§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lait.]
10.28 pm§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)I am delighted to note that a Minister from the Department of Health is to reply to the debate. That shows a recognition that there are wider implications for public health generally, rather than just for specific groups of occupations, from organophosphate compounds. I hope that during his preparation for his speech, the Minister managed to see tonight's BBC programme which revealed a close causal connection between OPs and chronic fatigue syndrome—what used to be called ME—as a result of the work of Professor Peter Behan.
The potential danger to human health of exposure to OPs was first identified 45 years ago by the Zuckerman committee. That is scarcely surprising, because these potentially lethal chemicals were originally developed by the Nazis as part of their nerve gas programme. Since then, increasing evidence of the damage to the individual's nervous system, together with some specific research studies, have led to ever more stringent official guidance on the use and misuse of OPs. Tonight's short debate offers an opportunity for the Government—all the Departments involved—to set out their current policies.
I first became concerned some six years ago, when I met a number of sheep farmers and farm workers from the south-west whose lives and livelihoods had been simply ruined by continuing ill health after dipping their sheep. Since they had been virtually forced to use OP dips, while the Government were still making that treatment for scab compulsory twice a year, the responsibility clearly lay with Whitehall.
On re-entering the House in 1992, I gathered together an informal all-party group to investigate the matter further, and we have maintained constant pressure on Ministers. I hope that there may be time this evening for one or two of my colleagues to contribute. I am glad to see here the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), all of whom have been with me throughout the campaign and have met Ministers with me.
Because of those origins, the series of questions that I wish to put to the Minister must necessarily start with the agricultural and horticultural use of OPs. First, a number of farm workers have now succeeded in obtaining industrial injury benefit for serious ill health caused by exposure to OP sheep dips. Is it not unjust that self-employed farmers with similar symptoms cannot obtain similar compensation?
Secondly, the increasing level of precaution and recommended protective clothing for OP sheep dipping, advanced by the Health and Safety Executive in the past 10 years and more, makes it clear that the previous advice was simply inadequate. Do the Government now accept the responsibility for that former failure?
Thirdly, the HSE guidance note, Medical Series 17, entitled "Biological monitoring of workers exposed to organophosphorous pesticides", which was originally prepared in 1980, revised in 1986, and then revised again in 1987, lists a wide range of symptoms, from simple nausea to major effects on the nervous system. The 760 revised version I have with me warns of complications when a victim undergoes simple operations and is subject to a common anaesthetic. Why was that advice not made available to all sheep farmers, their general practitioners, their consultants and all others concerned, as soon as it was available?
Fourthly, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces admitted to me earlier this month, contrary to his previous assurances, that hundreds of service personnel were exposed to OP pesticides during the Gulf war. That was three years after specific warnings were given in MS 17 by the HSE and by the responsible Ministries.
Why were those personnel needlessly contaminated with those extremely dangerous chemicals, and even told not to wear protective clothing in the Gulf because it might be damaged? Why did it take so long for Ministers to admit that mistake, and how quickly can the Government now establish whether OPs could have been the cause of widespread experience of Gulf war syndrome?
§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)Does the hon. Gentleman share my alarm that highly acclaimed research in 1977 by Korsak and Sato, which proved that brain damage was likely to occur when a person was exposed to those chemicals, was not heeded by the Government? That danger has been known since 1977 at the very least.
§ Mr. TylerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who instances yet another example of the availability of information on OPs, which is then not made available to the key people who should know about it.
I have a long list of additional questions from the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, on which I obviously cannot spend sufficient time this evening, but which I will hand to the Minister after the debate. I hope that we will receive some written responses to questions, if he is unable to comment on all the issues tonight.
Fifthly, which Department is responsible now in Whitehall for ensuring that everyone who may come into contact with OPs, or who may be called upon to treat the victims of OPs, is fully informed of their characteristic effects, the necessary precautions and remedial treatments? I hope that the Minister can assure us that it is his Department.
Sixthly, what steps are being taken to evaluate the risks to children who have been treated with organophosphate head lice preparations, including malathion, the chemical that was used as pesticide in the Gulf war? The Pesticide Trust has issued serious warnings in recent months about these products, describing malathion as
a cholinesterase inhibitor which has been found to disrupt the immune system.It states that children are especially susceptible to absorption through the skin, and that some individuals are more sensitive than others. What are Ministers doing to warn parents about those different options and the difference between an organophosphate treatment and other treatments that may be safer?Seventhly, some organophosphate compounds, even the very dangerous diazanon, are now used extensively to control fleas and other parasites on cats and dogs. I understand that vets are concerned that warnings are 761 inadequate and labels insufficient, and that protective clothing and the dangers of inhalation are not specified. While the amounts used may be small, continuous use and the cumulative effect on especially sensitive pet owners, let alone on the pets, could be devastating. Why are Ministers apparently so relaxed about their use?
