HL Deb 17 July 1979 vol 401 cc1394-411

8.29 p.m.

Lord HALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now reconsider their attitude to the increasing danger in the use and manufacture of synthetic chemicals with especial reference to dioxin. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It arises out of a Question which appeared a week or two ago on the Order Paper, when we were asking only about dioxin in its role as a pesticide. Your Lordships will see that the Question today has been widened quite considerably because the question of its role as a pesticide arose directly out of the recent and much publicised decision of the American Environmental Agency on this matter—as I understand it, in not banning its use but in view of the evidence obtained from Oregon in issuing an order which they call a "rebuttable presumption"—which means that anyone who has been brought under question or is using matter brought under question should reply within a limited period, saying that they were using every method of safety.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, could not have been more helpful or more courteous, and he at once handed me a copy of the report of the Pesticides Advisory Committee. That is an independent committee of experts that comes down from time to time to consider this matter, and I was tremendously impressed by its report. Once more, for the eighth time, it was summoned by the Minister to consider certain problems which have been raised and, as I understand it, it will shortly be reassembling to consider the full report of the American environmental agency and the evidence that has been produced. I would draw its attention to a rather strange article in the Guardian, which appeared after the Question was put down and two days before it was due to be answered.

It is not for me—it would not be appropriate or sensible—in 15 minutes to try to deal with the Pesticides Committee's report. As I said, it is an excellent report by an admirable committee. They have clearly taken each question seriously. They are some of the experts of whom one takes notice on occasions, though I much approved of what was said in a previous debate about the attention that one should pay to experts. They have put forward a series of propositions which are very impressive.

On the question of the Birmingham material, experiments have been conducted. Everybody knows of the whole tortuous history of dioxin. It is the most amazing substance and it produces the most conflicting results, in respect of which there are explosions when there appears to be no special cause for explosions, and in respect of which no simulated explosion can be produced when those investigating deliberately try to find the reasons and are prepared to take that risk. The committee point out that the use in this country has now been reduced from about 40 tons a year to a total of, I think, about three, of which only one is in forestry and two separate tons, roughly, are spread over herbicides and special activities. They point out that they themselves have reduced the dioxin content in forestry use—in this connection, they liken it to brushwood killers—which is now important for reasons which I may mention quite briefly.

They are dealing only with the impure dioxin which is produced virtually accidentally, but with some regularity, in the process of manufacture of the brushwood killers, and they draw a distinction between that and the dioxin used in Vietnam or at Seveso. This is difficult to do because, according to the experts, there are 60 different kinds of dioxin—on the basis of Professor Kekule's elaborate system of monkeys performing acrobatics while he was travelling on a bus from Clapham to Islington, or possibly from Islington to Clapham. This wonderful and fanciful system names, and purports to name, something like 4 million chemicals, supplemented by his dream at Ghent when he saw snakes embracing one another in the most curious and suspicious attitude, which produced benzine rings. All this is rather reminiscent of recent books on the atom.

No one can hestiate to say that the committee do full justice to the extraordinary position of dioxin. They themselves refer to it as perhaps the most dangerous poison known. What they say is, "We have not only prescribed in these brushwood killers an absolutely minimum dose of impure dioxin, but after a time we reduced it by one-tenth to what is now just about the lowest angstrom unit "—I must not use the word "percentage", because I am talking in terms of one in 10 million or possibly one in 100 million, although one in 10 million is the present limit—" and we have reduced it to such a low point that when the Government chemist investigates pesticides there any many in which he detects no trace."That does not prove that there is no trace, but at least it proves that whatever trace there may be is well below the limit and is perfectly safe. This I have found in other of these complicated chemicals.

I have tried for the benefit of other persons who are with us not to go too far into polysyllabic chemical names, and I hope to continue to do so. So that it is an excellent and admirable report, and it is a credit to the British system. It shows that ample precautions are taken, so far as precautions are taken, and it says that you are safe, provided that the rules and regulations are all carried out. Indeed, possibly I would go further and say that so many precautions are taken that it would require somebody of great ability, or great lack of discretion or care, to do anything with these which is not a matter of customary practice.

