§ 3.2 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, this Bill, to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading this afternoon, has become necessary because of the increasing use in agriculture of certain poisonous substances contained in insecticides and weed killers. Although the use of these substances is not entirely new, the changes in the extent of their use, which have made this Bill necessary, are comparatively recent. Some new substances have come into use in agriculture, while other substances are being used in more concentrated forms and workers have been employed to use them for longer periods. Much of this kind of spraying is now done by contractors who employ teams for the purpose. This has increased the risks, as well as the effectiveness of their use.
The substances are cumulative poisons, and cases of poisoning have occurred in two ways: either by a heavy single absorption at one time or by the successive absorption of small quantities. In 404 the former case, acute illness, which has sometimes been followed by death, may start very soon after the absorption; but with some of the substances the illness may start several hours after the absorption. When these substances enter the body they may not be noticed, and when they enter in small quantities they may not cause any feeling of illness or give rise to any obvious signs. When, however, small quantities are absorbed at short intervals, they can accumulate until a condition is reached when a further very small amount causes severe illness or death. In the case of the dinitro compounds no antidote is at present known, and in the case of organo-phos-phorus compounds, while an antidote is known, it should be given quickly after the onset of symptoms.
In view of the way in which these substances can poison human beings, it is very desirable that there should be statutory provision to reduce the risks of this poisoning to the lowest practicable level. We still have a good deal to learn about the precautions that are desirable, but the Government believe that sufficient is now known to justify making Regulations of the kind for which this Bill provides. The use of these substances in agriculture is very important for the efficiency of food production. They have helped to bring under better control pests and weeds which it had previously been extremely difficult to control effectively. Naturally, it would be preferable to use materials less toxic to human beings, if and when materials which are as effective as the present insecticides and weed killers are discovered. But in the meantime we have to see that the use of the most efficient substances at present available continues under controls that will avoid risk to the workers so far as possible. That is the purpose of this Bill.
Over the last few years there have been some unfortunate cases of poisoning, which have drawn attention to the need for measures to protect those who use these substances. The Gowers Committee on Health, Welfare and Safety in Non-Industrial Employment, which included agriculture in its review, reported in 1949 that, although protective clothing was very often supplied by employers for this work, there should be obligations to do so, and that for this purpose the Agricultural Ministers should be given power to prescribe by regulations the substances 405 in the use of which protective clothing should be provided by the employer. In 1950, the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Williams, set up a Working Party, under the Chairmanship of Professor Zuckerman, to make recommendations for the protection of workers in the agricultural use of these poisonous substances, and in particular to advise on the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. This Working Party included representatives of the Agricultural Departments, the Agricultural Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Improvement Council, who were represented by a farmer and a farm workers' representative. If the Bill now before your Lordships is passed, the regulations will follow generally the lines of the detailed recommendations put forward by the Zuckerman Working Party which reported last year. The Bill is drawn in sufficiently wide terms to allow effect to be given to their recommendations. The most important of these will be covered by the topics set out in Clause 1, subsection (3), of the Bill, which includes the provision of protective clothing, to which the Gowers Committee had drawn attention.
A good deal has already been done to protect the workers. Guidance on the precautions to be taken, the protective clothing to be worn, and so on, was worked out in detail as a result of the Zuckerman Working Party's inquiry, and with the co-operation of the farmers, farm workers, agricultural contractors and insecticide manufacturers. Last year, both the Agricultural Departments and the organisations representing these interests published these recommendations widely and brought them to the special attention of those concerned. Similar arrangements have been made for the spring season that is just starting, with modifications made in the light of the experience gained last year and of the detailed knowledge that we are acquiring.
Experience shows, however, that although these precautions are generally observed they are not universally adopted. The Government have at present no power of enforcement, and it is apparent that voluntary precautions are not enough. There is general agreement that, over a large part of this field at least, the recommended precautions should have statutory backing and that 406 definite obligations should be placed on those concerned, both employer and employed. There will, however, be some matters on which, for the time being at any rate, voluntary arrangements may continue, either because sufficient experience has not yet been gained or because there is insufficient agreement. Medical examination, for example, is one. However, we propose to make regulations at once to deal with some of the more important matters listed in subsection (3) of Clause 1, especially protective clothing, washing facilities, cleanliness generally, so as to avoid contamination, periods of working, supervision and training of workers, the keeping of records and the notification of sickness and accidents.
