.

VISCOUNT HANWORTH

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but since she constantly refers to me I must ask her whether she takes the point that at the moment in the main there is no evidence that the lead we are breathing from the exhausts of cars is doing us any harm? We are anxious only to play safe and not to increase it.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord should be so naïve. People said that about these children in South London. I am not talking about Timbuctoo; I am talking about a place a few miles from this House. People said that this lead cannot have any effect upon children. But the blood lead content of these children was taken. They had certain symptoms: of that there was no doubt. Therefore the noble Viscount cannot just dismiss this question as a kind of dream that has been had by would-be reformers who come to this House continually to try to influence people.

VISCOUNT HANWORTH

They do.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

The noble Viscount says, "They do". I should like everybody to hear that. Would-be reformers have come to both Houses on many other occasions to discuss diseases to which even he might be vulnerable. I can assure the noble Viscount that they have done a great deal of good work and finally got their desires embodied in a Statute and put on the Statute Book.

I say in relation to this matter that the expectant mother is particularly vulnerable and the foetus which she carries can be damaged. The child can be left with permanent brain, kidney and liver damage. The point which the noble Viscount has not appreciated is that the effect is insidious. In so many other diseases from which children suffer a doctor can say, "There is the symptom". The doctor can see it. Indeed, I am very sorry that lead disease, or plumbism as Lord Amulree said, is not associated with a rash. If it were, everybody would say, "That is what they have got". But it is insidious. It affects the brain, the kidney and the liver, slowly and sometimes fatally. I believe that lead poisoning through petrol is a public health hazard of the most serious nature. I would only say of this and other diseases that have been talked about, in this House and the other place, during this century and the last, that if these diseases were transmissible to other human beings then the powerful business interests would soon change their tune.

6.23 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, perhaps it would be as well if I reminded your Lordships of the interest which I have in the motor industry, though I would make it quite clear that I have no interest in any oil company. I admire the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for the artistry with which he continually puts his arguments. He does it so well that it is very difficult to deny him; but in fact that is precisely what I hope to do.

His Bill is so particular as to be virtually impossible for anybody to carry out. If I may say so, it starts, as it were, at the wrong end. It starts with putting lead into petrol, whereas surely what we are talking about is taking lead out of the emission after we have used the product. Surely, my Lords, if we could achieve that—if that is what we want—it would be a far better way of doing it. So far, various people have put forward a variety of views and have quoted a number of authorities on the dangers to human beings that accrue from the emission of lead from the exhausts of motor cars, whereas it is my understanding that in 1972 at the world symposium in Amsterdam, leading medical authorities came to the view that at the then levels—that was in 1972—there was no immediate health hazard to people as a result of lead emission from exhausts.

It is conceded, of course, that as the number of vehicles increases the number of gallons used, so the amount of emission goes up, which could then cause a health hazard. However, nobody seems yet to have measured this, and it is certainly apparent that the projected expansion of fuels envisaged in 1972 was a 5 per cent. per annum increase. It is now widely thought that, because of crude oil availability, the price of the refined product and other factors, for 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 there may be a growth in usage—and therefore in total emission—of something approaching only 2½ per cent., diminishing perhaps even to nil. I understand that in Western Germany the projected growth in consumption will be nil. So if one takes into consideration the two factors, the 1972 level of emission (which nobody I have read has suggested is over-harmful to human health) as the base factor, and the two reductions in lead content of fuel—the 1972 reduction and the reduction by 1976 to 0.45 grams per litre—and couples that with the projected lessening of consumption, it will certainly take us up to about 1981 to re-achieve the 1972 levels which, as I say, were not then considered harmful.

LORD PLATT

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He used the term not "over-harmful". I wish the noble Lord would define "over-harmful".

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, is always so attentive and if I make a mistake he always picks me up. He did that the other day. I apologise to him for having given him the opportunity to pick me up. I cannot define "harmful" or "over-harmful"; and, quite frankly, I defy your Lordships to define it, purely and simply because there are so many authorities. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, produced the authority of a Dr. Waldron.

LORD PLATT

My Lords, as I seem to have started this discussion, may I say that I did not ask the noble Lord to define "harmful"? That is something we can understand. What I asked him to define was "over-harmful", because it seems to me to be more harmful than harmful; that is all.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Platt, will forgive me if I do not go down that inviting avenue of argument but try to confine myself, at an advancing hour, to lead in petrol and the emission thereof. I think that I was at that time saying that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, had produced a report which he considered to be authoritative—the Waldron report. I could probably produce another one which I shall call the John Tinker report, and I quote from the New Scientist.

LORD O'HAGAN

I would not accept that.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, the noble Lord may not accept it, but there are a large number of people who would consider that this man's views upon this matter are worthy of attention. So, whether the noble Lord accepts this report or whether I refuse to accept the Waldron report, or whether I accept the Warren Springs Laboratory report or refuse to accept this report or that report, is not really material. I was going to ask the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, whether he could tell us anything about the Holgate Report, which has been sitting around Government Departments for quite a long time and which, again, is supposed to be authoritative.

