§ 4.54 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ LORD PEDDIEMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is quite a small Bill, but one that is much needed. It covers one important aspect of the problem of greater safety in the use of pesticides. The origin of the Bill is due to the interest displayed by Alderman Joyce Butler in another place, and the subsequent progress of this Bill and the support that has been given by the Government is a tribute to her effort and persistence.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make regulations requiring that pesticide products sold for use on farms or in gardens and containing specific active ingredients shall be labelled with the name of that active ingredient, and that there shall be prescribed a mark, symbol or colour to show how toxic it is to humans or other forms of life. The acceptance of these measures would without doubt enable the user to recognise much more clearly and rapidly than he can to-day what is the active ingredient, and to select the right chemical for his particular use and purpose. In addition, in the event of an accident, which could flow from the indiscriminate or over-use of the pesticide, such name will enable anyone coping with the situation to see what has caused the trouble and to use the appropriate antidote. A further advantage of this Bill is that the distinguishing mark or colour will give a clear warning that the product is in some degree toxic and needs careful handling.
The individual substances that will be the subject of this legislation will be scheduled in the regulations. The Bill itself provides for consultations by the Minister with the interested organisations before the regulations are made. It is as well to give some consideration to the existing labelling requirements. Apart from the Poison Rules made under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, which require the word "poison" to appear on labels of products containing poisons, there are no laws in this country requiring 125 a symbol indicating the hazard to appear on labels of farm and garden chemicals. It is perfectly true that at the present time nearly all manufacturers and suppliers of these chemicals adhere to a voluntary pesticides safety precautions scheme, and put the name of the active ingredient on the label of their products. But there are one or two firms who do not take part in this scheme, and the Bill will have the advantage of making all firms concerned subject to the same labelling requirements. And I might mention at this point that these proposals are welcomed by the rest of the trade who are adhering to the proposals under the voluntary scheme.
With regard to future Government action concerning the control of pesticides, your Lordships may be aware that at the request of the Government an Advisory Committee on Pesticides recently reviewed the safety arrangements for use of poisonous substances in agriculture and home gardens. The report, published in January, 1967, recommended that the present voluntary scheme be replaced by a compulsory licensing scheme for all pesticide products used in agriculture and home gardens. The Committee recommended also that labelling be controlled either by approving such specific label as part of the licence or by giving the Minister general powers. The Government, before deciding what action to take, have invited organisations to comment on the recommendations. It is true that the Bill does not cover all the proposals that may emerge from such discussions, but it certainly covers, as I said originally, one exceedingly important aspect of this overall problem of dealing with pesticides. As everyone knows, with the increasing and perhaps necessary use of pesticides it becomes increasingly imperative that steps such as those outlined in this very useful Bill should be accepted, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Peddie.)
§ 5.0 p.m.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, for introducing this Bill and for explaining it in such a lucid fashion. It is, as he said, a simple and a small Bill, and indeed it is only an enabling Bill. But 126 although it is small in size and extent, it is, nevertheless, important in its effect, because it will regularise and enforce the labelling and the categorising by colour or symbol of spray chemicals which are used, of course, by farmers, horticulturists and domestic gardeners.
The spray chemical industry has increased in size and in importance immensely over the past ten years. Sprays have become more scientific, more precise, and more specific—and sometimes more deadly. It is surprising that even now, as the noble Lord has pointed out, there is only a voluntary scheme for their, as it were, policing. I think the time will come when we shall have to be very much more vigorous in the control of these herbicides and pesticides. Ten years ago it was customary for farmers to purchase their herbicides, probably in bulk, in the autumn, and there would be what might be described as broad spectrum herbicides, which covered most weeds. But now it is necessary to have almost a technocrat who goes into each field and says, "On this field you need one substance, and on another, another substance"; and a spray bill may contain nine or ten different herbicides alone. The average farmer takes the advice of the technocrat and does what he is told, but has not the slightest idea what the ingredients are, nor of the hazards or dangers. This Bill will make it necessary for the product to be labelled with the ingredients, and also to be labelled, as the noble Lord said, with a colour or symbol.
I happened to be glancing through an agricultural paper only to-day, and I saw a large advertisement inviting the readers thereof to use a weed killer called "'Buctril' M". This very correctly said what the contents of this spray were, and the reader was informed that it consisted of bromoxynil octanoate and M.C.P.A. iso-octyl esters. That is, of course, extremely informative, but I would suggest that this information is really limited to only the manufacturers of bromoxynil octanoate and M.C.P.A. iso-octyl esters, or their equivalent. To the average farmer or horticulturist this would mean nothing. But under this system, as I see it, and as the noble Lord has explained, these sprays will come under a variety of different colours as well, to denote their sverity. One looks forward to the day 127 when one can buy one's sprays in cans, some possibly with a yellow label, denoting "quite harmless and indeed almost drinkable"; another possibly with a blue label indicating that it is all right on your outside but not on your inside; another possibly with a green label suggesting that this product is "getting a bit too hot to handle'; and another with a red label saying, to all intents and purposes, "Watch out. This is lethal". At least in this way the average user will have some idea of the danger, or indeed the safety, of the materials he is using.
I welcome this Bill for a number of reasons, and I welcome a number of particular provisions in it. The fact that it cannot come into operation for 15 months after it has been made law should, I think, give time enough for the Government to consult with the interested parties so that any arrangements that are made should have the agreement of the interested parties. I also welcome the fact that it is mandatory upon the Government to consult with them. I think this is most important and that it is highly desirable. I also like, if I may say so, the use of the word "hazard" in the Bill, because I think it is highly explicit. So often when talking about chemicals one refers to the toxicity of the chemical. Of course, the degree of toxicity of the chemical depends upon its concentration. The hazard is the danger to humans or animals attendant upon the degree of toxicity in the chemicals contained in the pesticide or herbicide. That, I feel, is very much more important and, after all, it is hazard to life with which we are concerned.
