New Clause 2

HC Deb 10 June 1985 vol 80 cc690-7

CODES OF PRACTICE

1. '(1) The Ministers may from time to time after consultation with such persons or bodies as seem to them representative of the interests concerned—
2. (a).prepare and issue codes of practice for the purpose of providing practical guidance in respect of any provision of this Part of this Act or of regulations; and
3. (b) revise any such code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions of the code.
4. (2) A code prepared in pursuance of this section and any alterations proposed to be made on a revision of such a code shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the Ministers shall not issue the code or revised code, as the case may be, until after the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the code or the proposed alterations were so laid.
5. (3) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (2) above, either House resolves that the code be not issued, or the proposed alterations be not made, as the case may be, the Ministers shall not issue the code or revised code (without prejudice to their powers under that subsection to lay further codes or proposed alterations before Parliament).
6. (4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—
7. (a) where a code or proposed alterations are laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the later day shall be taken to be the day on which the code or the proposed alterations, as the case may be, were laid before both Houses; and
8. (b) in reckoning any period of 40 days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
9. (5) The Ministers shall cause any code issued or revised under this section to be printed and distributed, and may make such arrangements as they think fit for its distribution, including causing copies of it to be put on sale to the public at such reasonable price as the Ministers may determine.
10. (6) A failure on the part of any person to follow any guidance contained in a code issued under this section shall not of itself render that person liable to proceedings of any kind.
11. (7) In all criminal proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, it shall be taken into account in determining that question.'.—[Mr. John.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.15 pm

Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 51.

Mr. John

Normally it is with tongue in cheek that we speak about improving a Bill in Committee because we do our damnedest either to get our point of view accepted or to wreck the principle. The new clause is an example of the way in which we have succeeded in clarifying our minds about the contents of the Bill. The addition of the clause will improve the Bill.

The clause provides the codes of practice with a statutory base. The Government's proposal was that the codes of conduct should not necessarily be given statutory force, but in Committee and again tonight our view is that the codes of practice should be given statutory force. I hope that this proposal will be supported by the Government. Having got the principle right, I messed up the consequentials and the Government have kindly tabled a number of consequential amendments which put the matter right.

The Bill provides a statutory basis and allows the House to pray against codes of practice which may be deemed to be harmful. There is procedure for dealing with such a prayer. Subsection (5) deals with the distribution of the codes of practice to those who use or who are likely to use them. I shall deal with that point later.

It is important that these codes of practice should be made known to those branches of industry which are likely to use them. I hope that the Government will announce the steps that they will take to ensure that the codes of practice are widely disseminated. They ought to be made available either free or at a nominal cost to farmers and to others who may be expected to use them in order that they may be widely known and observed. That is the object of providing codes of conduct of this kind.

Nobody disputes that pesticides are highly toxic chemicals. They have to be used, but they must be used properly because of their toxicity. We must weigh both the benefits to be derived from them and the risks involved in using them. The benefits are obvious. They have led to increased food production and to a reasonably uninfected environment. Nevertheless, we must weigh up the risks both to the users of the pesticides and also to those who live in the vicinity — the people who may be either directly or indirectly affected by the vaporisation of the pesticides.

Pesticide residues can affect the consumer if harvest intervals are not observed or if the pesticide residues that are to be found in the food chain are too high and therefore dangerous to the consumer. We must also consider the effect upon wildlife and the environment of the use of pesticides and their allied products because of the damage which in the past has unwittingly and innocently been caused by all of us. We do not wish to inflict further damage in the future.

On the effect of organochlorines, I read in the newspapers last week that some people allege that certain of the DDT derivatives are still being used in this country. One wonders how the people who use them can be so heedless of their health and about the damage that they are causing to the environment. Wildlife has been endangered by the use of pesticides. We have to guard against a number of dangers in the codes of practice.

We pride ourselves upon the fact that we are now fairly conversant with the dangers of pesticides but we are not yet aware of all the dangers, certainly not of the long-term dangers. Some of the risks are not yet known and will probably not be known for decades to come. Therefore we should always err on the side of safety and consider not how narrow but how wide is the use of pesticides or pesticide-like substances. They are used not only for the production of food but for the storage of food.

