Lords Sitting of 22 January 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
Lord Monkswell—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father (who disclaimed the Barony of Monkswell on 7th April 1964).

Export Business Services
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, specifically in view of the valuable contribution by small businesses to the promotion of United Kingdom exports they will arrange for the setting up of an export centre in the City of Westminster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): No, my Lords. The Government, through the British Overseas Trade Board, provide services for exporters from the Department of Trade and Industry's offices within the City of Westminster.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his helpful Answer, although I must confess that it is a little disappointing. May I first pay tribute to the work of the various chambers of commerce, and notably the Westminster chamber of commerce? Secondly, may I ask my noble friend about the possibility of retired diplomats, notably commercial counsellors, being seconded to some venue in Westminster to help small businesses, which this Government and all Governments have been rightly so keen to encourage?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his commendation of the work of chambers of commerce. In relation to his second point, the small firms business division of the British Overseas Trade Board has upon its staff as counsellors retired business men and people who are experienced in exporting and in other fields to advise applicants.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Westminster chamber of commerce already meets many of the requirements of my noble friend as indicated in his Question, with 3,500 members, of whom 80 per cent. are small traders interested in exports? With an export committee and about seven trade missions overseas, they are already doing a great deal of work. Is he further aware that the Westminster chamber of commerce issues certificates of origin, but has no power at the moment to issue carnets, which are the final requirement of an export industry? The London chamber of commerce and many provincial chambers have powers to issue carnets, but
104
Westminster chamber does not. Will he please use his good offices to help the Westminster chamber of commerce with the issue of carnets?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for underlining the work of the chambers of commerce, particularly in the export area. So far as his second point is concerned, I take note of what he has to say.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if it is not possible to accede to this request for the location of this centre in the City of Westminster, is there any other great seaport city which would be prepared to accept it?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not think I can give any kind of assurance that further consideration will be given to this matter, since the offices are available in Ebury Street and also in Victoria Street, which provision I feel satisfies the need of the City of Westminster.

Civil Defence: Local Authority Duties
2.41 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many local authorities in England and Wales respectively have so far refused to carry out their statutory duties with regard to emergency planning under the civil defence regulations, and what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that all local authorities carry out those duties.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, no authorities are refusing to carry out these duties but, though a number of them have made good progress, which my honourable friend the Minister of State has welcomed in another place, he also urged those who have much still to do to get on with the job. As a first step, all local authorities were asked to complete the required plans by the end of December. He undertook to provide central guidance on the development of programmes of planned action and to monitor further progress. Formal directions and default powers will, in the meantime, be held in reserve.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very full reply. May I ask him whether he is satisfied that mere non-refusal to carry out their statutory obligations by those local authorities who have nonsensically declared their areas to be nuclear-free zones is likely to lead to effective civil defence in the event of conventional attack or nuclear fall-out?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the declaration of a nuclear-free zone no more absolves one from the need for protection against nuclear attack than the declaration of a rain-free zone absolves one from carrying an umbrella. The Government therefore believe that these authorities must discharge their function. But we also believe that at present the best course is to proceed

105
by persuasion and by sustained general pressure on local authorities to improve standards, and they have until the end of this year to do it.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that certain members of our society seem to disapprove of civil defence? Does he also agree that civil defence is almost as vital in peacetime as in wartime against natural or unnatural disasters which may befall our country?
Lord Elton,: My Lords, I think the Boy Scouts have the right motto—"Be prepared."
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, has the Minister taken fully into account the devastating report of the British Medical Association? That report stated that the Government's civil defence plans are hopelessly unrealistic and that the very idea of planning for the aftermath of a nuclear catastrophe is false. Why are the Government persisting in harrying local authorities to spend money in this way when they are being denied proper resources to spend money on housing the homeless and adequately looking after the elderly?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord's intervention is slightly out of perspective. It is true that there is argument about what will follow from a nuclear attack, not least because nobody knows from what direction it may come or how many missiles may arrive in this country. But I am sure that neither the noble Lord nor the medical profession would wish the survivors of such an attack, of which undoubtedly there would be many, to try to continue to live in this country without the assistance which civil defence can provide.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the attitude of a number of local authorities to civil defence is deplorable? Would he not also agree that the Government have been at fault in presenting their civil defence proposals in terms of a nuclear holocaust, where civil defence would admittedly be of limited value, instead of in terms of natural disasters, a nuclear accident or the dropping of a single nuclear bomb, which are more probable or at least less improbable and where civil defence could have a very important role to play?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I agree with the first leg of the noble Lord's proposition. As to the second, I would say that, of course, civil defence embraces preparation for conventional attack as well as for other disasters, and this is equally useful and important.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the views of the British Medical Association on matters of defence are altogether irrelevant?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would agree that on the whole I go to my doctor for matters of health and to soldiers for matters of defence, and not the other way round.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that local authorities would have to try to provide some protection for the civil population and that this would involve medical services? If the medical services say that they would be faced with an impossibility, is that not a matter that local authorities are entitled to take into account? Would the noble Lord not recognise that the best service that local authorities could perform to their ratepayers would be the accumulation of suicide pills so that in the event of a nuclear attack of the size envisaged by the Minister's department the remainder of the population left behind would be enabled to depart this life more peacefully than would otherwise be the case? Would this therefore not constitute a proper form of planning?
Lord Elton: My Lords, local authorities must of course take into consideration anything they think relevant, but they must also take into account and not leave out of it the statutory requirements, which are matters of law. They are required to carry out planning for a nuclear attack, and it is the failure of their discharge of this duty, which my noble friend fears may take place, with which we are concerned. As to the rest of the noble Lord's supplementary question, it was so macabre that I think I will leave it to stand on its own.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, while I recognise that my noble friend is perhaps right to use persuasion rather than anything more forceful, could he give us an indication of when he thinks local authorities will have achieved levels of the sort which he would consider acceptable in preparation for civil defence?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I think I have made clear, my honourable friend has set a deadline at the end of this year for the completion of local authority wartime plans, as required by the 1983 regulations. The circular letter requiring them so to do was issued yesterday.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while carrying an umbrella in a rain-free zone may be deemed to be duly pessimistic, would the noble Lord the Minister not agree that parts of the Government's propaganda with regard to civil defence and nuclear war are too optimistic for people to swallow? With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, would he not also agree that if the Government did convince local authorities that they had a useful part to play in civil defence with regard to both conventional warfare and other disasters that might occur he would get more co-operation? Lastly, what is happening with the Director of Civil Defence? Is he co-ordinating? Is there anything to report as to his activities?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think the noble Lord asked me three supplementary questions, and I shall try to answer them all. I shall first tell him that there is indeed a useful service which local authorities can perform for their electorates in the event of war, and that is by preparing for it; and, secondly, if there has been propaganda, it has been on the side of those who have tried to dissuade local authorities from carrying out this statutory duty. As to the civil defence adviser,

107
I can confirm that his experience has already been useful in analysing and evaluating the data in the responses to the questionnaire to which I earlier referred.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the noble Lord say to what extent were civil defence methods or the civil defence organisation used in the recent rather terrible gas explosion at Putney?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the emergency services were prominently in evidence. As to whether any element of civil defence planning went into their co-operation, I very much doubt it, but I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question? In view of the peacetime anxieties of people about various things such as the recent snow, did the local authorities call out some of their members to clear away the snow and generally help in this emergency, especially in the south-west of England?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not aware that civil defence volunteers were engaged in that work in that capacity, though they may have been in others.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that too much talk about this question is likely to cause panic among the civil population? I put this question not as a pacifist but as a twice-decorated company sergeant-major in the first world war.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I bow to the seniority and experience of the noble Lord. As to the question whether we have talked about this matter enough this afternoon, I would probably agree with him.