The Bill gives wide powers to the Agricultural Ministers and I have just indicated (as does the Bill itself by way of illustration) the main topics which it is intended to cover by regulation in the present state of knowledge. A good deal of flexibility is required because, as I have said, this is a comparatively new field and we are learning more about it all the time. In the first instance the Bill will apply to two classes of substances. These are the two groups which were the subject of the inquiry by the Working Party on Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture under the Chairmanship of Professor Zuckerman. They are firstly, dinitro-compounds, such as D.N.C. (which is an abbreviation for the long chemical name of dinitro-ortho-cresol), which are used for spraying as weed-killers, and secondly organo-phosphorus compounds, such as parathion, which are used as insecticides. Should it become necessary to extend the scope of the Bill to other substances, the Minister would have power to do this by order under Clause 9. The Bill is limited to the protection of employees. It will cover the employees of contractors, as well as those of farmers and growers. It will be part of the code of legislation for the protection of employees, of which, of course, the Factory Acts are the outstanding example. It is generally in accordance with Factory Act precedents so far as these apply.
Now, my Lords, coming to the clauses of the Bill, Clause 1 contains the main regulation-making powers and is the kernel of the Bill. It seeks to protect 407 workers, both in the actual use in agriculture of these substances, such as the actual spraying or the mixing of the sub-stances, 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 respectively. It is the intention, where the requirements are the same for the whole country, that the regulations should be made jointly. However it may be that, on occasion, agricultural conditions will require some difference in the regulations. In that case it will be possible to make separate regulations for England and Wales and for Scotland.
The regulations will be made by statutory instrument, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. They will, of course, be very largely technical in character, and this procedure will give the necessary measure of Parliamentary control for regulations of this kind. In the main the regulations will place obligations on employers, but they may also place them on employees and on other persons, as appropriate. In particular, Clause 2 places on employees the obligation not to interfere with things supplied for their protection and not to do anything likely to cause risk of poisoning either to themselves or to others.
In Clause 3 the Bill provides for the appointment by the Ministers of the necessary inspectors, and gives them powers of entry, examination, and so on, which are broadly in line with similar powers of the Factory Inspectorate under the Factory Acts. These inspectors are given power to take samples and are required to supply, on request, a part of such a sample to the employer concerned. It is not the intention to appoint an army of inspectors. Enforcement will be undertaken by suitable staff already in the employment of the Agricultural Departments. They will form part of the Agricultural Wages Inspectorate, but the work will be done without interfering with the Departments' responsibilities under the Agricultural Wages Acts. Enforcement will consist primarily of test checks and the investigation of complaints; but it will also include the 408 giving of advice where possible. The inspectors will already be familiar with the working conditions of farms, but they will also be given special instruction in the use of these substances and the precautions to be observed. These arrangements will have the advantage that they will not add to the classes of officials inspecting farms, though, naturally, there will be an addition to the amount of inspection work. This work will be supported by general publicity, warnings and recommendations to farmers, contractors and farm workers. The organisations concerned will help us in getting the advice across to their members.
Offences under the Bill are defined in Clause 4, which provides for penalties by way of fines, with a maximum of £50 for a single offence. Clause 5 provides for the defence in proceedings under the Bill that the contravention was caused by the act or default of some other person, and for the possible conviction of that other person. Clause 6 gives the powers which I have already said inspectors are to have for taking samples. Clause 7 applies the Act and the regulations to the Crown, but allows for any necessary modifications to be made in the regulations by the Ministers. In general, it has been thought that the same degree of protection should be given to the workers concerned wherever they are working. This will affect not only the Crown's own farms but also farms and agricultural operations conducted by a number of Government Departments, including the Service Departments and Government research stations, which may require the use of these substances. Modifications of the regulations, for example, as to the powers of inspectors, may be necessary on security or similar grounds, and provision therefore has to be made for this.
The Ministers will incur limited expenses for administration and enforcement and there is provision in Clause 8 for these to be paid out of public funds. Clause 10 of the Bill contains a definition of "agriculture" which follows that used in the Agricultural Wages Acts of 1948. This has seemed to be the most suitable for the present purpose, relating as it does to conditions of employment on farms. It covers agriculture and horticulture generally, where conducted on a commercial scale, even though not carried on for profit. It also includes forestry, since 409 these substances may be used, for example, in forest nurseries. Clause 11 deals with certain necessary modifications to apply the Bill suitably to Scotland. The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.