My Lords, while we are arguing this point we have no yardstick against which we can make a measurement. We have a number of opinions, but against these various opinions we have to balance a number of factors. I suppose the most important factor is the kind of money and effort that will be expended in improving the health of our people, and where it should be spent. If we accept that the 1972 levels of lead in blood were not a hazard to health, then can one really suggest, as the noble Viscount. Lord Hanworth, suggested, that there should be the expenditure of some £300 million in refinery rebuilding over six years to achieve a petrol product equivalent in quality to that which we now buy but without any lead in it?

The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, will say that this is big business talking; that they do not want to spent £300 million. Supposing that in fact some fairy godmother produced £300 million to the companies in this country refining petrol, they would probably say, "Thank you very much, but there are other difficulties in getting this job done". Two spring immediately to my mind, and I am not a refinery builder. One is steel and materials, which are now in desperately short supply and desperately needed for other and, in my view, better purposes. The other is that neither is there the specialist labour available to do this refinery work in a span of six years, which is what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is calling for in his Bill. Fifteen years, perhaps.

My Lords, I think it was the noble Viscount, again, who mentioned the figure of an extra £450 million to be paid anually for the additional crude oil, assuming it to be available, notwithstanding North Sea oil, to make up the shortfall between that which is required for finer refining in lead-free aspects and what we are using to-day. If we went on doing that, my Lords, we should probably run out of oil by the 21st Century, and we really cannot manage our society without fuel. So it seems to me that, as I said at the beginning, we are going in at the wrong end. First, I think we must accept a yardstick. At the moment we have experts versus experts, and we must first say, "All right; this is the body which will provide the yardstick". Then we need very much more up-to-date information by way of measurements.

I understand that some of the methods of measuring the lead content of blood have been changed, so one cannot compare like with like. Indeed, nothing that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said, with his tremendous sincerity, has greatly changed since, not the last debate on this subject but the one before that. Perhaps the noble Lord on the Front Bench who is going to reply can bring us up to date.

If we wish to pursue the objects of this Bill, if the noble Lord is going to insist upon asking for a Second Reading, it would seem to me that a far better way would be for the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee. In that way reasonable and probably unbiased people would be able to listen to all these experts and make their judgments in terms of the millions of pounds involved, and the minimal of doubtful benefits the expenditure would bring, as compared with the far greater benefits there would be if the money could be spent in other ways; and could then make a judgment on behalf of the community. This, surely, my Lords, is what the legislators in another place and here should be doing.

6.36 p.m.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will permit me to speak at this stage. I had put my name down for this debate, but owing to a clerical error I was put down to speak on a different Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, have invited me to intervene at this point, with your Lordships' permission. This Bill arises from what was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, just over three years ago, I think, when he asked the first Question that he put in your Lordships' House on lead in petrol. He pursued this matter in a very determined way over a number of years, and the Answers given were evasive and entertaining, but rarely informative. I take it that the noble Lord was really forced to introduce a Bill in order to find out what could be done in this matter, and I am sure that that is the sense in which he is pursuing the Bill to-day.

I can recollect the time when lead was first introduced into petrol. It was introduced as a result of combustion studies when there was found the phenomenon of "pinking" in the engine. One got this nasty free combustion as a result of explosions taking place, and in consequence of that they tried to find out how to stop it. If one uses the terminology which has now become general, but which was introduced at that time to describe the reaction, it was a chain reaction in combustion, and the function of the lead petrol ethyl was to break the chain. My recollection is that this was first introduced by the Esso Company, which had valuable patents on this process. I think I am right in saying that the Shell Company came along and found an alternative process which they patented, not so that they could use it but merely in order to be able to get the patent rights from Esso at a cheap rate. In consequence, the spread of lead became general. Then we moved over to the high-compression engine. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has explained to us the great advantage of the high-compression engine, and there is no doubt about it but that this is a very valuable engine. It has made a lot of difference, both in the case of the ordinary automobile and also, particularly, in aviation; and there is little doubt that it has been well worth while.

But we have begun to realise over the years that every technological advance is liable to bring with it a consequent disadvantage. I have lived for years up on Tyneside, and on Tyneside they started the alkali industry. The curious thing about the alkali industry was that it poisoned the whole air with hydrochloric acid because all the alkali was made from common salt. So there was instituted the Alkali Inspectorate, whose main function was to stop acid fumes in the air. It has done an extremely good job, and this goes all the way through. In technology there is always some disadvantage which is likely to arise, but we do not sit back and do nothing or say that the disadvantages are inevitable. On the contrary, we say that we have to tackle them and that we must find out how to cure them so as to make them of value instead of being a menace to mankind.