I would hope that in the period of 15 months in which there will be time for consultation the Government will take advantage of consulting not only with people in Europe, but also possibly people in the United Nations, who I believe have been doing a lot of work on the toxicity of chemicals, to see whether some degree of similarity can be obtained so that countries throughout the world, and certainly throughout Europe, may use the same colours to denote or symbolise the degree of severity of the chemicals which are used.
My Lords, this is a simple Bill and it should be simple to put into operation. I would hope that, because it is an 128 enabling Bill, the Government will not allow it to drop, but will take advantage of the powers that they have been given by this Bill to see that chemicals are labelled, and labelled in the manner suggested. In some ways I should like to see the Bill go a little further, because I think the time will come when these chemicals will have to be licensed, albeit by a simple licensing system. As time progresses and chemicals become more virulent and more potent the need for licensing will, I think, come about. But at least this is a start, and I welcome this Bill and hope it will pass your Lordships' House and receive your Lordships' agreement.
§ 5.8 p.m.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, as one who has a cupboardful of garden poisons, I welcome this Bill. But I do not think that making the orders is going to be half as easy as noble Lords who have just spoken seem to think, because all these substances are liable to be poisonous to a degree, and the problem is to try to indicate what degree of poison they are. Something else one must remember is that different persons will have a different toxicity or allergy factor. Some of these substances, of course, it would be poisonous to get on the skin; some poisonous if one swallowed them; some if one breathed them—or all three. Then there is the question of quantity, which my noble friend has just mentioned.
What one really wants is some instruction on these chemicals as to the precautions the normal person ought to take when using them; in other words: "Don't use this without wearing a mask", or "Always use rubber gloves", or perhaps with some dangerous ones, "Use oil skins, mask and gloves"; or, alternatively, "Not toxic if breathed for a small time in small quantities". Otherwise, I am afraid the directions likely to be put on these chemicals will really be of not much use to anybody.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVENMy Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not be too carried away in relying on colour only, because in gardeners there is an undisclosed but possibly large number who are colour blind. I think there should be something like a symbol and perhaps a potency scale. I know of an American 129 ship where they were inflicted with the names of French cheeses, so they graduated their cheeses on the Beaufort scale on the smell, and a Force 8 cheese really was something!
§ 5.11 p.m.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I thought that the noble Lord was going to make some comments on the remark made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he talked about labelling those products which were drinkable and those which were not, and was going to suggest that whatever happened there should not be a black label which was defined as being undrinkable, which might cause trouble in certain parts of this country.
I will not detain your Lordships long, but that does not mean that I regard this as an unimportant Bill; I think it is a valuable and useful Bill. The Government are certainly glad to accept it, and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend said, that the great majority of farm and garden chemicals are at the moment adequately labelled, but for all that there is a minority which do not conform to this practice, and there is much to be said for an enabling power which will enable the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to deal with cases which do not come up to the accepted standards.
As your Lordships know, there is at the present time an advisory committee on insecticides and other toxic chemicals which the Government have set up to advise on many matters. It was not so long ago that it reviewed the present safety arrangements for the use of all types of poisonous substances in agriculture and food storage, and in fact its report was published at the beginning of this year. The various interested organisations have been given until next month to offer their comments on the publication of this report, and naturally any action that may be taken will have to be deferred until these comments have been considered. But as I have said, the provisions in this enabling Bill are worth while and will be of considerable help to the Government in any future action which may be considered. Therefore I should like to thank my noble friend for introducing this Bill and once again express the hope that it will receive its Second Reading.
§ LORD PEDDIEMy Lords, may I thank your Lordships for the manner in which you have received the Bill. I particularly appreciate the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, based, as I know they are, upon practical experience in agriculture. He has given the House a number of indications of the practical advantage of the provisions of this Bill. Within the 15 months which will be available for consultation, I am sure that all the interests which are represented will be able to convey their particular point of view, and possibly even add to the value of the Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that it is not easy to deal with the directions concerning the use of such things as pesticides and the like. There is a need for full direction, and I think that is recognised by the promoters of the Bill and by the appropriate Ministers. The fact that this is not an easy matter is no reason why we should not proceed with it, and I think the Minister has given the indication of the need for such action. Indeed, even now the manufacturers I have mentioned, and who are members of the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, do not classify pesticides either by colour or symbol on the label, and nor do the Government require them so to do under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme. Therefore the proposal that is being made is a substantial step forward, even beyond those conditions laid down by the more advanced manufacturers and suppliers of pesticides.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, that there are difficulties attendant upon colour blindness, but that is no reason why we should not use colour on occasions. After all, those who are colour blind may be able to read. The combination of symbol and colour is an attempt to deal with all parties regardless of their possible afflictions. The question of colour is, of course, important and significant. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, indicated, it offers enormous opportunities for giving better warning in dealing with pesticides, but attendant upon this there is the difficulty in regard to linking up with European interests. Therefore the Government, and whoever may be responsible, will have a good deal of thinking and consultation to do before it is possible to proceed with the actual identification of the colour to be 131 used. I repeat that we are not relying solely on colour, but are relying also on symbol and detailed explanation.
I think I have covered the points which have been raised, but I should like to repeat the words with which I opened and to thank noble Lords for their support. This is a small Bill, but one that win, I think, make a useful, indeed a considerable, contribution to greater safety in the use of pesticides.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.