Anglers' Code: Swans
2.50 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any evidence yet that the Nature Conservancy Council's code of practice for anglers has reduced the number of swans poisoned by lead weights.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this code of practice was issued by the national Anglers' Council. The results of the latest Nature Conservancy Council's sponsored research into swan deaths are currently being collated and analysed.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Would he not agree that so far there is no really effective substitute for the angler's lead weight because the present substitutes, such as the Sandvik Safeweight, are both more expensive and less efficient; and, furthermore, that any angler going into a tackle shop to buy a substitute more expensive weight would almost be admitting his own incompetence? He will be saying. "I am the sort of angler who
108
will drop his weights into the river or upset them on the river bank".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as far as my noble friend's last point is concerned, I would say that any angler could in certain circumstances be in danger of losing a weight, no matter what it is made of. I personally know of two alternative lead-free substances which have been developed by commercial interests and are being manufactured and sold to anglers—a tungsten-based polymer and a tacky rubber-based powdered steel mixture. The latter is, volume for volume, the same price as lead shot, and is re-usable.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the latest figures for swans on the Thames show a continuing decline in the population and continuing very high levels of lead and deaths from lead poisoning? Will he acknowledge that the reply to his noble friend sitting behind him that anglers are not buying the available substitutes which, as he correctly said, are available at the a same price, takes us inescapably to the conclusion that the Government must legislate to ban the use of lead weights by anglers? Will they do this immediately?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government have repeatedly stated their policy that lead shot should be phased out by the end of 1986; if possible by voluntary means. But may I go on to say that we shall not hesitate to use legislation if it proves necessary. However, we all very much hope that a voluntary approach, which is the Government's approach to conservation in general, will be adequate in this case.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the lower Hampshire Avon, which is a body of water that is heavily fished, the swans are still of more nuisance to the anglers than are the anglers to the swans?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was not aware of the conditions on that particular water; but nonetheless more swans are at risk from lead shot than from any other cause.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches appreciate the problems that are caused in this situation of a balance between the rights of anglers, on the one hand, and the demands of conservation on the other? Does he stand by the undertaking given by his noble friend Lord Avon on 31st October last year that legislation would be brought in to bring about the substitution of lead shot with a reasonable alternative if there is demand for that? Does he accept that it appears that none of the three main pieces of legislation in this field—the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Animal Health Act 1981—has any sanction whatever and that fresh legislation will be necessary? Will he consider further, as an alternative, the possibility of having non-fishing zones where, although it might be impracticable to try to corral swans completely to such areas, it might well achieve the main purpose of the objective?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that was a long list of supplementary questions and I am not sure that I followed the noble Lord's last point. However, of course I stand by the answer of my noble friend Lord Avon to the Written Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in October last, which is what I sought to explain in reply to an earlier supplementary. To turn to the three pieces of legislation to which the noble Lord referred I do not have them before me; but, so far as I know they will be totally unusuable in this context.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer my question about the population of swans on the Thames. Can he also say what evidence, if any, the Government have to suggest that the effect of voluntary banning of lead weights by anglers is working? All the evidence that I have seen suggests that it is not working and that the Government will have to legislate. The sooner they do so, the better.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord is pressing me to give figures for the deaths of swans on the Thames during the past three to five years, or whenever, I am afraid that I am not in a position so to do. I am well aware that there is significant cause for concern, especially in the upper reaches of the Thames. The noble Lord's other point was whether voluntary conversion—if that is the word—would work? These products have been available on the market only since June last year. As such they have had only one fishing season in which to prove their worth. Anglers are by nature a rather conservative body of sportsmen and I do not think that it is reasonable for the noble Lord to expect this sort of approach to work overnight.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does that mean that the phasing out which the Nature Conservancy Council recommended by the end of 1986 and which the Government have undertaken to bring about, therefore cannot be brought about before the end of 1986 because the Government will not be in a position to estimate how may anglers have adopted the alternative product?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have already said that unless the voluntary arrangements are fully operational by 1986 and proving successful the Government will not hesitate to legislate on this matter.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in addition to the lead shot which may have been spattered round the grouse moors in the past year, 250 tons of lead in the form of lead shot have been left on the river banks? Is he aware that there is an appliance which will allow anglers to feed out one shot at a time from it? Does he not consider it worth while to encourage the use of this? Furthermore, does the Minister know that the figures for the deaths of swans from lead shot poisoning are ready available from the Royal Society for Nature Conservation? The figures for the past three years are: 3,000 cygnets and 6,000 older birds. Will he not agree that these are disgraceful figures? Will he therefore press the Government to take action?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was specifically asked about figures for the Thames, which I said I did not have. However, I am informed by the Nature Conservancy Council that its information is that there were 9,000 deaths to cygnets or swans in the past three years.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, it is the same figure.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, but not the same figure as for the Thames which I said I was unable to answer. As regards the box which dispenses lead shot individually, yes, it does exist; it is on sale to anglers and anglers have been purchasing it. However, I am unable to tell the noble Baroness in what kind of quantities.

Animal Rights Groups
2.58 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the recent attacks by members of the Animal Liberation Front.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that in the early hours of Sunday, 6th January, seven separate attacks were made on the homes and property of staff and former members of staff of the Wellcome Foundation, two of which involved the use of petrol bombs. These are criminal acts which caused some damage and real danger. The police are pursuing vigorously the possibility of a link between the incidents and the identification of those responsible. I am sure the House will join me in condemning crimes which will not, and should not, dissuade the Government from carrying forward their proposals for new legislation to replace the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 on the basis of their White Paper.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that attacks on the homes of research scientists and other people doing valuable work of this kind are unlikely to change the views of anybody on questions of animal welfare? Does he also agree that these are only part of a whole series of attacks made by that organisation on the homes of many people in various parts of the country? That being so, may I ask him whether he is taking steps with the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to ensure that everything possible is being done by all the police forces involved to co-ordinate their efforts in dealing with this serious problem?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. Actions of this kind do nothing to address the reason and everything possible to render people hostile to the cause espoused by those committing them. He is also right that great benefit has accrued to the animal

111
as well as to the human community from the researches against which such actions are directed. I can assure the noble Lord that in order to improve accessibility of information and to make provision for the increasing number of such incidents the Metropolitan Police have agreed to collate information about criminal offences committed by animal rights groups. A liaison officer, as a reference point, has been appointed in each local police authority.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Brighton bombing report.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Food and Environment Protection Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period and that during that adjournment the Committee stage of the Dangerous Vessels Bill will be taken.

Televising of Proceedings
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a brief Statement on one aspect of tomorrow's televising of the proceedings of the House. At its meeting before the Christmas Recess, the Select Committee on televising the proceedings of the House agreed that exceptionally on the first day of the experiment two still photographers should be allowed into the House in order to take photographs for the press. They will be present for the first hour only of tomorrow's proceedings. One will be in the South-West Gallery (that is the one immediately to the right of the Throne as we look at it) and the other in the North-East Gallery (that is the one over my right shoulder, next to the Press Gallery). The photographers will be from The Times, and instructions have been given to them that they are to rely only on the level of light in the Chamber; they are not to use flash equipment, nor cameras with automatic winders.
Perhaps it will be convenient if I take this opportunity also to inform your Lordships that I have arranged for the television set in the Moses Room to be available for watching BBC channels tomorrow and the set in the television room on the Committee Corridor to be available for Channel 4 and ITV. I have already put up notices giving the broadcasting schedules in the Prince's Chamber and on the board near the ticker-tape machine.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, may I ask the Chairman of Committees—and perhaps I am using this opportunity to inquire of the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip—to state what criteria will be chosen tomorrow for people participating in the debate?
Lord Denham: My Lords, there will be the normal speakers' list arranged through the usual channels, and of course Question Time will precede that. I very much hope, and I am sure that the whole House hopes, that tomorrow's business will be treated in exactly the same way as on a normal day. I think that that will give a fair showing to the country at large of what goes on in this House.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Power to make emergency orders]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, leave out line 8 and insert—
(" 1.—(1) If a designating authority, of its own volition or on the application of a local authority, is of the opinion that—").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I go briefly into its history. I moved an amendment on the first day of the Committee stage on 6th December 1984 to insert:
"after such consultation as may be practicable with the local authority for the area".
with regard to the process being brought into being. The Minister was not happy with the amendment mainly, as he put it, because of the possible delay that might result and because it would be detrimental to the country if an emergency occurred. But in his reply at column 1459 he said:
"It goes without saying that local authorities are, in practice, certain to be consulted and actively involved in these matters, if, which we trust will never happen, Part I is brought into effect".
Later, at column 1460, he said:
"Local authorities would still be involved in matters unless there were simply not enough time".
At the end of the exchange I requested the Minister to have a meeting with local authorities and other interested bodies. He wrote to me during the Recess to say that the meeting would take place on 25th January, as that was the first date which suited all concerned. He also kindly offered to have a talk with me before the Report stage, and that took place last Thursday.
I should like to put on record how grateful I am to him for that opportunity. I think that it was a most productive meeting, as he was very generous with his time. Also present were one Conservative and one Labour councillor from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities committee and an environmental health officer. What emerged was, first, that certainly in the local authority world there was considerable confusion and disquiet. Secondly, they were concerned that powers which they already had were being taken away from them. Thirdly, there was a fear of duplication which would consequently result in delay, which was the very point about which the Minister was rightly concerned. The fourth concern was that there was no definition of "emergency".
The considerable confusion and disquiet were cleared up in the discussion, but they have not yet been cleared up in the Bill. The Minister made it clear that