It is strange that the article in the Guardian—to which I do not attribute, with respect to them, too much importance—was produced to show what happened in mid-Wales. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones is here, for I am not at my best when it comes to Welsh geography, or the Welsh language or pronunciation. There is a photograph of two distinguished local men making their way down a 45-yard shaft to find a series of drums and kilns, all of which are photographed and listed. Apparently they are relics of some of the operations carried on by the Forestry Commission in that area.

During the summer, the lady whose husband went down that shaft had a miscarriage. Her husband is a man of high repute and of considerable local knowledge. I sent that information to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and I think that he may have in mind the question of some further inquiry. As I say, I do not attribute any great gravity to the fact that a number of people are prepared to say that these tins contained noxious material and did not appear to have been cleaned. The tins had been left there in a damaged condition; they were somewhat noxious when they were approached and they were capable of giving alarm. What is serious about this matter is the local response. When these people went to their local officers and officials, they were told that the whole matter was being investigated by the Forestry Commission and that everything was perfectly all right—that of course no mistake of any kind could take place.

Where do we get to from there? We get to the point that we are importing what is described as the most dangerous poison in the world and that we are placing it in the hands of people who say, "We are not going to respond to public opinion" or, "We are not going to answer" or, "We are not going to reply" or, "We are not going to give any assurance that steps have been taken". What is more, we are told that this is an area where the public walk freely. Blackberries were growing in that area and people were eating the blackberries. Probably they did not come to any harm; I am not saying that they did. However, the Forestry Commission workers refused to consider the suggestion that a little notice should be exhibited indicating that spraying had taken place. Of course, all this may not be true. It is very ungenerous of me to say this. I say only that it is perhaps a fortuitous example of the fact that if one is dealing with such a poison—and what a poison!—one ought to take care.

I have already taken up a great deal of time on this matter. I said that I would turn to Vietnam, but it seems to me that Vietnam has been fully dealt with, in so far as it can be dealt with. It is no longer contested that much stronger poison was being used in Vietnam, that it was spread over a very considerable area of Vietnam and that it was on evidence that came forward as to the tetragenicity of dioxin that the U.S. people—including ex-President Nixon—resolved not to continue with its use. And its use was gradually diminished. I must say one word about the question of tetragenicity, which recalls thalidomide. All that we know about dioxin, which is uncontroverted, is that any number of experiments show that it is tetragenetic in animals and that it can produce results which involve the possibility of miscarriages, or the birth of monsters.

I was also going to say a word about the experiences at Bolsover. We are told that in the manufacture of dioxin there has been a series of 15 varied explosions. The first, in the United States of America, in 1949, at Monsanto, resulted in the incapacity of workers. The second was at BASF in Germany. There, a rather different explosion had similar results. Most of these incidents received little or no publicity and were suppressed. When the National Coal Board established a branch known as Coalite and Chemical Limited and when a four-storey modern factory was built near Bolsover, it was admirably provided with all possible equipment and with special cooling apparatus.

What often happens in the manufacture of 2,4,5 — T is an exothermic explosion. The normal operating temperature can go up safely to about 170 degrees, but if it passes beyond 200 degrees it can shoot up to about 400 degrees. At Bolsover they had a factory which complied with every possible condition and which made every provision which could be made. They carried on happily for three years, from 1965 until 1968. Then, at midnight on one occasion, there was an exothermic explosion. Indeed, Dr. May, who has recorded it in a wonderful and honest account, says that probably it was a double explosion. The exothermic explosion took place and the first major casualty was the superintending chemist—not because of poison—but because this explosion broke down walls and masonry and he was injured by the fall. A supplemental chemical explosion involving the heat of an overhead lamp applied to the fumes that were coming out, provided the rather special difference.

My Lords, I must proceed with very great speed indeed. The Coalite premises closed down for a time, it was carefully examined, workers were treated. The characteristic of dioxin is almost invariably chloracne, the siting of spots and sometimes of cysts which cover the body, not wholly dissimilar ill their appearance (except that they are much more unpleasant looking) to the ordinary appearance of the disease of pimples which trouble young men. Chloracne often responds to treatment but on other occasions it is almost impossible to treat and, if treatment does not succeed, it can be followed by some of the gravest diseases, resulting in death.

