RESTRICTION ON APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS (Hansard, 27 March 1998)

§ Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to exempt organic pesticides, including solutions of tobacco leaf juice or live ladybirds.

§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)
I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend so early in his speech, but it is worth recording how grateful we Back Benchers are for all the work that he has done behind the scenes on private Members' business over the past three or four weeks. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is on his feet.

§ Mr. Maclean
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he may not be too pleased that I am on my feet when he hears what I have to say. He may disagree with my views on organic farming and organic pesticides. I had some responsibility for the matter some years ago when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although I have probably largely forgotten all about it since those days.
I believe that new clause 2 is necessary. I am concerned about the requirement on the producers of pesticides to produce all the relevant data for pesticides approval. I believe that during my time at MAFF the relevant data could amount to a cost of about £20 million per approval.

§ Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Is he not worried, as I am, that some unscrupulous manufacturers could, as we have seen in the medicines sector, produce products masquerading as organic which are not actually organic, thereby evading the relevant regulations? Does he, therefore, agree that his new clause may not go far enough, as there should be some definition of what is meant by organic in this context?

§ Mr. Maclean
That is possible, but MAFF and the pesticides safety directorate are not easily fooled by someone writing organic on the label of something that is not an organic product. The new clause is a probing clause, and I do not pretend that it covers all eventualities. A definition of an organic pesticide may be necessary.
I am concerned that we are losing more and more organic materials and organic pesticides in the same way as we are losing, in veterinary medicine, some products that are not used very much—they are used for various small animals and are not sold in large quantities. It is not worth the manufacturer spending time to make the product or spending the millions of pounds on research necessary to bring it to market and get a licence.
829 It is the same with pesticides. Coal-tar washes are used on roses, and Fairy Liquid is used to wash roses and remove greenfly. Admittedly, it is not a permanent killer, but it is successful for a few days. Many people—retired people and older gardeners—with the chance to treat their roses daily, wander round their gardens and take action every day. They are happy to use such materials, even though they may not be as effective as Glyphosate as a weed killer or as some of the other insecticides that are highly effective in killing most bugs except whitefly. I should be most grateful to anyone who could find something to kill the whitefly in my greenhouse.
There are products that gardeners have used for many years apparently quite safely, with no apparent risk to human health, either from inhalation or absorption through the skin. They have been effective when used on plant material or vegetables, and have not proved dangerous.

§ Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many beekeepers are concerned that the treatment that they have been using, TALC, will be made illegal and they will be required to use a chemical formulation instead of the present arrangements with which they are satisfied?

§ Mr. Maclean
I was not aware of that, but it is another example which adds to my general concern.
I was alerted to the problem by catching on the wireless recently an edition of the better gardener's question time programme which has moved to Classic FM. I heard some advice given by one of the panellists, whom I had better not name—but he had a wonderfully rich Yorkshire accent. He gave wonderful advice on how to treat disease infestation, but was told that the organic product he suggested was now illegal under rules, possibly EC rules, that MAFF is going to implement. He said, "My simple advice is to carry on using it and ignore the rules." That is not advice which I could naturally espouse, but it showed that materials that have been used without problem for at least 50 years by gardeners are now being outlawed.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
May I press my right hon. Friend on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) a minute or so ago? I am not satisfied that there is a satisfactory definition of organic for this purpose. I say that in all friendliness to my right hon. Friend, who has tabled a new clause which rests heavily on the concept and use of organic pesticides as opposed to non-organic pesticides. Is he satisfied that a sufficiently adequate, comprehensive and workable definition of organic exists for the purposes of his new clause in altering the Bill?

§ Mr. Maclean
No, I do not believe that such a definition exists at present, but I believe that it should be possible for MAFF—a much underestimated Ministry—and those in the pesticides safety directorate to come up with an acceptable and workable definition. All I look for from the Minister today is a steer on whether the Government may be tempted to take this approach. The Bill will go to another place and it may be possible for 830 their lordships to come up with a definition. Alternatively, at some future date, a definition of organic could be added to the Bill, as that is probably required to make proper sense of the new clause.
I am seeking to make a point in principle with the new clause. While we welcome the Bill, I am concerned that it could bring about a further tightening of the noose around all those so-called organic products. One could say that a coal-tar wash was initially made up of a synthesised product, but it has been used safely for at least 50 years. I see no reason why it should be outlawed now purely because it is too expensive for the manufacturers, users or, in some cases, the gardeners in their small co-operatives, who use a mixture of Fairy Liquid and some other material. Those materials have no doubt been approved and tested for human safety, but the combination of the different materials has not been tested and approved because the manufacturers of Fairy Liquid did not design it for use on roses. Fairy Liquid may be safe on the hands and good for the dishes, but it was not designed for gardening purposes, so it will not be granted a MAFF licence of approval.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)
May I suggest a very simple definition of organic that might well fulfil the purpose: any naturally occurring substance?

