To ask Her Majesty s
Government whether they will reconvene the Interdepartmental Group on
Organophosphates (the Carden Committee).
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest. I was poisoned by organophosphate
sheep dip in 1989. In fact, it is almost exactly 20 years since I was doused
while helping to dip our sheep. Prior to that, I had been chronically exposed
to a variety of OPs in common use on farms and in homes. At the time we were
led to believe that OPs were safe if used as instructed. It was not until 1991,
after a long process of elimination and observation after further exposures,
that the cause of my illness became clear to me and to my GP. Contrary to received
belief, the signs and symptoms of poisoning were not temporary and, for me, the
effects are sti ll evident
today. I am extremely fortunate in that I have supportive medical practitioners
whose main objective in life is not to poison me further.
Sheep dipping once or
twice yearly in the
17 Jun 2009 : Column 1127
health. Since then there has been progress and their acute effects are readily
acknowledged. Many OPs have been removed from the market, while stringent
instructions now apply to those that are still in use. But there is still no
recognition of their chronic central and autonomic nervous system effects.
Following close on the
heels of the sheep farmers and other agricultural workers were some Gulf War
veterans who reported very similar adverse health effects following medication
with pyridostigmine bromide, a carbamate
closely related to OPs, and exposure to OP nerve gas and pesticide sprays. Despite the fact that the US
Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses recently concluded that some
25 per cent of Gulf War veterans—25 per centt of more
than 6,000 people—are suffering the effects of OP poisoniing,
the British Government persist in their denial that these same exposures have
had any effect on our troops. More recently, airline pilots and crew have
reported ill effects following exposure to cabin air contaminated by leaking
engine oil that produces very toxic OPs when heated.
In all these groups, scientific research has shown
consistently that there may be a relationship between long-term, low-level
exposure to organophosphates and the development of neurobehavioural
problems. Th e
first study of sheep farmers was in 1991, and the latest was published this
year. As there have been very few reports of adverse reactions to OP sheep dips
in recent years, it is fairly safe to assume that the problems are persistent. It is interesting that Dr Sarah
Mackenzie Ross, who conducted the DEFRA-funded research entitled Neuropsychological and Psychiatric Functioning
in Sheep Farmers Exposed to Organophosphate Pesticides , had to eliminate 60 per cent of possible
subjects, all of whom were sheep farmers exposed to OPs, because they had other
conditions. Among those eliminated were people with a history of acute
exposure; those with a neurological condition such as Parkinson s disease or
multiple sclerosis; heart conditions and lung disease, all of which are
associated with possible toxic causation. This means that those in whom she did
find neuropsychiatric problems were likely to have
been those who had the lowest exposure to OPs.
When the Labour Party
came into Government in 1997, Ministers from all the departments involved
agreed that an interdepartmental group of high-level officials should be formed
to report to Ministers on the continuing public debate over whether OPs damage
human health. This was the Official Group on Organophosphates, also known as
the Carden Committee, although I understand that Mr Carden has since retired. The group reported in 1998 and a
number of its recommendations, including a research programme, were
implemented, for which I am grateful. I understand that the group has met
occasionally since then, the last time being 26 June 2007. As the minutes of
its meetings are not published, we have no means of knowing the detail of their
discussions.
What is clear is that
the science has moved on considerably since 1998. The Carden
report gives at paragraph 2.2 a simple explanation of the manner in which
inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase function, stating
that:
In the case of
most OPs and all medicinal and pesticidal anticholinesterase OP products the effect is either
reversible or recoverable
It also reminds us that some non-OPs
are anticholinesterases and that they have similar
toxicity to anticholinesterase OPs, to which I shall
come later. There appears to be a genetic susceptibility to OP poisoning. It is
recognised that cytochrome P450 enzymes,
Paraoxonase-1 and butyrylcholinesterase play
important parts in the detoxification of anticholinesterases.
