Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 06 December 1984 vol 457 cc1512-45

8 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 15.

The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 48: Page 13, line 7. leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, by 31st December 1985").

The noble Earl said: I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for one or two years now and there have been more amendments on the subject of leaving out "may" and inserting "shall" and vice versa, than most noble Lords have had hot dinners. The purpose of this amendment (both to say "must" and to give a date) is to ask the Minister whether we can have draft regulations which people can examine before they are actually made into regulations and, above all, a timescale for introducing the regulations.

The good aspect of this Bill is that it seems to have the agreement of everybody in regard to its objectives, leaving on one parameter the eco-freaks and on the other parameter the chemical cowboys. That seems to be the basis of a potentially good Act. I see the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is grinning, possibly thinking that he might be classed as an eco-freak. For the sake of this Bill I shall leave him out of it.

Lord Melchett

I was grinning only because someone on the noble Earl's Front Bench happened to point to me when he said that and I, in turn, pointed to the noble Earl, which I am sure he will agree with.

The Earl of Onslow

I think it worth mentioning that I have had briefs from the CLA which states that it, welcomes the Government commitment to regulation. However, the contents of the regulation remain the crucial factor and we shall be scrutinising them carefully when the drafts are published". The NFU says: Whilst these principles can be readily agreed by most interested parties, the fact that the Bill is of an enabling nature only leaves many vital questions unanswered. We therefore believe that it would assist all concerned for the Government to publish a draft of the regulations that they are contemplating making under the Bill as soon as possible so as to facilitate the debate on the primary legislation itself. The RSPB states: The ultimate success of the Bill will depend wholly on the nature of the proposed regulations and the steps taken to enforce them"— and so on.

At the moment, as drafted, Clause 15 is not, in my view, strong enough. Until we have the draft regulations published and a timed parameter as to what they are, I do not think that the Bill is worth a great deal. I beg my noble friend Lord Belstead to answer as helpfully as he can on this point. I beg to move.

Earl Peel

I support my noble friend and, as he has quite rightly said, this is an enabling Bill and the importance of the regulations is paramount. It is, therefore, with some—I shall not use the word "suspicion"—concern that these matters have a habit of lingering on. It is for that reason I have put my name to this amendment and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will, as my noble friend Lord Onslow suggested, give us a clear indication as to how soon the regulations will be published.

Lord Belstead

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for moving the amendment briefly, but very much to the point, and I thank my noble friend Lord Peel for speaking likewise. First, I think I am right in saying that if one looks at enabling legislation, one sees that the power of the Government, through the legislation, to make regulations is almost invariably a permissive power, and not mandatory. Therefore, turning to the first point on this amendment, which seeks to supplant the word "may" by the word "shall", I ask my noble friends to focus on the fact that there is a problem from the point of view of precedence with putting in here a mandatory provision.

I add to that that however strongly we may feel about the use of pesticides—and I know from considerable experience that both my noble friends feel strongly about them—there is not reason enough in this Bill to depart from the use of the word "may" and to go towards the word "shall".

Secondly, I quite understand that my noble friends and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who arc also signatories to the amendment, have included in the amendment the proposal that regulations shall be made by 31st December 1985, because they want to make sure that the intentions of the Government are genuine. I should like to make the point that I hope that the statement of intention in relation to the regulations which I have circulated to your Lordships today shows that we are thinking in detail, that we are prepared to try to answer all the questions which will be put to us in both Houses of Parliament, and that we shall be ready at the end of the day to have a final round of consultations with all interested parties in order to put the regulations into effect.

However, there is one problem with putting the date of 31st December 1985. Not only are we going to be, from a manpower point of view, under great pressure to do that, but we also have the constraints of international agreements. As my noble friends may know, there is the agreement on residues which is at the moment being negotiated within the European Community and which is not yet ready. We must have regard to that agreement before we put into effect the provision in Clause 15 enabling Ministers to specify how much pesticide or pesticide residue may be left in crops, and so on. Incidentally, it will be the first time in this country that there will be statutory provision in legslation for pesticide residues.

Furthermore—and I say this quite genuinely—we have to wait for the FAO and UNEP initiatives on exports to the third world before we can finally make the exporting regulations which will fall under this Bill. There is, therefore, genuinely an international problem from that point of view.

There is one other point to make to my noble friends on the question of putting in "shall" instead of "may". This is supposed to be a long-term Bill to try to put into legislative form for the first time rules about pesticides and, as your Lordships know, their efficacy and their use, in a way that has not been done before. It would perhaps almost be asking for trouble to suggest that by putting in the word "shall" we would be able to say that we can make regulations which would be carved in tablets of stone for all time; in other words, when the regulations are made they will be subject to change as the years go by. That is almost inevitable. It is for those reasons, therefore, that I should like to ask my noble friends not to press for putting into the Bill the word "shall" and the date.

My noble friends will say that they need an undertaking from me, and the undertaking is this. We are absolutely committed to the making of regulations under this Bill; we would not have introduced what is really quite a difficult Bill unless we had been so; we are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to take into account what both Houses of Parliament will say so far as the main intentions of the Bill are concerned; and we have said—and I repeat it again on the Floor of the House—that there will have to be exhaustive consultations again immediately the Bill goes through so that regulations can be made as swiftly as possible. We will then do our very best to see that the regulations are made as quickly as may be; and before either of my noble friends jumps down my throat and asks, "Come on—what do you mean by that?", what I mean is that we are committed, after a detailed and wide-ranging public consultation on the regulations, to make regulations, as we hope to do next year after completing the consultations.

We cannot guarantee that all the regulations will come into force by 31st December 1985. It may be necessary to provide periods of grace before certain controls are enforced; but we envisage that the Bill will provide powers for the foreseeable future, and we are determined to get on with the regulations next year as quickly as possible, once the Bill has passed through both Houses of Parliament.

Lord Henley

Before my noble friend sits down, can he confirm for my own benefit, and probably for others, that the existing voluntary arrangements will continue in effect for some considerable time—certainly until the new regulations are brought into force—if this Bill is enacted?

Lord Belstead

There will not be a loophole in that way. I am glad the noble Lord has asked me that, and we shall make sure that there is not. So far as concerns the difficult question which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, put to me on Second Reading—about how you deal with the transitional period when you have pesticides which have been cleared under the PSPS and when they are statutorily cleared under this Bill—I think that is a matter I should like to come to on a later amendment.

Lord Melchett

May I ask the noble Lord a question about this, and then put a point to him? I ask that because there are really two parts to this amendment. The question is: have I understood it right that, in practice, what the Government are intending to do is to introduce a series of regulations? With some, like the regulations on residues, they intend to wait for European or international agreements, as with the regulations which will deal with export to other countries. They intend to wait for international agreements, so there will in fact be a series of regulations, possibly appearing over a period of years. That is the first question, just to make sure I am right about that.

On the point I would like to make to the noble Lord about "may" and "shall", he has said that the Government will be introducing regulations, and he has said quite rightly that he would hardly have bothered to introduce this difficult Bill if that was not the case. That is all that putting "shall" in the Bill suggests will happen—that the Government will introduce regulations. I really cannot see the difficulty, unless the noble Lord is saying "Well, we want the flexibility at some stage in the future to withdraw all the regulations, so that there are no regulations there at all". That would be the only argument in practice, so far as I can see, for keeping "may" in the Bill, and I think that would be an undesirable power for the Government to have—to withdraw all the regulations and to leave pesticides quite unregulated without coming back to Parliament for power. That seems to me to argue for putting "shall" into the Bill.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Belstead

If I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, yes, it is the case that we would envisage not a series of regulations but regulations which I very much hope will come in next year. There may be—indeed, there will be—exceptions to that, however, and the exceptions that the noble Lord has put his finger on as a result of the examples which I endeavoured to give are, for instance, maximum residue limits and arrangements so far as exports are concerned, because we are restrained by international agreements.

Secondly, if I may underline this again—because I think it is very important, too, from the point of view of my two noble friends who have moved this amendment—our intention is that we complete the consultations in order to make regulations next year. However, for the reason I have just given we cannot guarantee that all the regulations will come into force by 31st December 1985.

On the final point, with respect, I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is being, perhaps, uncharacteristically, a little unfair. My noble friend Lord Renton has now returned to the Committee, and in his presence I think I am right in saying that almost invariably one finds that enabling legislation has a permissive power—"may" and not "shall"—when regulations are going to be made under a Bill. That is the advice I have received, and I would be interested to know what my noble friend Lord Renton says on that.

The reason in this case is not because either this or any future Government would then wash their hands of this particular Bill, but because we are legislating for the future and if you put "shall" into the Bill you could then find that you have regulations which really tie you so tightly for the future that you would wish that you had not made them. I think that is an undesirable way of proceeding.

Lord Renton

Although I am sure my endorsement is not at all necessary, may I say that I do believe my noble friend Lord Belstead is right in that, I would have thought, 19 cases out of 20—or perhaps even more often than that—this is a true enabling power, and the Minister is given a discretion as to whether to make regulations, and when. That is the legal position. In practice, however, one does find that when that power is given it is almost invariably used.

