REGULATION OF PESTICIDES

HC Deb 27 March 1998 vol 309 cc836-49

Mr. Paice

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 20, at end insert 'which shall not include the cost of original research on the pesticide. nor the costs of collating the information for Government departments or the manufacturer's own use.'. We discussed costs in Committee, and I asked what charges would be levied on those who wanted access to the information. The Minister gave a number of assurances. On reflection, I think that they should be in the Bill, but the problem is the vexed question of what is meant in law by the phrase "attributable to".

The courts have found it difficult to answer that causation problem clearly and conclusively in many other contexts, most notably concerning what damages are caused by acts or conduct constituting, for example, breach of contract or tort. The cost of original research is attributable to the supply of information, because information could not be supplied without such research being carried out. The amendment would prevent the cost of research being brought into the charging equation.

It would be unreasonable to expect members of the public who want access to the information to pay such costs, but fine words do not necessarily achieve the results that we want, which is why the assurances should be in the Bill. The cost of providing the information—in Committee, the Minister mentioned photocopying—would be low, but I am concerned. The Minister has answered parliamentary questions on the subject. One of his replies stated: The cost of providing information to the public about agricultural pesticides is borne by the Department and, certain publication charges apart, is not recovered from the public. Most seriously, he added: An estimate of the cost of provision of this service cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs." — [Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 74.] If the costs are to be the basis for introducing a charging mechanism, we must know what they are. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and the Minister must reconsider the issue. If they can be worked out, the Minister's answer is not as helpful as it could be; if the cost of provision cannot be disaggregated from the other costs of the pesticides safety directorate, there is added impetus to agree to amendment No. 1.

I am concerned that there is no accurate basis on which to arrange the charging mechanism. In another parliamentary answer, the Minister stated: The costs of providing information to the public under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 is borne by the Department. No charge for the work is passed on to the agrochemical industry." — [Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 75.] That is technically correct, but I have raised the matter with the agrochemical industry, which told me that few, if any, requests have been made to view data in the pesticides safety directorate reading room. The directorate also made the point that it would therefore be wrong to devote manpower and expenditure to prepare the information for disclosure if there was little public interest in seeing that information. Another written answer revealed that there were only seven requests in 1997 to see the data. However, the British Agrochemicals Association clearly suggests that disclosure would impose costs on the agrochemical industry.

12.30 pm

Mr. Forth

I have also read the Minister's comments in Committee, which were partly helpful, but not very. I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reinforce the points that my hon. Friend is making. In Committee, the Minister said: I understand that the Pesticides Safety Directorate has an incredible number of overseas visitors who trawl through the paperwork in the library." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 March 1998: c. 6.] That strikes me as totally at odds with the answers received by my hon. Friend. The issue is clouded by confusion and misinformation, so I do not know how we can expect to achieve a proper costing mechanism to fulfil the requirements of the Bill.

Mr. Paice

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that the Minister will address what appears to be a contradiction in those two statements. All I seek is to write into the Bill the principle that the charges made to those who wish to access information will be purely the extra costs incurred by the directorate in making the information available. The directorate should not be able to take the opportunity to load on to the charges any of the other costs that it incurs. The directorate's cost runs into many millions of pounds and is mainly covered by a levy from the industry—I welcome the fact that the levy has recently been reduced.

The method by which the charges are calculated is important, and I have outlined my concerns about whether it is possible to calculate them fairly and equitably. I am not against charging for information, because it is right and proper that if people want to access data they should pay the proper charge. However, I seek to ensure that they pay the proper charge and no more. My amendment would ensure that.

Mr. Forth

I shall follow directly on what my hon. Friend has said, because it strikes me that the position is getting unnecessarily muddled. The problem arises from the wording of Bill, which is not as helpful as it might be, even though the Minister claimed that the phrase reasonably attributable to the supply of information represented a breakthrough, which I doubt. The word "reasonable" has a distinguished history in legislation in this country and is deemed generally to be understood, but in this case I wonder. In Committee, the Minister said: We intend to fix charges at no more than the cost of supply. Generally speaking, that will be the cost of photocopying—large administration costs will not be involved." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 March 1998; c. 5.] I wonder whether that will be the case.

I am not sure whether I entirely agree with the amendment. It states—not unreasonably—that the cost shall not include the cost of original research on the pesticide, nor the costs of collating the information". So far, so good, but it continues: for … the manufacturer's own use. If a manufacturer required information, it might not be unreasonable to require the manufacturer to pay for it. A distinction should be made between the private citizen and the manufacturer. I am, therefore, not totally happy with the amendment.