Although the actual four-storey factory building of Coalite was not greatly damaged, they removed much of the machinery and dumped it in a safe place 45 metres below ground. They continued very successfully in a new factory, although they discovered one extremely significant thing: when, having cured all the sufferers, they brought in people who had had no apparent contact at all with dioxin, those people began to suffer, and, as new people were brought in, it was decided that there was no process of decontamination which succeeded. Dr. May reports that, because of this, he got in touch with one of his customers in West Germany who had had the same trouble—that was the BASF explosion, from which, again, there had been fantastic results.

So I will come for a moment or two to Seveso in Milan, where Hoffman La Roche had a factory. Actually Hoffman have a subsidiary company in Switzerland known as Givaudan, which is a substantial company. Givaudan decided to establish a plant in the Icmesa company's rather old factory just north of Milan, in an area massed with people, where an open drain runs into the River Seveso, which passes through and under Milan and which floods most of Milan twice a year—an area through which an autostrada passes to the North, Sevesa being not far from the lovely country of the Lakes.

It was on 10th July 1976, which was a Saturday, at six o'clock in the morning an empty factory where the process of manufacture had been interrupted for the weekend, that, quite suddenly, a mass of gas or vapour came through the vent in the roof and began to make its way over one of the large overcrowded towns of the north of Italy. The noble Lord of course has the report, (which I understand has been translated) from the Government of Italy. All the medical evidence shows that the dioxin remains, that the risks have not been reduced and that Hoffman La Roche are now paying up to five million Swiss francs in temporary damages pending further litigation. A prosecution has been launched.

I will only say that this is a very grave matter. It is a matter which really must be looked at and, although in this country we have taken every precaution, this stuff is not necessary. It is a convenient method of destroying forests or brushwood or heather, but there are others. It is very nice to have something 20,000 times as strong as sodium cyanide but there are other preparations and therefore I venture to ask the noble Lord whether the Government will consider the documents that have been filed, whether he will make inquiries about the facts stated in the Guardian and whether he will bear in mind that the case for importing deadly poisons about which we still know little and the effects of which cannot be contained unless constantly watched is not made out. We do not do it and that may be the reply, but, so long as we are importing the product, we are taking, part in something in which a duty to the people should be paramount.

8.58 p.m.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, I want to hold your Lordships' attention for a few minutes on a subject which is of very great importance; namely, the question of the production of chemicals. I know that to most people organic chemistry is extremely complicated and difficult. In fact, it is quite as easy as the Pools; I think that most people, if they put their minds to it, could win just as easily as they could on the Pools. Of course, I admit that normally one loses on the Pools; but, still, there is a chance of winning.

The point is that it is merely a matter of putting a certain number of things together. The only trouble is that one never knows what the answer is. If one takes this matter of dioxin, which is a very grave and serious matter, I have created a model here simply by taking a piece of paper and folding it roughly into a hexagonal shape. That is one of the basic shapes of organic chemistry. There is a material called trichlorophenol. "Tri" simply comes from the classics. as does "chloro" and "phenol". If we take a shape, such as I am illustrating, and put a chlorine atom at the first point, another at the second point and another at the third, and a hydroxin group here, we have trichlorophenol, which is a very good herbicide and is used regularly as a herbicide. The only trouble is this, that if you think of chlorine and hydroxina rather as two claws of a crab, and then you think of another crab coming up towards it, unfortunately the two crabs clamp together and they form dioxin. Dioxin is just like that; and whereas trichlorophenol is a very useful herbicide, dioxin is a very dangerous lethal substance. Unfortunately—and as a chemist I have to admit this—there is always one chance in a million, when you try to make that and two of them come together, that you get this highly lethal substance.