Lord Belstead

If I may once again intervene, I am grateful to my noble friend, with his experience of drafting, for saying that, and I should just like to make the point that I think this is the first time in public and on the record that the Government have laid it on the line that it is their absolute intention to get on with these regulations next year. I like to think that this is the impression which has been given to everybody interested in this particular field of operations; namely, pesticide legislation. I think it is the first time that we have said on the record that it is our intention to do this. Although there will be exceptions—and I do not hide that from your Lordships—I hope at the same time that your Lordships will accept the good intentions of the Government in what I have said this evening.

Baroness Nicol

I am sure no one doubts the good intentions of the Government, but there will be extensive consultations and there will be pressures put on the Government from some of those consulted. It does seem to me that the word "shall", the imperative in the "shall" suggested by the noble Earl, refers to the making of the regulations as much as it does to the content of the regulations themselves, and I see no reason why it should not go in as a clear declaration on the face of the Bill of the Government's intention that the regulations will go forward even if the date is unacceptable, because by December 1985 the Minister may feel that he is not in a position to make all the regulations that he will eventually wish to make.

There are a number of regulations which could go ahead as of next month, I suspect, and with the word "shall" the making of them could go ahead from then. We are creating a gap by leaving this as much in the air as we appear to be going to leave it. We are leaving a gap for all kinds of clever dodges to escape the intentions which have been declared during the discussions on this Bill. I must say that it would be very disappointing if we did not finish this Bill with a clear statement of intention using the word "shall", and with as clear as possible a commitment to a date for at least some of the regulations.

Lord Melchett

come back on the question of "may" and "shall". I should not do so if it was not for the fact that I am quite certain in my own mind that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is wrong about this. He suggested that putting "shall" in the Bill would tie us down in future as to the contents of particular regulations. With respect, that simply cannot be right. What "shall" does at this particular point in the Bill is to say that this and future Governments will produce regulations. It does not say anything at this stage about the contents of the regulations. They could be general, narrow or cover a whole range of other things. It would simply say that there will be regulations. With respect, I think that the noble Lord is wrong in what he said just now to the Committee about its tying us down to a particular set of regulations which would then be fixed. That cannot be right.

While I am on my feet, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there are, as I think he acknowledged, cases in legislation where Ministers are under an obligation to produce regulations. I personally would say that this Bill should be one of those cases. I think that it is generally agreed that what the Government are doing in this is taking very wide powers, regulation-making powers, to legislate on an extremely important matter of public policy—something which many people felt should have been done in the face of a detailed Bill, with a large number of clauses covering all the detailed points which we are now going to cover in amendments.

I understand the reasons why the Government have not done that, but as they have not, it seems to me to strengthen the argument for insisting that in the Bill there definitely will be provision for a set of regulations, whatever their content, after the Bill has become law.

The Earl of Onslow

I think that it was Stanley Baldwin who said, "Trust the people". I think that my noble friend Lord Belstead has given pretty strong and concrete undertakings that these regulations will be drawn up as expeditiously as possible. On that point, I personally am prepared not to get into an argument on the "may" or "shall" case, even though I think that possibly intellectually my noble friend Lady Nicol may be right, and even the noble eco-freak, Lord Melchett, is possibly right as well.

However, the one point that I should like to extract from my noble friend on consultation is an answer to the question: can we have a sight of the regulations well before they are published, so that people can talk about them? Can the maximum amount of consultation be in public, and can we avoid the obsessive English disease of secrecy? All these consultations seem to have to be behind closed doors—whisper, whisper! The more that these regulations are discussed in public, the happier we shall be when we get an agreed solution at the end of them. With that, I would be content to withdraw the amendment unless my noble friend would like to give some undertakings on it.

Lord Belstead

I should like to take away what my noble friend has said and think about it. The last point he has made is an important one. It is easier to do in this House than in another place. May I think about it?

The Earl of Onslow

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 49: Page 13, line 8, after ("importation") insert ("exposure for sale").

The noble Lord said: Although it is now contrary to the voluntary scheme, until this Bill becomes law it will be legal to import and sell agro-chemicals without submitting them for a clearance. That means that agro-chemicals which have not been cleared are now advertised. I have here an example of that. Here is an advertisement for imported Cypermethrin. It is stated to come from an unknown continental source. It is not cleared under the voluntary PSPS scheme. It is advertised at about half the price of ICI and other manufactured Cypermethrin products which are cleared under the scheme. This is not the sort of thing that we want to have when this Bill becomes law. But after it is law, without my amendment it will still be possible and perfectly legal to continue with that advertisement, leaving the offence of selling actually to happen on the site when the goods are passed for sale. My amendment would strengthen the effectiveness of the Bill and close a loophole. I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.

The Earl of Swinton

I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the reasons for this amendment. We are advised by our legal experts that in this context the word "sale" includes the concept of "exposure for sale", and thus already meets my noble friend's concern. To deal with the point of the advertisement which he mentioned, any person who supplied a prohibited pesticide in order that it might be offered for sale would also be committing an offence under Clause 15; and so we are doubly protected.

However, I have then had my attention drawn to the fact that under the Weights and Measures Act there is a difference between "sale" and "exposure for sale". I should like to take this point back and consider it, if my noble friend agrees, and again take counsel of our legal experts to see whether it is necessary.

Lord John-Mackie

The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, produced an advertisement. Does "exposure for sale" mean advertising a product? "Exposure for sale" is a difficult term. I should have thought that "advertising for sale" was more suitable, but I do not know.

Lord Craigton

I was so glad to hear what the Minister said. This was a very happy argument at the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I have looked it up, and that Act includes the words, "exposure for sale". There were very good reasons indeed for putting them in. The reasons are exactly the same in this case. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment on that statement from the Minister.

The Earl of Cranbrook

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to raise a small issue that was touched on briefly by my noble friend the Minister on Second Reading. It is the sale of approved pesticides which are imported but where the instructions are not in English. It is commonplace. I want to be reassured that the regulations will also deal with that issue. It is more than confusing for the practical farmer when cheap imported pesticides which are approved are sold to him with instructions only in a foreign language. I think that there may be reasons for limiting the sale of imported pesticides, other than those based on the chemical constituents and the activity of the pesticide itself.

The Earl of Swinton

I shall take account of what my noble friend has said. If necessary, Clause 15(l)(c) provides powers to impose conditions on the advertising of those pesticides which Ministers have approved for specific uses. I think that that means that they can say that they must be advertised in English.

Lord Craigton

beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 50: Page 13, line 8, after ("supply") insert (", export").

The noble Baroness said: On Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed anxieties about the export of chemicals which were considered unsuitable for use in this country but which could apparently be exported for use in third world countries. The introduction of the word "export" at this point would give the Minister power to examine such proposed exports and to use his common sense or good offices to see that such exports either came within international legislation to which we had subscribed or simply came within the realm of common humanity.

8.30 p.m.

I think it was generally agreed that the use and abuse of some of our pesticides in third world countries is causing an enormous problem. I have been given different figures for the number of deaths caused by the misuse of chemicals which were not properly understood in the country in which they were received, and I therefore do not propose to quote them, because the sources give different views: but there is no doubt that it has caused a problem. The unfortunate disaster in India which has happened this week, it is true, was not caused by imports but by chemicals manufactured there. However, it does show how much expertise is needed in the handling of the very deadly weapons which we are producing. They are weapons which have a good use; otherwise, we would not be producing them. Nevetheless, when they are misused they are dangerous and they need control.

We have a duty to the third world countries—I do not think anyone denied this, including the Minister, at Second Reading—to see that we are responsible in our attitude to exports. I understand that discussions are going on at the moment in a number of ways to reach an agreement about the control of exports. The most favoured solution, particularly by Oxfam, who have a great experience in this particular field, is the FAO Article 9, "Information Exchange". I will not read it all to the Committee, but it is based on (I think the phrase is) prior informed consent; that is, that the importing country must be fully aware of the properties of the chemical which it is about to import, to the extent that it can decide whether or not to import it.

Article 9, which is under consideration—I do not know whether or not we have yet agreed to be a signatory to it—says: No export takes place without prior notification to the importing country government advising of the domestic regulatory status of the pesticide and the hazard which led to such restrictions"— in other words, that we should tell them why it is restricted here and give them the opportunity to refuse it if that is what they want to do—or, without the explicit consent of the importing country". These seem to me minimum requirements which we should apply to our exports. We cannot do this unless the Bill which we have before us includes power for the Minister to control exports. Amendment No. 50 would give him this power. I beg to move.

The Earl of Onslow

I put my name to this amendment because I know that there is considerable concern about pesticide and fungicide use in third world countries. I equally know that if they had been more efficiently used in Ethiopia then probably Ethiopia would not be in the situation that it is at the moment. I know that point was brought out by certain noble Lords at Second Reading.

I also know that in a way we in this country are sufficiently advanced and sufficiently rich to take into account environmental factors which, if you have hoards of starving peasants, you may not be lucky enough to be able to take into account. All of these points have to be borne in mind.