I hope that the amendment's real purpose is to try to elicit from the Minister a much more structured reply than any that we have had to date. Certainly, we did not get such a reply in Committee. I hope that, since the Committee on 4 March, the Minister and his officials have come up with more helpful information. From what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, I understand that his attempt to probe through parliamentary questions led to no greater success than in Committee or, I fear, than we will have today. However, let us give it another try.

If we cannot make any progress on costs, I may have to press the point on Third Reading. I have some comments to make now, but I have further comments on the Bill's financial effects and its effects on public service manpower. Third Reading may be a more appropriate time for that. To keep my comments brief, I want simply to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. It is reasonable to ask the Minister or the Bill's promoter for figures on the sort of costs known to be associated with the provision of information and some estimate of the costs that would result from the Bill so that we have some idea of the costs involved. We are asking not for precision but for relatively broad figures. A request for orders of magnitude is not unreasonable.

Apart from good management and good government, I ask for this information because private Members' Bills to which no costs are attached are increasingly brought before the House. We are asked to pass them with blank cheques attached. That is unreasonable and unacceptable. Ideally, private Members' Bills should involve no additional public expenditure. If they do, that expenditure should be modest, and it should be shown far better than often happens. The importance of the amendment is that it gives the Minister and the promoter an opportunity to give us information and guidance to reassure us so that we can speed the Bill on its way.

Mr. Waterson

This is an important Bill, but the amendment is also important and has my whole-hearted support. I endorse the comments my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

We are discussing the phrase costs reasonably attributable to the supply of the information". As we have heard, in a recent written answer, the Minister usefully confirmed that under, I think, section 16 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which the Bill would amend, the whole cost of providing information to the public is borne by the Department. The Bill represents a major departure, possibly a precedent, in such legislation. It is therefore fair to press the Minister a little further. I am sure that, in his usually helpful fashion, he will deal with the matter and say exactly what is envisaged.

The Bill's aim could not be more laudable and I am sure that it enjoys cross-party support: it is to make more information available to the public and to make it as accessible as possible. Perhaps we are gradually moving more towards right to information legislation such as has existed in the United States for many years. It would make nonsense of that aspiration if the Bill included a practical deterrent to members of the public who wanted to seek out such information, as they no doubt will for valid and, for them, important reasons. It would be wrong to build deterrence into the charging structure. The amendment is very much a public interest argument, which is why I support it.

Presumably, the Minister will in due course produce regulations setting out the precise nature of the charges, as is normal. For much of the previous Parliament, I served on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which considered more than 3,000 statutory instruments a year. One feature which we often noticed on a cross-party and cross-House basis was, that in legislation with a set of charges in place to obtain documents or information, we were often dealing with statutory instruments that increased those charges. All too often, the charges were to be increased by a considerable multiple of the rate of increase in the cost of living. I am not saying that that has happened in the Minister's Department, but some Departments with a charging system in place were apt to seek to increase the charges dramatically.

It would be helpful if the Minister would deal with the immediate proposal and give what the Americans call a ballpark idea of the figure about which we are talking. He should try also to give an undertaking—as far as he can bind his successors or himself in the future—that the charges will not shoot up once the system is established, as that is a worry.

All too often, the Treasury is a sinister ghostly presence, lurking in the background of legislation. In this case, it makes an appearance in the clause and is mentioned by name. At one end of the scale, the Minister could look at the simple cost of preparing photocopies of certain information. As a lawyer, I suggest that that is likely to be the most consistent interpretation of the wording of the clause. However, there are alternatives at the other end of the scale, including elements for staff costs, overheads and research.

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend will know that the subject of the internet was raised in Committee. I know little about the internet and care less, but I suspect that, although it is often regarded as a cost-free method of dissemination, there must be costs associated with putting information on the internet in a structured way to make it easily retrievable. To those costs one might add the cost of the famous reading room in York to which the Minister referred. The possibility of a range of costs may be more wide than my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Waterson

My right hon. Friend makes a valid and, by his standards, modern point. Perhaps the Minister would like to factor that into his answer—perhaps he will put it on the internet.

