Pentachlorophenols

HL Deb 29 January 1991 vol 525 cc545-7

3.9 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will prohibit the importation of substances containing the fungicides pentachlorophenols, which are difficult to remove and which pollute industrial effluents.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh)

My Lords, the Government do not believe that an import ban would be appropriate. In some cases there is no alternative to the use of pentachlorophenols.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. I understand that there are difficulties. Is he aware that finishers in the British textile industry cannot extract PCPs because the technology is not yet available, but they are subject to prosecution over their effluents although other EC countries are proposing a moratorium of several years for their industries?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, certain European governments, including West Germany and the Netherlands, have banned PCPs. However, there is an existing directive which refers to the aquatic environment and a further directive is proposed for 1992 which includes four derogations to reflect some of the problems that exist.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government, in anticipation of a possible future ban on pentachlorophenols, will consider suggesting to the food industry that greater use is made of plastic rather than wooden pallets?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, to some extent there is a dichotomy. Perhaps I may give another example—historic and listed buildings. PCPs are seen as the only effective means of controlling dry rot. Alternatives existed until last year when the Government banned TBTOs, so there is now no alternative to PCPs. As a result the Government and other groups have requested the Commission to provide derogations from future regulations.

It is also true that plastics consume oil-based products. Do we ban the use of new timber products? To take the noble Lord's example further, do we ban the use of all new timber which is treated with PCPs in the construction of new homes?

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, is it not a fallacy to say that there is no alternative to a substance which the human race did without for untold centuries?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, the noble Earl is entirely correct. However, I have it on the best authority of the Building Research Establishment that alternatives are being tested but that today there is no proven alternative. The Government believe that it is more prudent to allow the continued, very restricted use of PCPs in certain circumstances until a proven alternative is available.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the issue of PCPs was investigated by Sub-Committee F of this House your Lordships' Select Committee came to the conclusion that the derogation sought by the Government should not be accepted because, according to the evidence of Department of the Environment witnesses, there were several alternatives for the treatment of dry rot, one of which was the traditional treatment of providing proper ventilation and keeping damp away from buildings and structures susceptible to dry rot?

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I am, as always, grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. However, I am sure that there are many residents of listed buildings who would complain—particularly if they were employees—if the proper ventilation as prescribed by the Department of the Environment were used. I am also well aware that bats are victims of PCPs and are unable to read the labelling which is provided for their protection! Until we have proven alternative chemical options, it would be unrealistic to require the protection of old buildings from dry rot without the continued use of PCPs.