§ Mr. Maclean
I am grateful for that; it might fulfil the purpose. However, many naturally occurring substances, when refined or treated, can become highly potent. No doubt a MAFF scientist would quickly say that such a definition would not be acceptable. Some of the most dangerous chemicals and compounds are naturally occurring. As an avid mushroom collector, I am aware of the dangers of naturally occurring substances.

§ Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)
I remind my right hon. Friend that one of the greatest complaints made by manufacturers of some of the traditional or well-established products is that testing them in the United Kingdom often incurs a five-figure cost, whereas to license the same product in France or Belgium costs £100 or £200 because those countries accept that, if a product has been used for 20 or 30 years, it is de facto safe.

§ Mr. Maclean
My hon. Friend is right. I believe that there are different charges in different European countries, and Britain probably has some of the higher charges. I am, however, absolutely adamant that we have higher standards of inspection and approval. I had the pleasure of hearing the Minister of State speak to the Food and Drink Federation a few weeks ago. He said that he had not had any dealings with MAFF before becoming Minister of State and that it was an eye-opener to see that what went on in the various directorates under his command was—I think—infinitely better than he may have believed in opposition.
MAFF has generally suffered much unfair abuse over recent years, yet the work of its various professional committees and directorates is of a very high standard. I would bow to no one in saying that the people who check pesticides and veterinary products, and who work on safety committees in this country set the highest standards in the world—even higher than the Americans, 831 who like to believe that, with their Food and Drug Administration, they operate high standards. They are much more liable to political manipulation than we are.
12 noon
The Government are keen to boost organic farming, but they will find difficulty in doing so. The previous Government tried to give such farming a little boost, and this Government are trying even more. Although many people say that they would love to eat organic produce, and when asked whether they want products covered in pesticides they will, of course, say no, the public are still not prepared to pay the very high premium on organic produce, especially as most cannot tell the difference in taste. Some people may have a fine enough palate to do so, but many cannot, and do not find the premium worth paying. If the Government want to boost organic farming, it would be correlative to take steps to try to ensure that pesticides used by organic farmers and gardeners are not inadvertently driven off the market. There is no malice on the Government's part; they do not particularly want that to happen.

§ Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)
If the previous Administration were keen, as this Administration are, to boost organic farming, there must be some definition of organic. Could that not be related to the new clause?

§ Mr. Maclean
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Soil Association Ltd. has criteria for determining organic produce, as well as some criteria for determining what organic farmers may use as pesticides on their crops. Such a definition would not be watertight, but it would take us about 90 per cent. of the way down the route.
If the Government want to boost organic farming, they must consider carefully continuing to allow in the marketplace materials that farmers and gardeners have used for years, which have not, of course, been approved by all the committees and been given a MAFF licence, because it is not possible to spend the £20 million necessary to have them tested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned licensing, which I think costs about £7,000 or £10,000. That is nothing in comparison to what has to be paid in research to get a product to the point where it can be taken to MAFF, along with about 200 ft of documents. At least 10 years of research and product development, at a cost of about £20 million, are necessary in order to introduce a new pesticide to the market. If manufacturers spend all that on research, they have to sell an awful lot of produce at a fairly high price before they begin to recover their outlay. They will get a return on their investment only if farmers buy an awful lot of it, and it is used extensively in the large glasshouse industry or on grain farms, or in other enterprises with a large acreage and many users.
Inevitably, the manufacturers will not make pesticides or organic materials for little market gardeners and other small guys, to be used in a minority or niche market. If the day ever comes when organic farming is the majority market, it will be worth while for manufacturers to make products for it.
I suspect that the Government will not be able to accept the new clause today, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say that it contains a point worth taking further, 832 either in another place or with simple amending legislation, to try to ensure, as far as is possible, that, while protecting human health and safety from dodgy materials made in the garden shed, legitimate organic pesticides are available for those who wish to use them.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker)
I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) introduced his new clause, and especially for what he said about my Department, repeating my own words. I recall the night in question, and we were deprived of the chance of listening to the president of the National Farmers Union because we had to be cleared out of the hotel when the fire alarm went off.
The right hon.Gentleman has raised an important point. Clearly the new clause must be in order, or it would not have been selected by Madam Speaker, but the essential purpose of the Bill is as a piece of freedom of information legislation. I freely admit that it was a handout Bill left over from the previous Government, and not an invention of the present Government. It has been hanging around Whitehall gathering dust for a while. However, it fills a gap identified some time ago, and we are pleased to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) in promoting it.
The cost of bringing new pesticides and veterinary medicines on to the market has been raised. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is right to say that, despite the high costs of the licence and the documents needed to submit the application—those fill several filing cabinets; I have seen them in the stores both at York and at Weybridge—it is the research that gets the product to that point which is the most expensive.
I take the point that some products are used by individual gardeners as home remedies, and I imagine that the pesticides inspectors turn a blind eye to those for home use. However, when we are talking about products that may be used on foods for consumption, we are in a different ball game. We must be very rigorous about what we allow to be sprayed on food.