The central question is: what pound of flesh is the Treasury seeking in this instance? What orders has the Minister received from his Treasury colleagues? Are there guidelines in other legislation, or is there an accepted formula for producing the charging rates? As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, it all comes down to working out the meaning of the word "attributable". As a matter of law, we are talking about causation and the link between the charge and the costs which led to it. Could it be argued that the costs of the original research are attributable for this purpose because the research is an absolute precondition to the information being available in the first place? That matter needs to be addressed. If, as I hope and expect, the Minister gives a reassuring response, what would be the harm of putting the amendment in the Bill to make it clear?

I think it was Oscar Wilde who spoke about a man who knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. In this instance, we are talking about information which will have a potentially high value for those seeking and receiving it, but also—we hope—will have a low cost to obtain. This is an important point of principle, not a minor matter, so it is worthy of the consideration that I am sure the Minister will have given it. It would be right to have some guidance clearly stated in the Bill.

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I shall not detain the House long, but I am slightly puzzled about the question of cost. Will there be any cost to the Ministry from the provision of information relating to the withdrawal of a pesticide that was previously considered safe?

I bring to the attention of the House the question of Rose Clear—the spray that was withdrawn. I still cannot understand why it was withdrawn, because, despite all my letters to the Ministry, the only information I was able to obtain was that it was an irritant when sprayed into the eyes. Most things are an irritant if they are sprayed into someone's eyes and I was never able to find out why Rose Clear in particular was withdrawn. Huge costs must have been involved in the withdrawal and, since withdrawal was the Ministry's decision, did the Ministry bear any of those costs and does the Bill mean that it will bear such costs in future?

12.45 pm

Mr. Rooker

First, I shall deal, albeit probably inadequately, with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I have a very modest garden, but I remember, when Rose Clear was withdrawn, finding a bottle on the shelf in the garage. I freely admit that I continued to use it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It was a tiny bottle and it soon went. I do not know what the costs of the withdrawal were—obviously, the decision was taken by one of my predecessors in the previous Administration. If my hon. Friend continues to be unhappy with the letters I send her, I shall look further into the matter and reply to her separately.

Mrs. Golding

I have never asked my hon. Friend for further information. Rose Clear was withdrawn under the previous Administration and it is to them that I wrote.

Mr. Rooker

There are many people still writing to me about Rose Clear. I shall look into the matter, because my hon. Friend asked a specific question about the cost to the Ministry of the withdrawal. Although I do not carry the information around with me, I should say that pesticides are regularly withdrawn. I remember answering a question asked by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) some months ago and being astonished to find that a number of pesticides, running into several hundreds, had been withdrawn for many reasons. There had been no complaint, because that is part of the process of regulation and of the coming and going of products.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked about the reference which I made in Committee to administration costs. What I said was true: I had been to York, visited the pesticides safety directorate as part of my responsibility and seen the reading room. The point which I was making to the Committee—inadequately, I admit—was that we have a world-class organisation in the pesticides safety directorate, as we do in the veterinary medicines directorate, and overseas researchers and manufacturers queue up to come and see the way we regulate. Sometimes, they want their products regulated and registered in Britain, because we have a good organisation and they know that they can market their product if they go through our regulatory process.

My point is that people visit York to see the procedures we use there and the information that is retained there and to experience the way we do things. It is an educational process, for which we do not charge because it is part of the "public good" cost of running the PSD. I realise that some of the costs come back via the levy and, as has been said, we have recently reduced the charges. However, we do not make a charge for that activity by the PSD and we do not intend to start charging for it. It is good for Britain that we have people coming from overseas to see part of the Ministry and our regulatory process. We have a world-class organisation.

Mr. Forth

Is the Minister saying that there can and should be no distinction drawn between the provision of information to United Kingdom citizens on the one hand and to foreign nationals and companies on the other; or does he at least admit the possibility that it would not be unreasonable to draw that distinction and charge overseas individuals more? From his remarks, it is clear that a significant element of the costs incurred are attributable to use by non-UK nationals and businesses.

Mr. Rooker

No. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my, probably inadequate, explanation. At York, we run seminars for international groups of visitors, from universities and from Government Departments throughout the world. They do not walk away with the type of documents relating to the individual pesticides whose availability the Bill provides for. There is a collaborative process. Occasionally, people from this country take the pesticides safety directorate roadshow, so to speak, to overseas Governments, and to overseas universities for collaborative work. The issue of pesticides and veterinary medicines is not confined within the borders of specific countries; it is international.