This will, I hope, be regarded as a useful and necessary measure. It is, I believe, generally acceptable to the farmers, farm workers and agricultural contractors who will be the people primarily affected by the regulations that the Bill will enable us to make. We shall consult the interests concerned about the precise regulations to be made, in the same way that we have been consulting them about the voluntary arrangements to be made in the meantime. I am sure that we shall have their full co-operation in determining the form that these regulations should take. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to your Lordships, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)
§ 3.18 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, the noble Lord has explained the terms of this Bill and the purpose which it sets out to achieve with his usual thoroughness and clarity, and we are grateful to him for the evident trouble that he has taken. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill, and I feel that we can fairly claim a modest share in its parentage—indeed, the measure of our claim emerged from some of the remarks in the noble Lord's speech. I should like briefly to say something about the preparatory action which was taken when we were responsible for agricultural policy, and which has led up to the introduction of this Bill here this afternoon. We became aware during our period of office of the growing public concern about the large number of accidents to agricultural workers, some causing serious illness and some even death, which had resulted from the use of certain new chemical insecticides and weed-killers. Our awareness of this widespread public concern led to the appointment in 1950 by the late Government (the noble Lord referred to this matter) of a Working Party to inquire into the facts and to advise on the best way of protecting people engaged in the spraying of these poisonous liquids. That Working Party reported last year, 410 while we were still in office, but I should like to say that we are no less grateful now, out of office, than we were when we occupied the position of responsibility in relation to this matter, to the members of the Working Party for their speedy and constructive Report. I think we are particularly grateful—and I know the Government share this feeling—to Professor Zuckerman, the distinguished scientist, for acting as Chairman of the Working Party, for sparing so much of his time and for his willingness to take part in a further inquiry into another aspect of the same problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said, the Working Party recommended suitable measures, and urged that these measures should have the force of statutory obligations. I do not think I am giving away any secrets to which my colleagues would take exception if I say that the late Government accepted in principle the recommendations of the Working Party's Report. Indeed, if I may indulge in speculation, I have little doubt at all that had the electorate chosen differently last autumn we should have submitted a similar measure to your Lordships—not identical but, at any rate, similar—for your consideration and approval. I think we should all agree that it is a good thing when political changes are not allowed to interfere with the vital interests of agriculture. We are extremely glad that the present Government will complete the work which we have begun, and that they have found time for a measure which will benefit so large a number of agricultural workers.
I have no doubt that this Bill, which I think does give sufficient powers, will be effective in carrying out the purpose for which it is designed, provided always that the necessary regulations are made, and made in time. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord had to say about regulations being made immediately, as soon as the Ministers had the power, to cover the most essential protective measures. I should like to stress the importance of the time factor. I must admit to feeling some regret that it has not been possible to legislate before the start of the current spraying season. This might have been done if a Bill had been introduced at the beginning of the Session. I know, of course, the congested state of the Parliamentary timetable—all Governments have 411 the same sort of experience—and I cannot expect noble Lords opposite to accept the view which I hold, that measures of this kind will do the country more good than some of the larger and more controversial legislative proposals which they are likely to submit to Parliament. I hope that the Government will do their utmost to get this Bill through both Houses as quickly as possible, and that your Lordships will speed it in its passage through this House.
I should like to ask one or two questions, of which I had given the noble Lord notice, about the recommendations of the Zuckerman Committee. My questions are directed to finding out what will be done about the recommendations which are not included in the Bill, and I apologise for the fact that they do not relate directly to the contents of this measure. My first question is: Have the Government decided not to give statutory effect to the recommendation of the Zuckerman Working Party about the labelling by manufacturers of the containers in which these poisons are stored? It is surely a desirable safeguard that such containers should indicate that they have in them a deadly poison. That was the recommendation of the Report. Of course, the label should also include some reference to the precautions which should be taken and to the methods of using the contents. Although some manufacturers will no doubt do this without a statutory obligation, I do not think there can be any guarantee that all manufacturers will have the same regard for the safety of the public. The Zuckerman Committee recommended that these poisonous dinitro or phosphorus mixtures should be sold only by chemists. That seems a very sensible recommendation. There is an obvious risk to the public if they can get these poisonous mixtures from any firm or any individual, and if this recommendation were implemented it would mean that no unauthorised person—no person other than a chemist—could sell these poisons to the public. I should like to ask the Government how they mean to deal with that recommendation.