§ Mr. Evans
The Minister will know that many people grow their own food for home consumption, and they could have problems. Will he say something about that? Secondly, am I right in thinking that if there were an organic pesticide it could not be patented as other pesticides could, and that is why some of the chemical industries are not interested in producing one? Much research would be necessary; we have already heard how expensive that is. Yet, after all that, anybody else could produce the pesticide, too, because no patent would be involved.

§ Mr. Rooker
I do not know the specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I am about to deal with the organic aspect, but I do not know whether the problem with organic pesticides is the inability to patent them. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made; that probably is the case. However, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, we have not been able to produce a definition of "organic". We freely admit that that is a problem. The word "organic" is hard to define.
We must not assume that natural products are automatically safe. That is why I ask the House to resist the new clause. Even if we could define the term, we still 833 could not have a general exemption for organic pesticides en bloc because they are not always safe. I have one example for the House—that of derris, which is permitted for use by organic growers, yet is extremely toxic to aquatic life. Just because a product is labelled "organic", that is not a buzzword for "safe". Like the previous Government, we want to improve organic production. This country has the worst record in the European Union for the amount that we produce organically. We import most of the organic foods on sale in our shops. There is no good reason why we cannot substantially increase organic production, despite all the difficulties involved.
The new clause mentions the use of live ladybirds. The pesticides regulations already exclude the use of ladybirds and certain other products that present no great risk or are covered by other legislation. The purpose of this Bill is not to deal with pesticides in the round; its provisions are very narrow. Clause 1 deals with freedom of information to the public about pesticides, and clause 2 deals with improving the operation of investigations where allegations have been made, bringing it into line with the normal procedures of the health and safety directorate.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
First, I declare an interest: I am a farmer and user of licensed pesticides.
It is a good idea to place on the record the fact that pesticide use in the United Kingdom is probably the most tightly regulated in the world. The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 sets out the framework for the licensing and use of pesticides, and ensures that pesticides are used only if they are safe.
The Bill may lead some people to think that all pesticides should be outlawed because they are highly dangerous and injurious to human health. That is a common fallacy. Without some pesticide use, it would be impossible to produce food that the average modern housewife would want to buy. Although we want to encourage organic production, because of the price differential between non-organic and organic produce, the average modern housewife will go for the cheapest product. That is invariably produced using pesticides, which enable a greater quantity of clean food to be produced.
I am all for encouraging organic production, which can be achieved with a properly sustained public information campaign and advertising. One of the main planks for organic production is that only carefully and narrowly defined pesticides are allowed. The Minister has already referred to derris, a naturally occurring organic substance which our ancestors knew about generations ago.
Given that that environment is so tightly regulated, and that the Government will shortly introduce the Food Standards Agency to tighten the use and control of pesticides and food safety in general even further, I am not sure whether the Bill is necessary. Ministers should explain to the general public what extensive powers they already have.

§ Mr. Evans
I am not a gardener, but my constituency is full of gardeners who grow produce for home consumption—for their families and for others around them. For all we know, they may sell their produce from 834 the garden gate—that still goes on in my constituency. That is why the provisions in the Bill need to be strengthened. The Minister said that, now and again, people turn a blind eye. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill is too strictly interpreted, it will cover people who grow food for their own consumption? The Minister did not respond to that point.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Garden pesticides and commercially used pesticides are controlled in the same way, but it is much more difficult to enforce regulations on home-used products. I am a practitioner who knows how to use the pesticides—there is a huge difference in the way in which they are mixed, in their application rates, in the spray nozzles that are used and in the effect of weather conditions. A huge number of factors affect the amount of active ingredient that ends up on the plant, which is one of the difficulties—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. This is all very interesting, but it goes well beyond the scope of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the terms of the new clause.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject is so interesting, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) led me astray. The new clause relates to the use of naturally occurring substances. It states: Regulations made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 shall not apply to old or new organic pesticides". My general remarks related to the importance of the method of application of organic and inorganic pesticides to their effectiveness.
On the definition of "organic", my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) pooh-poohed my suggestion of a naturally occurring substance. As with any simplistic concept, people will find ways in which to get round regulations. However, I should not have thought it beyond the wit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its specialist advisers to come up with a satisfactory definition.
Given the panoply of licensing authorities, it should be possible to exempt some organic pesticides, which would help the organic sector. As the Minister said, organic products are much more widely available on the continent than in this country. Indeed, the lack of home-grown organic products is a deficit in our food production system. Unless the new clause is accepted, the Bill could make conditions for the organic sector even more difficult. I hope that the House will accept at least a variant of the new clause.

§ Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I declare an interest as someone who occasionally uses pesticides.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is rightly concerned about costs to the industry. We shall, I hope, soon discuss an amendment that I tabled specifically to address that issue.
835 The new clause relates to the use of organic, naturally occurring, chemicals, including old ones. On this occasion, I must resort to supporting the Government, as the Minister was absolutely right to suggest that the matter is not as simple as it appears to be. I very much welcome his comment that just because something is natural or organic, that does not mean it is safe. It is right and proper that we should put to rest the mystique that often surrounds organic products. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and others will be aware, many plants and vegetables contain chemicals that, although naturally occurring, can be very toxic if taken in extreme quantities or extracted and used in some other way.

§ Mr. Peter Atkinson
Rhubarb.

§ Mr. Paice
I take it that my hon. Friend is politely reminding me that rhubarb is one such plant, rather than referring to the quality of my speech. He is right. Rhubarb, potatoes, spinach, mushrooms and many other foods contain naturally occurring chemicals that are toxic and should not be used.
The new clause refers to the use of old organic products. That is not a new idea; it goes back a long way. In about 400 BC, Democritos of Abdera recommended soaking seeds in sedum juice to protect them against disease before sowing. A little later, in about 50 BC, Plinius the Elder reported on the use of ashes, crushed cypress leaves and diluted urine as crop protection products. Not many hon. Members would want such things applied without any regulation, which is what is being proposed.

§ Mr. Peter Atkinson
Given that my constituency is in the north-east, where leek growing and competitive leek growing are important, I would hate my hon. Friend to stop people from using the traditional methods to grow leeks, which include using urine and burying old mattresses. Those people would be alarmed to be caught under the pesticides regulations.

§ Mr. Paice
I was close to my hon. Friend's constituency all day yesterday and am well aware of some of the activities that go on there. I certainly do not want to prevent keen gardeners from doing such things. I am merely concerned, as are my hon. Friends, to ensure that the legislation is properly targeted so that it does not have any unfortunate side-effects or consequences.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown
Even if the new clause were accepted, organic pesticides would still have to be licensed. As I pointed out, our licensing system is one of the most stringent in the world. It specifies the concentration of the naturally occurring produce, the formulation and the maximum residue levels permitted in plants, so the public would still have extensive and stringent protection if the new clause were accepted.

§ Mr. Paice
My hon. Friend is right, but we are considering the information that is made available to the public. If something is to be licensed and to go through the rigorous process to which he referred, it is only right and proper that relevant information should be made available. As the Minister said, the previous Government 836 prepared this legislation, but did not have time to introduce it. I shall table some amendments that may improve it a little, but the public should have access to the information. I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue the matter further because of the great problem of defining the word organic.
None of the definitions stands up, including "naturally occurring products", when one considers all the naturally occurring products that are toxic. If the new clause is added to the Bill, we will merely create another opportunity for lawyers to argue at length about the definitions used in it, which I do not want to do.

§ Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter)
I do not want to delay the debate. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the Bill is not about regulation but about information, which is what we should be discussing.
All the flaws of the new clause have been pointed out, but I will remind hon. Members of them. They are the difficulty of defining "organic" and the fact that organic material can be toxic. It is as simple as that, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) may feel able to withdraw the new clause.

§ Mr. Maclean
It is clearly inappropriate for the new clause to be added to the Bill. I appreciate the difficulties that have been pointed out, but I hope that I have flagged up a little problem with which the Government will have to grapple. I should have liked to grapple with it five or six years ago, but the matter was a low priority because we had to carry out so many reviews of existing pesticides.
After the Government have speeded up or completed the reviews, and if they want to encourage organic farming, they must turn their mind to the problem of organic compounds, some of which are made in garden sheds and are highly dangerous.
We have had an excellent debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.