The information that we make available in seminars and overseas visits relates to the overall regulatory process—the checks and balances—whereas the Bill would make available precise information relating to specific pesticides and to the regulatory process and the information that we had been given.

In that regard, there is a paradox in the Bill. There is a cost to the taxpayer and there is a cost to the individual who makes the request. One must always divide the area where the public good meets the private good. I repeat what I said in Committee: it is not our intention to start to introduce new charges, such as charges for the reading room at York.

If we put pesticides information on the internet, although we would not charge, there might be a resultant saving. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food website, which is separate from MAFF, is one of the most visited sites on the internet. There is a BSE site as well. Both sites are regularly updated. Journalists are encouraged to use those sites. When they obtain information from the internet, it reduces the need for them to telephone Whitehall place and Nobel house for information. That reduces pressure, at a time when an increasing amount of information is required from the information department in MAFF.

Although I would not claim that we can cut the information department or lower the costs, I can say that good use of the internet can control increased costs in future, when we might be churning out more and more information. People are encouraged to use the internet, and they are responding. If we have a good website service, more people will be encouraged to use it. By definition, I hope, a reasonable person would not expect the cost of information officers in MAFF to burgeon. To that extent, use of the internet is important.

As I said in Committee, essentially we are talking about the cost of further photocopying—the cost of supplying paper. By and large, we already charge people for making information available in evaluations. The price depends on the number of documents, the size and the maximum. We now have a maximum set price of £25. Sometimes information is provided free in correspondence, or is provided in priced publications.

We do not intend to put onerous costs on people for the information that will flow from the Bill, which will include detailed regulations. The price should not go beyond the cost of providing the necessary paperwork. Paperwork can run to thousands of sheets, so we must consider that matter in due course, but currently the maximum cost to the user is £25.

We are under no pressure from the Treasury to use the Bill as a money-making measure. We would reject any such pressure, partly because part of the pesticides safety directorate is run by a levy on the industry, which means, in turn, that the industry is entitled to know the costs. Recently, we have been able to reduce costs, partly as a result of the directorate's efficiency.

Mr. Paice

I want to clarify the costs issue. The Minister helpfully outlined the costs involved. However, I bring back to the written answer that he gave me four days ago, in which he said: An estimate of the cost of provision of this service cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs." — [Official Report, 23 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 74.] On what basis will the Government work out the charging mechanism that will be in the Bill?

Mr. Rooker

It could be the marginal cost of the purchase of the paper and the photocopying. We could walk up and down the high streets of this country and see how much photocopying costs. I do not expect the costs to be much higher than that. I am not prepared to ask officers of MAFF or the pesticides safety directorate to conduct a huge exercise and employ consultants to calculate the existing costs. According to the information that I have received, those costs are very small. Obviously, one can never tell what will happen when new information areas are opened, but we shall have better information when the regulations are drafted.

In my written answer, I also pointed out that, in 1997, we had a list of 47 organisations that we contacted automatically and provided with information. We dealt with only 98 one-off requests for evaluation documents in 1997, and only seven of those requests sought underlying data. Many requests may be met reasonably through correspondence rather than by providing underlying data.

Mr. Waterson

I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful. If he is not in a position today to give us the likely specific cost, will he address my other point and assure the House that, whatever the initial cost, it will not be increased in future by more than inflation?

Mr. Rooker

The answer is yes. In asking the House to reject the amendment, I stress that, under the Bill as it is presently drafted, it will be illegal for the pesticides safety directorate to exceed the costs that are related only to the supply of information—which does not include the regulatory process or research.

Mr. Bradshaw

I think that there is a slight misunderstanding about the costs involved. It is not about the costs of the regulatory procedure, which occurs anyway. The details are available: it is simply a matter of how much it will cost to make them public.

I make one point that the Minister omitted to mention in terms of accessibility and the cost of getting information at present and in the future. As well as the internet, I understand that the pesticides safety directorate in York and the Health and Safety Executive in Bootle provide copies of documents free to libraries and education establishments around the country. Therefore, if people cannot afford to travel to York, they can receive free of charge the information that they need.

In asking the hon. Gentleman to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I point out that its wording is worse than what appears in my Bill—which I believe is an improvement on existing legislation. The Bill refers to restricting the cost of the supply of information, whereas the old wording refers to a "reasonable fee". It does not restrict the fee to the cost of simply supplying the information. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that fact and ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Paice

I am grateful to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I accept the hon. Gentleman's claim that the Bill is an improvement on existing legislation—I do not detract from that statement. However, the amendment is based on my concern about the phrase "reasonably attributable". Once we introduce a qualification such as that, the matter is open to debate. My amendment seeks to limit the scope of debate about the phrase "reasonably attributable".