Pesticides will probably be used for the storage of food for a very long time. I understand that last week a committee dealt with irradiation and expressed fears about it. Pesticides and herbicides are used in ever-increasing quantities in our houses and gardens. In percentage terms, this is probably a major growth industry. Pesticides and herbicides are excellent when they are used according to the regulations. It is vital that they should be stored and used properly because they can be lethal to pets and children.

Most members of the public do not appreciate that pesticides and herbicides are used by local authorities in public parks and on roadside verges. It is important for those who use herbicides in parks, and for those who use those recreational areas, that such substances should be used properly and that there should be a code of practice, which is observed, thus ensuring some safety.

Domestic pests and timber control is one of the most neglected aspects. Indeed, it was neglected during the debate in the other place, and the situation was remedied only in Committee, when there was a thorough discussion of the issue. Given the confined spaces involved and the highly toxic substances used in pest control and timber treatment in the home, it is highly desirable that there should be a code of practice. Furthermore, I believe that codes of practice should be sent to those involved. However, to ensure proper observation we need a fairly stable timber treatment industry so that the means of control and treatment do not vary dramatically from year to year.

In Committee, I produced statistics showing that, according to the Yellow Pages, firms were going in and out of existence with alarming frequency. Such short-lived organisations must involve a cowboy element, and thus are not the experts that they hold themselves out to be. Consequently, it is important that some safeguards should be provided through a code of practice. The registration of such organisations should also be considered where they contract out and hold themselves out as being experts.

Industrial pest control in factories, hospitals, res-taurants and so on is a highly sensitive matter for the many people who work in them. In Committee we had a long discussion—it seemed long, but perhaps it was just a short interchange — about whether compulsion and persuasion were mutually exclusive. As hon. Members will see from the new clause, failure to follow any guidance is not made a criminal offence. However, any such code of practice will be admissible in evidence during any future prosecution. That strikes a balance. We all hope that the codes of practice will persuade people to pursue decent practices both indoors and outdoors for their safety and that of others. However, if they do not do so, there should be some sanction to prevent them from carrying on.

The problems are different in the various areas that I have already outlined. For example, different problems arise in respect of parks, the treatment of timber in domestic houses and industrial pest control. Consequently, there should be a separate code of practice dealing with each major sector so that, to quote the Secretary of State for Social Services, we can have codes of practice that are targeted on the particular evil that we want to avoid and on the areas that we want to govern. In particular, I hope that aerial spraying will be dealt with in that way. Despite all the debates and assurances, I am still unhappy about the interest of the Civil Aviation Authority in the aerial spraying debate. I should be ruled out of order if I dwelt on that now, but I should like to record my general unhappiness, and my belief that a code of practice on aerial spraying would have a definite effect.

But the main code of practice should deal with the training of those using pesticides. The 1976 ADAS report has been quoted, and it showed that 40 per cent. of those using pesticides on farms had received some training. The conclusion was that 60 per cent. had received none. The British Agrochemicals Association talked about the mismatch of a high technology means of application and the largely unskilled operators of such highly technical, increasingly complex machinery. We know that the agricultural training board has the means and courses to offer to such people, but they are very much under-subscribed. The reason may be a matter for debate, but the fact that they are under-subscribed is undeniable and is a cause for concern to us all.

As agriculture is an industry whose machinery is becoming ever more complex, people should be trained in its use and application both for their protection and to ensure the proper application of pesticides. Therefore, some form of certification might be considered. The training of employees in wood preservation is also essential, because some of the substances used are particularly toxic. However, that is only likely to happen in a stable industry and that, in turn, depends on registration.

Enforcement is perhaps the one matter that is not dealt with in the new clause and that may be the subject of criticism. I deliberately did not include it because it is a matter of fact rather than of legislative provision. But in the past three years the farm inspectorate's establishment is reported to have fallen from 179 to 151. Even with the 12 people allocated to the inspectorate for the purposes of the Bill, there will still be fewer inspectors dealing with agriculture than three years ago. Moreover, they will be dealing with a far wider range of issues because of the legislative burden that the Bill imposes on them.

There was a difference of opinion as to whether the farm inspector would interrupt someone's breakfast every fortnight or every five or six years. It was rare for us to disagree in Committee, but when we did so, we did not do so by halves. There was a considerable difference in the estimates as to how often the inspector would make a routine visit. However, I stick by my estimate that the visit is likely to be every five or six years. If that is so, the enforcement that is necessary as a backup to persuasion is not likely to be very effective. Perhaps I am ending on a rather negative note —

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)

If inspections took place more regularly, perhaps every two to three years, how many people would have to be employed?