113
the powers which the authorities already have were not being taken away; they were contained in previous legislation and were not stated in the Bill because that was not the practice when there was previous legislation. However, as we are now increasingly finding with legislation, more and more we have to wade through tomes of previous statutes to find out what are the rights, powers and duties.
So far as the fear of duplication and delay was concerned, it was crystal clear that some amendment was necessary. It is necessary to have something in regard to that in the Bill. I think that the Minister will agree with me that that concern was strongly and clearly expressed by the people present who are actual practitioners in the field.
So far as the definition of "emergency" is concerned, I cannot find any definition of it in other legislation. I am told that everybody knows an emergency when one occurs. I presume that we should smell, hear, feel or see the emergency, and that, of course, is the new element in this piece of legislation. It is still not clear enough in the Bill how the process would be triggered without befogging local authorities. It is essential to state in primary legislation the local authority role, so that the authorities are quite sure of their position.
The possibility which has been mooted, of a circular dealing with the administrative procedures, is certainly not enough in this case. The original amendment, which dealt with consultation, I now agree—and this was one of the useful parts of this meeting—was not right for this purpose. I believe—and I hope the Minister agrees—that the new amendment is far better than the old. The new amendment means that the local authorities will still be there as the most likely bodies to receive the first indication. As was pointed out to us by both the councillors and the environmental health officer, when there is anything wrong people telephone and immediately get in touch with their local authority because it is their nearest point of access and they often know who is there and to whom they should apply. The local authorities have a function of emergency planning and they have a DHSS hazardous warning system on what is known as the "Christmas tree principle"; that is, that one authority warns two, two then warn four, four then warn eight and so on.
This new amendment does not require consultation, and it allows the designating authority to act "of its own volition". But it also makes provision for the local authority to make application. In other words, it is a fail-safe procedure. With great respect, I would have thought that it is an improvement on the way it is worded in the Bill at the moment.
To sum up, the amendment recognises the paramount position of the Government in making emergency orders in circumstances of the kind envisaged in the Bill. Nevertheless, it writes local authorities into the primary legislation instead of leaving their role to administrative arrangements only, which really is unsatisfactory from every point of view. This would in turn recognise the traditional role of local authorities, particularly with regard to contaminated food and their fitness to exercise the
114
enhanced powers to be created. Although there will be cases where it is obvious that the Bill's provisions need activating, delay could arise in less obvious cases while it was being decided who would act; that is to say, local or central government. Giving local authorities, who are often the first to find out about such situations, a direct role would help greatly with this problem.
I am aware, and I know from my own experience as a Minister for the Department of the Environment, that once a Bill is before either House of Parliament and has been carefully drafted by parliamentary draftsmen there is a very curious sense of reluctance which seems to run in relation to all legislation, and it seems to be very difficult to get them to be prepared to change one word. However, I think in this case the amendment proposed is a very simple one. It makes it all much clearer. It also does the job of pleasing those concerned. I think it will commend itself to the local authorities, who will then know that their role is set out in the Bill. The Minister and the Ministries will not be faced with disgruntled, unsure local authorities—a situation which cannot do any good either to local government or, indeed, to central government, and could result in the very confusion and delay that the Minister and all of us are very anxious to avoid. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the generous way in which she recorded the discussions which she and I, together with representatives of the AMA, had between the last stage of the Bill and today. The view that I expressed to the noble Baroness on that occasion is that this kind of amendment is unnecessary because there is no doubt at all that a local authority could most certainly ask the Government to make an emergency order if that local authority believed that there was a need for it. But I should emphasise that Part I of this Bill is intended to deal with major emergencies, including emergencies at sea, where the help and the co-ordinating power of central government would be needed in addition to the authority and skills of local authorities and the police. This Bill is in no way intended as a substitute for the work done by local authorities, nor does it in any way detract from the legal powers that they already possess. Indeed, I should place on record that central government are more than grateful that in the vast majority of cases local authorities sort out problems in their own areas.
The basis of the noble Baroness's remarks this afternoon, I think, was that Part I creates some uncertainty for local authorities. However, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, discussion will take place on the 25th between local authority organisations and other organisations with an interest in the Bill and the Ministry of Agriculture. I am sorry it was not possible to arrange that discussion before today's debate, but it is taking place on the earliest date at which all the interested organisations could be brought together.
The noble Baroness said that she discerns a reluctance, which she thinks, from her own experience in government, is always there, to change one word of

115
legislation after a Bill has been introduced. I hope that in the next few hours, when we go through the amendments to which we shall come, I can prove that the noble Baroness is not right in that. But having said that, I should very much hope that at the meeting at the end of this week the position of the local authorities under Part I will be thoroughly discussed and, if there is any necessity for clarification, clarified as well. Perhaps we ought to await the outcome of those discussions.
I give an undertaking to the noble Baroness that I shall consider most carefully what is said by the local authority organisations on that occasion. While I must say my present view is that this amendment is not necessary, I will most certainly say to the noble Baroness that the Government will think again about it before Third Reading in the light of the discussions which will be taking place at the end of this week.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I cannot say that it was very satisfactory from my point of view, but he did explain it again. What worries me is that it does not really help to have placed on record in Hansard their gratitude to local authorities or whatever is said about them. Hansard is not the legislation; nor can Hansard be referred to in the courts if any such occasion arose. It still does not deal with the main question that there does not seem to me to be any good reason why, if, as I accept, what the Minister says is correct, it should not be in the Bill.
The way this matter is drafted in this amendment does not take away the initiative from the Government in any way at all. I am sure the Minister must agree with me that what we heard last week indicated certainly the confusion, misunderstanding and disquiet among the people who would be having to operate this, or who would certainly be connected with it. Having this in the Bill certainly does not take away any action which the Government could undertake, because the first sentence says, "of its own volition"—and that is even put first, before "the application of a local authority".
However. I should put it to the Minister that something could arise from very small beginnings which the Government, the department, may not know about—that is to say, the designating authority—unless they were alerted by local authorities at a very early stage. It is these circumstances to which I am referring. I agree it may not happen, or that it may happen very rarely, but nevertheless there is that possibility.
What I am concerned about, frankly, is that when this meeting takes place on Friday it will be dealing just with the administrative arrangements, as to whether there should be a circular, or what regulations there may be. But there will not be on the face of the Bill anything of the kind that we are discussing now in this amendment. We on these Benches really believe it is extremely important that it should be there. Maybe I did go rather too far about the drafting because obviously amendments are carried sometimes and often accepted by Ministers—so I retract those comments. But if there is a way of not doing it, the Minister very often does not do it. The fact that so much is in previous legislation seems to make it even
116
more important that it should be quite clear in the Bill what is being done.
I am not suggesting that we are restating anything that is in previous legislation, because this is entirely new legislation. All I can do at this stage is ask the Minister whether he will ensure that the question of something being on the face of the Bill is discussed with local authorities and other bodies at the meeting on Friday, and not just the question of administrative detail.
As I knew that the meeting was going to take place after we had dealt with the Report stage of this Bill, I did not intend to press the amendment today and I assured the Minister that I would not be doing so. But I hope that he will come back and accept this amendment or something similar before Third Reading, otherwise we shall have to cover much the same point again on Third Reading.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must respond to the question which the noble Baroness has just put to me concerning the ability of those who attend the meeting at the end of this week to discuss the particular issue of putting something in the Bill. The official from the Ministry of Agriculture who will be chairing that meeting gave an undertaking to the noble Baroness—and I endorsed it—that the meeting will be reasonably flexible. That means that we shall be interested to hear what the local authorities have to say.
I ought just to make the point that now that the Bill is in your Lordships' House, it is a matter for my right honourable friend—and I on his behalf, in speaking in your Lordships' House—to say finally what it is that we feel we can and cannot do. Therefore, the meeting can only take on board what the local authorities are saying. The assurance that I should like to give to the noble Baroness is that I shall make it my business on behalf of my right honourable friend to find out how the discussion next Friday goes. I shall certainly communicate with the noble Baroness before the final stage of the Bill.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I express the hope that this main point of principle, apart from the adminstrative details, will be looked at again. I hope that he will discuss that point once more with his right honourable friend, because I should not like this situation to be left as it is at present. The reason why I am not pressing this amendment further today is to give this matter another chance in the discussions which are to take place before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 1, after ("is") insert ("or may be in the future").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 2 I would ask the House to take Amendment No.3:
Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 5, after ("is") insert ("or may be in the future").'
These are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 3:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("(2A) Food derived from any creature is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as also derived—

(a) from any feeding stuff which that creature has eaten; and

(b) from anything from which any such feeding stuff was derived,

and references in this Act to anything from which food could be derived shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would ask that we might take with Amendment No. 4, Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63 and 64:
Amendment No. 7: Clause 4, page 5, line 17, leave out ("food") to end of line 18.
Amendment No. 8: Page 5, line 23, leave out from ("be") to end of line 24.
Amendment No. 9: Page 5, line 25, leave out ("or consumption by any creature").
Amendment No. 10: Page 5, line 26, at end insert ("or
(c) if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that there is present on or in it anything from which food could be derived—

(i) which has been in a designated area at any such time; and

(ii) which is, or may be, or may become, so affected by the designated incident as to cause any food derived from it to be unsuitable for human consumption.").