But the particular point I should like to impress upon my noble friend on the question of exports is this. Chemical companies may have stocks of out-of-date chemicals which worked in a fairly blunderbus-like fashion in this country, and they or merchants may be tempted to "flog them off" cheap to somebody else who will use them unhappily and with a lack of care. That is a very different question from the question of the control of, for example, a particularly nasty fly, as I think there is, which attacks rice and does untold damage. This has to be hit with very high toxic doses to stop it; but I know my noble friend will enlighten the Committee on that point.

The reason why I helped to table this amendment was that I hoped to ascertain the Government's thinking behind the whole question of exports to third world countries and underdeveloped states.

Earl Peel

In support of my noble friend and the noble Baroness, I, too, put my name to this amendment. I feel very strongly that there is the need to control, and if necessary to prevent, the export of pesticides, particularly to third world countries. I think the danger is that companies may be tempted to offload pesticides which are unacceptable in this country, for whatever reason that may be, to third world countries. The point that really concerns me is that the third world countries very often do not have the level of infrastructure in their environmental protection agencies properly to scrutinise these products.

I accept that there are undoubtedly cases where pesticides, which may be environmentally unacceptable in this country, have been used in third world countries to save life and, of course, in all matters there has to be a balance. However, I do feel that those countries should be made fully aware of what they are undertaking and what the potential dangers are.

I could not help noticing that in the information that we were given on the various clauses—and I should like, again, to congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench for giving us such a wealth of information on these points—it stated in subsection (5)(b): It is expected that Ministers will wish to require exporters to notify the Government of impending exports.". "It is expected": the words rather worry me. I sincerely hope my noble friend can give us an assurance that the Government will be far firmer than that when these regulations come into being. We have a responsibility to other countries as well as our own.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I, too, should like to support this amendment. It is of course my noble friend Lord Walston who has his name down as supporting it. It is absolutely vital that the Government have the power to prohibit export. Although there are other amendments down later about the regulations and about the labelling that we would like to see, at this stage I think it is essential that the Government say that they wish to take the power to prohibit exports.

We have a great many cases of many of our big firms very responsibly working along with FAO to produce regulations. I think the least that the Government can do in backing these international obligations to the third world is to see that they have the power at least to make exporters give all the information required to the Governments concerned.

There is a case, and there can be a case, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has already said, for a cheaper form of chemical or perhaps a more dangerous form of chemical being used in a country which perhaps is wholly dependent on a crop attacked very viciously by a tropical insect, whatever it may be. Again as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has already said, we can afford to be choosy, for example, between DDT and APHOX in this country. It may be absolutely vital for the whole economy of a third world country to use the cheapest and most effective chemical for the job. That is up to them. But it is up to us to see that we can prohibit the export of totally unsuitable chemicals, and at least see that full information is available to the users in the third world countries. I think this is a good amendment.

The Earl of Radnor

I am afraid I must strike a contrary note here because I find myself not in agreement with either of my noble friends, nor with the noble Baroness opposite. I feel we are treading on rather dangerous ground here, controlling exports and telling other countries how to do their own business and how to look after themselves.

I follow all the expressions about looking after them, and so on and so forth, but my mind goes back to an expression which I was taught when I started farming, that the buyer should beware—caveat emptor. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that if a number of farmers said all the things about their cows that they were exposing in the market, they would never sell any at all. But that is by the way. It is probably wrong. The large companies in this country, and probably the small ones too, are responsible and do behave responsibly so far as exports are concerned. It is then up to the importing country to let their regulations hold sway. We have enough difficulties sometimes in carrying out our own legislation and our own regulations without having to worry about others.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

I should like to say, since I have been referred to, that the cow is not nearly so dangerous an animal as some of the chemicals that are sold to the third world.

Lord Melchett

There is a real point of difference between what the Government have so far said about controlling exports of pesticides and what my noble friend on the Front Bench said in moving the amendment—namely, the importance of prior informed consent. I simply do not agree that insisting not only on exporters giving information to an importing country but also on an importing country consenting to the imports is interfering with that country's business. We are leaving the power whether to say yes or no to an import entirely to the importing country.

I accept, however, that it is important to go down that road through international agreement. There are a number of expressions of international intention which give support to prior informed consent. They are sufficient for us to insist at least that the power to impose prior informed consent on exporters from this country should be provided in the Bill. So far as I can see, that is not the case at the moment. There is power to ask exporters for information but no power to prohibit exports unless the consent of the importing country has been obtained.

I should like to mention some of the international moves that seem to support what I have just said. My noble friend mentioned the FAO code which, in its latest draft, as I understand it, would require prior informed consent of the importing country before an export could take place. In addition, in October last year, the European Parliament passed a resolution that supported the principle of prior informed consent. In fact, the resolution was passed unanimously. A large number of Members of the European Parliament from this country voted in favour of it. The United Nations General Assembly, a year before, in 1982, passed a resolution which referred to pesticides and also supported strongly the principle of prior informed consent. More recently, just last month, in fact, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature passed a resolution, again strongly supporting the principle of prior informed consent.

With all those international moves afoot and widespread support in many different forums for the principle of prior informed consent, it seems vital that that power should be included in the Bill. I strongly support the amendment.

Lord John-Mackie

I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, did a good job by inserting a word of caution here. While fully agreeing with the principle that we must see that everything that we export is suitable for the job, I should not like to think that we might scare off developing countries from perfectly genuine and useful sprays by means of something in the Bill or something in the regulations that might do just that. I well remember the great argument about banning DDT. A medical officer representing some African countries put forward a very strong case when he said that the amount of good that the use of DDT did in controlling mosquitoes and thus controlling malaria far outweighed the danger. As he puts it, you would have to breathe in so many millimetres a day and live for 150 years before the stuff would kill you. We should be careful about the wording of any regulation so that it does not scare off countries that really need some of these sprays.

Lord Craigton

I had thought that prior informed consent was covered by subsection (5)(b) on page 14. That is why I did not put down any amendment to this effect or speak in support of it.

Lord Melchett

Surely the answer is that subsection (5) deals only with the provision of information and, so far as I can see, does not give the Government power to ban exports even to fulfil international obligations. What concerns me is that it looks quite possible, not to say likely, and I would certainly say it was desirable, that international obligations will arise that require more than just the provision of information.

The Earl of Onslow

Before my noble friend gets up, may I add one point that follows upon what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, says? It is the reverse of his point. If products get the stamp of approval and prior informed consent, they will be more saleable and more satisfactory to people than if there were no proper regulations made.

8.45 p.m.

The Earl of Swinton

I have finally got up my Lords. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for bringing forward the amendment. It gives the Government a chance to put forward what they feel about this matter and to correct several misapprehensions that both she and her noble friend Lord Melchett have mentioned.

I can understand the concern felt by noble Lords that we should apply the same conditions to the export of pesticides as we do to distribution and use at home but we must remember that other countries, particularly in the third world, have many different types of pests and diseases to cope with and that the rules we make for home use may be quite inappropriate abroad. It is essential in some tropical countries, for example, to have available powerful pesticides in order to help contain the spread of malaria by the control of vector insect populations; or to preserve crops from diseases and predators which are capable of destroying an entire harvest in a very short space of time. In the case of some products, such as DDT—I was glad that both the noble brothers Mackie mentioned this—there is no effective alternative overseas, while there is in the United Kingdom, where conditions are less extreme.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, says that thousands of lives may have been lost because of the use of chemicals as pesticides. Every life that is lost is, of course, regrettable. However, I should have thought that, over the years, literally millions of lives must have been saved by the use of DDT, a product that is frowned upon in this country. I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Radnor said. The principle upon which we work is that we must leave it to each sovereign government to decide for itself which pesticides it needs and which it can do without.

On the other hand, noble Lords will note that we are taking powers in Clause 15(5) to require such information from exporters of pesticides as will allow us to fulfil our international obligations. We do this because the international community does recognise the risks of unidentified and dangerous chemicals of all sorts entering into international trade, particularly to poorer countries without well developed control systems. We believe that agreement will soon be reached internationally on the arrangements to be made to inform governments in the receiving countries about such products, and we will then be able to make use of this provision to play our part in relation to pesticides.

There are a number of international agreements in force awaiting implementation or under discussion in this area. The United Kingdom has recently agreed in principle in the United Nations environment programme to an obligation to pass information to other countries when we ban or severely restrict hazardous substances, which would include pesticides. When, subsequently, exports of these substances take place we have undertaken to warn these other countries that exports have started. This will enable them to review the status of such imports in their own territories. This agreement has not yet been implemented. There is a variety of international agreements in force on the labelling of hazardous substances when they are in transport.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned FAO There is a draft FAO code of conduct on trade and the use of pesticides. But this has not yet been agreed by FAO member countries. The reason, I think I can say to my noble friend, why we say that we are expecting it is that we are expecting the code of conduct to be ratified and therefore we shall certainly be supporting it.