This evening we have heard various arguments about the problems that might arise. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out that if we did not have lead we should need extra supplies of crude oil in order to produce the high octane petrol. The same point was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. Certainly that is true using one type of technology, but it so happens that there is an entirely different kind of technology—one which without lead can produce a high octane fuel at a lower cost—that of using methanol. You can get 100 octane fuel with methane added at the rate of about 20 per cent. to the petrol. Your Lordships may ask why this has not been done in the past. It was done in the old days when racing cars first made their appearance at Brooklands. They put methanol into petrol in those days in order to get a better effect. Why is it not done now?—because methanol was expensive, whereas adding a very small quantity of lead to petrol was very cheap.

To-day the situation is different. We can make methanol from natural gas at a fraction of the price at which it has been made by conventional methods. In fact, so far from its being what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, and what I think was also said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—that is, something which is extremely costly, difficult and far into the future—it is more than likely that because of the high cost of petroleum and because the oil producing countries are charging a great amount for the oil, the oil companies themselves will start to make methanol because they can do so more cheaply now from natural gas.

Consequently, we are faced to-day with a new and expanding technology, a technology which makes lead obsolete. If you did a proper analysis and asked whether you could manage without lead in two or three years' time, the answer would be that you could probably get enough methanol produced. It may be that it will take a little longer than that, but the methanol method is a perfectly well established technology. You can go to I.C.I. and see what is done, so there is no problem in making it. It can be obtained from natural gas very easily. Therefore, many of the arguments on the economic side are utterly irrelevant to this subject. It is extremely dangerous for us to get tied up in this type of semi-technical economic argument because, quite frankly, the whole of technology moves a darn' sight too fast for us to argue about without having the most recent figures at our disposal. I do not pretend I have them, but last summer I was told by an oil company that the methanol process could work. I said nothing about it in the past, because it seemed to me that it might be a delicate matter of diplomacy with the oil-producing countries; but now that does not matter. They have gone their way and we have to go ours.

With regard to the amount of lead, I am never convinced by arguments that a certain amount of something is safe, because such an argument is always based on the fact that you have not actually seen people fall down and die. It does not mean that permanent damage has not been produced. I have worked in chemical laboratories most of my adult life, and during most of that time I have worked with the liquid substance, mercury, as most chemists do. We all tended to use this as though it did no damage at all, but about thirty years ago a German chemist came to the conclusion that a number of people working in his laboratory were suffering from some form of poisoning. He asked physicians to make a careful study, and they found that these people were suffering from mercury poisoning. This seemed incredible, because the vapour pressure of mercury is so low at ordinary temperatures that it should have no effect; but what was happening was that the mercury was falling on the floor and breaking up into small drops. It was then getting up into the air, not in the form of vapour but in the form of small particles, which were ingested and doing serious damage. This happens with almost everything that one tends to use.

We are learning more and more to-day that the heavy metals are dangerous—those metals which for so long have been treated as though they were not dangerous. They are dangerous, and I do not believe that anyone knows exactly how dangerous they are, nor can anyone prescribe a dose that is safe to take. That does not mean that we are not going to subject ourselves to any risk at all, but surely it must mean we ought to cut out every unnecessary risk. I would submit that the evidence to-day is that lead is no longer necessary in petrol.

6.48 p.m.

LORD PLATT

My Lords, so much has already been said to-day and also on previous occasions that your Lordships will no doubt be pleased to hear that I have decided to discard most of what I was going to say, and shall confine myself to making some comments on the very interesting debate we have had.

First of all, I am very sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is not in his place, because I have to dispute some of his statements or opinions. If I understood him aright, he was trying to prove to us, or at least making the statement, that of the lead which accumulates in people's bodies probably not more than a fifth was absorbed by the lungs while four-fifths was ingested lead. What is "ingested lead"? We do not eat lead pellets as part of our normal diet. Ingested lead means that your hands are dirty with a dust that contains lead. Where does the dust and the lead come from? It could also mean that lead has been ingested in some food; in other words, from an animal which feeds on the land, or from some vegetable which grows on the land. Vegetables do not normally grow in lead or produce lead, and therefore the lead must have reached them from somewhere else. It seems reasonable to assume that a certain amount, which may or may not be very large—though I do not see any good way of finding out the proportion—of the dust which we ingest has in fact come from the many hundreds of tons of lead which is being put into the petrol of our motor cars in the course of a year.

The noble Viscount, and other speakers, have made the very proper point that there is a great deal of discrepancy about the findings, particularly with regard to lead in the blood. This is a very considerable difficulty, for the reason that lead is a poison which is slowly absorbed and slowly excreted. The noble Viscount said if you only take in small quantities it is excreted fast enough to prevent it being accumulated in the system. I am sure he is right; but it is a slow poison, and to make my point clearer one could contrast it with the acute poison of alcohol with which most of us are very familiar. Alcohol is rapidly absorbed, you usually know how much you have taken—at least you may remember the next day—and the blood alcohol level rises rapidly. The symptoms of acute alcoholism are fairly well correlated with the level of the blood alcohol, and therefore we can say that with the blood alcohol over a certain amount the accident rate, by statistical observation, goes up to an unacceptable extent. We can do no such thing with lead, which is slowly being absorbed and slowly excreted, passing through the blood and is accumulating in the lungs, kidneys, bones and other organs to an extent which there is no ready medical means of finding out. While I admit that only too readily, a lot of the work done on blood lead sampling has led to equivocal results: you get higher levels where you expect to get lower ones, and vice versa. Nevertheless, this is only a sign that we are measuring the wrong thing or, if not the wrong thing, at least it is not a very satisfactory measurement.