Amendment No. 11: Page 6, line 8, leave out ("or feeding stuff").
Amendment No. 12: Page 6, line 9, leave out ("or feeding stuffs").
Amendment No. 13: Page 6, line 14, leave out (", feeding stuff").
Amendment No. 58: Schedule 1, page 25, line 13, leave out ("feeding stuffs") and insert ("anything from which food could be derived").
Amendment No. 59: Page 25, line 16, leave out ("or feeding stuffs").
Amendment No. 61: Page 25, line 28, leave out ("feeding stuffs") and insert ("anything from which food could be derived").
Amendment No. 62: Page 25, line 35, leave out ("or feeding stuff").
Amendment No. 63: Page 25, line 36, leave out ("or feeding stuffs").
Amendment No. 64: Page 26, line 10, leave out ("feeding stuff") and insert ("anything from which food could be derived").
Despite the length and number of these amendments, they would do no more than remove a drafting anomaly in the Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill refers in some places to anything from which food may be derived, and in other places it also refers to feeding stuffs. These amendments would make these references consistent and would make it clear that the expression "anything from which food could be derived" would include, for the purposes of the Bill, feeding stuffs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where any person has incurred loss or damage in consequence of the application of emergency prohibitions to food that is not, or does not become, unsuitable for human consumption, or to anything that would not have caused food to become unsuitable for human consumption, as a consequence of the release of the substances to which an emergency order relates, the designating authority shall be liable for the loss or damage.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved an amendment similar to this in Committee. There is one
118
small difference in that the amendment now makes it clear or clearer that it is food that is made unsuitable as a consequence of a disaster. My noble friend Lord Belstead offered at Committee stage to look again at the problem of the farmer who has restrictions placed on his operations because of an emergency order, and then those restrictions were later found to be unnecessary because his food or produce was not contaminated. In these circumstances, I thought—and many of our Lordships thought—that the farmer should be compensated.
My noble friend Lord Belstead sent me and I believe other noble Lords a detailed reply as to why the Government feel that compensation would not be appropriate. I shall leave him to explain why later. Before I pick two holes in the Government's approach, I should like to tell my noble friend how much I appreciated the trouble and care which he and his department have taken to shed light on this problem.
I now turn to the two problems that I wish to raise with my noble friend. First, the Government maintain that if the Minister put too large an area under restriction it would be possible to take redress in the courts against the Minister. Maybe the word "possible" is correct but in practice I suggest that such an action would be impossible. Secondly, my noble friend suggested that it would be the farmer's duty and job to insure privately against such a disaster. In his letter, my noble friend states that the Government have been discussing the practicalities of such insurance with the trade. I have been doing so, too, and so has my noble friend Lord Radnor. I have to say that I am experiencing considerable difficulty in getting an answer to this problem. If my noble friend can provide me with an answer to those two points, it might make me a happier person. I beg to move.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should like strongly to support this amendment in the same way that I supported the equivalent amendment in Committee. I shall start by saying that Part I of the Bill is to do with major disasters, and so we are really dealing with the kind of disaster that spreads over a large area and which could be of very serious importance to any farmer who is asked to destroy his foodstuffs, and so on.
My noble friend Lord Stanley has outlined the two real worries which both he and I have pressed to some extent. The first is the possibility of pursuing the Government themselves through the courts through their having been perhaps over-cautious—although it is rather unfair to say that—or through their having made a mistake. The polluter himself presumably would say, "That I have not polluted that particular crop or that particular foodstuff is quite evident". The second point concerns the question of insurance, which I have been into fairly thoroughly.
3.30 p.m.
On the first point, the time involved and the money that might be involved for the farmer can easily lead to a financial failure. All of us know the time it takes for a case to go through the courts. This will be a difficult case whatever happens, because it will be new. I did my own consultation about insurance. I put to the insurers a hypothetical case that might arise from the

119
Bill. The result was that they could not give me any lurid tale of frightful premiums or anything of that sort because, having consulted the insurance world, they considered that the risk would be uninsurable. I am a fish farmer. They were happy to insure my fish against death, but they did not want to insure against the Government telling me to kill them. They would find that unacceptable.
In these kinds of cases it is only fair—I hope that my noble friend the Minister will see it as fair—that the offended party, the person who has to destroy what would be part of his livelihood for the year, though not all of it, should be compensated by the Government who have told him to destroy the foodstuffs. I hope sincerely that my noble friend will take notice of this and that he will be able to take action along the lines proposed in the amendment.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It seems to me an eminently just one. I do not think that it is unreasonable to take an example which admittedly is not likely to arise very frequently. There might be a grower of strawberries, some readily perishable crop, who is close to a factory where there has been a suspected emission or leakage of some toxic chemical. It would be absolutely right for the Ministry of Agriculture, at that stage, to prohibit for a few days the picking of any more strawberries because they might be contaminated.
On further investigation it might be found that there was no emission or that, if there was, it was not an emission that came close to the crop in question. The grower, however, would have lost three days peak picking of a very valuable crop. It would not have been the fault of the chemical company which has been exonerated. It would not have been the fault of the Ministry of Agriculture or its officials who had acted in a prudent manner. However, it does not seem to me just that the grower should suffer what could be a very considerable loss owing to circumstances over which he had no control whatever.
I admit that such a situation is not likely to arise very often. I might have taken a rather extreme case, but it could happen. The fact that it is likely to happen only very rarely indeed goes a long way towards restricting any financial responsibility which the Government might have. I hope, therefore that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, this is an amendment on which I feel sympathy for both my noble friend Lord Stanley and my noble friend the Minister. I may be wrong, but I suspect that my noble friend the Minister will find considerable difficulty, no matter how great his powers of persuasion, in getting the Treasury to accept an undertaking of this kind. If I am wrong, and if my noble friend has secured the agreement of the Treasury and intends to accept the amendment, I say at once that he is a much cleverer and more persuasive Minister of State than I was. I had a case not unlike the one now being discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, has referred to what he has admitted is a hypothetical case. A case is actually going on in Scotland—I saw it reported in the
120
columns of the Daily Telegraph this morning—which is immensely relevant to the amendment and to the clause. It concerns a very large chemical firm in the centre of Scotland. A neighbouring farmer has admitted that at the moment he would not give the milk from his dairy cows to his cats. He believes—in fact, I think he more than believes—that it contains, to a great extent, dioxone. Almost certainly, once this Bill becomes law, this would immediately become a case for Clause 1 and for an order to be served. Presumably, my noble friend, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, would send an inspector who would inspect the milk and slap on an order; and rightly so.
It is strange to say, but, at the moment, there seems to be no power for anyone to refuse to take the milk. The local authority wants it stopped, but the Milk Marketing Board says that it has no power and is bound to take the milk in its present condition. Undoubtedly, if such an order was served and the milk was found to be polluted, the farmer would have a case against the chemical firm. Indeed, the newspapers report that he has already started an action in the Court of Session—this gives an indication of the magnitude of the sums involved—for damages of £2 million. How that sum has been arrived at I do not know, but it gives an indication of the sums that could be at risk in a matter of this kind.
I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister a question arising from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stanley. Let us suppose that the Minister's officers decided, in view of what had been discovered on this farm, that he had better play pretty safe and slap on an order, and that as smoke had been belching out of the chimney—I think that it has now voluntarily stopped—he had better serve it a little further afield, casting his net over a distance of, say, two or three miles. What is the situation if, after a fortnight or three weeks, the milk three miles out is found to have been perfectly all right the whole time? In this respect I have sympathy with my noble friend Lord Stanley. Under the conditions of the legislation which we are considering there is no redress. Yet a considerable amount of milk, under powers that are going to be taken, would have been poured, presumably, down the drain or into a hole in the ground.
I should also like to say a few words about insurance. I agree profoundly with what both my noble friends have said. Again, this is based on my experience 12 years ago, at the Ministry of Agriculture. I was given to understand, indeed, I was assured, that in a case of paratyphoid in a herd of cows, insurance could have been perfectly possible. The matter lay entirely at the door of the owner of the cows. The Milk Marketing Board refused to take the milk because its staff refused to handle it for fear of getting the disease, and so every day the farmer was pouring thousands of gallons into the ground.
When I was told—again having been asked that the Government should intervene and pay compensation—that insurance had been available, I thought I was on an excellent wicket. But then, alas, 48 hours later, after going into it slightly more carefully, I was told that no insurance was in fact possible. Therefore, with all respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I hope that he really is on a pretty cast-iron wicket when he assures us that insurance is possible against the kind

