HC Deb 21 October 1952 vol 505 cc937-46

Order for Second Reading read.

7.18 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill deals with technical matters affecting the safety of workers in agriculture that have been studied by expert committees, first of all by the Gowers Committee on Health, Welfare and Safety in Non-Industrial Employment, and then in more detail by the Zuckerman Working Party on Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture, which was set up by the former Minister of Agriculture.

The Bill itself is designed to carry out the recommendations made by these bodies, and I should like to express our grateful thanks to the members of these committees for the study they have made of these problems, and particularly to Professor Zuckerman, who has spent a lot of time and trouble in advising on the precautions that should be taken, and who has now gone on to study other aspects on which we also need advice, particularly, the possibility of the effects upon people other than those directly concerned in the use of the chemicals to which this Bill refers.

The need for precautionary measures arises out of the increasing use in agriculture of certain poisonous substances used as insecticides or weed killers mainly by spraying. There are, no doubt risks involved to the health of the workers using them, and we have to see that these are given the greatest practical measure of protection. This Bill will allow Ministers of Agriculture to make regulations for that purpose. A good deal has been done in the meantime by advice, but we cannot be sure that voluntary arrangements will be sufficiently widely followed to meet the need.

I am sure the House would be interested to know the steps which have already been taken. Last year, following the receipt of Professor Zuckerman's recommendations, the Ministry of Agriculture agreed with the organisations representing farmers and farm workers, agricultural contractors and insecticide manufacturers, recommendations for the voluntary observation of precautions. These were put by the organisations to their members and were publicised by the Ministry of Agriculture.

This year, a revised scheme of precautions, prepared in the light of last year's experience, was agreed with the same organisations. Wide publicity was given to it, and the organisations sent out recommendations to their members and branches. Arrangements were made for five members of the outdoor staff of the Ministry of Agriculture's Labour Division to act as observers this year. Their duties were to secure the greatest possible observance of the voluntary precautions scheme by persuasion and advice and, in addition, to assist as far as possible any employers who were having difficulty in carrying out recommended precautions and to obtain information.

I am glad to be able to inform the House that the observers have given much information and advice to employers who have asked for it, and have obtained a very great deal of valuable information for the Ministry on current practice. It will be our intention, if the House sees fit to pass the Bill, that these men should be employed on work as inspectors under the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. The experience they have gained will be very useful for that purpose The voluntary schemes to which I have referred have already been in operation and are designed to safeguard the health of the workers who use these substances. At the same time, further investigations in other fields are being carried out both by the Agricultural Research Council and by Professor Zuckerman's working party. The second stage of the work of Professor Zuckerman's working party is now near completion and we hope to receive the working party's report by the end of this year. When that report has ben submitted, the two main aspects of the problems arising from the use of toxic substances will have been covered, namely, the risk of poisoning to employees using these substances, and the possible risk to consumers from the use of these substances as insecticides or weed killers.

A further important aspect, on which much apprehension has been expressed, is the probable effect of the use of these substances on the wild life which is present when the spray is employed or which feeds on the crops shortly afterwards. It appears that the only solution is to find an insecticide which is not toxic to mammals or birds. This is one of the aspects upon which the Agricultural Research Council are concentrating. If such a substance can be found, the danger to operators, to consumers whether human or livestock, and to wild life will be avoided.

I would emphasise that the Government are well aware of the dangers that may result from the use of new substances of this kind before their full effects over the whole field of Nature can be accurately known and assessed. We have accepted the conclusion of the Zuckerman working party that the use of these substances must go forward. The Government are seeking to ensure that all the possible repercussions of their widespread use are carefully studied so as to reduce the risks as far as possible.

On reviewing the general position up to the present time I can say that our experience is that the precautions are now generally effective, and that a good deal of attention has been drawn to these risks and the ways in which they can be avoided. Nevertheless, it is clear that these risks exist. I think it is generally accepted in all parts of the House and in the country that, over a large part of this field at any rate, the recommended precautions should have a statutory backing and that definite obligations should be placed on those concerned, both employers and employees.

We shall propose to make regulations at an early date after the passing of the Bill on the lines of the voluntary precautions already recommended. In doing so, we shall take full account of the views of all those concerned. This has always been the intention of the Government and, indeed, of my predecessor. To make this abundantly clear we accepted an Amendment in another place for the addition of subsection (6) of Clause 1, which provides that we shall consult organisations representative of the interests concerned before making our regulations.

The kernel of the Bill is Clause 1, which contains the main regulation-making powers. It seeks to protect workers both in the actual use in agriculture of these substances and in work generally on land where the substances are being used, for example, for the protection of fellow-employees who might be affected. The regulations may be made jointly by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, or separately for England and Wales and for Scotland. It is the intention, where the requirements are the same for the whole country, that the regulations should be made jointly. It may be that on occasion agricultural conditions will require some differences in the regulations. In that case, it will be possible to make separate regulations for England and Wales and for Scotland.