Lead gradually builds up in the system if sufficient of it is ingested. There is such a thing as acute lead poisoning, which occurred notably when tetra-ethyl lead was first introduced. It was soon seen what a dangerous and fatal poison it could be and precautions were taken. But the chronic lead poisoning of medical history, which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, put before us so interestingly, was something which did not occur when a new painter came to work as an apprentice; he did not get lead poisoning the next day. People who had soft water and lead pipes in their houses did not show lead poisoning the moment they moved into their houses. The people who drank the Devonshire cider did not develop lead poisoning overnight. The effect of a gradual accumulation of lead only slowly becomes apparent, in some cases over many years; but where the lead ingestion level is high, as in the making of lead batteries before they were protected. lead poisoning could come on pretty quickly.

Regarding the idea that there is no strong evidence that at the present time lead in petrol is responsible for causing a major amount of illness—and I agree with that—I do not think we should be content with such a situation as that when we are dealing with a cumulative poison. I am reminded a little of the arguments which were put regarding the stopping of free school milk. I do not want to go back to that very debateable subject: the reasons for stopping school milk for children of certain ages may or may not have been good ones, and I am not going to discuss that question further. The argument to which I objected, and which I rejected at once, was the idea, "We shall watch this situation very carefully and if these children show signs of malnutrition we shall think again". When a child shows signs of malnutrition it is too late. I submit that if large numbers of the population begin to show signs of lead poisoning—like the people who began to show signs of mercurial poisoning in a laboratory as described by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, then that would be too late. We should do anything we can to reduce and eventually eliminate lead in petrol. If it is any comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—and I apologise for picking him up on one of his slips—I sincerely grasped his argument that if you can prevent it spreading into the atmosphere, if it can be held up in sonic kind of exhaust pipe which can afterwards be destroyed or made into a church roof, or something, this would be a powerful argument for saying that there is no particular need to reduce the intake of lead in petrol. But I am not a technologist and I could not discuss that.

We all must have been extremely impressed with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, when he argued that there was now a method—and he told us of the method—of replacing lead in petrol. But methanol is also a poison—a rather serious one—and its use would have to be looked at very carefully in order to prevent people drinking it in these times of expensive alcoholic drinks. But I expect that matter could be dealt with just as is methylated spirit, which has a noxious colouring matter added to it. My Lords, that is all I have to say on this subject.

6.58 p.m.

LORD LYELL

My Lords, the hour is getting even later and I think it is incumbent upon me, as one of the later speakers, to be as brief as possible. I must begin by declaring an indirect interest in this matter of lead in petrol—not that I manufacture the substance, or put the lead in petrol, but because I happen to own a vehicle which is designed to run on lead-free fuel. I am not speaking simply to publicise these vehicles, but there is a certain amount of research carried out by the manufacturers which I believe will be of interest to your Lordships. It seems from some basic research that I have tried to carry out that most of the petrol sold in the United Kingdom contains lead to a greater or lesser degree. I understand, although I am no chemist, that the lead is used as a catalyst in the distillation process, and also as an octane improver, although I understand that there are other forms of this; and we have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Wynn-Jones, has told us about methanol, and other substances.

Whatever the effect of lead on petrol and on automative engines, the effect on humans is harmful; and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said that it is more than just harmful. Often, I understand, it is even lethal. I believe that arsenic is lethal; it contains great quantities of lead and other things. But at the same time my medical friends tell me that arsenic can be used as a heart stimulant, so we come back to the start. If we assume that lead in the blood of humans is harmful, it must be admitted that motor exhausts containing lead particles are lethal and are pollutants. But motor exhausts containing no traces of lead are, I am told, equally lethal in that they contain carbon monoxide, which attacks the haemoglobin in the bloodstream and causes death through suffocation. We have heard from several noble Lords about the increase of lead content in the blood of children and people living in the vicinity of the Gravelly Hill interchange, where I understand three motorways link up near Birmingham. Clearly, there are some levels of lead which are more dangerous than others. In the Gravelly Hill area there are problems of noise, carbon monoxide, dirt, and vibration. All of these are as injurious to health, I should have thought, as lead.