Furthermore, may I ask what has been done to carry out the recommendations of the Committee about research? I think that that is extremely important. Your Lordships will remember that the 412 Committee suggested that the Medical Research Council should try to find a material which would give complete protection without inconvenience to the worker—something very much better than any material which is being used at the present time. Are the Medical Research Council doing this work? It was also suggested that the Ministry of Supply should look into the possibility of finding a satisfactory light respirator, and that the Agricultural Research Council should experiment in insecticides and weed-killers which might be equally effective for pests and weeds but not poisonous to man. I wonder whether the Agricultural Research Council has looked into that matter.
Finally—I hope this question will interest my noble friend, Lord Douglas of Barloch—what progress has been made into the second part of the Zuckerman Working Party's inquiry? I refer to the examination which they were prepared to undertake about the risk to the public in the use of these poisonous chemicals. May I also ask whether the immediate precautions for the protection of the public, which they recommended in their Report, have been taken by way of indicating what should be done by farmers and contractors and people who are engaged in the use of these poisonous chemicals on crops? I confess that when I read the Appendix of the Working Party's Report, which contained a list of the weeds which are condemned to extermination by the ingenuity of modern chemistry, I felt a slight pang when I saw that it included buttercups, poppies and cornflowers. It will surely be a sad day for country lovers when those wild flowers are no longer even occasionally visible in meadows and cornfields, and when the poets can no longer write:
Not poppy, nor mandragora,Nor all the drowsy syrups of the world,Shall ever medicine thee to that sweet sleepWhich you owedst yesterday.Mandragora, too, is a weed, but I am glad to note that it is not on the list of condemned malefactors. I daresay it escaped attention on account of the impenetrable obscurity of its dictionary definition. There is no obvious or apparent harm inA solanaceous herb, usually acaulescent, with campanulate flowers and baccate fruit.413 Although I trust that in this Bill there will be no further casualties in the battle against some of the most pernicious enemies of agriculture, I should be less than honest if I refrained from expressing a private hope that the enemy will not be exterminated to the last buttercup. I assure the noble Lord opposite that we will do all we can to help him speed the passage of this measure through this House.
§ 3.28 p.m.
§ LORD WISEMy Lords, I wish to support what the noble Earl has said from this side of the House in the general welcome which we are prepared to give to this Bill. It is a small but very important measure and one only wishes that some of the Bills which will come before this House were no more contentious than this. I give the Bill a general welcome because for some time now it has been sought for by the workers in the industry, in order that the men employed on these particular jobs might have better protection. I made a few notes of what the noble Lord said in his opening speech, and there are one or two points which I desire to endorse or ask further questions about. The first point concerns publicity. I am glad to hear that every possible measure of publicity is to be given to this matter. We cannot educate only those people who have to work and deal with poisons; therefore I hope that the greatest possible publicity, both by the Government and by the unions concerned, will be given to the provisions of this Bill. The noble Lord also referred to consultation, and I commend this principle. Sonic consultation has, I understand, already gone on with the interests concerned in this Bill, and I am certain that, when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and regulations come to be made, this consultation with the various bodies who are chiefly concerned will be beneficial.
There is one question that I want to ask the noble Lord. He referred to an "army of inspectors." Has the noble Lord any particular number in mind? I presume that inspectors under the Ministry of Agriculture are already dealing with the regulations under which spraying now takes place. I am wondering whether it will be necessary to augment those inspectors and, if so, whether it will be possible to transfer from the 414 Ministry of Labour some of the inspectors who are now operating in regard to poisons, so that the inspectorate shall not be duplicated.