That is our real problem, that we always have a risk whenever we conduct any process in the chemical industry. It may be a very small risk, one chance in a million. And when we talk about risks, after all, the risks in nuclear energy are, on the whole, no greater than the risks which occur all the time in the chemical industry. People get themselves wildly excited about the possibility of nuclear energy creating something devastating. We are running the same risks every day of the week in every chemical industry of the country, and I speak as a chemist. It is really quite nonsensical to talk about what is going to happen unless we look carefully at all the possibilities. I think it is extremely important in every industry that we look with great care at all the possible risks that may exist. I think that is vital.

We should never have had any progress at all if we had taken no risks. Risk is part of the lot of humanity. Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward, and indeed we have got to remember that. We have to bear that in mind. That does not mean that we ignore risks. What it means is that we take every possible care to ensure that such risks are not going to be a deficit. In this case I think that it has been proved, as my noble friend Lord Hale has emphasised, that the dioxin risk is a very grave and serious one, and because of this it is essential that in everything we do in manufacture, of trichlorophenol for example, we take every precaution to minimise the risk.

When I say "minimise" I do not mean that we make the risk disappear. There is no conceivable way of making any risk disappear. I think it is time that the country realised and humanity realised that we cannot conduct any sort of scientific work at all without risk. I have worked in laboratories all my life. I have had explosions in my own laboratory. I have done stupid things in my own laboratory. Many of the people working with me have done stupid things. What we are trying to do is to ensure that we minimise the risk and maximise the advantage of progress. Without that we shall get nowhere at all.

At the present time we ought to be very careful about our consideration of the whole attitude towards progress. Either we progress or we do not. I am absolutely convinced that a lot of the opposition to a great deal of what is done is based on the fact of ignorance, that people do not understand what the consequences are of not taking a risk. I think we have to be very careful about this. I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply to tell us the attitude of the Government on this. Of course, the Government are not omnipotent. I am not asking him to say that they are going to lay down absolute laws for this, that or the other. I am not so foolish, I hope, as to suggest that. What I would ask is this: Are we seriously going to look at all the processes that we carry out, whether they be chemical processes, whether they be nuclear processes or whatever they may be? And are we going to be certain that not only are we considering the technical process, but we are also taking very close account of all the human dangers that can arise?—and they can arise in all sorts of ways. I do not not want to say any more. I would merely like to leave that for the noble Lord to answer.

9.7 p.m.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, for the very short course in chemistry which he has given us tonight. I was intrigued by his remarks. He made some rather reassuring remarks that I am sure my noble friend Lord Hale will not find readily acceptable. But I should say in all common fairness to my noble friend Lord Hale that nobody doubts in any way the deep sincerity and anxiety that he has on this and similar questions. I share his concern at the increasing use and availability to the general public of chemicals for pest control, herbicides and similar uses. Not all people read the small print on packages or sprays and by sheer ignorance or carelessness can cause damage to their own health and to others, in some cases even death.

In these matters we face a dilemma. In under-developed countries such chemicals expertly used can increase food production and eliminate disease. On the other hand, we can find the environment at home seriously affected by crop spraying and other uses of chemical preparations—for example, I understand that Europe's butterfly population is seriously threatened.

My noble friend's Question specifically refers to the control and use of dioxin which has no known commercial use, but it may be formed in trace quantities, as has already been explained, as an unwanted by-product during the manufacture of trichlorophenol. I understand that we do not manufacture that chemical in Britain. In fact, I answered a Question raised by my noble friend Lord Hale way back in 1977 on this issue. However, we do import what is needed into the United Kingdom for the manufacture of herbicides and antiseptics. As has been stated, our only factory was closed some time ago. That factory was, of course, at Bolsover.

The disaster at Seveso arose during manufacture, and my noble friend has outlined the terrible results. It is still a matter for international concern and still calls for action. Quite recently an explosion occurred in the United States in almost similar circumstances, with serious effects on health and environment. Other explosions have occurred in various parts of the world, happening mainly during manufacture.

No chemical product, however beneficial, should be put into manufacture or distribution until the most stringent safety precautions have been tested and proved beyond doubt, complete with the strictest possible international control. Such international control is not easy. Not all nations have the same standard of health and safety precautions and regulations as Britain has. Relaxing safety measures for an increased profit margin in this area is criminal, but it happens in some areas, let us face it.