I made some inquiries as to why oil companies add lead to their petrol products if it is so harmful. It seems that lead is the most efficient, the cheapest and the most plentiful octane improver. Certainly European motor manufacturers have for years been producing relatively small capacity engines which produce a correspondingly great power. In order to produce this increased power, the engine requires a fairly high octane fuel. This has meant in most cases a fairly high lead content. One German motor manufacturer who has for many years engaged in research activities of all kinds—not just into fuel systems and different forms of automotive fuels—managed to produce for 1972, because he deemed it necessary, a series of engines which conformed to Californian regulations. These engines were from the outset designed to run on low-lead petrol, or indeed lead-free petrol, as was envisaged by California regulations for 1975.

What a surprise came to everybody when it was found that these engines delivered more power more easily! This all seemed too marvellous for words. But there was one great snag. This was that a great deal more fuel was needed, not to mention the additional oil required in relining, to achieve this low-lead fuel. One particular car manufactured by this company with the normal engine, which we have heard referred to by the noble Baroness, and particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has a fairly high-compression motor. On being tested over about 1,500 miles by one of the specialist motor journals, this car achieved a fuel consumption of approximately 19 miles to the gallon with a 1971 engine. With the 1972 low-lead petrol engine, the fuel consumption had dropped to 15 miles to the gallon. Both of these figures were taken by the same group of testers, carrying out broadly the same tests, in the same conditions, and doing roughly the same thing. Similar tests were carried out with other cars manufactured by this company, and figures of 20 miles to the gallon were achieved with the normal engines. But with the new 1972 engine the performance dropped to 13 miles to the gallon. This was clearly not what was envisaged after the 1973 fuel shortage.

The same company has now produced a further, "second generation", low-compression engine. This has restored fuel consumption back to 20 miles to the gallon, all on 2-star fuel. I understand that 2-star fuel, both here and on the Continent and elsewhere in the world, contains a proportion of lead, albeit a lower proportion of lead than 5-star fuel or the high-octane fuels. Nevertheless, it shows that a low-compression engine does not necessarily use more fuel than a high-compression engine. I think this has relevance to the actual fuel consumption of motor cars, though possibly not the loss of oil in distilling fuel for those cars. We might ask ourselves why all motor manufacturers cannot produce these engines which meet those criteria in California. The California State Legislature imposes a fairly strict set of rules, so far as emission and pollution are concerned. I think the major problem is that of cost. All the vehicles manufactured by the German company to which I have referred cost in the region of £4,000 to £6,000 each. This is very far above what is considered reasonable for many family motorists. Nevertheless, as a result of the researches carried out by this company, all the German family cars are henceforth, from 1974, being designed to run on lower and lower octane fuels. Therefore, it would seem to me that there are very great grounds for encouragement in this type of research.

One further reason why the manufacturers have not yet conformed to any European standard is that there is not so far, I understand, any European standard for permissible pollution and emission. Even when standards can be agreed by the European Parliament, they will have to be ratified by all the national Parliaments. And this, of course, will depend on environmentalists and pressures in each individual country. But as soon as any standard is agreed, manufacturers should be able to build engines capable of giving reasonable power with reasonable fuel consumption.

In conclusion, my Lords, it seems that the need for lead as an octane improver is disappearing. We have heard from the noble Baroness and from the noble Viscount, who I am afraid is no longer with us, that the average life of cars in Britain is approximately ten years. I find this hard to believe, though doubtless they have done much greater research than I have. At the same time, I do not see why rules cannot be laid down to require that motor cars manufactured in 1975 shall run on low-octane fuel—say, nothing more than 3-star. Then gradually, as the supply of existing motor cars with high-compression engines was scrapped, the high-octane fuels would become less and less of use, and the oil consumption of the world, and particularly of Europe, could be cut down; and similarly, the lead content of the fuels used in transport could be reduced to whatever levels were prescribed by the medical profession. My Lords, I would seek to support the Bill. I believe that the year 1980 should provide adequate time.

7.9 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, I want to make two or three very short points. First, do not let it be forgotten that what is put into petrol is not simply lead, it is an ethyl compound of lead which is a great deal more poisonous than simple lead. When estimates are made, but without very much foundation, of how much lead is ingested in food and how much is ingested by the lungs, that point ought to be borne in mind, and also the point that much greater a proportion of what is ingested into the lungs goes into the bloodstream than of what goes into the stomach. These are very important factors in considering the problem of lead in petrol.

In the course of a fairly long public life, I have discovered that it is always easy to find a great many plausible reasons for not doing anything at all. We have heard a number of reasons this afternoon why lead should not be taken out of petrol, or why the time when that is done should be long delayed. But we have some practical experience. It has already been mentioned that in California the Legislature has taken steps to reduce, and indeed largely eliminate, lead in petrol. Let me also draw attention to the fact that in Moscow the use of leaded petrol is not allowed; and in addition to that the Russians have made regulations with regard to the maximum lead level in the general environment which they have put at 0.7 microgrammes per cubic metre.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to tell us, proportionately to this country, just how many motor cars in fact run in Moscow, and what kind of cost saving and cost benefit there therefore is?

