HC Deb 27 October 1952 vol 505 cc1678-85

8.52 p.m.

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

I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to insert: (j) requiring persons to undergo medical examination prior to exposing themselves to contact with a substance and requiring workers to undergo regular periodic examination to ensure that dangerous quantities of toxic substance have not accumulated in their bodies. This Amendment is concerned with two simple points. First, that there should be a medical examination before men should be called upon to carry out the class of work mentioned in the Bill, and second, that provision should be made for periodic examination. We believe that specific mention should be made of these two points in the Bill, in order that the regulations which may be issued cover fully the matters about which we are concerned.

On the first point, that of examination for fitness before undertaking this work, this is a matter upon which we place some importance. I make no pretence of having any medical knowledge at all, but it does appear to me that some men will have a greater susceptibility to the class of poisons that will be used and are being used in agriculture than will other men.

We know that there are two ways in which, particularly, people get an accumulation of these poisons into their bodies. One is by inhalation and the other by absorption through the skin, and we have wondered whether men who were gassed in the war or men suffering from chest complaints of any kind, or others suffering from pneumoconiosis or silicosis, might not have a greater susceptibility to the inhalation of these poisons than men who are not so affected.

The second point concerns absorption through the skin, and it would seem to me, at any rate, to be the case that men suffering from certain skin diseases might be very much more susceptible to these poisons by absorption through the skin than is the case with persons whose skin is perfectly healthy. If this is the case, if there are indeed men whose skin conditions are such that they ought not to be made subject to close contact with these sprays, then that fact should be found out before they actually begin work. That is why we suggest in this Amendment that all men who have to use these sprays should be carefully medically examined before they are allowed to work either for a contractor or a farmer, in the use of the poisonous sprays mentioned in the Bill.

This leads me to the second point, which is that here we are asking that provisions should be made in the Bill for regular periodic medical examinations. We want the Minister to be rather more specific about it than he is in paragraph (f) of subsection (3), under which he might, in fact, make regulations. I think, however, that we ought to be a little more specific than is the Minister in that subsection.

Representations on this point particularly were made to the Zuckerman Committee. They have reported upon it, but the representations, which I imagine came particularly from the trade unions concerned, were to the effect that medical supervision should include routine medical examinations at weekly intervals with the suspension of workers who show any trace of early toxic symptoms, and also expert supervision of first-aid and prophylactic measures.

There is undoubtedly a case to be made that the greatest danger lies in an accumulation of these poisons over a period. They have a cumulative effect, and for that reason we think there should be these regular periodic examinations made of the workers concerned and that a provision to this end should be contained in the Bill itself so that when this Measure becomes an Act the Minister will make regulations under this head to cover the point.

We ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, which is designed to add to the safeguards which we recognise already appear in the Bill in its present form. It is, of course, a Bill which we welcomed on Second Reading, but we think that by accepting this Amendment the Minister will improve the Bill and will add to those safeguards which we all want to afford to the men who have to come into contact with these poisonous sprays.

Mr. Denys Bullard (Norfolk, South-West)

I wish to say a word about this Amendment from the farmer's point of view. I can readily see the force and importance of regular medical examination of men who are employed by contractors and who are doing this type of work for a considerable period, but I think we ought to have a sense of balance on the question. I quite admit that these are highly dangerous chemicals. However, I am one of those who believe that they are of extreme use in agriculture and that we ought to be very sure that we are not imposing an unnecessary damper upon their use.

These chemicals, which in the one case are used against the aphides, which in their turn are carriers of the virus diseases from which plants suffer; and, in the other, the D.N compounds, which are so useful in weed control not only D.N.O.C., but the ones used for controlling weeds in pea crops, are extremely useful in agriculture. I am wondering how far what this Amendment proposes could be carried out, and if it would be desirable.

I will give one specific instance. I have used these organo-phosphoric compounds against aphides on strawberries where they are the cause of virus diseases which are the strawberry grower's main trouble. The quantities used are very small indeed, probably only a matter of a few pounds or perhaps less of the compound per acre per year.

9.0 p.m.

It is going rather far to ask for the regular medical examination of every man who may handle these compounds in that kind of way on the farm. I believe that in those circumstances the risk is very small indeed, and that to impose this examination might act as a complete deterrent on the proper use of these chemicals. I believe in exercising every precaution. I am sure that measures provided for in this Bill, concerned with washing facilities, protective clothing, first aid, and so on are all desirable and necessary, but under farming conditions I believe that to adopt this Amendment would be to carry matters farther than in fact we need to do.

Mr. Percy Wells (Faversham)

I want to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). In doing so, I should like to say how certain I am that the provisions of this Bill will be welcomed by the men whom it is sought to benefit.

It has been felt for some time that while there are considerable safeguards for those men who are engaged in the productive processes, there has been lack of security and protection for the farm-workers who are obliged to apply these poisonous sprays, often in conditions of danger and certainly in conditions of much risk. We all know that lives have been lost in these circumstances. Much publicity has been and is given to those cases where the illness ends fatally, but very little is heard of the numerous cases where men suffer from dermatitis, chest troubles and other illnesses as a result of applying these poisonous substances in fields, orchards and glass-houses.