I accept the Minister's assurance that his Department has no intention of profiteering on the back of this measure and that the Treasury is not pressuring him to do so. I have no doubt that that is true today. However, my concern is always not what a Minister may say, in all honesty, today, but what one of his successors may decide to do at some stage in the future. A Bill is not only for today, but for all eternity—or at least for a long period.

Nevertheless, this has been a good debate, and I welcome the Minister's comments. It is extremely important that he ensures that the pesticides safety directorate abides by his words and does not impose charges that are not connected with the actual copying, typing or whatever of information. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. — [Mr. Bradshaw.]

12.59 pm

Mr. Peter Atkinson

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) did not move amendment No. 3, as it related to important aspects of the Bill that should have been discussed. On the face of it, the Bill allows access to greater information about pesticides, but it contains draconian measures that give me cause for considerable concern.

My first objection is that this is not a private Member's Bill; it is a Government handout Bill. The Minister admitted that it is a Government Bill that had been kicking around on the shelves of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the previous Government, and it was still kicking around on the shelves of MAFF under this Government, until someone pulled it down, dusted it off and put it into the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

If the hon. Gentleman had that objection to every Bill that had started on a Government shelf, the number of Bills going through the House in private Members' time with the general agreement of the House would probably be reduced by about three quarters. If private Members had the drafting back-up of the civil service, we could all produce Bills, but sadly, as yet, we do not.

Mr. Atkinson

I regret that a Liberal Democrat is going along with the system. Back-Bench Members have fewer and fewer powers, rights and opportunities to make their voice heard in the Chamber. One such opportunity is the private Members' Bill system. I accept that Government Bills will be picked up under the private Members' ballot system. I confess that I did that myself when I was a new Member, but I think that it is an abuse of the House.

The Bill, which extends powers considerably, has not been properly debated. It was given a Second Reading on the nod. It went to Committee, where it was debated for less than 30 minutes. Only half the matters were discussed.

The Bill extends powers from Ministers to local authorities, and allows local authorities to appoint others to break into people's houses with a warrant and to search business premises. Its amendments to schedule 2 to the 1985 Act are draconian. It lists the powers in relation to searching ships, aircraft, houses and containers, and it provides for people to be dealt with if they do not answer questions properly. The officers empowered under the Bill are given the powers of police officers. That aspect of the Bill has not been debated at all. I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire would move his amendment, so that we could debate that aspect, which causes me such concern.

It is a pity that we chuck the Bill, half dealt with and not properly considered, through to the House of Lords so that it can do what this House has not done. The Bill should not be allowed to pass without concern being expressed by hon. Members about the abuse of the private Members' Bill system, because the Bill has taken away another hon. Member's opportunity for a debate on his or her own Bill.

1.2 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes

I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and one other. Many Bills that go through the House and which have had Government support never get on to the Floor in Government time, because the Government also have time constraints. It is not a party matter. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the same happened when he was first here, under a Conservative Administration. Little changes in the law—one-clause or two-clause changes—often do not feature in the Government's plan when they present big Bills to the House.

The fact that when a Back Bencher is looking for a Bill to promote, he finds out which Bills in an area of interest are waiting on the shelf is, in itself, no argument against the system. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. I should love to reform the law on inquests. I know that there has been a file on the Home Office desk for years on reform of inquests, but nobody has done anything about it. One of the Bills that I would consider if I ever won the ballot—I do not know what one has to do—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. I would rather the hon. Gentleman did not stray into the way in which the House works, but stuck to the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Hughes

I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rest my case on the fact that we have many opportunities, but taking Bills from the Government would not be appropriate.

My substantive point is that the issue matters hugely to the public, who are generally concerned about pesticides—their impact and information about them. Anything that we can do to ensure better access to information, provided in a controlled way, should be welcomed.

I am one of the Bill's sponsors, because I believe that it is a matter of public concern about which there should be maximum information. There was an opportunity to raise issues in Committee, where the Bill could have been debated longer, but hon. Members chose not to. The public hugely support the Bill's general thrust.

Mr. Cynog Dais (Ceredigion)

May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that every minute is now precious? It is terribly important to some of us that the fourth Bill on the list, the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill, receives its Third Reading.