Finally, the European Union Commissioner for Agriculture has just acknowledged in response to representations by my Liberal Democrat colleague, the Member of the European Parliament for Somerset and Devon North, that there may be a connection between the impact of OPs on the central nervous system of cattle, their immune and enzyme systems, and therefore their susceptibility to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, because organophosphate warble fly treatment was used extensively in the 1980s. It is a remarkable coincidence that countries, especially the United Kingdom, which used organophosphates for that purpose during that period have had major BSE epidemics, while other countries have escaped. Will Ministers swallow their pride and re-examine that possibility in co-operation with the European Commission?
Dr. Tim Marrs, who is the principal adviser to the Department of Health on organophosphates, has met the members of my group a number of times. He has behind him all the expertise of Porton Down, and is reported to have made a remarkable admission to the joint meeting of the British Medical Association and the National Farmers Union on this subject at the beginning of October. Dr. Mans said that he now accepted that nerve damage was known to occur from low or medium-level repeated exposure to organophosphates, corresponding to those occurring during sheep dipping. That explicit statement seems to underline previous informal remarks by Dr. Marrs to farmers. Is that the advice that he is now giving to Ministers? If it is, why have we not been told, and will the Minister repeat that advice?
The new warning suggests that all the previous precautions and protective clothing were inadequate, and that concentration on large doses and acute symptoms is not enough. It also suggests that longer-term chronic illnesses may be the worst results of organophosphates. The House will wish to hear that the Government are prepared to adopt the precautionary principle. If we have to wait until the continuing research, some of which will not be available until 1999, proves conclusively that organophosphates are unsafe, we shall have to wait for a long time, and many victims will suffer unnecessarily. Instead, surely we should insist that these chemicals be withdrawn until it can be conclusively proved that they are safe.
§ Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton)I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing this most important debate, and I am grateful to him for giving me a few minutes in which to speak.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I became aware of the problem about six or seven years ago, when farmers in my constituency and in the neighbouring constituency of North Devon communicated to me and to the local media the severe effects which they believed, and certainly the south-west group of the NFU believed, were linked to the use of organophosphate dips.
762 It is fair to say that thousands of farmers throughout the United Kingdom have used organophosphate dips to treat their sheep without suffering adverse consequences. At the same time, whether in the south-west, Wales or elsewhere in the UK, dozens—probably more than dozens—of farmers and others have suffered severe or varying consequences through their use, they and others believe, of OP dips. Some are now unable to work. Others—they include personal friends in my constituency—are able to work capably and effectively most of the time, but if they get a whiff or a scent, that affects them, so there is a consequential effect after the initial OP dip infection.
Some years ago, an all-party group of hon. Members, who are present and who, I am happy to accept, were headed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, came together; we had a succession of meetings with successive Ministers with responsibility for agriculture, most recently with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Those have been most useful in exploring these matters.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, we have recently had tragic evidence of the consequences of the use of certain treatments during the Gulf war, which have produced what is known and now recognised as a medical condition: Gulf war syndrome. That is tragic, and it increases the evidence that there is a problem with these substances.
I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and to the House that the Department of Health has an important function, not only in dealing with the points that the hon. Member for North Cornwall has raised and in communicating to other sections of the Government machine the long-held view of the National Farmers Union in the south-west that OP dips should be banned, but in communicating to general practitioners that they should be aware of and recognise the symptoms of this disease. All too often—this happens with other diseases—GPs will say only, "You're just suffering from exhaustion, a bad day or depression," and dismiss it. I have taken farmers from my constituency to raise that matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I hear what the hon. Member for North Cornwall says about the recent role of his colleague the Liberal Member of the European Parliament for Somerset and Devon North in promoting with European institutions the claims of Somerset farmer Mr. Mark Purdey and others that there is a link between OP dips and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. I should be happy to hear a conclusive response from the Government on that, but, in the past six months, BSE and the various scientific speculations on it have caused so much havoc with the farming and rural communities in Britain that I caution the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his colleagues against stirring this up and widening the issue by linking the great OP dip problem with the BSE problem. That will not help our handling of the BSE issue.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Mr. Simon Burns)I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on having secured this important debate. As he said, he has raised some important issues, and, if I do not have time now, I 763 will ensure that he is written to as soon as possible with full answers to the questions that I am unable to deal with tonight.