It has also been recognised for some time that there are flaws in the
traditional methods of assessing exposure to OPs by measuring metabolites for
specific OP s in the urine or measuring levels of red blood cell acetylcholinesterase. The scientific paper Identification
and Characterisation of Biomarkers of Organophosphorus (OP) Exposure in Humans
by Kim et al,2009, details,
the development of rapid protocols for
extraction of the target biomarker protein from a sample, digesting the enzyme
and identifying the OP modified peptide by mass spectrometry
We feel these methods are optimal for filling
the void of diagnosing and treating long-term exposures to several ubiquitous
OPs
In the
I cannot express
adequately the effect that the somewhat apathetic attitude of those who are
responsible for ensuring our health and safety over the past 20 years has had.
By failing to study individuals who report symptoms after more than a minute
exposure to OPs in the initial stages and by failing to conduct longitudinal
studies, they may well have exposed many sick people to at least a poor quality
of life or at worst an early death. My own experience has taught me that there
is an almost total lack of understanding of the life-threatening heart and lung
function damage and of the effects of administering drugs that act on the
acetylcholine system. The Health and Safety Executive s leaflet MS17, Medical
aspects of work-related exposures to organophosphates, warns of the effects
of repeated absorption of small doses of OPs. However, I can find no warning to
the medical profession of the effects of administering any of a wide range of
drugs that may have a similar action. First-line drugs for bladder incontinence,
asthmatic symptoms and
17 Jun 2009 : Column 1129
glaucoma are all in this group and the first two are, to my knowledge, also
caused by OP damage to the autonomic system.
Is the Minister able to
say how much research has been conducted into the effects that drugs which act
on the acetylcholine system have on patients who have reported illness
following exposure to organophosphate pesticides? If he knows of none, does he
agree that this is an important consideration for a large number of agricultural
workers, Gulf War veterans and aircrew? Should this not be an urgent
consideration?
I have made a brief
outline of some of the reasons why I believe that the Official Group on
Organophosphates should reconvene. I have barely touched on recent developments
in this field. I have asked that it should give the matter priority. I also ask
that on this occasion it produces a report on the lines of its 1998 report.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I support the noble Countess. Basically,
the simple answer to her question should be yes. I am not g oing
to go into all the background details because I am not as up-to-date as I was
when I was one of the Ministers responsible in 1997-99 and then again from
2006-08 in one department, but the fact that this issue goes across departments
is the central point that I wish to make.
As the noble Countess
has said, there has been progress. The lack of exposure today is a result of
the work that has been done by the industry, pushed by our officials in the
Veterinary Medicines Directorate, in producing better containers from which
people could not by accident, irrespective of negligence, be contaminated.
There is no question that this was a serious issue in the past. However, this
means that no new people from farming are coming into the system for the
doctors and the scientists to look at. As I say, the problem transcends that,
but there has been stagnation.
When we considered this
problem in MAFF from very early on in 1997 and 1998, I had discussions with the
then Minister, Jack Cunningham, who, with his background as a chemist, took it
very seriously. We picked up from other departments that there were issues
across government in regard to chemicals. Richard Carden—who,
as the noble Countess said, has retired—would taktake
some pleasure in seeing the Carden Committee
reconvened. He was a first-class c ivil servant, in
my experience, at MAFF and he chaired a large
In that period of time,
we had probably three scientific advisers, and now we have a new Government Chief
Scientific Adviser. This problem should be the first thing on Professor
Bennington s desk and he should look at it to see what the current situation
is. There are grounds for considering it. I have never seen a satisfactory
answer to the issue of the airline pilots and the doubts that have been raised
about it. I do not
17 Jun 2009 : Column 1130
want to be controversial but, if one looks at the big picture from the
outside—at the nature of the doubts about organophosphattes,
at the issue of Factor VIII, dirty blood and blood products, and at the issue
of Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War—one gets thee impression of a
natural reluctance of the centre to investigate when these issues arise and a
pattern starts to be formed. That is the point that I want to make.