I should have thought that noble Lords would agree that this was a more appropriate arrangement than a proposal which I believe envisages powerful restraint on trade itself, using criteria which are quite inappropriate to third world conditions. I think my noble friend Lord Peel mentioned this when he said that the infrastructure in some of these countries was not quite as adequate as it is over here.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

Will the noble Earl say whether there is anything to prevent the Government taking the power to make a regulation? One can envisage a lot of cases where it could be used. You can envisage corrupt and ruthless firms who would put on all the labelling they wished and still export very dangerous chemicals to corrupt third world countries. Surely it can do no harm to take the power to make a regulation to forbid the export. That is the point. The Government have given us no assurance on that.

Baroness Nicol

Before the noble Earl replies to that, if it is the Government's intention to take powers to deal with exports as soon as that becomes an international obligation, what machinery will they use? Will it be done by regulation, or by what means will they do it? If in fact it is eventually to be done by regulation, it would seem to me highly desirable, from their point of view, that this word "export" should be included now in the regulation so that when the time comes the machinery is to their hand. I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has just said. It seems to me that is a power the Government should welcome if their intentions are really as good as they claim they are.

The Earl of Swinton

The power is available in Clause 15(5).

Lord Melchett

When the noble Earl referred to that just now, he said, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that Clause 15(5) gives the Government power to require the provision of such information as may be necessary for various purposes. Is the noble Earl telling us that that means the Government have the power to prohibit the export of pesticides without the prior informed consent of the importing country? That is the question he was asked. With great respect to him, the whole of his reply to the debate was on a different subject, because nobody, in supporting the amendment, suggested that chemicals should be banned from export. We—a number of us, at least—simply said that there should be the informed consent of the importing country first; that is quite a different argument. Do the Government have power to do that, or do they not?

Lord Renton

Before my noble friend replies, I think it is only right to invite your Lordships' attention to the somewhat vague phraseology of subsection (5). We find: Either of the Ministers may require the provision of such information by importers, exporters . . . or users of a pesticide as he considers to be necessary—

1. (a) for the purpose of determining—
1. (i) whether or not to approve it;".

But one has to puzzle the mind a bit to find to what "it" refers, or whether any, and, if so, what conditions should be imposed in relation to "it". The expression "in relation to" is really a very wide expression and might, I suppose, conceivably be referring to the export of "it", if "it" is the substance; or is it the information?

The Earl of Swinton

I think "it" is the information. I must make it absolutely clear to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the powers in Clause 15(5) require such information from exporters of pesticides as will allow us to fulfil our international obligations. This is that we will tell everybody what these pesticides are and what they contain. Surely it is up to them to decide whether or not they will deal with the problem in their own country.

Lord Melchett

If I may say so, that would be quite wrong. The noble Earl missed the point, as I thought he had, of the speeches most noble Lords made in supporting the amendment. The international obligation which seems closest to agreement—although, as he said, it is still in draft—is the FAO one; and, as my noble friend said, the current draft includes a requirement for prior informed consent. It may be that the United Kingdom Government do not agree with that and want to see the draft changed, but there are a number of other expressions of international opinion, in particular a unanimous resolution of the European Parliament, which suggest that prior informed consent will not go away. Even if the FAO code is eventually agreed without it, it is clearly something which is likely to become an international obligation in the future. It may be that at that stage the Government would want to come back to Parliament with a Food and Environment (Amendment) Bill, but I should have thought that it would be sensible, if taking wide powers in the first place, to include the power to make regulations to prohibit exports to meet what seems at least likely to be future international obligations.

Lord Belstead

I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, a question. I have been listening to the debate and I cannot find anything in subsection (5) which leads me to believe that prior informed consent by the importing country is prevented in some way by this Bill.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

May I ask my question, which follows on that? For once, I am supporting the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am lost on this. I think the amendment in fact is defective in so far as my noble friend on the Front Bench said it might stop us exporting stuff that we consider dangerous but which might do a job over there. What I have not heard from the Government, and what I really do want to hear, is: are they or are they not in favour of prior informed consent? I have not heard a "yes" or "no" to that, and I should very much like to do so.

Lord Melchett

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, a question? It has already been said by his colleague on the Front Bench that what subsection (5) does is allow the Government to ask for information which will then allow them to approve the export. It would really be stretching the meaning of subsection (5), it seems to me, to say what I think the Government would have to say if they were going to implement an international obligation to impose prior informed consent. What they would have to do under subsection (5) is say that they require information from an exporter, which consists not only of the exporter telling the importing country what the pesticide consisted of but also that the importing country had agreed to it. That really does seem to me to be stretching subsection (5) too far. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is not worded very clearly, but I certainly do not think it is worded vaguely enough to extend that far.

Lord Belstead

With great respect to the noble Lord, I think he is shadow boxing. My noble friend has read out from a brief, which I am now looking at, the words: The United Kingdom has recently agreed in principle in the United Nations environment programme to an obligation to pass information to other countries when we ban or severely restrict hazardous substances, which would include pesticides. When, subsequently, exports of these substances take place we have undertaken to warn these other countries that exports have started". That is a statement of intent, on the record, on the Floor of your Lordships' House. Subsection (5) paves the way to enable us to discharge that obligation, which is being negotiated at the moment in FAO.

Lord Melchett

Will the noble Lord take himself one step further? We all agree about that. I do not think there is any argument about what the noble Lord has just said. But if the FAO code as it now stands is agreed, if the European Parliament's resolution becomes an international obligation, if the RUCN resolution becomes an international obligation, the Government will have to go beyond what the noble Lord has just said and they will have to ban the export of products to meet what would be an international obligation on all countries unless the importing country had agreed to their import. That power is not in the Bill.

The Earl of Onslow

Can my noble friend answer this point absolutely clearly? There has been a lot of obfuscation. If we agree to the treaty imposing prior informed consent, does this Bill now give him the power to make regulations to say, "You, O chemical company, you, O merchant, will not sell abroad to this country without its prior informed consent"? If that is the case, that is all right. If it is not the case, I would hope that the Bill will be toughened up to make sure that that does happen.

Lord Craigton

May I try to clarify this in three sentences? Subsection (5) gives the Minister power to require information necessary, for the fulfilment by the government of the United Kingdom of any . . . international obligations". That is absolutely clear, without any question whatever, and now we have the assurance that that includes prior informed consent.

9 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

I am sorry to add an additional voice to this excellent argument. But it seems to me that the provisions in Clause 15(5) refer back to those in Clause 15(1). It is Clause 15(1) that gives the Government power to take certain actions on the basis of the information which can be required under Clause 15(5). The one difference between them is that Clause 15(5) refers to, "importers, exporters, manufacturers" etc., but Clause 15(1) does not contain the word "export". The object of this amendment surely is to make those two subsections match by inserting the word "export".

The Earl of Cranbrook

A relevant point—without drawing attention to the obvious—revolves upon the resolution of Amendment No. 48, which has already been withdrawn. The whole of this part of the Bill is permissive and gives the Minister powers without obliging him to fulfil them at any given instance. That was made perfectly clear towards the end of the discussion devoted to Amendment No. 48.

The Earl of Swinton

I really cannot go further than to thank my noble friend for that comment. The situation is absolutely clear. If your Lordships look at Clause 15(5), you will see that it says: Either of the Ministers may require the provision of such information by importers, exporters, manufacturers, distributors or users of a pesticide as he considers to be necessary . . . for the fulfilment by the government of the United Kindom of any of its international obligations.".

Lord Melchett

I wonder whether the noble Earl would answer a straight question which has been put to him by several noble Lords on all sides of the Committee? Does the Bill as drafted give the Government power to ban the export of chemicals if prior informed consent from the importing country has not been obtained; yes or no?

Lord Belstead

Perhaps I may answer the question for my noble friend, who has been on his feet many times. If I may say so, I do not think that we are drafting this Bill at the behest of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. If the noble Lord cares to look at what in fact is the Government's Bill, he will see that Clause 15(5) contains an absolutely clear statement that the provisions of the Bill require that we shall be able to fulfil our international obligations. The question of what those international obligations will be is for the international fora in which we are negotiating to decide. It is a matter for the international fora; it is a matter for Her Majesty's Government; it is not a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

Why does the noble Lord object to the perfectly simple exercise of putting in the word "export", so that he can take the powers if he is required under international obligations so to do?

Lord Belstead

It is because we believe that we have taken all the powers that are necessary under Clause 15 to fulfil the international obligations which we are likely to have to fulfil.

Baroness Nicol

The Minister's remarks to my noble friend Lord Melchett are unworthy of him. The question was put to him quite directly by several noble Lords on his own side and he has not answered it. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked to be told in words of one syllable and so did the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I feel that the Minister has really still not answered the question; namely, whether, under the Bill as it stands, he can if necessary meet the particular international obligation which is likely to become necessary later this year, which is prior informed consent?

Lord Belstead

Forgive me for being rather boring, since we are all getting to our feet so many times. But I said advisedly that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was not making the policy of the Government, because as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would like to go to a position which the Government of this country have not taken up. We do not believe necessarily in blanket bans. What we do believe in is fulfilling our international obligations. In order to do that we are negotiating at the moment in the FAO on a perfectly simple premise, and that premise is to make sure that the importing countries abroad know what it is that they are importing. That at the moment is what we are negotiating on.