There are one or two other matters with which I should like to deal, particularly with regard to the clauses of the Bill. I have before me the regulations for last year and the draft regulations for this year, but they do not cover the intentions of the Government, when the Bill becomes an Act, with regard to the issuing of full and complete regulations on the various points which arise, particularly in Clause 1. I wish to endorse what has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in regard to the question of labelling. There is nothing in the regulations to suggest that the importance of this matter is to be brought home to those responsible. I have before me an advisory leaflet issued by the Ministry dealing with the question of precautions in the use of insecticides, fungicides and weed-killers; and it is suggested there that in certain circumstances the containers are not marked "Poisonous." Perhaps the Minister is not at the moment in possession of a copy of the pamphlet; therefore may I be allowed to read the passage to him? It deals with the precautions which users should take before dealing with these various weed-killers and it says:
See that the containers are prominently and securely labelled 'Poison' and store them away from harmless preparations.This suggests to me that some of the containers may not be so labelled, and I am anxious to ensure that all poisonous substances should be labelled. I take it that the manufacturer is responsible.Then there is the question of colour. This matter was covered by the working party but there is no regulation as regards colouring of poison. I think this should be made obligatory. The next point in this connection is the question of the age and health of users of poisons. At the moment, under the draft regulations, no person under eighteen is allowed to carry out this operation; but I think we ought to ensure that everyone who is in bad health, who has, perhaps, been affected by gas in war time, or who is in certain other ways unfit, shall not be called upon to do this particular work. This can, perhaps, be 415 provided under Clause 1, subsection (3). I know that it is difficult for a man to refuse to do a particular job, but he should have the right to protest or in some other way to make his position clear if he considers he ought not to be employed on this job when a farmer asks him to do it.
Then there is the question of records. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to quick antidotes to one or two poisons. I am anxious, if it is possible to put it into a regulation that when spraying is carried on in any particular district some means of advising the local medical practitioners or the hospitals, as is suggested in the Working Party's Report, should be adopted. The suggestion that in order to overcome a particular poison a quick antidote is necessary indicates that the local medical people should be on their toes to go to a case if a need arises. There is another point in regard to records. In the draft regulations there is a suggestion that some farmers need not keep records. That provision may have been altered by now, but the draft, I think, makes a suggestion that a farmer whose farm is under a particular acreage, or who has under a particular number of greenhouses or under a particular crop of fruit, need not keep certain records. I consider that it is necessary that everybody who uses poisons should be obliged to keep records, and that there should be no exemptions. I ask the Minister to look at that point and see whether it is worthy of consideration. In regard to this matter of records, Clause 1, subsection (5) provides that an inspector appointed under the Act can exempt particular cases or certain persons from the operations of the regulations. I think that that is wrong.
§ LORD CARRINGTONThat, of course, is for research work.
§ LORD WISEIf that is so, then it is all right and I have no more to say on the point; but I think it may be necessary to redraft that subsection. Certainly I do not think that anybody should be exempted from the full operation of the Act.
There is one further point I wish to raise, and that concerns the protection of the public. The Working Party's Report refers to this matter, and I am 416 wondering what steps are being taken in the regulations for the protection of the public from spraying operations. There may not be much in the point, but the fact remains that it is quite possible for someone walking along a road to be poisoned in this way. The public are entitled to some measure of protection, and I am wondering whether in the case, say, of a small farmer, who is spraying and whose spraying operations in his fields cause a member of the public to become ill by poison, the public can be covered by some sort of Third Party insurance. At the moment, I expect, there is the remedy of a Common Law action against the farmer. But the farmer may be a "small" man and the member of the public who is walking along the road may be a "big" man, in the sense in which those words are so often used. There should be some sort of protection, and I hope, therefore, that in the regulations, or in some other way, that matter will be covered. In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on bringing this measure through very quickly. Like my noble friends, I hope that we shall pass it through the House without much alteration and that it will soon be upon the Statute Book.
§ 3.41 p.m.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, like the other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is, at any rate, a first step towards dealing with what is now becoming an extremely serious problem. My regret is that the scope of the Bill is so extremely limited. It applies, as it stands, to only two classes of poisonous substances which are used in agriculture, but there are a great many more which have come into use in recent times. For example, there is the class of chlorinated hydro-carbons, to which D.D.T., chlordane and other chemicals belong, and which are known now to be poisonous, and in some cases highly poisonous. There are a great many other poisonous substances being used for agricultural purposes.
I believe that in the United States—I do not know what the number is here—there are more than a hundred different kinds of poisonous chemicals now being used for insecticides, for weed-killers and for other agricultural purposes. It is true that the Bill provides that other classes of 417 poisons can be brought within its scope by regulation, but I do not think that that is a sufficient safeguard. There ought to be some provision by which no poisonous substances can be brought into use at all without the permission of the responsible Minister, and until those substances have been subjected to tests which are sufficient to indicate whether or not the substances are poisonous and under what conditions it is safe to use them. As the Bill is drafted, what will happen? The additional substances will be named by regulation after some unfortunate people have been killed by the use of them, as has already happened with those classes which are named in the Bill. I submit to the House that that is a very unsuitable way to deal with these matters. Because we know that many of these things are highly poisonous, and they are used because they are so, there ought to be some provision by which they are not brought into use, except for experimental purposes of course, until there is sufficient knowledge of their effects. Only then should they be licensed for use by the Ministry of Agriculture or by the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be.