I reassure hon. Members that the Government are determined to ensure, so far as is possible, that no pesticide or veterinary medicine should be approved or licensed for use if such use could be a risk to people's health. That applies both to farmers using pesticides and to people who eat the food that farmers produce.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall will no doubt also know, the Government take great care to ensure that a pesticide is safe before it is approved for use in the United Kingdom. All pesticides are thoroughly analysed and investigated, and approvals for use are granted only when—on an assessment of all available data by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, or, if appropriate, by the Veterinary Products Committee—they are considered to be safe. Furthermore, UK regulatory authorities can review the substances at any time.
Ministers in five Departments must approve pesticides before they can be marketed. That includes, under separate regulations, the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office. For veterinary drugs, the licensing authority is Health and Agriculture Ministers. Clearly, therefore, MAFF is only one of several Departments regulating the substances—an arrangement that is designed to ensure that human health and environmental considerations all play a full role in the process.
The Government and the Veterinary Products Committee are constrained, by section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968, not to divulge information that is commercially sensitive. However, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall will know, the workings of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the VPC are fully transparent. In addition to its annual report, the VMD publishes a quarterly bulletin of its work, and a press release is issued after every meeting of the VPC.
The Government also make available detailed explanations of licensing and of the suspected adverse reactions scheme, and Ministers announce the findings of the VPC on certain topics—particularly reviews of the use of OP sheep dips. Furthermore, the working party on pesticide residues and that on veterinary residues oversee the sampling of foods for pesticide and veterinary residues. Each year, the results are published and submitted to the European Commission.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall is aware, although others may not be, organophosphates are insecticides used on arable crops. They are also used on farm animals, such as sheep, to kill insects in the fleece—in which case they are usually used as sheep dips. They are also used on pets to kill various insects, such as fleas.
Although there have been a few instances of adverse reactions to OPs used in other situations, most of the concerns have centred on sheep dips. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be aware, that is a serious problem. Because of the thickness of their fleeces, sheep suffer badly from the attention of parasites, which include sheep scab mite and flies that cause flystrike. Those infestations are major humane and economic problems. They are potentially fatal, and they cannot be left untreated. The issue of control is therefore extremely important.
764 Until 1984, the most widely used dips were those containing the chemical lindane, although sheep dips using OPs were also available. In that year, lindane dips were withdrawn on grounds of safety, and OPs replaced them in the market. At present, most sheep dips contain OPs.
As the hon. Gentleman will also know, it was compulsory to dip sheep until a few years ago, although that is no longer the case. I am aware that—during an interview with the hon. Member for North Cornwall about OPs, which was broadcast this morning on the Radio 4 programme "Farming Today"—one of my officials was quoted as saying at a recent meeting with the British Medical Association that
he now accepts that nerve damage can occur from a medium or low level of exposure to sheep dip.That is entirely untrue. I repeat: that is entirely untrue. It is unfortunate that neither the programme presenter nor the hon. Gentleman was able to check the accuracy of their information beforehand.
§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)rose—
§ Mr. BurnsI have a copy of the minutes of the meeting in question, and it clearly records that my official said:
Changes in peripheral and/or central nervous system function had been shown in some studies, while others had not shown such effects.
§ Mr. BurnsI am sorry; I do not have time.
That statement is clearly quite different from the impression given during the radio interview. I should be happy to let the hon. Member for North Cornwall see the extract from those minutes.
§ Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West)Will the Minister give way?
§ Mr. MeacherI think that it is rather more than that.
Whatever the truth may be about what was said by the Minister's official, will the Government now undertake an investigation into the 500 farmers who are known to be ill with organophosphate poisoning, which they have hitherto refused to do? Will the Minister accept, in view of his earlier remarks, that the licensing system is over-dependent on manufacturers' toxicity data?
Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the evidence on which the licensing decisions are made is made available to the general public? Will he, in the light of the very effective evidence produced by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), now impose a moratorium on the use of organophosphate dips, while instituting a programme to assist farmers with alternative methods of protecting against sheep scab?
§ Mr. BurnsI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would appreciate it if he would let me develop my theme, especially on the last point he raised. As I have said, if I run out of time in what is a short debate, I shall write to 765 the hon. Member for North Cornwall and deal with all the issues that have been raised in the debate which I have not covered.