121
of case that I have described. I am extremely doubtful that it is. If it is, then it puts a different complexion on the whole affair.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, there are one or two points which deserve further airing on this particular amendment. First, if the polluter cannot be traced, it is impossible to sue him. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, seems to be excellently valid, because there is then nobody to sue. Let us take the example of a chemical or pesticide fall-out across the border from Southern Ireland to Northern Ireland. If Mr. O'Higgins from one side of the border pollutes Mr. O'Higgins's crops on the other side of the border and a British order is made to stop, or for destruction of his crops, then I think it is going to be difficult to sue the man on the other side of the border. I am using this as a starting point. It is even perhaps possible that one could have trans-Channel pollution. I am not myself totally convinced of that, but I think that it is possible. Perhaps my noble friend could apply his mind to that and give us an answer.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, but I feel that in our consideration of it we need to go rather wider than the position of the grower, because if this kind of situation does arise there will be more at stake than our crops, which are within the control of the farmer. For example, the process of food manufacture and distribution is a fairly lengthy one, and if particular crops are thought to be contaminated then of course there will be consequential loss arising in respect of stocks held for processing or already processed by food manufacturers and stocks which are somewhere in the distribution chain.
This emphasises, first of all, the importance of dealing with the matter at this stage; and it also, I think, adds significantly to the problem of insurance against a contingency of this sort. It is not a problem which does not exist. Some of us have experienced, not in respect of home-grown food but certainly in respect of imported canned food, instances where the Ministry—not, I am happy to say, the Ministry of Agriculture, but the Department of Health and Social Security—having decided that there is something wrong with, say, a particular cannery in a certain country, brings together canned food importers, and after talking round the subject announces that at six o'clock, or whenever, it proposes issuing a warning to the public that canned goods from a particular cannery may be suspect because of a defect in the canning process, leaving the onus as to what to do on the food importers and on others who have the control of stocks in the distribution chain.
Sometimes the position of food importers, if they have not provided in commercial contracts for this kind of situation, is weakened by the unwillingness of the Ministry to quarrel with the food and drug administration of another country; and in consequence losses amounting to millions of pounds can very quickly pile up against food importers, distributors and retailers in a situation which is not of their making. I think really that the Ministry ought to
122
give a serious answer to this question. If insurance is thought to be the answer, then it ought to give some indication that insurance is both practicable and within the scope of those people who are likely to be affected.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, important points have been made by your Lordships, and each one requires an answer. If I may, I will as briefly as possible attempt to answer them. If I may intervene now, the first thing I want to say is that I understand and sympathise with both my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Radnor in the sense of fair play that lies behind both this amendment and, indeed, their next one on the Marshalled List. That is why I undertook at Committee stage to look very carefully at the arguments which your Lordships put forward in Committee. But I hope that the reasons which prompted the Government to be unwilling to accept amendments on this subject at the previous stage will become more evident if, just for a moment, we consider what I believe to be the three underlying purposes of these two amendments.
The first is the purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, put forward in his speech: namely, that the Government ought to compensate for stuffs which are not, or do not become, unsuitable for consumption but which have in fact been affected by an emergency order and the measures taken under it. The noble Lord gave us the example of the strawberry grower who is told that he cannot pick his strawberries for a time because there is an emergency on, and the crop is lost. At Committee stage, on behalf of the Government, I argued that loss resulting from an emergency was the responsibility of the polluter; and I think, if I may say so, that that is a principle which the whole House would wish to see not in dispute, although of course we are at the moment trying to meet the various difficulties which flow from that. However, the noble Lord is clearly concerned that the polluter could not be, or might not be, held responsible for financial loss involving food which, in the event, was found to be suitable for human consumption.
Lord Walston: My Lords, if the Minister will give way for a moment, I should like to make a point. I agree entirely that the polluter should be responsible. The example I gave—the hypothetical example—was where in fact there was found to be no polluter; there was no pollution. The authorities had reasonable grounds for thinking that there might have been pollution, but in this case there was none.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may go on for just a moment, I think I can answer the noble Lord. This point, although at first sight it appears to be one which should give us the greatest concern, in fact should not give us concern. Once the Act comes into force, the courts will assume that all those who may be directly affected by it will know of its provisions, and, since these provisions enable emergency orders to be made, the Government believe that the courts would be ready to hold that polluters, if they exist, appreciate that emergency orders may cause loss to people who would not otherwise have suffered.

123
It is in the nature of any precautionary measure designed to protect the public from possible danger, even before the full facts can have been established, that restrictions may be imposed upon food which turns out not to have been affected at all by the incident. I am advised that damage arising out of an emergency order would be held by the courts to be consequential upon the event which gave rise to it and that the person who is responsible for the pollution, even if that pollution did not happen to go in the direction of the strawberry fields, as it finally turned out, would be held responsible for the cost of the safety measures under an emergency order.
That leads to a second point which both my noble friends who are responsible for this amendment, and also the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, have spoken about. I am not quite certain, but I think maybe the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is talking about it as well; that is simply that Ministers might go much further than required for the purpose of dealing with an emergency and that the result might conceivably be that the person responsible for the release of any dangerous substances could not possibly be held responsible for the full costs resulting from the safety measures taken by the Government.
I am advised that measures taken under Clauses 2 and 3 would be subject under the law as it stands to scrutiny by the courts and, in the event of those measures being found excessive—an unlikely event, I hope—the courts could provide redress against Ministers. It is, therefore, I suggest not necessary to amend the present Bill to protect the citizen against the possibility that the actions of Ministers had gone further than was, in fact, necessary.
That leads me to the third point—a point about which all of your Lordships have spoken—that, despite what I have already said, there may be difficulty in obtaining compensation and that the Government should still take power to grant compensation in order to ensure fairness to those people who have suffered loss. The issue which arises from that is, of course, insurance. I hope that your Lordships will agree, despite the difficulties, that it really is vital that nothing should be done in this Bill which would discourage those who might be responsible for the emission of dangerous substances from insuring themselves in respect of their responsibility to other people, and that it is also important to avoid anything which would discourage those who might be at risk of suffering loss either from seeking to recover their loss from the party who is in fact responsible for it, or from insuring themselves.
I have to say that undoubtedly Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would tend to discourage insurance because they amount to a proposal to introduce a form of noncontributory state insurance policy. Clearly that would take us into a very difficult field indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, explained in his remarks. In fairness I really must emphasise again here that the purpose of the new legislation is simply to ensure that the Government would, if necessary, take proper measures to safeguard the public—measures of the type which in any case one would expect to be adopted voluntarily by responsible people. It is the business of the people concerned to see that they are protected as
124
they ought to be, and legislation really must not interfere with that.
On the difficult issue of insurance, officials of the Ministry of Agriculture have been in touch with representatives of the insurance industry. The one thing which I have to say about that in answer to my noble friend Lord Radnor is that the word "uninsurable" has certainly not passed the lips of the insurance interests with whom we have been having discussions. Discussions are continuing, but I have no doubt that those who may be affected by this legislation will be taking careful note of its implications and of its opportunities for the insurance industry.
For the reasons which I have endeavoured to give in the last few minutes, and which I must admit I did not give at the last stage of the Bill, the Government conclude that it is not necessary to make provision for compensation to be payable in respect of food which is destroyed as a precautionary measure following an incident but which turns out to be safe. We are confident that the "polluter pays" principle would operate. If I may say so to my noble friend Lord Onslow, we would see no difficulty in a Northern Ireland farmer bringing an action in the Republic of Ireland courts. But if these amendments were to be made, it would discourage people from pursuing the polluter and from taking precautions through insurance. I am sure that those would be very undesirable consequences.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions which have been made from the Floor of the House on this amendment. I do not think that we have solved all the problems, but certainly my noble friend Lord Belstead has solved a great many of them. I was particularly pleased to hear the answer which my noble friend gave to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, concerning the fact that if an area is designated and certain parts of it turn out afterwards to be innocent or free from pollution, the polluter will pay as regards that area which the Minister has designated because he should be—and I think that these were the words which my noble friend used—"aware of this problem when he reads this Bill or when the Bill becomes an Act". I am grateful to my noble friend for that.
I should like to reinforce a point made by my noble friend Lord Radnor. If there were a disaster there could be a very serious situation. While this matter was wandering around the courts we could have a situation whereby a large number of farmers and, indeed, processors—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher—could become broke before they ever received an answer.
My noble friend did not actually answer the point about taking the Minister to court. I still say that he is quite correct in saying that it is possible for me to take the Minister to court if he over-schedules the area. However, I still say that it is more or less impossible so to do. Therefore, I do not think that that is quite the right answer.
However, the whole nub of the problem arises on the question of whether or not I as a farmer, or, indeed, as a processor, like the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, can insure. It really is a chicken and egg situation. If I take the chicken side, I say, "I cannot find anybody

125
and neither can my noble friend Lord Radnor who will say that they will insure". My noble friend Lord Belstead, who takes the egg side, says, "Well, you won't until we force them to do so".
I am not going to put this matter to the House now because the question of which is the chicken and which is the egg is really a technical point which can be sorted out as the Bill goes through the House. I am sure that if my noble friend is right on the egg side, as I call it, and it becomes quite clear as the Bill goes through both Houses that there may be an insurable risk here, at the end of the day we shall know whether or not insurers are going to foot or cover the bill. Meanwhile, I thank my noble friend for the great care that he has taken over this matter, as well as Members of your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Amendment No. 6 not moved.)