In addition to that, I should like to join with my noble friends who have already spoken in drawing attention to the fact that there is no provision in this Bill for the protection of the public generally. It is a Bill only for the protection of people who are engaged in using these substances or of others who are working upon the particular piece of land upon which the substances are being used. But some of these things—in fact, many of them—are applied as sprays, and if the sprays are very fine droplets it is easy for them to be carried three or four miles upon a gentle breeze; and in certain cases it has already happened that innocent passers-by have been poisoned by the use of these substances. That is a matter to which attention was drawn in the Report of the Zuckerman Committee, and it deserves very serious attention upon the part of the Government.
In addition to that, of course, there is the far wider problem of what effect these substances may have upon the people who consume agricultural products. One particular case which is mentioned in the Report of the Zuckerman Committee is an insecticide called schradan, which is 418 one of the organo-phosphorus poisons and extremely poisonous indeed. It is used as a systemic poison—that is to say, it is intended to be taken up by the plant and to circulate in the sap. It is used upon plants such as cabbages, in which the consumer eats the plant and the sap. This is only one illustration, of course—there are other poisons which also affect the produce. For example, D.D.T. is a poison which affects meat, milk and plant products. In a recent investigation made by the Texas Research Foundation in which they purchased through ordinary retailers samples of meat, milk, Indian corn and sunflower seed, they found that all the samples of meat were contaminated by D.D.T. to the extent of from three parts per million, up to sixty-eight parts per million. All the samples of milk were contaminated, and every sample of Indian corn and sunflower seed, where there had been spraying at any time during the life of the plant, was also contaminated.
I do not want to elaborate this point but I feel that it is absolutely essential that attention should be drawn to it, because it is now known that a number of these poisons are cumulative poisons; and it is also known that some of these are capable, when they are consumed over long periods in very small quantities, of producing serious illness. They are not in the same category as the cases which have given rise to this Bill; they are not cases in which people are suddenly struck down dead or die within a few hours from acute poisoning. I am referring now to cases of chronic poisoning manifesting themselves, possibly, only after years. It has already been found by experiments upon test animals that D.D.T. and a number of substances of that chemical group Produce liver injuries. I implore the Government to devote most serious consideration to this matter, because there are now so many substances of different characters getting into food, in the course of growing, processing and preserving, that the ultimate results are quite incalculable. The problem deserves the very greatest attention.
§ 3.52 p.m.
§ LORD TEVIOTMy Lords, I find myself very much in agreement with the last two noble Lords who have spoken. This seems to me to be an extremely 419 complicated Bill, and one upon which I should like to ask my noble friend who introduced it so well this question. When he was referring in a general way to Clause 3 I think he let fall the expression that some of the scientists were not entirely in agreement. When we are dealing with really deadly poisons, that statement must occupy our very serious consideration. I congratulate my noble friend on the admirable way in which he was able to pronounce some of these chemical expressions. He brought out to a good many people the chemical meaning of these substances, but it was altogether above my head. I should like to ask my noble friend whether really exhaustive tests have been carried out with regard to these dangerous substances—for instance, as to the possible effect they may have on human beings. The noble Lord who has just sat down has referred to that matter. Some of your Lordships may know that this is a subject in which I have been interested for a good many years, and upon which I have attended many lectures, where I have met very eminent men. I have found that they are not all in agreement, and they are undoubtedly concerned as to the influences which this sort of, shall I say, fertilisation may have.
With regard to spraying I hold a very strong view. In this case, undoubtedly a great deal of this spraying will hit not only the plant but also the soil, and may thereby upset entirely nature's intention in regard to the construction of the soil. Here again, I am perhaps repeating what has already been said, but I hope that my noble friend will take the greatest possible care to see that further research is undertaken in this matter. I have only one more remark to make. With this spraying going on in a field, and with a high wind blowing, I cannot for the life of me see how people on a walking tour clown a particular road, can avoid catching some of the spray. The noble Lord has said that the effect of it has been felt sometimes a mile or two off. That seems to me an extremely dangerous situation, and one which may arise at any time. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will take seriously into consideration the various questions that the two noble Lords and I have raised, because I believe that they are of very 420 great importance. I am not going to say any more about the Bill, nor do I oppose it.