I now turn to the issue of what action the Government are taking. The Government are very concerned about the link which some people have claimed between their ill health and the use of organophosphorus insecticides and sheep dips. In common with many other chemicals in daily use, OPs, if misused, can give rise to adverse effects. Without doubt, some of those effects can be very serious.
However, what is not clear is whether, when used in the approved way, these OPs can cause chronic adverse health effects in the long term to the people who are using them. Much of the evidence for long-term effects has been criticised for being anecdotal and because exposure data have been poor. Also, it is exceedingly difficult to establish cause and effect from individual cases which can be caused by other medical conditions, making diagnosis extremely difficult.
The Government have two very clear objectives. One is to establish scientifically whether a link exists between ill health and chronic exposure to OPs. The other is to ensure that people suffering ill health which they feel may be due to such exposure get the best medical advice and care possible, and that medical practitioners have a better understanding of the symptoms which may be associated with chronic exposure to organophosphate sheep dips.
To those ends, we are doing a great deal. First, we are funding a number of research projects, including studies on the occupational hygiene of sheep dipping and on alternative methods of control of sheep scab. One project is being carried out at a number of research institutes, with the aim of producing a vaccine. The other is aimed at obtaining a better understanding of the factors that influence the spread of sheep scab. The projects, which commenced in January 1996, will run for three years from that date.
Most recently, and on the recommendation of the medical and scientific panel, studies costing approximately half a million pounds are being undertaken at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh. This study, which commenced in November 1995, will take about three years to complete and is designed to investigate the effects of organophosphate sheep dips on sheep farmers and sheep farm workers.
The Government have also taken a number of measures to ensure that the problem is brought to the attention of the medical profession. Thus, the chief medical officer wrote to all doctors in England in 1991 and again, with the chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, in June 1993, to alert doctors to the possibility of adverse effects from exposure to pesticides and certain veterinary medicines, and to remind them of the reporting schemes for human adverse reactions to veterinary products operated by the Employment Medical Advisory Service and MAFF's Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
The Government also issued in April this year a revised and expanded edition of the book "Pesticide Poisoning: Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners". This includes guidance on the diagnosis and management of acute OP poisoning and on chronic health effects. The 766 book also includes details of reporting procedures when OP poisoning is suspected.
In the past few days, following discussions between Baroness Cumberlege and the presidents of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the chief medical officer has written to the presidents of both colleges giving the Department of Health's support to the setting up of a new advisory group to draw up guidance on how to manage patients who may be suffering from adverse effects from exposure to OP sheep dips.
We have also been concerned to ensure that those using OP sheep dips follow the correct procedures, and to alert them to the adverse effects if they are misused. We therefore published a leaflet for farmers on the safe use of OP sheep dips. That discussed the need for sheep dipping, safe handling of sheep dips, the use of protective clothing, and possible adverse effects of OP sheep dips.
OP compounds have been reviewed several times by the independent expert committees which advise Ministers on pesticides and veterinary products. In 1993, the Veterinary Products Committee reviewed the OP sheep dips, and found that there was no evidence to support a ban or suspension on their use when used properly.
Following its review in 1993, the VPC recommended that the licences should continue, and that a certificate of competence should be required for the purchase of OP dips. A scheme under which a certificate of competence is required before OP sheep dips can be purchased became operative in 1995. Furthermore, the VPC set up an expert panel, the medical and scientific committee, in 1994, to examine the effects of OPs and to recommend research that might be carried out.
To sum up, Britain has an excellent system for approving pesticides and for licensing veterinary medicines. Under both systems, the Government are advised by independent statutory committees of acknowledged experts. We listen to those expert committees and, if they tell us that a product is likely to harm people, we do not let it get on the market.
Believe me, if any grounds emerge to think that the use of OP pesticides, or any other pesticide or veterinary drug, poses a serious threat to the health of the public or to those who will use it, we will have no hesitation in withdrawing it. But before contemplating such a step, we must assemble all the evidence and make an assessment based on the facts.
Malathion is the only OP authorised for the treatment of head lice. There is no evidence to suggest that malathion is dangerous when used for that purpose. Like all marketed medicines, products containing malathion are continuously monitored for safety. That is important, and that is what is happening.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall raised a number of issues with which I have not been able to deal, but I assure him once again that, as he requested at the beginning of the debate, I shall write to him as soon as possible giving him full answers on those matters with which time has not allowed me to deal today.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.