Brighton Bombing: Hoddinott Report
3.56 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement about the conclusions of the inquiry into security arrangements for last year's Conservative Party conference, which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement reads as follows:
"On 22nd October last year I made a Statement about the explosion at Brighton. Police investigations into that crime are still continuing. The evidence so far obtained suggests that the explosion was caused by a device containing between 20 and 30 pounds of explosive placed behind a bath panel in Room 629 on the sixth floor of the Grand Hotel. It was almost certainly detonated by a long delay timer. The police have made exhaustive inquiries about staff and guests at the hotel. They have established that someone who stayed in Room 629 for three days about three weeks before the explosion had given a false address. Inquiries to trace him and other inquiries related to electronic devices recovered from the debris are continuing. The House will not expect me to go into further details about them.
"In my Statement last year I told the House that the Chief Constable of Sussex had asked Mr. Hoddinott, the Deputy Chief Constable of Hampshire, to investigate the security arrangements in place at the time of the conference. I have now received and studied a copy of his report. It cannot, for reasons of security, be published, but I have placed in the Library of the House a summary, which Mr. Hoddinott has confirmed gives a fair and accurate account of his findings. Copies are also available in the Vote Office. I understand that the Sussex police authority are meeting to discuss the report with the Chief Constable tomorrow.
"Mr. Hoddinott has conducted a comprehensive and detailed inquiry into the plans and arrangements made for security at the conference and the efficiency with which they were carried out. The
126
House will see from the summary that he has judged the performance of the Sussex police against the information which was available to them and the level of precautions which were then regarded as usual and acceptable to those concerned.
"His general conclusion against that background is that the Sussex police made proper and reasonable plans and implemented them competently and professionally.
"He finds that they had access to all the relevant intelligence information up to the time of the explosion and took proper account of it. He makes a number of detailed criticisms of the arrangements for communications within the Sussex force both of threat levels and the requirements for searches. He also criticises the adequacy of the co-operation between hotel management and the police.
"Mr. Hoddinott paid particular attention to search procedures. He did not criticise the police for failing to control and search each person entering the hotel during the period of the conference. He concluded that the hotel and those wishing to use it would not have accepted such an arrangement and that, given the assumption of free access to the hotel, the numbers involved would anyway have made it impracticable. He stresses that it has hitherto always been the practice of the police to take the basic nature of the occasion to be protected as the starting point for protection and security precautions, rather than to seek to change the nature of the occasion itself on security grounds.
"Mr. Hoddinott found that it would not have been the practice of any police force in Great Britain or Northern Ireland to conduct a full search of the entire hotel prior to the conference. The view would have been taken that, if it were to be fully effective, such a search would have taken some weeks, during which time the hotel would have had to be closed, with public access denied until the conference was over. Mr. Hoddinott's judgment is that on the basis of the procedures which then seemed reasonable and likely to be acceptable to those concerned, Sussex police are not to be criticised for the fact that the bomb hidden on the sixth floor was not discovered.
"Mr. Hoddinott was critical, however, of the inadequate search that was made of the first floor, which should under standard police procedures have been searched. The failure to do so adequately was caused by the absence of a clear allocation of responsibility within the Sussex police.
"Different and stricter arrangements for searching were possible at the Conference Centre, where the building was to a much greater degree taken over for the exclusive use of the Conservative Party and was inherently easier to search.
"Looking to the future, Mr. Hoddinott has not attempted to prescribe new policing arrangements, but he has, as the House will see from the summary of his report, drawn attention to a number of important areas where changes now need to be considered on a national basis. He also makes clear, however, that a balance will always have to be struck between security and the conduct of political affairs in our open democratic society.

127
"The House will recall that I announced in my Statement last October that we had at that stage already set in hand new arrangements centrally both for assessing terrorist intentions and capabilities and co-ordinating the counter-measures required to meet them. These central arrangements are now fully in place and I believe they have already proved their value.
"But many of the specific counter-measures are and will remain the responsibility of local police forces, with the Metropolitan Police Special Branch having particular national responsibilities. To assist them in their task I am now setting up a new permanent working group. Its role will be to bring about successful co-ordination between police forces throughout Great Britain and also to ensure that they have available to them all relevant techniques and experience. This group, under Home Office chairmanship, will monitor the advice and techniques available for protecting targets and countering terrorist threats and will co-ordinate the promulgation of advice to police forces. It will include, in addition to the police, representatives of the security service and the Army. I have already arranged with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Defence, Northern Ireland and Scotland to involve the Army and the RUC in training police officers from all mainland forces in search techniques and to ensure that full use is made of the relevant experience gained in Northern Ireland.
"The Chief Constable of Sussex, after discussion with his police authority tomorrow, will take corrective action for the future on the specific criticisms of his own force contained in the report, and the new working group will ensure that the points of general relevance are made to all chief constables.
"Since the explosion at Brighton the Metropolitan Police have reviewed and increased the measures they take to protect members of the Cabinet and others who may be at particular risk. Mr. Hoddinott's report is bound also to lead us to consider afresh all the precautions that need to be taken for the major party conferences in 1985 and for similar major political events. Difficult decisions will have to be taken about many matters relating to security, including the extent and manner of public access, the accommodation of political leaders subject to particular threat, pass systems and arrangements for stewarding meetings. These questions raise important issues about the cost and acceptability of changes to established democratic traditions.
"The answers will not be the same in the case of each event, but I am sure that representatives of the political parties should participate in the process of resolving these issues. I have therefore asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Lawrence Byford, to head a team of chief constables and others to prepare urgently proposals for security at this year's party conferences and comparable occasions, and I am writing today to invite party representatives to be involved actively in the work of this group.
128
"I am most grateful to Mr. Hoddinott for the very thorough and professional way in which he carried out his task. He has given his assessment of what happened at Brighton, of the problems that now need to be tackled and the further questions that must be answered. As I said last October, total security is impossible in a free, democratic society. But in the light of Brighton we must enhance previously acceptable levels of security and equip ourselves to take in a clear-sighted way the difficult decisions involved in making any changes in the balance between security and the conduct of politics in a free society. I believe that the decisions that I have now taken will help significantly to enhance security and provide a firm framework for giving acceptable and practical answers to the outstanding questions".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends who sit on these Benches, may I express the usual appreciation to the Minister for having repeated the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. What happened on 12th October last year was not only a near disaster for the Conservative Party: it was indeed a near disaster for the nation. Members of this House will undoubtedly wish to take upon themselves every responsibility which they reasonably can in assessing the Statement to which the House has listened this afternoon.
As it is the responsibility, the duty, of all our democratic parties to examine what happened on 12th October last and to try to ensure that nothing like it happens again, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Minister whether, doubtless on Privy Council terms, a full copy of the report—which understandably is not being dealt with in your Lordships' House or possibly in another place this afternoon—will be given to the leaders of the parties in another place.
My first words on behalf of these Benches would be to express appreciation to Mr. Hoddinott for what appears to be—I have to say "appears to be" because we have had only a summary of his report—a very comprehensive investigation. May I also say on behalf of my noble friends what was said on the last occasion precisely three months ago: how much we admire the courage shown in such a traditional way by our police and all those who tried to assist them on that dreadful occasion.
Having said that, there is cause for anxiety even in this summarised report. I wonder whether your Lordships will bear with me if I ask certain questions and make certain comments on what we have been told. The Statement first of all dealt with the disaster which occurred as a result of something being placed on the sixth floor in a certain room. The Statement goes on to say that there was an occupation of that room—that very room where the electronic device was obviously placed—some three weeks before the incident.
Therefore, there are the questions of search and inquiry. Those are the only matters which I am going to raise. I have no intention of raising matters which, for security or other reasons, should not have public