Finally, in view of the increasing use of synthetic chemicals, to which I have already referred, I would strongly support my noble friend in asking the Government to reconsider the whole question, and I should like to put forward a suggestion. Incidentally, so far as possible I do not use chemicals in my garden. I prefer to use natural compost. I suggest that in the same way as warnings are put on cigarette packets—as I well know, as one who has not broken the habit—similar warnings could be placed on packages of chemicals which are openly displayed for use in the garden, in the countryside and elsewhere, because anyone can buy those chemicals.

We have now reached the stage when relying on people to read small print is not enough. At the manufacturing stage there must be the strictest possible control and rigorous checks on safety measures. I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that the chances of an explosion might be minimal in the general sense of the overall production. But I am not so much concerned with that as with the effect of chemicals now so commonly in use in spraying to get rid, for example, of the present greenfly menace. Some chemicals can cause people harm but others are completely harmless. The country needs guidance, and I hope that the Government will take note of what I have said about putting visible warnings on packages of chemicals so readily displayed in our shops.

9.14 p.m.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for an admirably brief speech. The House will also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for bringing to your Lordships' attention this particularly important subject which has given us the opportunity of a debate, even at this hour. I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I extend my remarks in what will be quite a lengthy, but I hope not overlong, statement.

As the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, are so fresh in our minds, I think it would be for the benefit of the House if I were to reply, first, to his first and second inquiries about the labelling of packages because I believe that this is significant. I wish no discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, in so doing, but it would be valuable to mention this. The packages of chemicals imported into this country containing dioxin are marketed under the trade name of Silvapron T and Silvex. Each package has the words: "Safety Precaution" written on it, and in bold letters the words "Keep out of the reach of children". These may not be the only precautions suggested, and had I had the opportunity of further advance notice on this, I should have been only too happy to look into the subject for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. If he wishes to advance this problem further at this stage in the Session, I suggest that a Question for Written Answer may reveal the state of the law in regard to the labelling of these particular products.

I turn to the central issue of the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. As I have said, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us this opportunity to discuss the matter. I have listened with great interest both to his speech and to all the other interventions which have been made. Clearly, this is a subject of great public concern. I hope that this is a useful opportunity on which to put the Government's view.

The noble Lord, Lord Hale, in his Question mentions what he sees as an increasing danger posed by synthetic chemicals such as dioxin. Of course, in the compass of this short debate we could not deal in detail with the very large number of synthetic chemicals which number upwards of 50,000 different products which are now manufactured on a commercial scale in the developed world. But at the outset I ought to make a number of detailed points about dioxin simply as a matter of clarification and in view of the terms of the noble Lord's Question.

First, in using the term "dioxin", we must be clear that we are talking of one particular highly toxic chemical known to scientists as 2,3,7,8 - TCDD. This is the chemical which was released at Seveso, to which several noble Lords have referred, after an industrial explosion. There are other chemicals in the same group which are also known collectively as dioxins, but they are much less toxic and have not led to any concern. The dioxin about which we are talking is, however, a very toxic chemical indeed, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, referred to this.

Secondly, your Lordships are no doubt aware that this dioxin is not a chemical which has any known application for the benefit of man or animals. Indeed, it is not deliberately manufactured anywhere at all. However, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, dioxin comes into existence during the manufacture of another chemical used as an intermediate in the chemical industry. This chemical is properly known as 2,4,5 - trichlorophenol and the dioxin thus becomes a contaminant within it. In turn, the trichlorophenol becomes the raw material from which certain very useful products are manufactured, notably the pesticide, 2,4,5 - T, referred to earlier, and the antiseptic which is very well known, called hexachlorophane. If dioxin is present in this raw material, it enters into these products as a contaminant.