In a way, the Carden Committee and what was put together could overcome
and answer some of these issues. They go across
There is plenty of
evidence—I do not think complete solutions will ever be foundd—from
those who have been injured, if I can put it that way, in thhe
farming industry, from those with Gulf War syndrome and from the issue of the
fuel used in aircraft to ensure that the doubts about the use of
organophosphates remain. These are matters worthy of investigation. In the way
that it does,
I was on the receiving
end over a 10-year period of delegations which included the noble Lord, Lord
Taylor, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I said to officials on one occasion—I
think it was in 2006 or early 2007—after the noble colleagues had left, One day I will be a Back-Bencher and she is my
model That is true. The noble Countess
has shown great tenaciousness in pushing this issue—it is not a vested
interest, although she has been affected in many ways—getting to grips with it
and not accepting no for an answer. In this case,
I do not know whether
it is time to call for Carden, who is well away into
retirement ”I shall not mention what part of the country he is in but I had a
nice letter from him when I left government, so I know he keeps a watch on what
is going on—but I hope the lawyers will not make the finall
decision; it is important that it is made on the grounds of science and health.
The Government have a public responsibility and a duty of care in all these
issues. In allowing products onto the market, however they are used, the
Government have a duty of care. It may be that people will say, We have solved all the problems but,
nevertheless, there are toomany unanswered questions.
It is probably time, given the Whitehall committee structure, genuinely to say
to the noble Countess tonight that the answer to her question should be yes.
Lord Tyler:
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Countess and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We have over many years worked together on this
issue and I congratulate the noble Countess, in particular, on her
extraordinary mastery of the facts. My only concern about her case is that she
sometimes thinks OP has affected her brain power. However, there is no evidence
of that in the way in which she contributes to the debates of your Lordships House.
I should put on record
that the right honourable Michael Meacher, who has
also been a Minister in the department principally responsible for this issue,
has been a doughty campaigner, as has the noble Lord, Lord Rooker,
in seeking justice for those who suffer from OP poisoning.
As has already been mentioned, since 1992 and through
to 2005 I convened an all-party parliamentary group containing Members of your
Lordships House and Members of the other
place, from all parties and from all parts of the country, to deal with this
issue.
The problem originally
arose with sheep farmers—in my case sheep farmers in the south-west, who I
represented—and every improvement in the controls placed on the use of OPs and
every time more protective measures were placed on their use and on the people
who were going to use them was, effectively, an admission that the previous
arrangements were inadequate. Of course, the previous arrangements were forced
upon sheep farmers by government decree. It was not like thalidomide, where
people voluntarily took on a particular form of treatment and then there were
difficulties. Sheep farmers had to use OPs—twice a year, under the original
arrangements.. The Government, as well as those responsible for manufacture,
had not just a moral but a legal responsibility for the use of organophosphates.
As has been said, and this is a good moment to make this
point again, there is a responsibility for joined-up government. The noble
Lord, Lord Rooker—at thee instigation, I would like
to think, of others outside—took up that challenge and made sure that=2 0it
happened, and the Carden Committee was the effective
vehicle for that purpose. It was not down to the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food or, as it became, Defra. It was
not down to the Ministry of Defence, in the case of the 1991-92 Gulf War—I
should perhaps declare a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Royal
British Legion Gulf War Group. It was not down to the Department for Transport,
in the case of the BAe146 aircraft that has proved to be most controversial in
this case, where the bleeding into the cabin of some of the OP lubricants in
the engine seems to have caused huge problems and considerable risk. Not a
single one of those departments can carry the can for the difficulties that
have occurred, because every one of them had some responsibility. Hence the significance of the interdepartmental
committee to which the noble Countess s Question refers—that was our hope for
joined-up government.. Now it has not sat for some 24 months, so what is going
on? Is there any joined-up government at all now?
The Carden
Committee should be reconstituted because there are urgent questions now across
government.