The Earl of Onslow

I am sorry to rise and join in this argument yet again. But really all one wants is the answer "Yes" or "No" to a very simple question. If prior informed consent comes from an international treaty, do the Government have the power in the Bill to say, "You cannot export that product without prior informed consent and if you do, you go to 'chokey' for six months" or whatever penalty they care to give. That is the question that one wants answered.

Lord Mottistone

Is it entirely reasonable to ask the question?

The Earl of Onslow

That is what Parliament is for.

Lord Mottistone

You can ask a question in the Chamber, but is it reasonable to insist upon the answer? Is it a reasonable question? I should have thought that if the government overseas have the information that they need, why is it so frightfully important for powers to be given at the beginning of Clause 15 to restrict export where the overseas country wants to make its own decision? I do not see why the question should be asked.

Lord Maekie of Benshie

The important words are "prior informed" but the most important word is "consent".

The Earl of Cranbrook

I still think that my noble friend on the Front Bench need not be the slightest bit apprehensive about allowing the little word "export" into this position in the clause, because the power will be discretionary and will give him a weapon which he may or may not wish to use in the future, but it will still give him a power which he could use if eventualities came to make it necessary. I do not believe that he need make an issue of this particular point or that he need have the slightest apprehension that anyone will accuse him of losing face or anything like that if he admits this small word into this clause at this place.

Lord Belstead

If I may say so, I do not think that there is any question of losing face. My noble friend and I on the Front Bench are surprised that, when the Government set out explicitly that we intend to fulfil our international obligations, we should then be told that we are not going far enough. I should have thought that that was a reasonable, straightforward and honest statement of policy, and that is what we intend to stand by.

Lord Renton

With respect to my noble friend there may be circumstances not covered by any international obligation, a rare case, perhaps, in which the Government might feel that they were wrong to export. It would be an isolated case, involving a power to be used only with discretion. Surely, for my noble friend not to take that power reveals what I regard to him as an uncharacteristic narrow-mindedness. He is generally such a broad-minded and forthcoming man. Really, I should have thought that he could have curtailed this discussion a long time ago by simply saying, "Yes", on that simple point.

Lord Belstead

I and my noble friend who is dealing with the amendment listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Renton said. May we have a look at this amendment and see what we think of it? I have a feeling that some of the arguments which have been put, not by my noble friend but from the other side of the Committee, go a good deal further and may be arguments with which we do not agree. At the moment I feel that what it is right that we should do is to stick by subsection (5)(b), but if we could be allowed to have a look and to see what we think about Amendment No. 50 on reading Hansard, then that I think is what we should like to do.

Lord Melchett

The noble Lord made an uncharacteristic personal attack on the question that I asked him. As it has now been repeated again twice from behind him, I hope that he might reconsider that. There is no difference on either side of the Committee. We may have different views about the desirability of prior informed consent, but that is not the purpose of this amendment and it has not been the content of any of the questions that the noble Lord has been asked—and which, with respect, he still has not answered. All the people who have asked him questions have asked him whether the Bill gives the Government power to meet a hypothetical international obligation to impose prior informed consent. Does it provide that power or not? The noble Lord has not yet said "Yes" or "No" to that question. In fact, he has quite deliberately avoided saying "Yes" or "No" to that question which has been asked him from behind him more frequently than it has been asked from this side of the Committee. That is all that has been asked of him—simply to say "Yes" or "No" to that.

Lord Northbourne

From a perusal of the Bill it is quite evident that it does not give the Government power to forbid exports in the circumstances. I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, because I think an answer is required to that question, either now or later.

The Earl of Onslow

May I speak one final time and say to my noble friend Lord Belstead that, under pressure, he said very gallantly that he is going to go away and look at it. I think that this particular rabbit has been worried to death several times. We may not have had a totally satisfactory answer, but we now have from the Minister the promise that he will go away and look at it hard. But we would put him on notice that we shall worry him to death a bit more if he does not come back with something more satisfactory at Report.

Baroness Nicol

In view of the Minister's offering to think about it, at this stage I shall withdraw the amendment. But I must say that it is something about which I personally and a number of Members of the Committee feel very deeply and so it is likely to come back at another stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 51: Page 13, line 8, after ("supply") insert (", disposal").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 51, I shall, with the permission of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 56A, which is related, and which appears on the supplementary list.

Amendment No. 56A: Page 13, line 19, at end insert— ("( ) provide for the disposal of any pesticide which has not received approval;").

Amendment No. 51 also is concerned with a single word, but I hope that it will not give rise to as lengthy and controversial a debate as that which has just preceded it. It is concerned specifically with the question of disposal and is in the nature of a probing amendment. It sets out to explore whether Ministers will include in the regulations and conditions relating to the disposal of unwanted pesticides pesticide residues or containers carrying pesticide residues. I have looked at the statement of intention and it would appear that the question of disposals is covered in the statement of intention so far as manufacturers are concerned. It is less clear, I think, from a fairly rapid perusal of it, whether the position of suppliers and users is covered regarding unwanted pesticides. As this question of disposal is of considerable concern to a number of organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, it would be useful if the Minister could give us some thinking on it.

So far as Amendment No. 56A is concerned, this, too, takes up the question of disposal, with specific reference to any pesticide which has not received approval. We should like to know from the Government whether it is proposed to make provisions for disposal in those circumstances. I beg to move.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

I think that perhaps the noble Lord has in mind making a regulation against emptying out the contents of a spray container that is only a quarter full into a bottle that possibly does not get labelled. I can easily recall about 12 years ago when there were considerable discussions on this very subject with regard to Paraguat. There were then great calls for making it a criminal offence to do that very thing because there had been tragedies through children having picked up the bottles.

I can remember giving as an example the horrifying story, which I remember to this day, of the two brothers who lived in what I think is called the stockbroker belt of Surrey. One had been playing golf on the Saturday afternoon and the other had been mowing his lawn. The golfer came in to see his brother and the brother said, "How marvellous to see you. Thank goodness you have arrived. Let us have a whisky and soda." The golfer said, "Nothing would be more pleasant". So to his sideboard the lawn mower went and he picked up a bottle which had "Johnnie Walker" on it. He poured out a glass for his brother, who took a mouthful and dropped on to the floor. The pourer said, "my God! I have given him the remains of the prussic acid that I had used for the wasps."

I remember saying that if people are prepared to put prussic acid into a bottle and not only leave it in the garage but put it on the sideboard in the dining-room, what chance is there of legislating against people who are so totally crazy? If it is the intention here that it should be an offence to put any of these pesticides into a bottle and not put a label on it, it is going to be so difficult to enforce that really we are wasting our time. My own habit invariably if we have a full container left—it is bought on sale-and-return terms, needless to say, in Scotland—is that it goes back. If it is half empty it is kept in the same tin with the label on, in—which I gather is important—frost-proof premises, and we use it again next year.

If I have totally misinterpreted the intention of the noble Lord's probing amendment, then I apologise. All I can say is that perhaps noble Lords may have been thrilled by the rather macabre story I have told.

9.15 p.m.

The Earl of Swinton

I am not certain whether it is my noble friend who has misinterpreted the noble Lord's amendment. I certainly do not see it as to do with bits and pieces in bottles, but it may well be. However it arises, I appreciate the desire to ensure that surplus or unwanted pesticides are disposed of safely. This point was considered when the Bill was drafted. In fact, the powers to set conditions on the supply and use of pesticides afforded by Clause 15(1)(c) and (e) empower Ministers to specify how surplus or unwanted pesticides, and indeed pesticide containers, may be disposed of. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree that this amendment is unnecessary.

It could also be covered under paragraph 11 of the statement of intentions which we circulated, and perhaps we should have put it in those and spelt it out more clearly. I can give the noble Lord a glimmer of hope, or I hope more than a glimmer. He has a good point under his Amendment 56A, and when it comes to that I have some rather more cheerful news for him.

Lord Gallacher

With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 52: Page 13, line 8, at end insert ("or methods of application or delivery devices").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to take Amendments 52, 53, 55 and 70 together.

Amendment No. 53: Page 13, line 9, after ("pesticides") insert ("or methods of application or delivery devices").

Amendment No. 55: Page 13, line 12, after ("pesticides") insert ("or methods of application or delivery devices").

Amendment No. 70: Page 14, line 8, at end insert— ("( ) In framing regulations under Part III of this Act the Minister shall have regard to the need to limit the application of pesticides to target crops or animals and to avoid contact with other crops, wild plants and animals and shall frame the regulations to control methods of application and delivery devices accordingly.").

The purpose of the first three of these amendments is to give the Minister powers to issue regulations which control methods of application and also delivery devices used for applicating pesticides. The purpose of Amendment 70 is to some extent to outline the parameters for deciding on what those regulations should say. It was not my intention to suggest that draconian regulations should be introduced from the outset, because this would only tend to alienate the farming community and almost certainly the best results would be achieved if their co-operation and enthusiasm can be engaged.