Admittedly there have been a number of instances where many of these illnesses would have been prevented if the elementary precautions contained in this Bill and the additional precautions we seek to introduce in the Amendment had been observed by the employer or the worker. Few of the regulations safeguarding workers in factories are applicable to agriculture. That has been a bone of contention in the agricultural industry for many years.

This Bill therefore is looked upon by the workers and their trade unions as of considerable importance. It is important, therefore, that we do everything possible to ensure that the Bill adequately performs the protective function which it is intended to carry out. It may be argued, and in fact it has been argued to some extent already, that in view of Clause 1 (3, f) this Amendment is unnecessary, but we do not think so. We feel very sincerely that this is a very useful addition and safeguard which we seek to introduce and that much can be said for it.

It is true, and I agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard), that it will throw some additional responsibility upon the employer and upon the worker. But this is no frivolous interference with people who want to do what they like with their own. It is a question at the most of saving life, and at the least of preventing illnesses and incapacity. For those reasons I feel sure that those engaged in the industry, both employed and employer, will accept these additional responsibilities readily. For the same reasons I fel certain that the Minister and the Committee will accept the additions which, by this Amendment, we seek to insert in the Bill.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

I share the concern that the hon Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) and others have expressed with regard to the use of these poisonous substances. I also agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) that these substances are of very great value in both weed and pest control in agriculture; and therefore we have to have a proper balance: I can, however, immediately assure the Committee that the Bill as now drafted does, in fact, cover the point of the Amendment.

Clause 1 (3) (e) and (f) gives my right hon. Friend the specific powers for which the hon. Gentleman is asking in his Amendment. That is to say, if my right hon. Friend thinks it desirable to make a regulation in terms such as this or similar, he can do so. The Committee will be interested to hear the position with regard to making regulations. This year a voluntary scheme has been operated by our Department, and during the season we have had observers out in the field in order to see how it operates in practice.

As has been rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, it is not so easy in agriculture to see how these things will work out on the farm; but this year, we have seen how the scheme works in practice, and the voluntary scheme will be the basis for the first set of regulations.

At this point my right hon. Friend is considering exactly what shall be in the first regulations which will come before the House in due course, and it seems probable that the evidence that we have is not sufficient to show the need for introducing a medical examination Clause of the kind suggested. It is a matter of proceeding step by step to see exactly what are the best regulations to introduce. It is quite a serious matter to require periodical medical examinations in advance. All employees might not wish to undergo such an examination.

In any event, the scheme would provide that the responsiblity should be on the employer who should not engage men in this work unless they have satisfied certain conditions which would include a medical examination. Therefore, we want to be quite sure that it really is necessary and, in fact, an essential part of the precautions in addition to all the others before we actually introduce such a regulation.

I can give the Committee the specific assurance that the powers are here in the Bill, and if and when my right hon. Friend thinks it is desirable and necessary he will introduce regulations of the kind suggested. I hope, with that assurance, that the hon. Member may be willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Champion

I am sure the Committee will be grateful for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's assurances on this extremely important point. As I understand, he has made it quite clear that there will be careful consultation with trade unions on this and all the other points before the Minister issues his regulations, in which case it will be possible for our trade union friends to go into this matter very carefully before we get the regulations put to us.

I must say to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) that we must not overlook the dangers involved, and it certainly is the case that a very slight exposure can cause the symptoms of poisoning to appear. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Ministerial colleagues will take these points into consideration. Having regard to the undertaking given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Champion

I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out subsection (5).

This Amendment is intended to be exploratory and to have an interrogatory note. We are certainly not condemnatory. We merely seek some information as to what this Clause actually means. We are told that this Bill deals with highly dangerous materials which could quite easily—and which have in the past—led to the death of men who use them. Then we are told in subsection (5) that inspectors can have the power to exempt from Regulations which might be or will be made by the Minister under the Bill when it becomes an Act. I cannot understand why that should be the case. I feel sure that the Committee are entitled to some explanation before they part with this subsection.

Mr. Nugent

I am able to give the hon. Member the explanation that he requires. This provision for exemption is inserted in roughly the same form as is to be found in the Factories Act of 1948. It was found desirable to give the necessary elasticity, even in the Factories Act, for new developments which might be outside the existing scheme of Regulations

In this Bill where we are very much in an exploratory stage in discovering exactly what will be the most effective means of protecting employees, it is desirable that an inspector should have discretion so that when some new device, of whatever kind it may be—a respirator or other protection—is introduced, an inspector can use his discretion to allow the use of that particular thing even though it does not come within the terms of the Regulation. It is for that reason only that this exemption is put in.

I should add that the draft Regulation has been circulated to the interested bodies both of employers and employees, so that they are being fully consulted on every step that we are taking in the matter. I can assure the Committee that we are concerned to carry their confidence both in the practicability and in the protection that the measures give.

Mr. Champion

In view of that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.