Mr. Hughes

The hon. Gentleman makes a point which we all understand about Fridays. I support his Bill.

The public will benefit from the Pesticides Bill, which I hope will receive Third Reading without opposition in the House and go on to further consideration in another place.

1.5 pm

Mrs. Golding

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on his fine Bill. On behalf of all those who fish and care about the rivers in this country, may I say that the Bill will be of great help to people who find pollution in those rivers? On behalf of all fishermen, I thank my hon. Friend for taking the time and effort to introduce this important Bill.

1.6 pm

Sir Richard Body (Boston and Skegness)

I have one eye on the clock as I am conscious that we have some good Bills yet to discuss.

I rise to speak only because it is said that pesticides are used more extensively in my constituency than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. At the same time, the incidence of two sorts of cancer is, according to the cancer map, worse there than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Many of my constituents therefore see a connection.

I welcome the Bill, although I appreciate that it contains defects. It is a mouse of a Bill—a nice mouse or perhaps a dormouse of a Bill. I hope that the Minister agrees that it does not go far enough, and I look forward to him introducing a Government Bill that will go far further, on the assumption that the proposed freedom of information Bill will not go quite as far as either of us would like.

1.7 pm

Mr. Paice

I, too, understand the desire to move on.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on promoting the Bill which, as has been said several times, was already in the frame under the previous Government. It therefore has the support of Conservative Members.

I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that I did not move amendment No. 3 or speak to the amendments in that group. That was partly because of an answer that I received from the Minister earlier this week stating that, despite all the concerns, in 1997 no pesticides were seized or destroyed by inspectors when they visited farms. Another reason for not moving the amendment was my understanding that, assuming the Bill receives its Third Reading, it will proceed to the other place, where the amendments that I did not speak to will receive a better hearing. They involve legal technicalities that may well require the judgment of those in the other place, who perhaps have more expertise in such matters than I do.

The Opposition congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter and are more than happy to agree to the Bill's Third Reading.

1.8 pm

Mr. Rooker

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). The Bill's two key parts—access to information and improvement of the enforcement mechanism—although discussed only briefly in Committee, were debated to the satisfaction of hon. Members, who considered the matters both before the Bill entered Committee and in Committee. This House is not the final arbiter. Down the corridor, the other place will also look at the Bill in its entirety, and if it is dissatisfied, it will send it back.

I understand the displeasure of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) at a Back Bencher promoting a Bill that was proposed by the previous Government, but frankly, the Bill is for the greater good of the public. It is up to each hon. Member, successful or otherwise in the ballot, to choose the subject of a Bill. It is not for Governments to impose Bills on Back Benchers.

1.9 pm

Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter)

I reassure the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that although I have taken on a Bill that was around for a long time and dusted it off, that does not mean that I do not feel strongly about the issues that it raises. The hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) made the important point that there is growing public concern. There is also a certain amount of scientific evidence that increases concern about long-term effects of pesticide use and consumption, especially in relation to cancer and infectious diseases.

Mr. Peter Atkinson

I want to make it clear that I have no objection to the Bill. I object to the Bill, worthy as it may be, not being debated in Government time. The Government have pinched private Members' time.

Mr. Bradshaw

I am not here to defend a system about which I am still learning after only 10 months in the House.

The hon. Member for Hexham also said that the Bill was draconian. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that it was a dormouse of a Bill. I hope that it is rather more than that, and that it is not as draconian as the hon. Member for Hexham would have us think. Some of the measures that he mentioned, such as bursting into people's homes and boarding hovercrafts and boats, are in the original Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, which is nothing to do with my Bill. This Bill simply makes the enforcement procedure fairer and more effective. He may also have overlooked the fact that the Bill is concerned with not only pesticides in agriculture but those used in people's homes. To deprive enforcement officers of the possibility of being able to enter a home and take photographs, or to pass other measures in the amendments that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wanted to move, is to lose sight of an aspect of pesticide control.

We have had a full and open debate, and I do not want to hold up procedures any longer. I know that other hon. Members' Bills, about which their promoters feel very strongly, are yet to be discussed. I hope that the House feels that the Bill improves public access and the enforcement system. In the light of recent food scares, it is in the interest not only of consumers but of producers and the industry that public confidence in the safety of food and the environment is increased. It is a question of credibility. I hope that the Bill will help to restore and safeguard that confidence, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.