The Bill applies to Great Britain. It does not extend to Northern Ireland. Legislation on this subject for Northern Ireland would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Parliament. I understand that the Government of Northern Ireland are considering the introduction of similar legislation, but I would inform the House that there is no spraying with these poisonous substances in Northern Ireland at the present time.

The regulations will be made by Statutory Instrument subject to negative Resolution procedure. They will be very largely technical in character. I think that this procedure will commend itself to the House as giving the necessary measure of Parliamentary control over regulations of this kind. The remaining Clauses provide the necessary machinery and provisions for enforcement, penalties, and so on.

I think the Bill is generally accepted as a useful and necessary Measure. It has been prepared in general agreement with representatives of farmers, farm workers and agricultural contractors who will be particularly affected by the regulations, and also of the insecticide manufacturers who are naturally also concerned with these matters. This is a small Bill, but I think it is an important one. I hope it will commend itself to the House and that it will have a unanimous Second Reading and a quick passage into law.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)

We thank the Minister for his lucidity in introducing the Bill, and particularly for his statement on Professor Zuckerman's report and the further action which he proposes to take. This Bill is the result of the working party which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to report upon the application of the Gowers Report on agriculture. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend were here he would express his thanks for the work of the Zuckerman Committee. They examined this matter carefully, and upon their Report this legislation is now being based.

I want to say, in passing, that I wish the other Ministers of the Government would act with equal celerity on some of the other recommendations contained in the Gowers Report, particularly as they apply to my own industry, which happens to be railways. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to pass that remark on to his colleagues who are responsible for that industry.

The trade unions catering for the agricultural industry undoubtedly desire the passage of this Bill. They have pressed for it for a long time, they recognise its importance, and I am sure they will welcome its passage even at this late stage of the Session. It protects employees against the negligence of employers and, equally important, protects the employees against the consequences of their own possible neglect. We welcome the Bill as a further stage in the protective legislation which has been passed by Parliament over the last 100 years.

The brevity of my speech must not be construed as indifference to this Bill. Indeed, we are so anxious to see it on the Statute Book that we shall facilitate its passage in every way, even although the Government have decided to introduce it and to ask for its Second Reading eight days before the end of this Session.

7.31 p.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan (Perth and East Perthshire)

I do not in any way wish to oppose the passage of this Bill, but in connection with it I want to make one or two remarks. We should not be doing our duty as a Legislature if we did not add this Bill to the list of Acts which have been passed in years gone by to protect workers in all industries. The distribution of poisons on the land is a recent practice. We can all recall the tragic case which occurred not long ago, where one or two men died as a result of distributing these poisons on the land. We wish to avoid a repetition of that at all costs and I am glad that time has been found, even at this late stage of the Session, for legislation which seeks to avoid such tragedies.

Having said that, let me go on to say that in this little Bill of a few pages and few Clauses is contained the most perfect and abject confession of the failure of man to use the fruits of the earth as he should. The fact that we have to squirt poisons about the countryside is not an evidence of advancing civilisation but of a return to the darkest ages. The fact that we have to squirt poisons on a growing plant means that we have neglected the soil in which that plant grows. The reason for this Bill is the complete stupidity of man in dealing with the soil, which is the very basis of his life.

All over the countryside today we have ever more plentiful crops. We take credit for that, but increasingly we have to take chemical action either to make those crops grow or to prevent them from being destroyed by pests. It is no use scientists or doctors trying to tell me or any other person with common sense that if we squirt poisons on the leaves of a plant they do not get down to the roots, especially if those roots happen to be potatoes. I am convinced that a large number of the new and growing illnesses which we have to meet not only in this country but all over the world today are largely due to the increasing use of poisons in the growing of food and in its protection when it has been grown.

I feel sure that this Bill would never have been necessary if we had been a really civilised nation—not that we are any more to blame than any other country—but mankind is playing the fool with what he depends on most, which is the soil. The fact that we need this Bill is the greatest indictment of so-called civilisation which we could possibly have. While I hope that we shall pass this Bill quickly because in the circumstances it is necessary, at the same time I hope we shall remember what caused those circumstances and, before it is too late, take steps to prevent their recurrence.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd (Newbury)

I, too, wish to support this Bill, because it is desirable and necessary that those who have to work with these highly toxic sprays should be required to take the necessary precautions to safeguard their health. I cannot go all the way with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) in his "back to nature" call in farming. After all, if we were to let nature have full scope in the way of locusts, aphides, and so on, we should not be growing anything like the crops that we succeed in growing and which we desperately need today. We have to use science to control some of the enemies of man when they take his crops, otherwise we should be a still more hungry world than we are.

What concerns me is that this Bill does not go nearly far enough. We are taking action to safeguard the health of those men employed by contractors and farmers who are using two types of spray—the dinitro compounds and the organo-phosphorus compounds. Both of them are recognised as deadly poisons if they are used consistently, that is to say, if a man is in contact with them day after day. What we are not doing under this Bill—and I am not happy about the omission—is to prevent the use of these two groups of sprays until such time as the scientists can offer us alternative and equally effective methods of dealing with weeds and insects.

