HERBICIDE 2.4.5-T: USE AND HAZARDS (Hansard, 11 March 1970)

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH)
My Lords, this herbicide is manufactured in Britain. It is used in agriculture and forestry for the control of woody weeds. 2.4.5-T poisoning is not a notifiable disease under the Factory Acts, and as far as my Department have been able to discover there has been no instance of workers engaged in the manufacture of this herbicide being poisoned. I have not yet seen the results of any research carried out by the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, while thanking my noble friend—and I will return, if I may, to the point about the accident in the factory—may I ask him this supplementary question? In view of the doubts about the effect of the herbicide, would it not be desirable to with-draw it from the British market until tests have proved unequivocally that it is safe? Is my noble friend aware that the United States Government has now, as a result of research on pregnant animals, which in one case showed that 70 per cent. of the births were deformed, without heads, 798 eyes, and other deformities, banned its civilian use and limited its use in Vietnam to unpopulated areas? Would it not be possible to apply a similar ban in this country?

§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITH
My Lords, the danger of formation of a particular toxic impurity does exist in the manufacture of the intermediate chemical from which this herbicide is derived, and that fact is well known. In production in this country the level is closely controlled, and the level of impurity does not exceed one part per million, which is generally regarded as free of hazards. I am aware that an examination associated with this herbicide has taken place in the United States. So far as banning the use of the herbicide is concerned, the situation is that a voluntary safety scheme is operated with the assistance of an advisory committee which gives guidance on the use of pesticides and herbicides, and our information is that provided this herbicide is used in accordance with the instructions laid down as a part of that voluntary scheme, no danger and no hazard should arise.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, in view of my noble friend's statement that he had no knowledge of an instance of poisoning in this country, is he aware that I have the name of the company and the factory? Why has this accident been hushed up? Is he aware that I am refraining from mentioning the name of the company because it has now adopted a clean process? But is he also aware that even this clean process and crystallisation of the product is now doubted by many scientists, as contamination may recur in light and heat, as illustrated by strong sunlight?

§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITH
My Lords, the position is that this herbicide, so far as we are aware, is manufactured by two companies in this country. It is manufactured on the basis of am inter-mediate chemical, which in turn is manufactured by one company. It is true that in the production, not of the herbicide but of the intermediate chemical from which it is derived, an accident did occur. It did not arise in the normal process of manufacture. It arose as a result of the overheating of the reaction mixture and a consequential explosion. I would emphasise that it was not in the course of the process of manufacture of the 799 herbicide but in the course of the process of manufacture of the chemical from which the herbicide is derived. I would make the point that one feature of this intermediate chemical is that it is the raising of the temperature above a certain point in the process of its manufacture which causes the toxic impurity. It therefore follows that an explosion in the course of the process did produce a volume of toxic impurity quite out of scale with anything which one might expect in the normal process of manufacture. It has been suggested that this accident was hushed up. The incident was investigated by the factory inspector and the plant concerned has now been modified.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is considerable concern about this matter? Could he tell us which Government Committee is investigating the subject? Is it the Standing Committee on Toxic Chemicals, on organo-chlorine compounds? Am I right in thinking that the British Society mentioned in the Question has done measurements on the toxicity of this particular chemical?

§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITH
My Lords, the guidance on the use of the herbicide to which I referred has been given by the advisory committee which operates under the general ægis of the Ministry of Agriculture and which is concerned with the voluntary safety scheme in connection with the use of herbicides. So far as the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science is concerned, I under-stand that a paper has been prepared by this Society, but, so far as I am aware, it has not yet been published in this country.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I give notice—

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, on a point of order, is not the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, carrying the licence allowed on Starred Questions much too far?

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)
My Lords, as some noble Lords were aware, I was getting a little concerned at the extent of the fascinating information given by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and indeed in my noble 800 friend's most helpful reply. But, frankly, I agree with the noble Marquess that there is a borderline within which the House begins to feel that Question Time is perhaps being misused.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I just give notice, particularly in view of that statement—

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, are noble Lords aware—

§ LORD BROCKWAY
—that on April 19, on an Unstarred Question, I shall be pursuing this matter?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I think my noble friend is confusing our procedure with that of another place, where one gives notice of an Adjournment Motion, which of course has the effect of stopping any further questions. I think that is what the noble Lord has now achieved.

§ LORD BYERS
My Lords, would not the noble Lord the Leader of the House deprecate the importation of that particular procedure into this House?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, there are a number of procedures which are apt to creep in, and I think a time comes when one should take note of them.