17 Jun 2009 : Column 1132
In the case of the Ministry of Defence, there has been, as the noble Countess
said, an inaccurate response to the research that has been undertaken in the
United States, a point that I shall come back to. It is urgent to look at the
implications for the British troops who were there serving on our behalf, and
who suffered as a result of their service in the Gulf.
In the case of Defra there is an urgent responsibility to ensure that
proper funding is put into the remaining research proposals, particularly those
that are under the auspices of Dr Sarah Mackenzie Ross, who is the principal
researcher in this field. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker,
implies, every day there are people who should be analysed for this purpose but
who may no longer be with us.
Then there is the issue
of transport. It was not just the BAe146, although the problem seemed to occur
particularly on that aircraft; there are wider issues there. As yet, thank
goodness, there has not been a disaster, but there could easily have been one
if the impact of these chemicals—which, afterr all,
started their life as part of the Nazis war effort—”had continued to be sprayed
around aircraft cabins and cockpits in aerosol form. The potential for disaster
is considerable.
My bitter and, I fear,
rather cynical experience, after 17 or 18 years of campai
gning on this issue, is that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, seems to be right: there is a built-in systemic
lethargy that means that eventually, if you string out the research programme
long enough, which is what the manufacturers of these products want to do,
either the OP products can be replaced by something else so that there is no
longer a commercial problem for the manufacturers; compensation can be avoided
because you continually block liability claims; or, frankly, the victims die.
Understandably, it is that lethargy, stringing out the process, that the victims
feel is going on in Whitehall. It would be a tragedy if the considerable
efforts made by the noble Lord and others in Whitehall—Michael Meacher being anotther—to try to
create a genuine link-up and real joined-up governmeent
came to a full stop, simply because Mr Richard Carden
had retired.
I hope that the
Minister will be able to give us a cast-iron assurance that the committee will
be reconstituted and will give practical expression to the determination of the
Government to get to the bottom of this problem. Again, I underline the point
made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: imagine if this
were in the United States under the present President. In fact, we do not have
to imagine; a new imperative has been put behind the research programme into
OPs by President Obama. Let us therefore take
something from across the Atlantic that we can put to good use in this country.
Let us have some joined-up government here. I warmly support the noble
Countess.
I am delighted that the
noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has rejoined the human race
by coming off the government Front Bench and is now able to use his persuasive
powers on his colleagues. I hope that we will have evidence in a minute that he
is as persuasive as he ever was in the Government.
Lord Greaves:
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker,
ever left the human race, which is one reason why he was such a good Minister.
I thank the noble
Countess, Lady Mar, for initiating this short debate as part of a campaign that
has been going on since long before I came to this House. With the noble
Countess, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble
friend Lord Tyler, I feel as though I am among some of the political giants as
far as this issue is concerned.20My interest in OPs, particularly sheep dips,
came about a bit less than 10 years ago when Chris Davies MEP took me up a
track on the Saddleworth moors to see Mrs Brenda
Sutcliffe, an equally doughty campaigner on OPs in a rather different way,
bashing away on what was then her manual typewriter. She is still there and
still campaigning, and long may she do so as long as this issue needs
resolving.
I shall refer to the most recent piece of research on OPs
and sheep dips, which comes from Dr Sarah Mackenzie Ross of University College
London on behalf of Defra s project VM02302 on which,
over the past six or seven years, the department has spent nearly £500,000.
The project was mooted earlier; it started in August 2004 and ended in 2008,
last year. The purpose of the study was to determine whether low-level exposure
to organophosphates caused disabling neurological or psychiatric disease in a
small sub-group of exposed persons. The significance of this project is that it
is concentrated on low-level exposure over a period of time rather than on a
higher level and the more acute problems presented by most of the people who
have come forward as victims of OPs.
