New Clause (Hansard, 20 June 1968)

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause flows directly from what happened in Committee on 21st May, when we were discussing what was then Clause 93. There are various substances which under the fresh Clause 96 can be brought within the scope of the Bill by an Order laid by the Minister. These substances can include such things as insecticides. Part of the substances may be applied in a confined space. If they are, they will rank as medicinal products because they will be applied to an animal or inhaled by an animal. Therefore, quite rightly, provided that the Minister introduces an Order under Clause 96, the provisions of the Bill will take effect.
But, in fact, the same substances could well have other applications. The obvious example is the fly spray which might be used in a confined space for killing bugs or termites in a farm building and which could be inhaled by the animal. This would be brought within the ambit of the Bill if an Order were made under Clause 96. Such substances are frequently used in the home and outside for crop spraying, and so on. The bulk manufacturer of such a product would not require a manufacturing licence provided that an Order had been 1399 made and that the person making these bulk supplies applied for a product licence for that part of the bulk supply which would come within Clause 96(1)(b)
The purpose of the new Clause is to exclude that portion of the bulk supply which would not come within the provisions of the Bill but include for the purposes of a product licence as opposed to a manufacturing licence that part which would rightly come within the ambit of the Bill.
A mistake was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in Committee. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether a manufacturer would have to get a product and manufacturing licence for the whole of the bulk production? He said: Yes, it will come under product licence". I then said: For the whole bulk? ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 21st May, 1968; c. 771.] The hon. Gentleman then indicated assent. I think that that was probably an error. I do not think that he meant to do that. Therefore, I ask him to put right what he indicated on that day by accepting the new Clause.
I am not particularly wedded to the words which I have proposed. I have tried only to bring in that part of an insecticide or substance which comes within the Bill by the application of an Order made under Clause 96(l)(b). If my drafting is faulty, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking to introduce a similar Amendment covering my point, namely, that a manufacturing licence will not be required in the circumstances to which I referred. If he were to do that, I should be more than willing to withdraw the Clause.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said that if his drafting of the new Clause were faulty he would welcome our introducing a proposal to cover the point. There is a minor technical objection to the new Clause in that he refers to a "manufacturing licence" and 1400 not a "manufacturer's licence". I should not take advantage of that in rejecting the new Clause, but since the hon. Gentleman is very good at bringing me to order sometimes on loose drafting I thought that there would be no harm in making that point.
Clause 96(l)(b) deals with substances which if used without proper safeguards are capable of causing danger to the health of the community or of causing danger to the health of animals generally or of one or more species of animals. The substances which might be concerned presumably would not be in a medicinal form and it is, therefore, unlikely that we should want to require the issue of a manufacturer's licence for a product controlled under Clause 96(l)(b). For instance, in the rare cases where a pesticide might be brought under control in this way, I cannot think of any case where this would not be so.
Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that it would be rash of us to limit the factors which may be considered in relation to such substances should circumstances arise where they might be appropriate. The hon. Member is, I am sure, aware of the tremendous advances which have been made concerning substances used in agriculture and what he suggests might inhibit us in the development of other substances. It may be that some substances now being developed would fall into this category and we might be in some difficulty if we were specifically excluded from considering conditions of manufacture, which would happen if the new Clause were accepted.
An Order under Clause 96 will not necessarily apply all the provisions of the Bill to the substances concerned. It must specify which provisions are to apply in a particular case and the power to make an Order also allows exceptions and modifications to be made to the provisions in question.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we would not seek to impose any provisions in the Bill which were not appropriate or relevant. A manufacturer's licence is only one example. Moreover, there is the safeguard that there would have to be consultations with the interested organisations before an order were made, and there will be the added safeguard that these will be affirmative orders.
1401 With these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied that his new Clause is unnecessary, and probably would create more problems than it would solve, and will withdraw it.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
By leave, may I briefly thank the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for what he has said. However, he has not quite covered my points.
I accept what he said about the technical error in drafting. I apologise to him for not having taken more expert care on it. He said that the fact that exceptions and modifications could be made under the Order covered my point. I do not think that it does. I take his point about not wanting to be too restrictive and that developments concerning these substances were so rapid that a manufacturer's licence might be needed. But a product licence for that part which will fall under the conditions laid down by the Order introduced under Clause 96(1)(b) should be sufficient; there should be no need for a manufacturer's licence.
The hon. Gentleman is storing up an enormous number of difficulties if he insists on the obtaining of a manufacturer's licence for the whole of the bulk production of which only a small part will be used and which will fall under Clause 96(1)(b) should an Order be made by the Minister. Although there may be exceptions and modifications, which I understand and accept, the Minister will have great difficulty if he insists on a manufacturer's licence being brought in. Reasonableness demands only that a product licence should be necessary in this case. Section 96(1)(b) should be used for those substances which are outside the definition of medicinal products, which is what we are discussing.

§ Mr. Mackie
It is really a matter of opinion whether a product licence would cover this point or not. As I said in my speech, this point is adequately guarded. We shall not rush in and demand a manufacturer's licence for everything. There are many products in bulk form which the farmer dilutes. I could mention a particular spray which can be used inside a poultry house. We want the power to bring some of those things under a manufacturer's licence, but the cases will be rare. As I say, 1402 it is a matter of opinion whether a product licence would cover the matter or not. We do not want other things which may be developed in future to be inhibited should this arise.