§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy 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 they have been consulted about the dumping in the sea of soil contaminated with fluoracetamide; where this soil is to be dumped; and what steps will be taken to ensure that the poison is not disseminated by ocean currents or by fish and other marine animals.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD)Yes, my Lords. It is in fact on the advice of Her Majesty's Government that the manufacturers are removing this material from their factory site. The manufacturers are arranging under Government guidance to dump it in the Atlantic 2 in very deep water beyond the Continental Shelf where no possible harm could result to fish or other marine life.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this stuff is so poisonous that it is lethal in a dilution which can hardly be detected by chemical analysis? And, with regard to the method of disposal, is it proposed to put the contaminated soil in waterproof containers which will ensure that it is not disseminated in the sea?
LORD ST. OSWALDNo, my Lords. We have taken scientific advice on this, and we are told on the best authority that it is not necessary when dumped in that depth, nearly two and a half miles of water, to put it in containers.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHMy Lords, the noble Lord assumes that it will sink to the bottom. What evidence is there of that? Will the soil not become flocculent and rest quite near the surface for long periods of time?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, again we have taken the best advice on this, and we are told not. In addition to the Ministry of Agriculture's scientists, advice has been sought from Sir Rudolf Peters, Emeritus Professor of Bio-Chemistry at Oxford and a noted authority on fluoracetamide and on the disposal of chemicals.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, it appears that there are now noted authorities on this material. Why have they not given advice to the 3 Government before regarding the toxicity of this material? Why has this alarming ignorance prevailed and only now are the Government aware of the dangers? Because of this, how can we be assured that this new dumping will be quite innocent and will not give rise to more trouble?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, there appears to be more than one question involved in the noble Baroness's supplementary. The innocence of the dumping is, I think, beyond question. We have, in fact, taken great care to assure ourselves that, dumped in that part of the ocean, it will do no harm. As regards the unsuspected nature of this chemical, it is true that as a result of this industrial accident—I would point out to the noble Baroness that this was not the result of agricultural, or horticultural use, but was the result of an industrial accident; I think that is an important point—we have learned, for the first time, I agree, of the effect that this can have on dogs, though on no other animals, so far as we are aware, as a secondary poison. This is what we have discovered about it as the result of this accident.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, could the noble Lord just answer this question? In view of the powerful nature of this material, how can we be certain that it will not affect sea food of any kind?
LORD ST. OSWALDWell, we are dumping it so that it will descend to a depth of two and a half miles, 2,000 fathoms. At that depth no fish eaten by human beings can live or move or circulate in any way.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the soil will be bagged sc that it will sink, or that it will be dumped en mass so that it will float? One often sees in many places soil floating on the surface of the water for quite some distance.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I confess that I have never seen soil floating on the top of the water. But there is 2,000 tons of it which is being dumped, and this appears to be a safe and proper way to dispose of it.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, would the noble Lord reconsider his remarks on the secondary toxicity of fluoracetamide where dogs are concerned? Has he considered what the secondary toxicity is so far as human beings are concerned? Has he himself looked at any biochemical textbook on fluoracetamide which, as one well knows, is the most poisonous and least recognisable of poisons? If, as my noble friend suggested, it is now reckoned to be safe to dump it in the sea, how was it that it was not thought safe to be dumped in gardens? Is the noble Lord suggesting that such chemicals as these are still safe to use in gardens? If so, why is he asking for them to be withdrawn? And if he is asking for them to be withdrawn, will he publish the names of these particular chemicals, which people may have in their houses?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, that is being done. In fact, all existing stocks of this chemical used as a pesticide are being disposed of or returned to the manufacturers, and they will not be issued again as pesticides. What was the other question the noble Lord asked?
§ LORD SHACKLETONThere were several, I quite agree. What I was asking the noble Lord was why he is withdrawing them at all. He has referred to secondary toxicity in regard to dogs. How does he withdraw it from people who already have it in their houses?
LORD ST. OSWALDThey are being circularised and advised to dispose of it or to return it to the manufacturers. The question, which the noble Lord will be the first to appreciate, is that of concentration. The form in which it poisoned the cows in this instance was a very powerful concentration. The form in which it was issued as insecticide was very much weaker and could not be as dangerous as it was in the fields where it escaped by an error.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords—
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me to interrupt? I do not very often intervene on these occasions and we do not have many Rules of Order in this House, but I think on this occasion we are in danger of having a small debate on this subject. 5 I wonder whether your Lordships might think that, if there is such great interest in this subject, an unstarred Question should be put down, rather than that there should be a debate this afternoon.