The participants in the
study—there were originally 160 but there ended up being 132—are working
farmers and farmers who retired on the grounds off ill=2 0health and who have a
history of exposure to sheep dip. They were compared with a control group, a
comparison group, of rural police workers, in an attempt to find similar people
in the community who had not been particularly exposed to organophosphate
pesticides. That group began as 80 but ended up as 79. The participants were
recruited from the south-west and the north of England. My understanding is
that the study has been completed—certainly the executive summary has been
published—and th that we are waiting for the full
report to be peer-reviewed. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. It is with Defra and we are waiting to see what Defra
is going to do about it.
The results of this study of low-level exposure were that,
A range of emotional, physical and cognitive
problems were identified in agricultural workers with a history of low level
exposure to OPs. In terms of cognitive function, general intellectual ability,
reasoning, visio-spatial and verbal ability were relatively
well preserved, but agricultural workers obtained lower scores on tests of
response speed, working, verbal and visual memory, mental flexibility and fine
motor control, than non-exposed controls
The
report also compared these results with the general population and found a
similar difference. The report says that,
a number of significant correlations were observed between duration of
exposure and verbal and visual memory, verbal ability, strategy making and fine
motor control. Although weak, they were in the expected direction, consistent
with findings from the group analyses and consistent with study hypotheses.
I am not sure that I understand these
words, but I think they mean that there was a correlation and the findings were
significant. The recommendation is that
follow-up studies should be carried out to determine whether symptoms persist
over time, improve or worsen, and to look into recommended treatment protocols
for individuals who report chronic ill health following exposure to OPs. This
is one reason why the official committee should be reconvened. It is suggested
that there is a need for prospective treatment trials. That is from Dr
Mackenzie Ross.
Defra has responded. I have looked at the Defra website and failed to find it, but that may be
because I am not very good at negotiating websites, or it may not be there. I
read in the Western Morning News that a Defra spokesman said:
The results of
this report do not definitively demonstrate that organophosphates cause chronic
ill-health, but suggest that a relationship may exist
I think that is what Dr Mackenzie Ross
is saying—
It is not possible to draw conclusions on the
basis of one report without considering a wider context of published data on
OPs and human health
That seems to be a fairly weak response
from Defra, of
the kind that previous speakers have suggested has been forthcoming over the
years. It seems to me, again, to be a reason why the committee should be
reconvened and should meet to consider these matters. Defra
continues to say that,
our advice to
farmers remains to take all necessary protections including protective clothing
and to follow instructions supplied
That
is all very well for people who are around now but it does not really tackle
the problem of people who were exposed in the past. I read in my exciting
weekly reading, the Farmers Guardian, a quote from Dr Mackenzie Ross
herself:
The worry is that there might be
a slow cumulative effect on people. We have got no idea how many people out
there are suffering ... There was this idea that low exposure is OK but this
research would suggest otherwise. We think it is more dangerous than previously thought
There follows the same quote from Defra,
suggesting that it would rather not do very much.
This latest report is important, partly
because it confirms that people have been suffering from OPs, but particularly
because it looks at the people who have been subjected to low-level exposure,
as opposed to those who have been made particularly poorly by a high level of
exposure. This is clearly new evidence
and clearly a new report. I ask the Minister, first, what will Defra do with this report? What is its response to it,
other than trying to tell the papers that everything is really okay? Secondly,
in particular, is it not sensible to put it to a reconvened official committee?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer and
grower. We use chemicals in pest and disease control; I will make observations
on this in my speech. No one can doubt the commitment of the noble Countess to
making sure that the use and effect of organophosphates remains on the agenda.
She should be thanked for securing this debate and for the skill with which she
has presented her case. She speaks powerfully from a personal experience that
has been extremely distressing. Indeed, all noble Lords
17 Jun 2009 : Column 1135
have spoken with passion on this issue and I am sure that the Minister will be
keen to respond and provide the reassurance that noble Lords rightly seek.