After all, we grew perfectly good crops of Brussels sprouts before we ever heard of the organo-phosphorus compounds now used to kill the aphides which prey on that crop. Similarly, we grew very good arable crops without using dinitro weed killers. When one receives reports, such as I have had within the last fortnight, showing the effect of these particular sprays on wild life, it makes one feel that we are not going far enough in this Bill.

In my hand I hold an account of the death roll on one field of Brussels sprouts of 46½ acres. Within a day or two of the spraying of that crop with one of the organo-phosphorus insecticides there was a death roll of 175 animals. It is a horrible record. Included in it were 19 partridges, 10 pheasants, 129 wild birds such as blackbirds, finches and tits, and seven rabbits, two hares, two rats, four mice, one grey squirrel, one stoat, making a total of 175 dead animals picked up in this one field of Brussels sprouts. I have no doubt that if a search had been made, of the hedgerows there further casualties would have been discovered.

There is another consideration. We are using these sprays under conditions which are not controlled. The other day a train companion told me of his experience in Norfolk. Walking through a woodland plantation, he found a strip completely dead right across the middle. He could not make out what had happened. It looked like poisonous spray defect, but it could not be drift. What had happened? He thought it out and confirmed that what had happened was that a helicopter using this poisonous spray had emptied its tank over this woodland on the way back to the depot.

That is a terrifying prospect. Supposing it had happened to empty its tank over a party of children coming out of school. As I see it, we cannot afford to use these highly efficient but desperately toxic sprays unless we have a much closer control over their use. I would like to see the Minister insist that the scientists who work with the Agricultural Research Council press ahead as fast as possible with their search for alternatives to these very toxic groups of sprays, the dinitro and the organo-phosphorus. Until such time as the scientists cannot offer us alternatives I would feel much happier if we prohibited the use of these two types of spray.

It does not amount to a great deal. I am told that they amount to only about 10 per cent. of all the weed spraying and insecticide spraying which is done. If it is only that small proportion it will not have any harmful effect on agriculture to be denied the use of these two groups of spray for a few years longer. I ask the Minister to consider this problem very carefully and to take action before we have a terrible fatality which will force the Minister of the day to take action.

Having expressed this view, I give this Bill my blessing. It certainly does a very desirable thing in protecting the men actually working with the sprays. That is all to the good, but there are wider considerations to be taken into account.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison (Salisbury)

I wish to support this Bill and I welcome it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on producing it before the end of the Session. I am sure it will be welcomed by all those who are working in agriculture and will be of great help to them.

I would express the hope that those men working with sprays will take particular care regarding protective clothing and of their arms. Whenever I watch someone spraying down wind I am always alarmed at the amount of the spray which might go into his eyes. Very often he does not make full use of any form of protection for the eyes.

I cannot support in full what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I think we must march with science in agriculture, though I am a great believer in the old-fashioned farmyard muck.

I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) about the future investigation of these poisonous sprays. Only this afternoon I attended a meeting of the British Field Sports Society, with which, as the Minister knows, I am connected. It was representative of various bodies who look after wild life and in particular birds of all sorts. It was unanimously agreed that the Minister should be asked to investigate further poisonous sprays in order that the wild life of the countryside should not be damaged. At the same time, it was appreciated that no longer in any way must he impede the march of agricultural progress.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Would not my hon. Friend agree that far more importance than looking for alternative poisons is the need to investigate the reasons why poisons have to be used at all—to go to the root of the trouble rather than to palliatives afterwards?

Mr. Morrison

I was about to go to the root of the trouble in this way. At the end of the winter before last a number of cattle on my farm died through lack of magnesium. It may well be that the root of the trouble lies there, because if the poisonous sprays kill all of what used to be called weeds, which have the longer tap-roots, we shall not be getting those plants which should be bringing up some of the elements which form an essential part of the animal food. I believe there is considerable scope for further research in order to make sure that we are not killing some of the longer tap-rooted plants which are vital, though in limited quantities, to the welfare of stock.

I do not intend to delay the House longer except to welcome the Bill once more. I hope the Minister will be able to investigate further the question of applying sprays on the land as a whole and especially those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury.

7.47 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale

With the leave of the House, I would say that I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their speeches, because I am particularly interested in all these problems and it is a good thing that there should be on the record examples of what is taking place.

To my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) I would say that it is estimated that over 2½ million acres were sprayed with weed killers this year and over 90 per cent. of the acreage sprayed was dealt with by hormone weed killers, which are not Very poisonous. The Bill deals with those who are employees in agriculture and under Clause 1 (3, a) there is power if necessary to put a general prevention on the use of any weed killer if it is thought desirable.

Mr. Hurd

Would my right hon. Friend say a word about the work which we hope the Agricultural Research Council is undertaking to find alternatives?

Sir T. Dugdale

I did mention that in my speech. They are working very closely now in trying to find an alternative to this very dangerous weed killer. If they can find an equally effective weed killer without the danger, then not only the workers but the animal and plant life will be protected.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Committee Tomorrow.