What I suggest is needed initially is much more information to be made available to the farming community, and much more help, advice, extension work, and possibly training in the use of application devices for pesticides. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone who is accustomed to using pesticides within the definition of the Act that the method of application plays an important part in deciding both the pesticide's effectiveness and also its influence on the environment. Unfortunately, far too little is known and there has been far too little research on the effect of pesticides on the environment.

I think it might be helpful if I briefly give a couple of examples of the kind of thing that I am talking about. One fairly rare piece of research that has been done by the British Crop Protection Council—a study on pesticide application systems—suggests that only 1 to 2 per cent. of spray actually contacts the pest. While 20 to 35 per cent. of the droplets coming from a conventional hydraulic nozzle may be in droplet sizes of less than 100 microns diameter, they will tend not to fall to earth but to drift, the liquid or solvent to evaporate, and the active ingredient to go who knows where. It is interesting that there appears to be no indication as to any research on what happens to the active ingredient in the pesticide and how much damage it may or may not do to the environment.

I should like to take another example of the way in which methods of application can be important. Many entomologists are now recommending systems which involve trapping insects, putting out traps in crops, scouting those crops and using the insecticide sprayer only when the pest reaches epidemic proportions. This means that much less pesticide has to be used, with less danger to the environment and an economy to the farmer's pocket.

Who is interested in disseminating information and carrying out research on a project of that kind? Certainly not the chemical companies, because they will sell less products. I believe that one way in which a more satisfactory environmental relationship between farmers and those with concern for the environment can be achieved is by more research being put into projects of this kind.

Lord Craigton

ICI are carrying out research now on methods of distributing insecticide.

Lord Northbourne

That involves the electrodyne distributor; I am delighted to hear it.

That is really all I have to say, except that the power to produce regulations would enable the Minister, when the best possible results have been achieved in terms of co-operation, to introduce regulations to control any "cowboys" who might still be flouting the system. I beg to move.

Lord John-Mackie

I think there is no doubt about it that the application of spray is almost as important as the spray itself in many cases. This is a very important amendment indeed and we thoroughly support it. But there are complications. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned that if one has close examination of one's crop and finds that there are insufficient pests—beetles, I think he mentioned—it would be a good thing not to spray and would save money. I am in that position today, but then I read a report which tells me that brassica growers in our area in the Lea Valley are worried about any of those beetles and they say it is the duty of the farmer to spray, whether or not there are sufficient beetles to damage his crop. This question of application is always complicated, but certainly it should go into the Bill. We shall no doubt be told that something covers it elsewhere, but we support those amendments raised by the noble Lord.

The Earl of Onslow

I should like to support the idea behind this amendment, but we must enter the caveat that we do not want research into innovation or more efficient use to be hindered in any way. I notice that in its paper the NFU supports the declared intention of the Government to ensure safe and efficient use of pesticides. These chemicals are essential to agriculture, and the paper goes on (as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, quoted in her Second Reading speech) to concur with the objective recommended by, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution of reducing pesticide usage to a minimum consistent with efficient food production". I suggest that without proper control of the kind of machinery that is used, there is then a hole in that control mechanism.

The British Agrochemicals Association, also in a letter to me, said: We support the extension of controls in the use of agrochemicals, including the means of application. The CLA also imply it. So this particular series of amendments has a very wide spectrum of support. We are not saying in detail exactly what sort of droplet size is needed, or how big a wheel, and whether it has to be drawn by a horse or a diesel tractor. What we are saying is that we would like the Government to take powers possibly to bring in controls and to look at the matter very carefully. That is all we are wanting them to so.

Lord Craigton

This point is one that has worried me more than any single thing about this Bill. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne: the method of delivery is an important part in the whole operation of applying the spray. I agree with him that there is not enough research and I also agree with the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. There is not one mention of delivery devices in this Bill. I was given to understand that this would be "all right on the night" and that it would be all right when the regulations were produced. But I gave up a glass of wine and had just one course for dinner in order to read the statement of intention. I hoped that that would further this particular point. The conditions of approval make no reference whatever to the approval of delivery devices. Then, on the manufacturers, they say—and this is absolutely terrible— These label conditions could include storage ... for all appropriate application methods which are in common use. The Government, unless we do something at this Committee stage, are going to leave it to the label to indicate the appropriate application methods which are in common use. That is not good enough. If I had known this, I would have put my name to these amendments: as it is, I support them absolutely.

Lord Melchett

I put my name to this amendment because, as I think has already been said by more than one noble Lord, it is very often the case that the method of application is a matter of more significance from the farmer's point of view and the environmental point of view than the chemical formulation of the product itself.

As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says, there is very wide support from the British Agrochemicals Association, the National Farmers' Union, and certainly from environmental organisations, that controls should be introduced as to the methods of use. If the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, had given up more of his dinner-time and got through all the Notes on Clauses—and that would have taken him several hours—I think he would have found a very brief reference in the note on this clause to the fact that there is power in the Bill to make regulations covering methods of application. I assume that that is correct, even though it has not apparently been included in the latest, briefer note.

I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply for more detail on what the Government's intention is. I would assume that the regulations will include details of the appropriate methods of application. I should also like to ask the noble Lord, when he replies, to say whether, for example, on hydraulic sprayers, the regulations will specify the nozzle angle, the nozzle capacity, pressure and flow rates, all of which would improve the performance of conventional hydraulic sprayers and, as the noble Lord may well be aware, would follow a scheme that has already been devised by the British Crop Protection Council. Therefore it would not involve a lot of new work, but would be putting into the Government's regulations something which is already available. There would obviously need to be a range of different droplet sizes for different purposes: for example, a larger size for herbicides.

It also seems to me that all of us on all sides are interested, from different points of view, in encouraging the use of CDA spraying where appropriate. The last thing any of us would want to do would be to inhibit that. I am sure that is agreed on all sides of this Committee. It seems to me that, if the regulations also included some detailed specifications for CDA applications, that would actually encourage farmers to use that technique and the pesticide manufacturers to produce and label chemicals in appropriate ways for use in the authorised CDA techniques. I should like to have some very specific answers about the Government's intentions in regard to the regulations for regulating and specifying what methods of application shall or shall not be used.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

As I read the amendment, it will in fact make delivery devices subject to approval and regulation. In principle, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and other noble Lords who have spoken, but I am not sure that this amendment will do what we want it to do. I think it will be very difficult for manufacturers fully to assess their machines until the chemical manufacturers give precise details as to how the chemical should be used. The trouble comes here because a chemical used in a hydraulic machine will need regulations completely different from one used in a CDA machine or electro-static machine, or indeed something we have not yet heard of. That is what worries me. Dare I suggest that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my Amendment No. 75, might better deal with this problem. No doubt we shall have another go at it then.

I fear that the actual words of this amendment might restrict the invention of new machines, although I would fully accept the fact that most sprayers today (which are hydraulic) are troublesome, tiresome and have given me near coronaries more often than any other machine on the farm. They are, to put it mildly, ghastly, even though we spend vast sums of money on them. We need much more information and much more research.

I am again doubtful about this amendment. I wonder who will decide what is a good machine. I ask the Government how they will encourage progress on sprayers and new techniques. I should like to hear their views on this. I was interested to see the later amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, Amendment No. 120, which suggests some form of advisory body—dare I say quango, although I think that is a bad word. The noble Lord might have a point here because we are on rather difficult ground. My speech is obviously muddly because the problem is quite difficult and confused.

Earl Peel

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on this matter because it seems to me that it is impossible to legislate when we simply do not have the complete evidence in front of us. To my knowledge, most of the experimental work that has been done in this field to date has been done by the manufacturing companies themselves. I should like to ask the Government what they intend to do in the way of research. It seems to me that ADAS, for example, ought to be looking into the most effective way of pesticide application. But how does one judge it—by drift, droplet size, or quantity evaporation? There are so many factors about which we really do not know enough. At this stage, much though I have great sympathy for what the noble Lord is saying, I do not see how this can possibly be enacted.

Lord Belstead

The message I have received from listening to this short debate is that everybody agrees that it is necessary to ensure that pesticides are applied only through machinery which is appropriate and fit for the purpose, but we do not all agree on exactly how that ought to be done.

Perhaps I may just go back to first principles for a moment. There are difficulties in spelling out every single detail in regulations as to how methods of application should be applied. My noble friend Lord Craigton chided the Government with not having dealt with this at all in our Statement of Intention. My noble friend is habitually fair. I hope he will allow me to draw his attention, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, kindly did, to subparagraph (4) of paragraph 11 where there is a specific statement that systems of application shall be controlled under the regulations.

The requirement (if I may move on to an amendment we have not yet reached) which my noble friend Lord Craigton has in one of his amendments about approving individual machines is a very good example of where we can get into difficulties as regards regulations. 1 hope my noble friend will forgive me for referring to one of his later amendments. I absolutely understand why my noble friend Lord Craigton wants to see that individual machines are inspected as far as possible, but when one considers that in deciding safety one must take into account the nature of the pesticides, the weather conditions, the way the machine is used, the type of nozzles employed, the pressure at which it is run, the general maintenance standard, the dose rate and the dilution rate, then we get into difficulties if, in regulations, we start saying that the way to put things right is simply to inspect the machines.

