§ 2.42 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy 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 Chemicals for the Gardener, recently published by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, represents the Government's policy on the wise use of toxic chemicals and whether the Government's advisers on wild life were consulted before its issue.]
959LORD ST. OSWALDYes, my Lords. This advisory booklet was published under the Agricultural. Chemicals Approval Scheme to help gardeners choose the right chemical by listing those which have been found effective in controlling troublesome pests, diseases and weeds. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage manufacturers to enter their products for approval under this scheme and to encourage growers to use only approved products. No product is approved unless the chemical it contains has also been considered and cleared under the notification scheme from the safety point of view. Under this scheme, no new chemical can be marketed until it has been notified and considered by the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances and recommendations issued for its safe use. There are three advisers on wild life on the Advisory Committee.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lards, could the noble Lord say whether in fact the Government's advisers were specifically consulted on the issue of this particular booklet and, if so, who are they?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord wants me to give a list of the entire membership of the Advisory Committee. What he is interested to know is that two members are nominees of the Nature Conservancy.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, what I am asking is this. Were they specifically asked whether there was any objection to giving this advice in this particular form, and were the Nature Conservancy also consulted on it?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I have tried to explain that the Nature Conservancy were consulted, by inference, in that two nominees of the Nature Conservancy, who naturally considered every aspect and particularly those aspects in which the Nature Conservancy were interested, are members of the Committee.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, may I ask whether the two members of the Committee who apparently advised the Government on wild life in fact approved the issue of this booklet?
§ LORD FORBESMy Lords, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that more publicity is given to the scientific work that has already been done on toxic chemicals? The general public are still very much in the dark on this question, which is of supreme importance.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, this is a matter for me. I certainly will take note of my noble friend's suggestion and if he has any particular points to suggest, I shall be glad to do what I can to see that they are carried out.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, in view of the harmful effect on wild life, can the noble Lord tell me whether there will be penalties attached in those cases where farmers disregard the Government's advice?
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that, so far as milk is concerned, and the antibiotics contained in it, about which farmers have known for a very long time, the Government have not found that the voluntary system has been effective?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the particular concern on the chlorinated hydrocarbon chemicals—pesticides—two of the most potent of which are specifically mentioned in this booklet as all right, is that they have resulted on unquestionable evidence in the death of thousands and thousands of birds? The point is: do the Government continue to approve the use of these chlorinated pesticides?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I know the House will not wish to go over the whole ground of the debate we had some weeks ago. The noble Lord referred to aldrin and dieldrin; the fact is that their use as seed dressings has been limited. In fact, it is not satisfactorily proved and we cannot, without further proof, accept that aldrin and dieldrin, in the small amounts they are used as seed dressings for vegetables are endangering bird life.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, how then does the noble Lord account for the increasing number of reports of birds clearly having been killed through consuming poisons in gardens? There is no question about it. The Government have stopped using these substances in the Royal Parks, but at the same time are encouraging gardeners to use these very chemicals of which there is strong evidence that they are poisonous.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I do not believe that the bird deaths which are alleged to have happened as a result of birds consuming toxic chemicals can be traced to their use in gardens.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, then what are they traced to? Are they traced to improper use on farms?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, as I have said, they are alleged to be the result of toxic chemicals. The fact is that since we advised that aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor should not be used as seed dressing for spring sown cereals the bird deaths have declined.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I do not want to go on pressing the noble Lord, but will he then account (perhaps he is reluctant to do so) for the tawny owl picked up a few months ago in London which had in it benzene heptachloride, dieldrin, D.D.T. and another chemical?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, apart from the fact that tawny owls feed on mice, I am not prepared to account for it.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, can I ask the noble Lord why he has such faith in the ethics of farmers?
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I do not think farmers like pigeons and starlings, in any event.