VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the report issued on 22nd February by the joint committee of the British Trust for Ornithology and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the effect upon birds and mammals of toxic chemicals used in agriculture; and whether, in view of the urgent necessity for a comprehensive and meticulous study of the whole problem, they will say what steps, other than those already in operation, they propose to take for the furthering of the collection of information on the subject and for the conduct of postmortem analyses.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE)My Lords, this report has been brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, who are very much aware of the problem. Comprehensive measures for dealing with this problem were agreed at a meeting last December convened by my Department, which included representatives from the British Trust for Ornithology and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds among the delegates from the Council of Nature, as well as delegates from the National Farmers" Union, the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants, and the Association of British Manufacturers of Agricultural Chemicals.
510 The measures agreed included a survey by the Ministry's pests officers of reported cases of unusual deaths among birds, foxes and badgers. The bodies are sent for post-mortem examination and analysis when poisoning is suspected. The results of the survey are to be reviewed with the interested organisations after this spring. The need for further research into the effects of the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture is being examined by a Research Study Group appointed last year by Ministers. My right honourable friend thinks, therefore, that these new arrangements will provide valuable evidence on which to base any further action which may seem necessary. I should like it to be widely known that we should welcome full information from naturalists or other interested persons about suspected poisoning of birds or mammals by toxic chemicals. Reports should be made to the Ministry's pests officer at the local divisional office.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. May I ask him whether it goes far enough? Whatever may be the immediate dangers of these chemical sprays, it is essential to explore thoroughly the long-term dangers of these toxic chemicals upon man and animals. As this, as it seems to me, is never done by private organisations, will the Government play their proper part and set up a responsible body which is able to take evidence and pursue the matter?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I think when the noble Viscount comes to read my reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that we are carrying out almost all the recommendations of the report to which his Question refers. There is in existence a Research Study Group; we are holding this survey; we are doing analyses; and we propose to review the whole question again when the evidence is collected at the end of this season.
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, may I say to the noble Earl that all the naturalist bodies are grateful to the Ministry for holding the meeting in December? May I ask him whether he might not make public the results of the analyses of all those dead creatures which have already been sent to the pest 511 officers of the Ministry; or, if he cannot make them public in the full sense, can he make the results of the analyses known to the responsible bodies? May I also draw his attention to the fact that the Ministry's 1961 list of approved chemicals made no reference at all to the possible dangers to wild life which their use might involve, and that the Ministry three weeks later sent a memorandum to the Press and to agricultural interests emphasising the fact that they might cause serious risks? That was a very useful and helpful action, and it is very much appreciated. But does the noble Earl not think that in future a warning of that sort should be embodied in the list itself, and perhaps emphasis laid on the fact—for it appears to be a fact—that many substances which are agriculturally effective can be used which are much less toxic than some of those commonly in use?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. He was, I understand, at this meeting in December, and we are grateful for his co-operation. I will certainly take note of his suggestion about the publication of the results of the survey when they become known. I do not imagine that there will be any objection to that. The second part of the noble Lord's Question referred, I think, to the Notification Scheme that has been in operation since 1957. I understand that there is a further appendix dealing with wild life which has been discussed with the Nature Conservancy and other bodies and which will shortly be added to the Notification Scheme. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord that we are taking this matter as seriously as he wishes.
§ LORD HURCOMBMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl. We are satisfied that the Ministry are taking the matter seriously. I was referring particularly to the noble Earl's own list of 1961 of approved chemicals, which made no reference to the fact that many of them are extremely toxic to wild life, although a subsequent statement was issued to that effect. My suggestion is that that statement should be embodied in the list itself when it comes to be re-issued.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, while welcoming the Government's statement, is the noble Earl aware that there is still great distrust among scientists and, in particular, ecologists—and not merely those in the Nature Conservancy, who are very active in this—that the Government are not fully aware of the danger that we may create in the countryside the sort of mistakes that were created during the Industrial Revolution, and that we are in grave danger of polluting our countryside? When I raised this matter in the debate on Science, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on that occasion was, I think, unaware of the problem; I certainly had no answer from him. Would the Government consider, in particular, whether the manufacturers ought not to play a bigger part themselves in carrying out long-term research on the side effects of the chemicals which they produce?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, my information is that the manufacturers are doing a great deal of research on this subject and that the Government research organisations are co-operating with them in that research. Of course, it is a difficult question, which would be more proper for the Minister for Science to answer than for me, as to the general ecological balance of nature. But I feel we must not over-exaggerate this problem. Clearly, these agricultural chemicals may have harmful side effects on wild life. What we have to do is to minimise that to the greatest extent, while not denying the immense value to agriculture of these chemicals, properly used and applied.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, might I ask the noble Earl whether he would think about this? Is he not aware that there is a very responsible body of opinion outside Parliament which does not consider that the present pursuit into the long-term dangers and potential dangers of these chemical sprays is being properly thought out: and will he set up a body, independent of the Ministry, to inquire into it? I implore him to do this, and to give these bodies some hope that something will be achieved.