I can speak only on the
use of OPs in agriculture, but I know that concerns can and do stretch into
other areas, which have been widely explored in this evening s debate. However,
I can speak with some authority, since not only are OPs used and recommended as
a vital sheep dip, they have in the past been used to dip bulbs prior to
commercial planting. In the 1960s I personally sterilised bulbs using the nematicide Phagol, which was
withdrawn around the middle of that decade. By good fortune, no one—as far ass
I know—suffered any ill-effects from its use in this way, althouggh
a MAFF employee at Kirton EHS died from mercury
poisoning, which was part and parcel of a similar operation. Later, in the
1980s, Nemaphos was widely used for similar purposes
here and in Holland on tulip bulbs. It, too, was withdrawn. Again, no
ill-effects were reported, but environmental considera
tions and ground water contamination led to its
ceasing to be available.
The work of the noble
Countess in battling on this issue is well known, but we need to be careful not
to draw the wrong conclusions from this particular issue. I am sure that the
Minister will confirm that the Government remain concerned at the change in the
definition of pesticides from risk-based to hazard-based. This, regrettably,
has been introduced as a European directive, with regulations to follow. This
will cut off many vital products. This is particularly true for horticultural
growers, of whom I am one. Their permitted use is dependent on off-label
approval—testing that manufactturers are not
necessarily prepared to pay for. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the role
that can be played by horticulture in reviving the productive capacity of the
sector.
I may have strayed
beyond the strict definition of this debate, but it is important that the
principle that we apply to organophosphates is the same: decisions should be
based on the science. There is a further point to be deduced from the general
to the particular. Any use of chemicals requires the proper respect of the
user. At all times operators need to be disciplined in following correct
procedures and ensuring their own safety. The most common way for humans to
come into contact with OPs, as has been20explained in this debate, is through
sheep dipping. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, explained fully how this policy came
into effect. The Government s policy towards its uses takes into account
factors including the environmental effects and effect on human health of
organophosphates. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker,
in his place and contributing to this debate. We have all missed him, but
welcome him back and are pleased that he is participating in his usual robust
fashion.
Concern about the use
of organophosphates led to the commissioning of the interdepartmental group on
organophosphates, known as the Carden Committee. It
drew representatives from several government departments, including the
Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence, as well as representatives from
the veterinary field, health and safety, the Food Standards Agency and the
Office for Science and
17 Jun 2009 : Column 1136
Innovation, as it was then known. It has not met since June 2007, which was two
years ago. As the noble Countess said, many questions remain unanswered. I can
think of several. Has any assessment been made of the effectiveness of the
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2000—or COSHH in
short—when it comes to risk assessmssments prior to
sheep dipping? What further work has been undertaken on finding alternatives to
using organophosphate-based products in farming?
Further to these
questions, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on two others.
How many of the pour ons now
used in sheep treatment for ecto parasites contain
organophosphates? Are the Government satisfied that spreading of waste dip on
agricultural ground presents no residual hazard? If ever an issue could benefit
from transparency, it is this one. That is why I trust that the Minister will
be able to give a positive answer to the noble Countess s Question.
The Minister of
State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of
Oldham): My Lords, I am grateful to
all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly the noble
Countess, Lady Mar, whom we all respect for her committed work over a
considerable period on this very important issue. I discussed these issues with her when for a short while
I held responsibility for the transport brief in this House. I was well aware
of the strength of her arguments and I did my best, from a more limited
position thanmy noble friend Lord Rooker,
to see how we could make
progress on those issues.
A number of speakers suggested that the Government have
been tardy in responding to these issues out of an unwillingness to commit
resources, or from anxiety about compensation that may be payable. Those are
unfair charges. The issue is straightforward, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor,
emphasised; namely, that we must make progress on the basis of the scientific
evidence. As I understand it, the problem is that we do not have a secure
enough scientific base to know exactly what to do. That is not to say that we
are not aware of studies such as the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves,
referred. After all, that was commissioned by Defra.