The third point of clarification is to make clear that trichlorophenol is not now manufactured in the United Kingdom. In other words, the process which results in the formation of dioxin as a contaminant does not take place here, and could not therefore be a source of risk to our people through explosion or other industrial accident. Up to 1976 the product was manufactured at Bolsover in Derbyshire; the noble Lord, Lord Hale, referred to Coalite Limited as the manufacturer. But in that year the company concerned voluntarily ceased to manufacture. I understand that, even before it was closed down, the manufacturing process included a number of special design features intended to avoid the possibility of an accident such as actually occurred at Seveso.

Thus—and this is my fourth point—the only risk that could arise from dioxin in the United Kingdom would be through its presence as a contaminant in a limited number of products available on the United Kingdom market. The Government control the use of all the products concerned antiseptics and similar products containing hexachlorophane are controlled under medicines and other legislation, and the pesticides are controlled under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme. Under these arrangements, the dioxin contaminant is controlled at a very low level, and provisions exist to monitor the position and to ensure that these low levels are not exceeded. So long as this is the case, the products concerned are safe to use because not enough dioxin is present to cause any harm. This is an illustration of the well-known principle that "the dose makes the poison".

To sum up the points of detail I wish to make at the outset, the dioxin we are talking about is an unintended contaminant, at very low and controlled levels, in certain products on the United Kingdom market; but the process which gives rise to it does not now take place here.

Concerning 2,4,5 - T, concern about dioxin has risen principally from its presence as a contaminant in the pesticide 2,4,5 - T. This is a useful herbicide, with a main application in forestry, and it has been on the market in this country for over 20 years, though usage has been decreasing during that period. The noble Lord, Lord Hale, specifically referred to the declining usage of this particular product. It is very effective against nettles and woody weeds like brambles—and I think all gardeners will recognise the value of herbicides—and, because it is selective, it destroys weeds without harming nearby grassland. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate how useful a quality this is. As I have said, the herbicide is cleared under the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme; and this clearance has been reviewed on no fewer than eight occasions.

There has in the recent past been increasing controversy about this herbicide, particularly in the light of the incident at Seveso and the use of the so-called "Agent Orange" by US forces in Vietnam. I hope that noble Lords see it as an advantage of the United Kingdom approach to these sensitive issues that we examine the scientific facts and do not—without hard evidence of risk—ban products which have attracted controversy. I hope that if the United Kingdom Government have taken a stand on a foundation of scientific fact it will not result in the charge of our being careless, or ignorant, of any risk to the health of our citizens from the use of 2,4,5 - T.

The scientific objectivity at which successive Governments have aimed is epitomised in the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which has only recently made public its report on 2, 4, 5,-T. This report, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hale, was published I think in March 1979 and is a document publicly available. It is one which has commended itself to a large number of outside bodies, and is in fact in the Library in your Lordships' House.

The committee which produced this document consists of an independent group of experts in the relevant scientific disciplines under the chairmanship of the well-known Professor Kilpatrick, Dean of Medicine at Leicester University. Over 20 years or more successive Administrations have looked to this committee for objective advice based on the highest of scientific standards. I am sure that in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hale, mentioned in his Starred Question a similar matter to which I replied earlier this month, and referred specially to this committee, it is a matter of public knowledge in your Lordships' House.

It would be foolhardy for any Government ever to abandon the terra firma of scientific fact and launch out into the uncertain sea of prejudice, half-truth and rumour, and I commend to the House the report of the Advisory Committee. After reviewing evidence from this country and abroad, the committee has concluded that the use of 2,4,5 - T can safely continue, even where it is contaminated with dioxin, so long as the level of the contamination is set at a low and controlled level. The committee gives specific attention to possible risks from the burning of weed treated with the herbicide, and concludes that there is no cause for anxiety from this quarter.