129
comment at this stage. However, one's anxiety arises from the fact that three weeks before there appears to have been placed in a certain room, by someone who it is now known gave a false address, this electronic device. It was there for three weeks.
We are told in the Statement that it was not deemed to be feasible to make a full search of the hotel during the few weeks before the conference. We are told that the reason for that is that the hotel would have had to be evacuated, and there were other practical reasons why a full search could not be made. Is not one under a duty to inquire whether any search was made, even if it could not be a full search, even if the hotel was partially occupied? Was there a search of articles being brought into the hotel by various people, especially at the vital time, when one knows perfectly well that shops all over the country, and certainly in central London, regularly require such a search to be made? A fortiori, one says, should not such a search have been made on this occasion?
We are told that one of the criticisms in regard to searching concerned the adequacy of the co-operation between hotel management and the police. Ought we not to be told where the co-operation was lacking? Was it the hotel management? Was it the police? Or was it both? What one wonders is whether in the course of the investigation that has so far been made it has been found that there are any police powers which, in the dangerous times in which we live, would have been useful to the police and would be useful in future. If so, can Parliament help?
Finally may I say, in regard to the party consultations which are going to take lace about future party conferences and adequate safeguards, that I am sure that the party to which I have the privilege to belong will most certainly and freely co-operate in any work done in this connection.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, first may I hope that it is in order to congratulate the Chief Constable of Sussex on his initiative in setting up this inquiry, which is a productive inquiry and a step which showed considerable forethought on the part of that police officer. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a situation in which pre-eminently there is a danger of being wise after the event and of showing hindsight and of asking questions now which would never have occurred to anyone at that time.
I find the fact to be really clear from this report that no reasonable precautions could have been taken at that time which would have averted this appalling outrage, but I do not myself find that very surprising. We ought to recognise that it requires no skill and no intelligence, and no bravery, to plant a bomb with a time fuse on it and then disappear across the ocean before the explosion takes place. I believe that however often we endeavour to obviate that happening there will always be ways in which it is liable to occur which cannot in fact be avoided.
Having said that, I make it clear of course that we must take all possible steps to avoid such situations, and certainly to make them more difficult. Clearly when this report is available it will have to be studied in detail to ascertain the specific proposals which
130
might make it a little more improbable that actions of this sort will take place in future.
I think at this moment there are only three specific comments I should like to make upon the Statement by the Minister. First, there is a reference to the fact that apparently the searching of the first floor at the hotel proved to be inadequate. Am I right in thinking that whether that be correct or not it had no direct bearing upon the tragedy which followed? Secondly, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that one of the steps that might be taken in the future is to consider ensuring, on informal occasions such as the evenings of a party conference, that the number of individuals who are obvious security targets is limited to a few rather than the largest possible number?
Thirdly, would the noble Lord the Minister agree, as I am sure he does, that perhaps one of the safeguards against repetition of behaviour of this sort is that any government should make it clear that their policy, whether it be right or wrong, will not be influenced one jot by outrages of this nature?
4.18 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for their reception of this report and of the important work which has gone into making it. As to the question of the consideration of the full text of the report, I have to say that the number of copies of the report that have been produced is exceedingly small. Access to it has been strictly limited on security grounds. Although it will be of use for the future, it will be made available only on a strict need-to-know basis. I think it is the experience of all people concerned with secure documents that it does not matter to whom the document may be addressed, as the number of addressees increases so security goes down. Therefore, my understanding is that the number of copies of the full report will not be increased beyond the number already made.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, also asked a question about the full search of the hotel. In that context I can first of all tell the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that he is right in the assumption that, whatever search procedures had been carried out on the first floor, the result would have been the same because there was no connection between the first floor and what happened on the sixth. A full search which would have guaranteed the discovery of the infernal device (I think I should call it) on the sixth floor would have involved a process taking several weeks, possibly necessitating physical damage to the hotel and its closure throughout the whole of that period, and its being open only to accredited attendants at the conference during the conference period until it was over. I doubt very much whether the management of any hotel would have regarded that as an acceptable way of managing affairs. Even if it did, and one was able to set aside the statutory requirements on innkeepers to admit the public, I doubt very much whether the representatives of the parties who are about to discuss these matters would think that was a proper way of proceeding. However, it is for them to decide.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister, before he continues, would kindly deal with the point I made. I admitted freely that a full search was impracticable, and I asked whether any search at all was made.
Lord Elton: My Lords, there were searches at times both of parts of the hotel and, I understand—I am subject to correction—of individuals coming in and out. But the number of people going in and out made it quite clear that a rigorous search of everybody would be pointless and unacceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, then went on to say that he trusted that there would be no concentration of terrorist targets. I may have misinterpreted him, but I think he was saying that there was the greatest risk when the greatest number of targets were assembled together. That is something which is readily appreciated. But the Government, like the rest of your Lordships, do not think that terrorist activities should be allowed to dictate the way in which politics are carried on in a free democratic society.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are electronic devices which will reveal the presence of bombs and other electronic devices hidden behind walls? If such detective devices had been used, it is possible that this bomb, concealed as it was, might have been located without tearing the hotel to pieces. Can my noble friend say whether the police are equipped or will be equipped with these electronic devices of a detective character?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is the purpose of the body set up by my right honourable friend, to which I referred in the substantive reply, that all police forces shall be equipped with all forms of equipment for this and any other technological purpose needed for security.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, in the deliberations and the inquiries which took place and which are conveyed in this report, account was taken of an article written in a Sunday newspaper in Ireland, the Sunday Press, by a Mr. Michael Keane on the Sunday following the terrible bombing tragedy at Brighton? It would appear from the article that he had access to the devious, murderous thinking of the IRA in their planning of this outrage. Will the Minister take the opportunity now to say at the Dispatch Box that the Prevention of Terrorism Act was placed on the statute book in the wake of the terrible Birmingham bombing of 1974 and that it is because of incidents such as that and the Brighton bombing that that Act has to remain on the statute book, irrespective of whatever protest may be made? It is understood in this House today that sections of the Irish community have been protesting about the existence of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It is because of acts such as that at Brighton that that Act has to remain on the statute book.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his comments on the Irish press, which I shall look at with interest. I can confirm that the presence on the statute book of the prevention of terrorism legislation will remain necessary for as long as this sort
132
of thing goes on; but your Lordships will recall that it is only temporarily on the statute book because the Government believe that democracy must not become set in procedures which limit the freedom of the citizen for a moment longer than they are necessary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord on two parts of his reply? Would he not agree that it is particularly satisfactory, given the constant complaints that are made about the quality of internal police reports—that is, the police reporting on the police—that such an obviously high quality piece of work has been done by the Deputy Chief Constable of Hampshire?
Secondly, does he not agree that it is virtually impossible to demand that every single person going into a headquarters hotel for a party conference should be searched? From the basis of our own experience we know that such an objective would be quite impossible to realise, given the sheer weight of numbers of people going in and out and the volume of complaints if such procedures were implemented.
Lastly, though many of us undoubtedly agree with the noble Lord that we certainly should not make any concessions to the terrorists, does he not agree that real problems of the kind described by my noble friend Lord Wigoder arise when a number of potential targets are put in the same hotel? Is the noble Lord aware that, however good the policing, however thorough the search, it is virtually impossible to guarantee the safety of a large number of political leaders in such a situation?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a good report and a commendable effort. I also agree that there are circumstances in which it is impossible to guarantee full security for all the people concerned. I have already said so. In that context, this reflects well on the police force in question. As to the dispersal of targets, that is a military precept which is well understood. I would only enter the caveat that we do not wish to run this country as if we were at war.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people will agree with his reluctance to accede to the suggestion that, on what were called "Privy Counsellor terms", the secret parts of the report should be made known to selected people? Apart from the very sound reason he gave that the more people who know about it the less secret it becomes, from the parliamentary point of view it has always been accepted that it interferes with a full probe. If selected people in a special position are privy to something, it means that they cannot use that knowledge gained by that special privilege in a way that might be necessary in having the probe fully extended on such matters. That has been the case with Leaders of Opposition in the past who have refused to accept invitations to share such knowledge because of the restrictions it puts upon them in doing their duty later. I make that point simply because if we set a precedent of this sort on such a matter it may grow, and for it to grow to any great extent may be damaging to what we call our free parliamentary society.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that intervention.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether one other source of information has been investigated? It is a difficult thing to put a 20-lb bomb in a bathroom and for it to remain undetected for three weeks. A bathroom is a simple room; it is cleaned normally, and anything left lying about will be observed. Have the staff of the hotel been carefully examined? That room had probably been entered and cleaned by some peron every day over three weeks. Is it possible that a bomb could have been hidden without someone observing some kind of indication that the walls or something else had been interfered with?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, the evidence so far obtained suggests that the explosion was caused by a device containing between 20 pounds and 30 pounds of explosive, as the noble Earl has rightly said, placed behind a bath panel in Room 629. Unless the plumbers had been called in, I do not think that anybody would have seen it.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if, in considering what steps might be taken to improve the possibilities of detection, he will bear in mind that auditors believe that a principle on which they operate is a good one and has been found to be beneficial? It is that, if you wish to examine and ascertain whether any improper transaction has taken place, you do not need to examine every transaction but the knowledge that you might examine any transaction is a useful deterrent. Would the noble Lord therefore be good enough to consider whether this principle might not be incorporated into those procedures where it is thought impossible, for example, that everybody entering a building should have his baggage or his person checked? So long as it was known that at any moment of night or day anybody might be asked to submit to such an examination, might that not be held to be a useful deterrent?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I believe that the principle of random search is fairly well understood in the security forces. I am sure that the people who are about to consider arrangements for this year's conferences will take note of what the noble Lord has said.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.32 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 6A:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
(" ( ) It shall be obligatory for manufacturers and suppliers of harmful substances to make provision, through insurance or other means, to meet liability for damage or injury accidentally arising from the use, storage or disposal of such substances.")
The noble Lord, said: My Lords, I rise to move this amendment, very happy in the knowledge that the Minister has made the case for accepting the amendment. He said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, that insurance really was the key to it and that nothing should be done to discourage
134
people from insuring against the damage they may cause. He was kind enough to send me a copy of the extremely full and helpful letter that he wrote to Lord Stanley of Alderley. In it he said:
"As you may know, nuclear site operators already have strict liability for damage of injury under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and are obliged to provide financial security for it by insurance or other means".
This, of course, is howl have worded the amendment in my name.
I think it is very important that this should apply to chemical works as well as to nuclear installations, because if you look at the record of safety and of damage for nuclear installations in this country and in the West as a whole, it has been very good and the damage has been, as far as we know from the civil nuclear side, extremely small; whereas you have only to look at the record of chemical plants in this country, in Europe and in India—and I cite Flixborough, Seveso and Bhopal—to see that they have done enormous damage. It appears to me, therefore, logical that if the polluter is going to pay (a principle I entirely agree with) the Government should see to it that the polluter takes steps so that he can ensure the ability to pay if he causes the damage. That is the case in a nutshell. I do not think that I need to say any more at this point. Certainly, the Minister appeared to understand this perfectly and to back this idea. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I do not think that my noble kinsman has gone far enough with his amendment. I know that the Bill is in three parts. Will this cover an accident by spraying, which can happen, and has happened in the past; and would it be obligatory for farmers to insure as well as against an accident of spraying? I have, and I know that most farmers have, an all-risks insurance. Whether it would cover this type of thing, I do not know, but I feel that it should be looked at, along with the question of cases like Flixborough, etc.
Lord Walston: My Lords, when I first read this amendment, I was impelled to say to my noble friend that I could not support it. Having listened to him speak, his intention, so far as I am concerned, is a desirable one but I have doubts as to whether the amendment as it reads now actually goes along with his intention. Presumably, he means that they must,
"meet liability for damage or injury accidentally arising from the use, storage or disposal of such substances"
while on their premises or something of that kind. As it is at present drafted, it looks as if, even if their materials were stored, say, on a farm, or were being used by a customer several times removed who then caused some damage, they would still be liable for it. If it means that, then I am afraid that I cannot support it. If it means purely while they are under the control of the manufacturer, then I think that there is a great deal to be said for the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment simply on the principle that this insurance business seems to be a very grey and difficult area which is worrying a lot of us. Some obligation on the part of the polluter to have insurance would obviously be of some help.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, clearly there are a number of difficulties with the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has put forward. I would wish to put a couple of points to the noble Lord in addition to those which have been made by other noble Lords. Part I of this Bill does not affect liability for damage resulting from the escape of dangerous substances. That liability already exists and rests upon the polluter; and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said quite clearly in his opening remarks that that liability was in the right place.
The amendment likewise would not affect liability. Its purpose, as I understand it from the noble Lord, is to guarantee that there would be insurance against that existing liability. But, with respect, the amendment is somewhat imprecise in its scope and I think it raises problems of definition. It would apply, as I understand it, to all manufacturers and suppliers of harmful substances. But in one sense, that is too broad, since Part I of the Bill is confined to incidents affecting safety of food. In another sense, it is too narrow, since it is quite possible that many substances manufactured or supplied are not harmful in themselves and yet pollution of food might result if the factory making them or the premises supplying them suffered a fire or an explosion and great pollution to the surrounding area resulted.
I hope that with those two particular points that I have added to what noble Lords have said, it is clear that, although I quite understand the noble Lord's desire to try to see that the principle of insurance is buttressed, there are nonetheless difficulties with this amendment. May I make a suggestion? Those who run businesses which may involve them in financial liability for the rest of the public will be aware of the provisions of this Bill. As I ventured to say in my remarks on the previous amendments, the courts will hold that they will be aware of the provisions of this Bill. Those people will be able to assess in consultation with their insurers whether they ought to seek extra financial cover. I do not believe that any legislative measure could define precisely who those people are and my advice to your Lordships is that it would be wiser for us to provide the Government with the power to take the necessary measures to protect the public against an emission of dangerous substances, and to leave the business community and the insurance industry to consider and to deal with the implications of these things.
In saying that, I hope I made it clear on the previous amendment that we are deeply concerned from the point of view of the Government that the insurance avenue should be available. We have been undertaking discussions with the insurance industry. Those discussions are continuing and I very much hope—and indeed believe—that insurance should be, and is, one of the avenues through which these difficulties should be solved.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I cannot say that I am extremely grateful for the support of my noble friends and kinsman, but at least it appeared that they accepted the principle, and the Minister, in his usual way, has been extremely helpful in stressing the need for insurance. May I ask him to consider the logic of the broad case that I made? I fully accept the
136
difficulties which he has mentioned and which have been mentioned by my noble kinsman and my noble friend.
The logic of the main case that I made was that if there is in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 provision for compulsory insurance by the operators of what appears to be a far less dangerous industry, then the Government should surely be looking, in the light of the evidence from different parts of the world of immense dangers in the chemical industry, at enacting a similar provision. However, at this point I shall certainly withdraw the amendment because the Minister has considered it and has given a reply; but I might look at it again and try later at the next stage. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, Amendment No. 7—
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I raise one question for clarification which arises on Clause 1? We have created here a very long list of new offences and I wonder where this new prosecution service comes in—
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is quite out of order in this. We do not discuss clauses at the Report stage of a Bill. Those came at the Committee stage and I think that my noble friend is out of order in raising this point.
Clause 4 [Powers of officers]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed earlier: col. 117.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 10:
[Printed earlier: col. 117.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are also consequential in the same way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 13:
[Printed earlier: col. 117.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 are consequential in the same way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert—
("(3A) An investigating officer or an enforcement officer may exercise any powers conferred on him for the purposes of this Part of this act—