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, it does not make a great deal of difference how many motor vehicles are running, in Moscow. The relative proportion will still be exactly the same. If they have found it necessary and desirable to eliminate leaded petrol in Moscow, it is obvious that the number of motor cars which were running there was sufficient in the opinion of the Russian authorities to constitute a public health danger.

Let me mention this point. The Russians have fixed maximum permissible levels for lead in the general atmosphere at a figure of 0.7 microgrammes per cubic metre. A few years ago an investigation was made in the City of London of the amount of lead in the air and it was found that it ranged up to as much as 4.8 microgrammes per cubic metre—that is to say, seven times as high as the Russian standard. These are examples of the fact that steps are already being taken to reduce or to eliminate lead in petrol, and therefore in the atmosphere. And if other people can do it, there is no reason why we should not be able to do it in this country. My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones has given some illustration of how it can be done without excessive cost, and so has the noble Lord, Lord Lyell; and if sufficient energy is devoted to it there is no doubt that this problem can be solved.

Do not let us forget that it is a serious public health question which hitherto has not been sufficiently investigated because the diagnosis of lead poisoning is difficult; the symptoms are similar to those arising from very many other causes unless special techniques are adopted in order to verify the amount of lead in the blood, or other alternative means of diagnosis. This subject has never been properly explored, my Lords, and it is wrong and misleading for anybody to assume that there is not in existence now a serious health hazard.

7.14 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, this has been a fairly lengthy debate, perhaps longer than we had anticipated when we started, because we were all aware that we had debated the subject upon a number of occasions before. There have been some extremely interesting speeches, and the one to which we have just listened from my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch was as packed with fact, and displayed with as much feeling, as any other in the debate, and contained perhaps even more information than we had any right to expect, although it came from someone who had followed so many experts of one kind and another. I do not suppose I shall answer all the questions that have been asked; indeed, I am sure I shall not be able to answer them all. Some of them have I think been answered during the course of the debate, but I will answer as many as I can, and I hope that in what I have to say I will answer in a general way most of the issues that have been raised by speakers.

I have been impressed by the sincerity of all the speakers, whatever view they have expressed, and I would give the assurance at the outset that everything that has been said this afternoon will be studied in the Department of the Environment with the closest possible interest. Any contribution made by any noble Lord which is likely to help in the solution of the problem with which we are concerned will be warmly welcome.

I doubt whether those who have been sitting in the Visitors' Galleries will have appreciated what I think is true: that we are all in much closer accord on the basic issue than our debate might indicate. We are all, I think, united in feeling that health considerations are of paramount importance, although of course it has been said—and inevitably it needed to be said—that economic considerations have to be carefully weighed. We are all agreed that all necessary steps must be taken to ensure that the health of the community does not suffer on account of the use of lead by the oil industry in producing petrol. When I say that, I know that there will be those who have spoken who will say: "Well, you just show us that it does no harm at the present time, and tell us what you are going to do to eliminate it altogether so that there can be no possibility of risk at all."

I wish to assure your Lordships that the Government fully share the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. In his opening remarks he said that he and I had been friendly unfit to-day. It will be his fault entirely if there is any lessening of that friendship. Friends do not always have to agree, and sometimes when they disagree (I am not sure we shall disagree all that much) they spark off new thinking in the other person and thereby render a service.

The Government are far from complacent about this matter, and I think it is fair to say that the previous Government were concerned about it. I have to say quite frankly that I am impressed by the contacts I have had with experts in the Department. Their concern is so obvious and it is not something that began yesterday; it has been there for some time. The Government fully accept the need for statutory powers to control the lead content of petrol. We intend to include appropriate provision in a Control of Pollution Bill which will be introduced as soon as we are able to include it in our legislative programme. I hope that that is, if not a wholly satisfactory answer, since it does not go into all the details the noble Lord may like, one which will at least give some satisfaction to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The matter is under active consideration. I could wish that I were in a position this evening to say just when, but she will appreciate that when I use the term Control of Pollution Bill, I am speaking about the field that was covered by the Protection of the Environment Bill.

I might add that the oil industry also supports the need for statutory powers in this case. It has recommended that as limits of the lead content become more stringent, it becomes increasingly more difficult to rely upon voluntary compliance. The first point I hope to make, therefore, is that a Private Member's Bill for the purpose of reducing the lead content of petrol is unnecessary because the Government themselves intend to seek powers for this purpose and, in view of the great public importance of the subject, we feel it is infinitely more appropriate to a Government Bill than to a Private Member's Bill.

The Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, would, however, go further than the point I have mentioned. It would provide that lead must be eliminated from petrol by the end of 1980, and that date has been the subject of discussion by a number of your Lordships. The powers which the Government intend to seek would enable the Secretary of State to reduce the lead content of petrol to any level, even to zero. The point at issue, therefore, is simply whether a firm commitment should be made now with a time schedule attached, so that the level will be reduced to zero.