Having said that, your Lordships may well ask: what do the Government want done? The answer is quite clear. We believe that it is right to ensure that pesticides are only applied through machinery which is appropriate and safe for the purpose. There are powers which are needed to do this. The general power in Clause 15(l)(c)—which is the catch-all power in Clause 15—enables this to be done. We believe that the ways of controlling the correct operation of machines should be through imposing those statutory responsibilities on the user and by backing them up with education, advice and, in the final instance, enforcement.

The major enforcement responsibility in Part III is to be borne in this respect by the Health and Safety Executive, and officers of the HSE enforcing this part of the Bill would be equipped, under Clause 17 (4) and (5), with powers to impose improvement and prohibition notices on anyone who used pesticides in such a way as to create a hazard. Thus, anyone using a machine incorrectly, or using an unsuitable machine, could find that the penalty is (and I quote from Clause 17) a notice directing, that any reasonable remedial or preventive measures shall be taken". In other words, in plain English, such a person would be told that he could not continue to use the machine if it remained in the condition it was in, or that he would need to be instructed in the correct use of the machine.

I hope I have said enough to show that not only do we agree with your Lordships that it is necessary to look very carefully into the way in which pesticides are applied but that there are very real powers in the Bill to ensure that that will be so.

Lord Melchett

As I believe I said when I first spoke, I certainly accept that there are special powers in the Bill, and the noble Lord has again confirmed that. What worries me is the way in which the Government intend to use those powers. As I understood the noble Lord—and I accept that I am simplifying the explanation—the Government intend to act by putting a general duty on farmers, on the users, to use machinery which is appropriate and safe for the purpose—I believe those were the noble Lord's words—and they will be in trouble if they do not. Presumably that would apply to a farmer who purchased from a reputable machinery manufacturer a brand new sprayer designed, so the farmer was told, for use with certain chemicals but which the Health and Safety Executive found was not. The farmer would, as it were, end up in the dock, and not the manufacturer. I am not sure that that is the best way of going about the matter, either speaking as a farmer or from the general point of view of the legislation being effective.

Surely the point at which the regulations should bite is on the manufacturers of the machinery. It should be there that regulations are laid down on what sort of machinery should be produced. The noble Lord said that there were a whole host of factors, and he mentioned several outside the machine itself, such as the concentration of the chemical used. Surely all those will be covered by the regulations, anyway. We are, therefore, still left with the need to do something about the machinery, and whether one puts the onus on the farmer or on the manufacturer to make sure the machinery is appropriate and safe.

I ask the noble Lord to address his mind to the British Crop Protection Council's scheme, which goes into that sort of detail and to which I understand nobody has raised any great objection; and, indeed, for which I think there might be a good deal of support. In other words, I think it is possible, certainly for hydraulic sprayers, to produce the sort of detailed guidelines for manufacturers which would then remove rather a heavy onus from the shoulders of the farming community.

The Earl of Onslow

May I say one thing on this? The Notes on Clauses talk about the methods of application. My noble friend has given an undertaking that there is going to be maximum consultation, and that the regulations are certainly going to start churning out of the Government printing press some time next year. Now, under those circumstances, I would have thought really that he has covered the point about machinery, and these are detailed minutiae which should come with the discussions on the draft regulations themselves.

Lord Craigton

I am still worried. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, but what seems to me so important is that the Government must themselves worry about the type of spray delivered by the different types of machine. They must be concerned about how these machines operate and whether they operate correctly with one or other pesticide. It is no good leaving that to the farmer—he is no technician. It is no good leaving that to the manufacturer—he is there to sell machines. If the Government do not do it, we shall not get the correct droplet size that is wanted for a particular spray.

Lord Belstead

May I just answer that question which has come from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on what the Government will be doing to regulate application machinery. We shall look at each chemical either as a new product or on review, and consider the likely machinery by which it will be applied, and in this we will not be bound only by the requests of the manufacturers. Thus, each chemical will be approved as we indicate in paragraph 9 of the statement of intent in relation to appropriate application methods, and of course other application methods for those particular chemicals will be outlawed.

I think it is difficult for me to go further than that, either in reply to the noble Lord opposite, or in reply to my noble friend. I am not just trying to get out of a difficulty here, but I think we are now getting to a stage in the Bill with application methods where it really would be wise for me to look at what has been said. I think the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has in fact raised some quite important points on this, and perhaps your Lordships might like to look to see what we have said and also to look a little more at the statement of intent.

I go back, if I may, to what I said originally—and there is, I think, no difference between the Government and any of your Lordships wherever you sit in the House—about ensuring that pesticides should be applied only through machinery which is appropriate and safe for the purpose. I think if we could continue with the Bill on that basis—because there are other amendments as well—then at least there will be no misunderstanding about what it is we are trying to achieve. The difficulty lies in how much you can actually write into the regulations.

Lord Renton

On this occasion I really do agree with my noble friend. There is only one point I should like to make, however, arising out of what he has said. It is that not all of us have had the advantage of receiving the statement of intent, and the courts will never have it before them if by any chance they have to interpret the Bill after if becomes an Act.

Lord Craigton

Did I understand the Minister to say that he would look not only at his obligation to get the right pesticide, but also his obligation to see that it is the right delivery device? That is not a point I have made. It is a point made in the seventh report of the Royal Commission. It made this very point in four pages, and the Minister, to my mind, is still ignoring the point that it is the Government's job to take this on board, and not to leave it to the manufacturer or the farmer.

Lord Belstead

Perhaps I may reply, so that there is no misunderstanding on this point; we shall look at each chemical. It is our intention that the Government look under the statutory scheme at each chemical, either as a new product, or on review, and consider the likely machinery by which the product will be applied.

Lord Melchett

I do not want to prolong this. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, have received a visit from the Government Chief Whip.

Lord Renton

Not at all.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Melchett

But this is an important amendment, with respect, and I should like to be clear about what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is going to look at. There is a clear difference on the merits of an argument. I accept that there are merits on both sides. One, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, is to look at the chemicals and then make sure that farmers are under a duty to use machinery which is appropriate and safe for the purpose. The other side, which I think is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and I are arguing, is that the Government rather than farmers should decide what machinery is safe and appropriate for the purpose. That is a serious difference. I am not saying that one side or the other is right, but I should hope that we could pursue that without being rushed too much.

The noble Lord has very kindly said that he will look at this. I should like to ask him whether he will look at the British Crop Protection Council scheme which I mentioned and let me have his views on that if possible before Report stage. That seems to me to be a practical example of an existing scheme which the Government regulations might be able to build on.

Lord Renton

The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, really should not insinuate that my noble friend Lord Onslow and I have been in any way influenced by the Chief Whip. The truth is that he did not willingly visit us. I beckoned to him to try to find out from him how late he wanted us to sit tonight. I received a perfectly satisfactory answer, but I was not in the least bit influenced in my attitude by what he had to say. In fact, he said practically nothing.

Lord Melchett

I apologise for my unwarranted assumption about the influence of the Government Chief Whip.

Lord Belstead

Just before the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, ends this debate, let me say that I will indeed look at the British Crop Protection Council scheme. What I think that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was asking me to do was to write to him, and that I will do.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to be very careful not to be pressed by noble Lords into doing something that prevents innovation in machinery. This is not stationary. We want masses of innovation. We want new methods of delivering chemicals in the way that is required. A great deal has to be done about this. Decisions or regulations should not be made to prevent people from doing it. They should not be made to feel fearful of producing machinery and developing it in case it cannot be used. That would be the most disastrous thing of all and totally counterproductive. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind.

Lord Northbourne

We have had a most useful discussion. I personally am happy with the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has given. I think that I marginally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I think that a great deal of responsibility will always rest on the farmers' shoulders. I was therefore particularly glad of the assurance that support will be given to the farmer in fulfilling the obligations that will be laid upon him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 54: Page 13, line 10, at end insert ("provided that such exclusions shall not include any pesticide used as an earthworm killer or a rodenticide or for the purposes of dipping sheep").

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment—and I shall take it as quickly as I can—to see what the Government's intentions are about particular forms of pesticide which are not in the mainstream of agricultural use. I should like to take the three points separately. The first is earthworm killers. I have in mind particularly the chemical chlordane, which is widely used on sports grounds and in public parks to kill earthworms. It is extremely harmful to birds and other animals because it depletes their food resource. It seems to me to be a quite unnecessary use for the chemical. Indeed, any farmer would want to encourage earthworms rather than do the opposite. I should like to have from the Government, if I could, some information about whether that sort of chemical and that sort of use will be covered by the regulations to be made under the Bill.