Mr. John

More. Obviously, I cannot give a precise answer, but we are placing more duties on fewer people and, therefore, we must be over-stretching them. I hope that hon. Members will be conscious of that fact. Indeed, that is why the codes of practice are important and should be statutory. Much enforcement could be avoided if we could get an acceptance within all branches of the industry that codes of practice should be followed in their own interests, and those of others.

We would then not need to be so worried about enforcement, but that will depend on what the Government do to disseminate the information and to make it relatively cheap. Expensive booklets tend to be remaindered and I do not know of a remainder bookstore run by ADAS.

To avoid ending on a negative note, I should say that a statutory system, with properly enforced and regulated codes of practice, could be of immense benefit in dealing with highly toxic substances. I believe that the new clause will bring great benefits and I thank the Government for their assistance in the matter. We have been at one on the principle and I hope that the House will ensure that we are also at one in practice.

7.30 pm

Miss Joan Maynard (Sheffield, Brightside)

I welcome the new clause and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that it is important that there should be adequate enforcement of the codes of practice. That will require an adequate number of inspectors which will obviously cost more, but when people's health is at stake, we should not be deterred by costs. Because of the great dangers of pesticides and the new methods of farming, we need rigorous control over these dangerous, toxic substances. I think first of those who work in agriculture, forestry and horticulture, but consumers and wildlife are also affected. This is a matter of tremendous importance.

The vast majority of pesticide users are the workers in the industry and there is no statutory provision for paid time off work for training. Because of the dangers of many of the toxic substances, employees should be properly trained in their use and should be given paid time off work to receive that training. There should be statutory provision for such time off for all employees required to use or handle the pesticides. There should be no difficulty about that, because the training could be done through the agricultural training colleges, the industry's training board, the national proficiency test council, the TUC or the appropriate trade union. However, the training should not be organised by the pesticide manufacturers who have a vested interest in the matter.

Proper training is missing from new clause 2.1 am glad that the new clause has been tabled, but I feel strongly that workers should be given proper training before using dangerous toxic substances.

Mr. John Carlisle

The hon. Lady suggested, perhaps inadvertently, that training should not be given by manufacturers. However, manufacturers already do a tremendous amount of training and are very concerned about the training of operators. I would not want the House to get the impression that that valuable work in research and development and in the training of operators has not been recognised.

Miss Maynard

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate my nervousness about training by manufac-turers. He cannot deny that they have a vested interest in the sale of chemicals and I should be happier if the training were organised through the agricultural training board or the agricultural institutes. They are more likely to give adequate and proper training.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)

On behalf of the alliance parties, I welcome the Government's agreement to include new clauses 1 and 2 in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who served on the Committee, has asked me to say how glad he is that the Government have made so many amendments to the Bill. He thought that the Committee was one of the most constructive on which he had ever served.

I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that codes of practice are necessary. The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that they would be fairly cheap, if not free. I have with me a guide to the Poisonous Substances in Agriculture Regulations 1984, which retails at £4.20. I hope that the codes of practice will be cheaper.

No doubt the guide should be read carefully by farmers throughout the country, but I doubt whether many will read all 50-odd pages and whether many copies of the guide will be found on our farms. Section IV of the guide includes the only recommendation about the protection of the public in the use of poisonous substances. It says: Do not spray in unsuitable conditions because of the danger of spray drift, or in hot still weather, as unpredictable vapour drift may occur. It says that the safest condition may be checked with a simple anemometer. I have been on many farms in my constituency and elsewhere and have seen much equipment lying in corners, but I have yet to see even one anemometer. I suspect that there are few in Britain. The guide explains how the safest condition may be checked without an anemometer and adds: Advance warning will allow neighbouring farmers and bee-keepers to protect livestock and honey-bees. Warning occupiers of adjacent domestic premises will also allow them, their children, pets and personal items which may become soiled or contaminated, to be safeguarded. That is all good stuff and it would, indeed, be nice to warn neighbours, but there is no obligation to do so. However, the provision of such information in a simpler, more readily available form would be a welcome addition to the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner)

I am happy to accept the new clause, which was drafted by parliamentary counsel in response to an initiative of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in Committee. I believe that it will be a useful addition to the Bill and will result in greater parliamentary participation in the regulation of pesticides.