I am sorry that the noble Lord did not find the response on the website; I
shall give it now. The researcher, Dr Sarah Mackenzie Ross, found that the
results suggested there may be a relationship between long-term, low level
exposure to OPs and the development of neural behavioural problems. This is an
important piece of research but we have commissioned two other research reports
as a result of COT s work in 1999 and we await their publication. We cannot
publish them yet because they have not been subjected to peer review and proper
scientific vetting and analysis. All these reports, and our response to them,
will be produced in the very near future.
That brings me to the question: what has happened to
the Carden Committee? As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, indicated, it has changed its name as Mr Richard Carden is now retired. Therefore, the committee reverts to
its original title, the Official Group on Organophosphates, which produces the
appalling initials OGOP, which I
17 Jun 2009 : Column 1137
shall mention once but not refer to again in those terms; rather, I shall refer
to it as the committee. It would take me more time than is available to me in
this debate to list all the contributors to the committee but representation on
it is an example of joined-up government. There is not a single government
department relevant to this issue that is not actively represented on the
committee and forms part of its composition. The only thing that is missing
from there is any direct reference to lawyers. Given that it was suggested that
they might be the very contributors to delay, I should hope that the noble
Lord, Lord Tyler, will feel reassured by that omission. Not that I am saying
that no lawyers are ever present with a government committee of this kind; I am
merely indicating that the legal contribution is not important. What is
important is the scientific support and the contribution of the government
departments that all have an interest in this area; for example, the Health and
Safety Executive, the Food Standards Agency, the Health Protection Agency, the
Department of Health, my own department and others. I merely summarise the
contributors. I would be happy to publish a list.
When will the committee
meet again? It will meet shortly. Noble Lords are right to say that we have not
made sufficient progress in the past couple of years to justify the committee
meeting. I noted the criticisms made by noble Lords that they were not aware of
what the committee did at its 2007 meeting. In 2007, the committee did some
very important work. It looked at an Australian review of diazinon.
The Australians seemed to have made progress with regard to sheep dips.
However, when we examined the progress that they had made we found that it fell
short of being a conclusive position that we could adopt. It was clear that
where the Australians had tackled issues with regard to sheep dips and offered
advice on the basis of their experience, they had not conducted the supervision
of sheep dipping in quite the way that we do in the United Kingdom and we could
not translate their results directly to our own experience. This conclusion was
reached on the basis of very clear analysis of the Australian activity.
Since then, the
committee has reviewed the research projects to see whether sufficient
progress=2 0is being made to bring the group together. I heard that what this
country needs in this area is a bit of a zip behind it such as President Obama has produced in the United States. I am at one with
the House in thinking that most things good in America at present result from
the election of President Obama and the work that he
does. He certainly has insisted that additional work is done with regard to
Gulf War veterans. That work will produce results in February 2010 because you
cannot speed up such work. When that United States research and the other
pieces of research I mentioned that we have commissioned, and which have
received scientific validation, are completed, our committee will meet and
address these issues further.
The noble Lord, Lord
Tyler, asked about the timescale in the most trenchant terms and asked whether
it constituted an exercise in procrastination. That is not the case. This is an
exercise in dealing with what we all recognise is a very difficult issue on the
basis of making progress and of having a committee which is
17 Jun 2009 : Column 1138
equipped to do this work. Its timescale is clear and fits in with crucial
pieces of evidence that will be available to us in the not too distant future.