I submit that it is unnecessary to adopt such an approach at the present time, and this being so it is undesirable to take such an inflexible attitude to this problem. I say this mainly because the Chief Medical Officer of Health advises that evidence does not show that at present levels lead emissions from vehicles are a risk to health. That is the view that he has expressed and I think we have to accept his expertise in this particular field. Nearly every other country in the world takes the same view. But the subject—and this again indicates no complacency whatever—is under detailed study both here and abroad and, as I understand it, continuously. It is indeed a matter of continuing concern. It is certainly prudent to ensure that lead emissions from vehicles do not rise while these studies are pursued, and until more definite conclusions are reached. This is the objective of the present programme of reductions in the lead content of petrol.

There are good reasons for our weighing the next steps with care. First, there is the possibility that other means now being studied may be available to control lead emissions from vehicles. Reference has been made to those in this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, dwelt on it at some length. For example, a lead trap could be fitted to vehicle exhausts. Such a trap has been developed and the Department of the Environment is carrying out a programme of evaluations of the device, which I hope will be completed within a few months—and that again answers a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This could produce very helpful evidence. I think I can say that the Working Party's report is expected in about the autumn and also I can say that a lead filter might cost about twice as much as the silencer on a motor-car and it might need to be replaced as often. It would obviously be several years from the time when a decision is taken to require lead filters before they could be in sufficiently wide production and use as to be effective in reducing the total lead emissions. That is the best advice that I have been able to receive and it is the best information that I can give the House this evening.

It is surely sensible to take full account of this project before taking the extreme view that lead must be removed completely from petrol by 1980. What we seek to do, and what it is surely desirable to do, is to ensure if we can that lead is not emitted into the atmosphere. That is our aim.

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord at that point. If that is so and there are practical prospects of the kind described by the noble Lord, can he tell the House whether it is the Government's present intention to take parallel powers for controlling the content of lead in petrol that would have the effect of controlling the emission of lead from exhausts?

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I have done my best and I indicated that I was giving the best information I could. The question raised by the noble Lord is an important one. I cannot reply to it "off the cuff", but I will do my best to see that he gets the information as quickly as it can be obtained.

As I have said, the medical evidence does not show the need for such a step and, of course, it could be very expensive in terms of oil resources and cost. Here, of course, I am speaking about the removal of lead from petrol completely by 1980. It has been estimated that it would increase British requirements of crude oil by 10 million tons a year and would add about £300 million a year to our import bill. It would involve additional refinery investment of some £300 million (presumably at the expense of North Sea exploration) and would mean that the engines of existing vehicles would have to be altered to enable them to run on lead-free petrol. That is the best information I can give by way of figures and I think it answers a number of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. He wanted to know the authority: the authority I have is based on the information provided for me by experts in the Department, and I will come back to that subject presently.

I should now like to touch on the Government's intentions in this matter. In 1972 the oil and motor industries agreed to a programme of reductions in the lead content of petrol from the previous limit of 0.84 grammes of lead per litre of petrol to 0.55 grammes this year and 0.45 grammes by the end of next year. This will ensure that total lead emissions from vehicles are contained, and reduced below 1972 levels for several years ahead. I very much regret that in the current oil crisis it was found necessary to defer the reduction that was due at the beginning of this year. The programme to which I have just referred will provide the time for a closer assessment of medical evidence and, particularly, the relationship between levels of lead in the air and the lead in the blood. It will provide time for alternative technical possibilities to be examined. It will provide time for closer assessment of how to overcome the technical and economic problems associated with reducing the lead content of petrol below the limits currently programmed.

I hope this indicates a continuing concern. Some of your Lordships may ask why, if the Government really mean business, they should not provide in their own Bill for a definite limit on the lead content in petrol. There is a very simple reason why it is considered better not to do this. A specific limit contained in main legislation can only be altered by main legislation. I think there is no need for me to spell out to your Lordships the difficulties and uncertainties associated with the promotion of new main legislation. Details of this sort are essentially for subsidiary legislation, and this is what we intend to do.

My Lords, I take this opportunity to repeat my earlier assurance that when statutory powers are given to him the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to place statutory controls on the maximum permitted lead content of petrol. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about Gravelly Hill, as also did the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and I think it was referred to by him and by others under the title of "Spaghetti Junction". The Working Party which my right honourable friend has set up was in fact set up on March 14 this year, following his visit to the junction earlier that day. Its terms of reference are as follows: to report to the Minister as soon as possible (hopefully in three weeks) on the situation in regard to (1) lead pollution in the environment round the Gravelly Hill interchange and, (2) the implications of the pollution for the health of local people. The Chairman of the Working Party is Mr. J. B. Gilbrow of the Department's Central Unit for Environmental Protection. I think that gives the noble Baroness the information she wanted.