§ 3.53 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRDMy Lords, I should like just to say one word following upon what my noble friend Lord Teviot has said. I was greatly moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas said. We really do not know just how dangerous these substances may be. Anyhow, I do not pretend to know how dangerous they may be, nor do I think that anybody else knows yet. Perhaps the point I wish to raise is one rather more for the Committee stage than for Second Reading. May I refer to Clause 2? I am concerned more with the public than with the employee, because I think there is a danger here. It is said that it is a remote danger, but we do not know what the effects of these poisons will be. Clause 2 says:
No worker…shall wilfully interfere with or misuse any appliance, clothing, equipment, facilities or other thing provided.…I have been given by the Ministry a document entitled Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries: Use of Poisonous Substances in Agriculture. Voluntary Precaution Scheme, 1952. One suggestion made in respect of personal cleanliness is that workers shall be provided with an adequate supply of paper handkerchiefs, and that suitable hygienic arrangements should be made for their disposal after use. There is a danger that paper handkerchiefs will blow about. I do not see that a voluntary scheme will do any good. I think these handkerchiefs will be used day after day, not only after washing but after other purposes. And it is quite possible that they may be left about, and that some spectator looking at this interesting proceeding will use them and may be considerably injured. As I say, I do not know how dangerous these substances are, but I would suggest that it is not good enough to make them the subject of voluntary action. Though it may not be quite to the point to say that they are dangerous, I think that we need to make a punishable offence any act that is of a stupid or a dangerous nature, and it should not be left to voluntary action. How are you going to stop people from doing foolish things by voluntary regulations? I feel that we cannot be too careful in regard to the precautions we take.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think that on the whole your Lordships have given this Bill a welcome, although one or two noble Lords appear to be rather frightened lest we have not gone far enough in sonic of its provisions. With your Lordships' permission, I will try to deal with some of the questions which have been put to me in the course of the afternoon. First of all, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me four questions of which he kindly gave me private notice in advance. The first question was why do we not implement the recommendations of the Zuckerman Report as regards the labelling of containers holding these poisons. The Zuckerman Working Party recommended that the words "Deadly poison" should be put on the containers, and that a statement of the dangers, of the precautions that ought to be taken and of the known antidotes ought to be clearly set out on the tins.
Under Section 18 of the Pharmacy and Poisons 1933, the Home Office has power to make what are called Poison Rules, and we felt that if we added further provisions to this Bill, which deals with something quite different—it is dealing here with the use of these substances by men employed on the land—it would complicate things rather unnecessarily. However, we referred to the Poisons Board in February this year the suggestion of the Zuckerman Working Party as regards putting "Deadly poison" on the tin. The Board were rather against such a step because they felt that it would detract from the use of the word "Poison" without the use of that qualification on some other poisons which are also sold in shops. However, they do recommend that the manufacturers might apply the word "Poison," followed by these words:
Caution. This substance is poisonous; the inhalation of its vapour, mist, spray or dust may have harmful consequences. It may be dangerous to let it come into contact with the skin or clothing.We are at the moment discussing with manufacturers other recommendations in that part of the Zuckerman Working Party's Report with regard to labelling, precautions, antidotes and the drugs which can be used. I hope that next year we shall have poisons labelled with the words which I have just read out to your Lordships, and that the precautions which 422 should be taken will also be stated on the tin.The second question which the noble Earl put to me concerned restriction of sale. The Zuckerman Working Party thought that there should be statutory control of the sale to the general public of the dinitro compounds and the organo-phosphorus compounds. Here again, the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, Section 18 (20), provides that the Secretary of State may make rules as to retail sales. The Ministry of Agriculture has asked the Secretary of State to do this. I believe that he has agreed and has now prepared a statutory instrument. The third question which the noble Earl put to me related to research. He wanted to know whether research was continuing as recommended by the Zuckerman Committee. This research is continuing. The Medical Research Council are continuing research to find out materials which will afford complete protection against these poisons and give comfort to the wearer. The Ministry of Supply and the British Standards Institute are looking into the question of finding a light-weight respirator. At the same time, the Agricultural Research Council are very busy endeavouring to find non-toxic substitutes for these two particular sorts of poisons.