I appreciate the work
that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has done in this regard. However, until she
mentioned it this evening, I had not appreciated that she had suffered illness
in this context. I express my concern about that and I am therefore not at all
surprised at the anxiety that she expresses on behalf of others who may have
come into contact with the problem. I say to her and to my noble friend Lord Rooker, who, as ever, was bold and assertive in his
comments and confirmed exactly how he would have acted in government, that we
are obliged to work on the basis of the best scientific advice. It is certainly
government practice to—
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My
Lords, I am reluctant to say very much although I know quite a bit about this
subject. However, can the Minister assure us that as regards the inordinate
delay that has occurred—literally thousandss of sheep
farmers in the UK are medically proven to be affected by this issue—his
department and other government departments have not beenn
put upon by the Treasury not to accept any liability or proof whatever that OP
has the effect which many medical practitioners accept is the cause of the
terrible condition from which many of these people suffer?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My
Lords, I do not think it is anything to do with Treasury pressure; this is to
do with a proper, intensely scientific investigation which has to establish
cause and effect. I am merely saying to the House that at present we are not in
a position to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Countess, Lady
Mar, referred to the HS146 issue and cabin air quality. When that issue was
presented to me five years ago, I was shocked by the representations that were
made. I did my very best to discover the nature of what we knew about this
issue, how much had been substantiated and how dangerous it was to passengers
and to cabin crew and pilots. My voice would be but a bleat in the wilderness
compared to that of BALPA and airline pilots across the world if an aircraft as
popular as the HS146 was capable of producing a persistent and threatening
illness. HS146 is not grounded on that basis; crews do not refuse to fly the
aircraft. I know that there are anxieties about the issue, which needs full
investigation. I am not saying that there are grounds for complacency, far from
it; the last impression that I want to give from this debate is any suggestion
of complacency.
We have the machinery in place to examine this fully to
produce answers to these very difficult questions.
The Countess of
Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt but the noble Lord s time is running
short. The crux of my question was about
the serious health effects that some medicines cause to people who have been
exposed to OPs. It can kill people. It very nearly killed me; I know from my
own experience. I do not want what happened to me to happen to anyone else.
Will he kindly address that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand that point entirely and I
value the strength with which the noble Countess presents that position. The
committee, and the Department of Health in its contributions to the committee,
are in a position to address themselves to exactly those kinds of concerns. But
I emphasise again that the
committee is bound to be able to act effectively only when the r esearch is sufficiently conclusive to guide how we can act.
The Countess of
Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again. My own medical practitioners,
when they knew what had happened, found the research. The scientific research
is there—even on the internet.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as far as the committee is concerned, which
together with the noble Countess's concern is what this debate is about, the
issues which it has had to address, and which have been part of its brief, are
within the framework of the research it has commissioned and all the other
research which it is evaluating across the world, including the American
research which is due fairly shortly. I give the House the assurance that the
committee will of course address these issues at that time.
The noble Lord, Lord
Taylor, asked me some specific questions, one of which was on the question of
alternatives to the use of OPs in farming. There is work on developing
alternative sheep dips. That work is continuing with regard to the possibility
of vaccine development and we have also been loo king at the use of a hormone
to disrupt the metamorphosis of the sheep scab mite.
Progress on both
projects is going to be reviewed by Defra in the very
near future. It is not known whether any of these projects will lead to product
development. The research after all has to be translated into a viable product
that a company can market for the industry. Work on the biological control of
the sheep scab mite has been stopped, because it was shown to have no effect
when it was used on sheep. Although in the laboratory encouraging progress was
made, when it was applied in the field, I am afraid the results were negative.
Alternative treatments to sheep scab are available but are not effective
against the same range of external parasites as OP sheep dips. That is why we
continue with that position.
I want to assure the
House—I have inadequate time to respond to a debate of suchh
significance and such importance and I value very much this opportunity of
responding—that the reason why my noble Lord, Lord Rooker,
witth all his persistence, was not able to come up
with a straightforward answer in a short period of time, after all his work
with the department, is because we are genuinely facing some very difficult
issues which relate to essential research. I know the noble Lord, Lord Greaves,
tried to suborn me by introdu cing
research and lobbying from Saddleworth Moor, because
he knew that I would be instinctively responsive to that, because of its
closeness to Oldham. I do have to say to him that the basis of the Government s
position is bound to be scientific research and advance. I want to give this
hope and expectation to the House that this committee will be meeting in the
not too distant future, with additional research to hand, some of
17 Jun 2009 : Column 1140
which may be extremely significant in terms of producing solutions to these
problems, which we all recognise are very acute and very important to the
people for whom we have responsibility.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90617-0010.htm