I think it would be useful at this point to quote from the report, because it is a valuable one. I wish to refer to the degradability factor which is contained in paragraph 13. I hope I shall not weary your Lordships by reading this extract and I do so because it is a matter of great public concern: Degradability: Although TCDD is relatively immobile within the soil, and under laboratory conditions has a half life of about a year, recent scientific work has demonstrated that, when a product containing it is sprayed on to leaf and soil surfaces, most or all of the TCDD disappears within 24 hours as a result of being broken down by light (26.5). It is also possible that some bacterial breakdown occurs (paragraph 26). TCDD was not detected in range land and rice fields exposed annually to 2,4, - T sprays". The report goes on to say in paragraph 14: The Advisory Committee has evaluated the above evidence on the acute and chronic toxicity of TCDD, and whilst accepting that it is certainly one of the most toxic chemicals known, the Committee sees no reason to vary its judgment, first reached in 1970 and subsequently re-examined, that the use of brush killers containing 2,4,5 - T contaminated wtih TCDD can continue without risk, subject to the observance of a maximum allowable level of TCDD in the trichlorophenol used for its manufacture (see Annex C for information on the manufacture and formulation of 2,4,5 - T herbicides)". I commend that document to your Lordships and to a very much wider public. It is a document to which Lord Hale referred, commented on and whose authors he complimented, recommending a much wider reading, and I feel that much good will be done by expanding our knowledge in this very difficult field. There is evidence that this useful report has been read by those who have earlier been concerned about this subject. Too often it is the scare story and the threat of disaster which is the stuff of headlines. I am glad to note that the thorough exposition of the scientific facts has not passed unremarked and that at least one newspaper has told its readers of these reassuring conclusions.

Since the committee's report was prepared, further material has become available from the United States purporting to show that there might be some link between the rate of miscarriages in women and the use of 2,4,5—T. As a consequence, the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington has banned most, but not all, uses of the pesticides. I believe it would be valuable at this point to mention a comment by the Department of Health of Wellington, New Zealand, on the conclusions reached in the United States. We are in a very international field here and nothing but good is served by publicity of what various national bodies reach as their conclusions. It is interesting to see what the New Zealand Department of Health says, in commenting upon the reports made in Oregon, in the United States of America, known as Alsea II.

These are the conclusions of the Department of Health in New Zealand: It is apparent from the foregoing that the report Alsea II is grossly inadequate from a number of points of view, although this critique does not claim to have dealt with them all. Because the authors of Alsea II have failed to consider and discount other more likely causes of the differences and correlations they obtained, it is felt that no weight whatsoever can be given to their conclusions". Experts differ around the globe. Very prominent experts in the World Health Organisation have thought deeply about this subject and have published their comments. In turn their comments have been considered by many national bodies, with equally expert opinion, around the globe, and not all of them are of one mind. Nevertheless, the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington has banned most, but not all, of these pesticides; and it is a view taken by one Government. The results of the review by the Advisory Committee will be available soon, and noble Lords may think it significant that the authorities referred to in New Zealand, and indeed in Australia (which I have not quoted in detail) have already said publicly that they do not regard the new material as providing a scientific basis for any further restriction on use.

Unless and until we in the United Kingdom receive further advice from the Advisory Committee, the Government will continue to accept their recommendation confirmed earlier this year that 2,4,5 - T can safely be used in the recommended way for the recommended purposes. We further take confidence from the fact that a number of other Governments, both in Europe and further afield, share our view and have continued to permit the use of this product.

I should like to refer to particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. He referred to a very important article which appeared in the Guardian on 18th June this year regarding tins in a mine shaft in Gwynedd. I can assure your Lordships that the preliminary investigation showed that the tins contained only rusty water and were otherwise empty. Further investigation has taken place to discover whether there was any particle of contaminant, and I am assured that this is the present stage that the investigations have reached.

The noble Lord also referred to Dr. May's report on the explosion at Bolsover in 1976. I do not know whether the noble Lord wished the Government to comment on Dr. May's report. However, the noble Lord made very complimentary comments on the veracity of the whole report.

The noble Lord's final point concerned imported poisons. I have already, in my remarks in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, referred to the products currently in use, and I suggested that we would look further into the question of the labelling of containers, whether imported or otherwise, should this be desired in any future Question, whether for written Answer or in the form of a starred Question.

Finally, I come to a question posed by a number of noble Lords; and I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has left the Chamber. The question was: Are we going to look at human dangers? Naturally it is of acute public and prime concern to this Government, and indeed to any Government, that we should look at these dangers, and it is for that very purpose that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides was set up.