The content of the proposed new codes will depend on the outcome of negotiations later this year on the implementation of part III. Obviously, we shall draw to some extent on existing codes issued by my Ministry and on those already operated voluntarily by the industry.

We shall have to ensure that the new codes do not overlap other statutory codes issued under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. We shall be glad of the participation of hon. Members in the process of approval. The Ministry will discuss distribution with all interested parties so that they get to everybody who needs them. The hon. Gentleman asked that the codes be made available free or at a nominal cost. I cannot guarantee charges at this stage, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Highway Code is priced modestly.

Several hon. Members have aired their anxiety about training. We have made real progress on training and certification. Hon. Members have expressed their conviction that people who use pesticides should be trained appropriately. The hon. Member for Pontypridd said: There is a general principle that it is desirable that people using a toxic substance such as a pesticide should be trained in its use.—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 23 April 1985; c. 267.]

We have accepted the point and stressed that the Bill has an important part to play in achieving the result — in general terms by introducing the requirement to act safely when applying pesticides and, more particularly, through our stated intention that those who apply pesticides commercially as their main business must demonstrate the appropriate level of skill training and supervision of those who apply the products. Health and safety at work legislation already has a major impact in terms of human safety.

The House has also accepted that it is reasonable to draw distinctions between those who apply pesticides as their main business and those, particularly farm workers, whose use of these products may be only occasional. I should stress that under this legislation the pressure will be on the farmer as well as on the professional operator.

It is likely that the codes of practice will advise on the appropriate level of skill to suit different circumstances, and the farmer as employer or operator will be wise to take account of this advice. As we said in Committee, there are several sources of training—the ATB, the chemical and machinery manufacturers and the local education authorities—but we will be discussing with the ATB in the first instance the practical problems in a programme to extend training to all those who need it.

Certification is the other side of the same coin in many ways, but there is one aspect which may worry hon. Members — the future of BASIS. Hon. Members reminded the Committee of the good work done by BASIS and that the manufacturers' and the merchant organisa-tions felt strongly that BASIS should continue. We did not really need reminding: we were already keen to create conditions in which BASIS could continue to operate, which was why we came forward with the idea of the requirement for distributors to show proof that their premises are up to standard and that their staff are appropriately trained and supervised. We still believe that that is the right approach. I am pleased to learn that BASIS is responding to this possibility by giving itself a stronger base through direct elections of its board members and by preparing to alter its character to that of a certification scheme designed to furnish proof of achieving standards on the lines that we have it in mind to require. These are important changes and will, I believe, leave BASIS well equipped to serve the industry under the statutory scheme.

7.45 pm

Mr. John Carlisle

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said about BASIS, and the industry too, will be grateful. In view of my hon. Friend's strong support for BASIS, will she tell those members of it who might be considering withdrawing from the scheme because of the Bill that they should remain in it and try to strengthen it by their own membership?

Mrs. Fenner

I hope that what I have said will give them just the conviction that they need. The Bill will put responsibility for achieving specified standards on the industry. It is for the industry to respond as it thinks best. There might be different ways of achieving the same thing, but all will require some organisation. That is why we welcome the signs that the industry is preparing to organise itself and why we shall co-operate in the process.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned the number of inspectors. I shall not challenge the figures that he gave, but merely say that the Bill increases the numbers in response to what the Health and Safety Executive said it needs to carry out these statutory duties. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. John

I thank the hon. Lady for her positive reaction. She has made it clear that we are in the business of motor car manufacture. We have made the machinery — the Bill — which is good. The rest depends on the quality of the driver, the regulations and the code of practice.

I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising that Members of Parliament should be involved. We have shown a deep and abiding interest in the Bill's future and could help the Government in their deliberations. The problem about BASIS is one that I mentioned in connection with wood treatment. The danger is that, when statutory provision is made, the relevant voluntary body starts to fall apart. BASIS depends on high membership.

I agree that the agricultural training board is by far the best body to give farm workers necessary advice and training, but BASIS has provided an excellent scheme for some suppliers and merchants, and it should be continued. I should hate to think that we were doing anything to undermine it. I hope that the Government will continue to consider how to strengthen BASIS and how to avoid the possibility of its being undermined.

We moved some amendments to give BASIS statutory recognition because of this very fear. It will be up to the Government to show that a voluntary body can exist under a statutory framework. I also commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.