The last question which the noble Earl asked me was with regard to the second part of the Zuckerman Working Party's inquiry. He wanted to know how that was going. As the noble Earl knows (although I do not know whether your Lordships generally are aware of it), the Committee were asked to look into the question of whether these substances have an adverse effect on the consumer. This is, I think, an answer to Lord Douglas of Barloch and, in a sense, to Lord Teviot. The Working Party are inquiring into the effect of these poisons on the consumer, though I must say here and now that there is no evidence whatever to show how they could have any effect whatever on the consumer. They are cumulative poisons and take a very long time indeed to have any ill-effects on human beings. I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, agrees with me there. I think I have now dealt with all the questions which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, put to me. I am very grateful to him for the way in which he welcomed this Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot match him 423 in the poetry which he quoted to your Lordships at the end of his speech. He seemed to be rather frightened that some of the wild flowers, such as poppies, might disappear from the fields. Up to a point I agree with him, but I must say that I prefer to see poppies on someone else's farm rather than among my own crops.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, also asked a number of questions. The first was about publicity. I entirely agree with him that we must publicise this matter as much as we possibly can—and we shall do so. Then he asked me about consultation. He wished to know whether we are consulting all the interests concerned. These are very technical matters, and we cannot do without the technical advice which we are getting from those interested. We do have these consultations and we shall continue to have them, particularly when framing regulations under the Bill. I think the noble Lord must have misunderstood me, for he referred to my saying that there was "going to be an army of inspectors." I said: "There is not going to be an army of inspectors." I explained that we should do the inspection under the Bill with the inspectors we already have in the Department who are now doing agricultural wages work. The noble Lord also asked me about the labelling of containers, but I think I have answered that point.
The colouring of these poisons was the subject of another question. There is no difficulty about the colouring of the dinitro compounds, because they are a sort of yellowy mustard colour, and so they can be recognised fairly easily. But there is considerable difficulty about colouring the organo-phosphorus substances. They are not very easy to colour. However, there is a possibility that at one stage of manufacture a magenta dye can be introduced. We are not quite sure whether this is going to be successful. The difficulty is that the magenta dye may stain the flower before it has spread and starts fruiting. However, we are continuing to work on those lines. The noble Lord asked me about antidotes and about methods for spreading information concerning them among doctors. We have circularised doctors about all these matters and they are fully aware of the antidotes. As the noble Lord will see from Clause 1 (3), paragraphs (g) and (h), we recommend that 424 people should be trained in first aid and that facilities should be available on the spot.
The views of the noble Lords, Lord Douglas of Barloch and Lord Teviot, on these subjects are well-known to your Lordships. You will remember a debate in July of last year which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, introduced on the same sort of subject, and he quoted some of the examples again this afternoon, notably that concerning the use of D.D.T. in Texas. I must say that I thought he was fully answered on the last occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the matter at length again. Certainly, in this country there has been no evidence that D.D.T. has been at all harmful to human beings. Conditions in this country are very different from those in Texas, and the noble Lord should not worry himself unduly about the effects of D.D.T. With regard to the fears which both Lord Douglas and Lord Teviot felt about spraying this substance from the air, or, indeed, from the ground, in a high wind, I think both noble Lords were again unnecessarily anxious. I gather that Lord Douglas feels that there is some danger that the spray will affect passers-by. As I have explained, these poisons are cumulative, and it takes a comparatively long time to get any kind of dangerous dose from these sprays. I assure the noble Lord that he may walk a number of times up and down a road and receive some spray on his face and still be as well as he is this afternoon.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, I would rather the noble Lord should make that experiment than I.
§ LORD CARRINGTONI am quite prepared to do so, but perhaps the noble Lord and I can go hand in hand and do it together. I think I have answered all the questions put to me.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question arising out of his reply to my remarks, for which I am extremely grateful. Has he any indication of when the Zuckerman Working Party are likely to complete the second part of their inquiry?
§ LORD CARRINGTONNo, my Lords. At the moment they have completed the reading of literature on the subject into 425 which they are now inquiring. They have just started to take evidence, and it may be some little time before they report. I do not think I have left any question unanswered. I am grateful for the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.