The second point in my amendment concerns pesticides for use against rodents and in particular rat killers. I have in mind here in particular the new generation of rat-killing poisons following Warfarin, the anti-coagulant rodenticide. There is in particular a chemical, Brodifacoum, which is one of the new generation of rodenticides. That chemical has been implicated in owl deaths—causing the death of owls in at least the United States and Malaysia, to my knowledge. Again, I should like to be clear whether that chemical and that sort of use of it will be covered by the regulations.

There is a point on advertising that chemical which I should like to come to when we reach amendments about advertisements, but the final point on this amendment is the question of chemicals for use in sheep dips. The Notes on Clauses, which I have studied with great care, suggest that sheep dips will not be covered by regulations under the Bill because they are controlled under the Medicines Act 1968. That seems to me to give rise to problems with respect to the persistent organochlorines and in particular dieldrin. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said on Second Reading, dieldrin is now prohibited so far as agricultural uses are concerned, it is available for use as a sheep dip. It was recently seen by some RSPB staff on a conservation demonstration farm, where there was a new can of dieldrin for use in a sheep dip. It seems to me to be anomalous that a chemical which is banned for agricultural use under the regulations which will be made under this Bill in due course should be available on farms.

It is an unfortunate fact that although dieldrin is an extremely dangerous and persistent chemical it is quite an effective one for instance for the control of leather- jackets in some crops such as potatoes, sugar beet and carrots. It has certainly been used for those purposes. There is some evidence to suggest that supplies of the product which are available for sheep dips have been misused for crop protection purposes, which I think all responsible farmers would deplore.

It seems to me that all uses of dieldrin should be prohibited, and that therefore the regulations made under this Bill should cover the use of a persistent organochlorine like dieldrin, whether it is for use in a sheep dip or for any other purpose. I beg to move.

The Earl of Swinton

This time I show a great deal of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I can confirm to him that earthworm killers and rodenticides will be controlled under the regulations, as indeed will aphicides, nematicides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, algicides and acaricides, etc. I am relieved that the noble Lord has not asked me to list all those as well.

The noble Lord is also absolutely right in that the supply of sheep dips will not be controlled under these regulations, since, as he has said, it is already controlled under the Medicines Act. However, we are considering to what extent the use—and indeed that would also stand for the misuse—of such veterinary medicines might be controlled under this legislation. I do not know where he saw this dieldrin being used as a sheep dip but it is at the present time illegal so to do.

The Earl of Onslow

Can my noble friend tell me what an acaricide is?

The Earl of Swinton

Not at this late hour of the night.

Lord Melchett

I am much obliged. I am very grateful for that reply and I should like to consider it. Can the noble Earl just confirm that, in that case, dieldrin is now no longer available for any agricultural use, either for crop protection purposes or for any veterinary or animal purpose at all? It would be very helpful if he could confirm that. I think that was what he said. I just want to be clear.

The Earl of Swinton

I think the answer is that that is absolutely the case. However I should have to confirm this and let the noble Lord know if I am wrong. Certainly I can say that it is not permitted as a sheep dip.

Lord Melchett

I am grateful to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 56: Page 13, line 15, at end insert—

• ("( ) provide that the Ministers may jointly refuse permission for release of a pesticide from an airborne container over an area and for a period specified by them;").

The noble Lord said: I am given to understand that in this Bill aerial spraying is controlled. As usual, I am not able to find it there but I must accept the assurances I am given. But there are certainly no powers in this Bill to control whether in an area there should be any aerial spraying at all, and, if so, by what type of aircraft. There is, as the noble Lord knows better than I, much to be said for confirming that the spraying is done by helicopter only.

My amendment covers what I hope are all the points, including pilotless craft that might be used. The power for which my amendment asks is not in Part III of this Bill so far as I can see. Neither are the powers in Part I at which I looked, which has the emergency order powers that operate after a dangerous substance has been released, not, as is wanted here, powers to prevent the release of that substance. I believe, and the country, I think, will insist, that there must be powers to control aerial spraying. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has a later amendment, Amendment No. 100, with the same purpose. I agree entirely with it. As his proposal is a new clause, the noble Lord has had to include administrative detail, which, in the case of my amendment, appearing in Clause 15, would, I think, be included in regulations and not in the Bill. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says and whether he is able to agree, if not to my amendment then to the principle of the control by MAFF of exactly where spraying is to take place. I beg to move.

The Earl of Onslow

I should like to support the principle behind the amendment. Aerial spraying is one of those things that annoy the public more than anything else. There is also the problem of drift, which is infinitely more difficult to control certainly when flying fixed-wing aircraft. I am not saying that it should be banned, I am just saying that there should be powers to say where it should not happen. I do not think anyone would reasonably want spraying to be banned over large areas of forest or large areas of bracken on the hillsides of Scotland if that is necessary. However, as no one on the Front Bench is listening, I shall sit down.

Lord John-Mackie

These three amendments grouped together are very important indeed, and will warrant a very long debate. I understand that there has been agreement between the usual channels that we should try to rise at ten o'clock. I should like to know what the Committee feels on the subject before opening up a very wide debate.

Lord Denham

I think that the agreement between the usual channels is that we should finish as near ten o'clock as possible. What we rather hoped, I believe, was that we would get through this amendment before we rose. I would not ask your Lordships to embark on a new amendment after this one.

Lord Belstead

I wonder whether it would help if I said a word. My noble friend Lord Craigton said that he could not find the powers in the Bill to regulate aerial spraying. I realise the difficulties so far as looking at this Bill is concerned. If one looks at Clause 15(1)(b) and (c), there is definitely enough power there to impose conditions on aerial spraying. My noble friend will say that that is all very well, but are you going to do it? What do the Government intend to do?

I should like to make clear that the Government are already adopting a two-part policy. First, the existing controls operated by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Air Navigation order are being strengthened at the present time. The CAA is just completing a thorough review of the requirements it imposes on operators. Strengthened and more precise requirements are going shortly to be in force. For example, the minimum distance that must be maintained from houses is to be increased to 200 feet. The requirement that aircraft must not fly below 200 feet over gardens will be imposed, and operators will be required to consult water authorities before spraying anywhere near water. Those are just examples.

Other changes will facilitate the task of enforcement. This is important. Many of the problems arise from the current requirements not being followed. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport has made clear recently that the Department of Transport regards breaches of the requirements as a most serious matter. At the end of the summer, on 31st July, he consulted the chairman of the CAA and was assured that vigorous enforcement action would be taken. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport also gave a clear warning to the aerial spraying operators. The situation is to be monitored closely over the next three years. If the action taken does not prove to be adequate, we will not hesitate to take more stringent measures.

10 p.m.

The controls which I have just referred to are upon the method of operating the aircraft themselves. But the second part of the Government's policy turns upon the powers now in Clause 15 of this Bill. The controls which we would envisage imposing here will be designed to protect the environment. I would direct the attention of your Lordships to the powers over users of pesticides, which I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships in the statement of intent which I sent round to your Lordships. Paragraph 11 of that statement shows that we can control the products used, the application rates and the application system itself, if we feel the environment and safety case has been made. I cannot emphasise too strongly that these are wide powers and that they apply to aerial spraying as they apply to any other system of application. As we review our existing approvals we will have an opportunity to re-assess the evidence of the risk that aerial spraying involves and to change the rules accordingly, if it is necessary. The Committee need have no doubt that the powers will be used if necessary.

The amendment that we are discussing is, if I may say so, a bit detailed. Its effect would be to restrict the Government's measures to those in the amendment alone, before the full consultation has taken place on the regulations to be made under the Bill. It would tend to take away that broad scope for responding to circumstances which the Bill is genuinely designed to provide, and perhaps in the end quite different measures would be needed from those which are actually in the amendment.

I apologise for speaking at length at this late hour, but I hope I have made clear, on this very important amendment, the strength of the Government's intention to control aerial spraying fully and adequately. The power to do that in the Bill is there, in Clause 15(1)(b) and (c). I therefore ask your Lordships not to press this amendment and perhaps to look with some care at what I have tried to outline as being the Government's policy and actions at the present time.

Lord Melchett

May I ask for some information? Are we going to take Amendments Nos. 68 and 100 of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, when we come back to this next week? They are on the same subject. If we are, I should have thought it might be sensible to leave matters as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has left them, as we are going to have another debate in a couple of days' time, rather than have a long debate tonight. I just wonder if that is what the Committee envisages.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

May I add my voice to this? That was my intention—that it should be left for us to study the very helpful statement made by the Minister, and perhaps we can come back to the detail. I know that many noble Lords have very strong views on this question.

Lord Craigton

May I ask the Minister one question? He referred to controlled spraying. Will he be able to have the powers to do what my amendment asks? If so, then I am satisfied with his assurance. Can they jointly refuse permission for the release of the pesticide over an area and for a period specified by them? Will they have powers to say that there is going to be no aerial spraying at all in a certain area or for a certain period, or both?

Lord Belstead

The answer to my noble friend is, yes.

Lord Craigton

Right; that is super. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Denham

I understand that the next amendment, No. 56A, is not going to take very long, but I think that, even so, it would be the feeling of your Lordships that we adjourn the Committee stage here and come back fresher next time round.

I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House resumed.

House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.