My Lords, we had a very forceful speech and argument from my noble friend Lord O'Hagan in opening the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, it is difficult to resist the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, when he is as persistent as he has been on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was very helpful with the searching questions she put. She ensured that we should have a debate which really covered the issue. From the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, we had a great deal of interesting background information about the effects of lead, and about the research that has gone into this subject. I was very interested in what he had to say. My father was a considerable cider drinker. He would have listened with even greater interest than I to what the noble Lord had to say.

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, produced a great deal of very provocative, thoughtful information. Indeed, he provoked my noble friend Baroness Summerskill; he must have known he would do that. I think the House appreciated the knowledge brought by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when he spoke at some length and particularly, as I have said already, when he referred to the possibility of a filter to prevent the emission of lead into the atmosphere.

As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I had the feeling that when he had finished no one could possibly doubt the depth of feeling that exists on this issue in this House. I ought to say that in the Department I have found that the concern expressed here to-day, although it may not be obvious, is shared by those whose business it is daily to deal with this matter. I promised the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that I would come back to the question of experts in the Department. I would say quite frankly to the noble Lord that they would like him to understand their concern is as great as his, that they want to do all they can. If the noble Lord feels that he could serve any useful purpose by discussing matters with the experts, then I shall be very happy to arrange for him to meet them so they may better understand what he has in mind. I think that probably he reflects the views of others as well as himself. The experts at no point wish to under-estimate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, nor do they wish to under-estimate the contribution he can make. I think I can say that, for their part, they would be very happy if they felt they could help him, perhaps a little better than he intimated, with the problems with which they have to contend. These people are deserving of some sympathy. When I hear someone suggesting, as has been done once or twice, "All you have to do is to make up your minds, go ahead and tackle it", I say the problem is being tackled. My right honourable friend would be more pleased than I think is appreciated from listening to the debate, if while he holds his office he could get on to the Statute Book legislation which would effectively control the situation.

My Lords, if I have omitted anything that I should have said, I apologise to the House. If Members wish to pursue any matter with me, I shall be delighted to do my best to help.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say anything at this stage about the Holgate Unit report?

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, I have a note to say that I cannot do so this evening. I have made a note that I will write to the noble Lord about that matter.

7.36 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate on this Bill, and particularly those who have stayed to the end. Even more so, may thank those who are not usually mentioned, the people who have not contributed to the debate yet have still stayed to the end. I am very appreciative since this subject must have been canvassed many times before.

My Lords, I was very impressed by what Lord Garnsworthy has said. I have received quite a bit of correspondence on the matter, as no doubt he has. I was interested to receive one letter of support from Lancashire which was addressed to "Lord O'Hagan, Department of the Environment". With him there I am quite happy to be where I am. I am not one of those who under-estimates the concern of civil servants, even if they are not allowed to make it so obvious as Members of your Lordships' House, and I fully appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said about the concern of people inside his Department.

My Lords, I have been up and down in my moods during the afternoon and evening. At the beginning of the day there were some speeches that made me gloomy, not because they criticised my case or because they were opposed to my point of view about lead in petrol, but because, from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, onwards, I felt there was a chance we were going to be throwing figures back and forth, hurling about estimates of millions of pounds in costs, and so on, without having them substantiated. That would have led to a negative debate. So I fully take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that we must try to move towards some common ground where we can accept experts and mutually respect the evidence put forward on a topic like this. With great respect to him, while he said that his expert was Jon Tinker, a well known scientific journalist, mine is Dr. Waldron, who works in the Department of Social Medicine at the University of Birmingham. I prefer that sort of person to a journalist, but I was grateful to the noble Lord for his point.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has gone, I will not answer her question, except to say: No, I have not consulted the oil industry. I do other things apart from concerning myself with lead in petrol, but if this Bill goes further, of course I will do so. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, did not make it obvious to me what he wished me to do at this stage. He spent a lot of time talking about 1980, implying that 1980 was a date that was at the kernel of my Bill, and that I was wedded to this date or nothing. But as I said earlier, this date is something we can usefully discuss. There are various practical points on both sides to be put forward, so that the part of his remarks mainly concerned with the impracticalities of 1980 I felt was prepared for something with which I did not really make a great deal of play in my opening speech. While I fully accept his commitment, which I am sure the Government will honour, about far-reaching proposals in the honestly named Control of Pollution Bill (I like that change), he has not really given me total grounds for withdrawing my Bill. Unless your Lordships feel strongly against it, we should continue to discuss this topic in the context of this Bill, taking into account the various points of view put forward with great expertise, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Lyell and Lord Wynne-Jones, who added a great deal of practical information. We could continue with this Bill or bear in mind the possibility of continuing with it until the Government come forward with their own legislation and we can see what they are actually proposing to do.

My Lords, once again I thank you for staying so long, and whether you have thrown brickbats at the Bill or given it bouquets I am very grateful for the quality of the discussion we have had. I hope we can keep this Bill jogging on as a stimulus to thought by the Government until they come forward with their own proposals.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.