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I could not accept that we are not taking adequate and proper measures at the moment. Of course, I shall bring to my right honourable friend's attention the points of view that noble Lords have raised, but I can give no undertaking that we can set up any other body on the subject.
LORD REAMy Lords, can the noble Earl say whether he considers there is adequate co-ordination between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Science with regard to such things as strontium 90 fall-out which, like the matters in question, are developing rather faster than chemists and biologists are quite happy about?
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, I do not know which member of the Government ought to answer the question posed by the noble Lord. I think co-operation in these matters can always be improved, and we are always trying to improve it. If any instances of failure to co-operate are brought to my notice, I will certainly do my best to put them right. I quite agree with what the noble Lord has said. So far as the atomic fall-out question is concerned, it is not really a question of co-operation between the Minister of Agriculture and my Ministry. The Agricultural Research Council is responsible for monitoring, and this is solely under my responsibility.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, is the noble and learned Viscount considering issuing, or asking the Agricultural Research Council to issue, some sort of statement as to what research is going on? The noble Earl who answered for the Ministry of Agriculture said that he was quite sure that private concerns were doing a great deal of research work. But there is undoubtedly a strong feeling of uneasiness in the country that enough research work is not going on into these problems, which affect human life just as much as wild life. If the noble Viscount could consider issuing a statement as to what is being done, it might alleviate the uneasiness.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, that might be a useful suggestion, but I should like to see it on the Paper. I can see that in my unpremeditated answer to the last supplementary I unintentionally misled the noble Lord. I allowed myself to be led on to the monitoring of the fall-out, but so far as the original question is concerned, of course there are a number of bodies involved in it. There is my noble friend's Ministry—and that was why he answered—and there is the Agricultural Research Council, which deals with one aspect of the matter. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, knows, one of the more important aspects is dealt with by the Nature Conservancy, which is responsible to me, and which deals with that aspect of the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred particularly, ecology. Agriculture is, as it were, the inside of the farm gate, and nature conservancy perhaps the outside of the farm gate.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, is the noble Viscount the Leader of the House aware that he has given a complete answer to my plea that an independent body should be set up to coordinate all these different bodies to which he has referred?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, that is in a sense true, but I had thought that any noble friend had indicated that a body has been set up. Although, of course, I am responsible for the various research bodies that I have described to the House, they are independent of me in the sense that their scientific judgment is not interfered with by my office. Indeed, it was precisely in order to avoid political interference with the scientific judgment of research councils that they were originally put under the Lord President of the Council, and are now under the office of the Minister for Science. Therefore, although there is a great deal in the noble Viscount's argument, I think the considerations he has indicated are being given.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, can the noble Earl say whether he is satisfied that when these inquiries are finished his Department will already have sufficient powers to prohibit the use of chemicals proved to be harmful; and 515 can he further say, without specifying them, whether in fact so far any such chemicals have been prohibited?
EARL. WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, the question of prohibiting or banning raises far wider matters than, if I may be allowed to say so, were envisaged in the original Question. I understand that the Government have not readily at hand compulsory powers to ban these chemicals. But, as noble Lords will be aware, a voluntary ban has been arranged by the manufacturers (through the good offices of the Government) on certain chemicals quite recently, which we think is a great advance, and probably the proper way to proceed.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I apologise for pursuing this matter a little further, but I think the noble Viscount made a most astonishing statement to come from the Minister for Science. Did I rightly understand him to say that ecology stops at the farm gate and, by inference, that the Nature Conservancy's responsibilities are there limited? Because it is one of the complaints that the Agricultural Research Council are not doing enough fundamental long-range ecological research. I think we ought to hear from the noble Viscount exactly what he meant.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I do not think the noble Lord has interpreted rightly what I said. I think that ecology, which is concerned, as it were, with the balance of nature, is essentially a matter for the Nature Conservancy rather than for the Agricultural Research Council; and if he looks into the terms of reference of the bodies, he will find, I believe, that this is so. It may be that I. was speaking too popularly if I talked about "the farm gate". I certainly should not expect to be treated as being on oath in regard to that particular phrase. But the Agricultural Research Council is, after all, primarily concerned with research into agriculture, which is the deliberate propagation of plants and animals for human use or consumption. The Nature Conservancy is fairly well described by its name, and I should have thought that there was a need for an independent body of that kind. Obviously, there must be coordination between those bodies, and 516 my office is supposed to maintain it, but I think it would be a pity if the body responsible for agriculture were treated as absolutely identical in scientific interest with the body responsible for wild life, whether plant life or animal life. These are scientific bodies, and I should myself have thought that the present arrangement was not a bad one. I am afraid we are getting into a rather different debate from what my noble friend was originally asked, and perhaps the House will think I have given an adequate explanation for this purpose.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I think we have finished now, and we ought to thank the Government for their patience to-day. May I express the hope that the Minister from the Agricultural Department is not suffering from toxic chemical action in the left arm, and if there is any pain we hope that it will soon be gone.
EARL WALDEGRAVEI should like to thank the noble Viscount. I am much obliged to him for his kind inquiries.