(a) in relation to a British vessel, British aircraft, British hovercraft or British marine structure, wherever it may be:

(b) in relation to a foreign fishing boat, only if it is within British fishery limits; and

(c) in relation to a foreign vessel other than a fishing boat, or to a foreign aircraft, foreign hovercraft or foreign marine structure, only if—

(i) it is in the United Kingdom or United Kingdom waters: and

137

(ii) the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that something to which an emergency prohibition contained in an emergency order by virtue of paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 1 to this Act relates has been or is being landed from it in the United Kingdom.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14, on which Amendment No. 65 is consequential.
Amendment No. 65: Schedule 2, page 27, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
These amendments are consequential on amendments which we made to Clause 1(6) on 6th December in Committee. As I promised on that occasion, the new subsection has been made consistent with Clause 1(6). The geographical restrictions have also been extended to all the powers of investigating and enforcement officers, not just those set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Requirement of licences for deposit of substances and articles in the sea etc.]:
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 14A:
Page 7, line 24, at end insert—
("and
(ff) for the use of anti-fouling paint containing organo-tin compounds on vessels of less than 25 metres length within United Kingdom waters.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel that I owe an apology to my noble friend the Minister for raising this matter at this stage of the Bill and not in Committee, but I came across it only while researching for Amendment No. 6. It seemed to be of such importance that it should have a part in this Bill, but I do not think it is specifically mentioned anywhere. Perhaps I may take up a little of your Lordships' time. I am not a yachtsman myself, so I did not know about anti-fouling paint, and I must make the assumption that not all noble Lords here today are yachtsmen.
Apparently, there are two sorts of anti-fouling paint, one based on tin and the other on copper; and the one based on copper is not so injurious as that based on tin. Yachtsmen like the one based on tin, because it is a clear anti-fouling paint that can be tinted so that they can colour the bottoms of their yachts any colour they like. Commercial people, with ships such as the Queen Elizabeth II, are apparently quite happy to have the bottoms of their ships painted red, which is the copper based one. Furthermore, small boats—and in this amendment I have taken an arbitrary size of 25 metres—tend to go into the estuaries where oyster beds are to be found and congregate in places where the tidal movement is not very great. They leach away a substance which kills marine algae, barnacles and so on; and I think it is fair to say that it is now proven that they kill oysters, both cultivated and wild ones. In some environments—and I have information from the Dart, Salcombe and Burnham-on-Crouch—they kill prawns, shrimps and even crabs. As this is a Food and Environment Protection Bill it seemed right that this matter of anti-fouling paint should be raised and aired and inserted somewhere in this Bill.
I am not sure whether I have picked the correct place and whether it is right that licensing is the proper
138
way to go about it. I think that at a previous stage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that it was sometimes difficult to find where to put things in this Bill, but I felt that Part II was the correct place. I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that it could go in Part III, probably in Clause 15, where the powers are permissive. If I am wrong in putting it in this Part of the Bill, and if licensing should prove difficult, then perhaps it should go in Part III. But I think that there should be a strong assurance from my noble friend that when the regulations come out this question of anti-fouling paint will be dealt with with speed and given the same sense of urgency that other pesticides are to be given.
I shall not keep your Lordships much longer. I will just say that apparently in France there is a law banning anti-fouling paint on yachts under 25 metres in length. I cannot say in any truth whether or not it works. What I can say is that a study conducted in this country shows that oysters die quicker in estuaries where there is little tide. Moreover—and I think this is very revealing—they die much quicker during the summer months when the yachts are active and not on the land. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to support in principle as a yachtsman what my noble friend has said because I think he is probably right that there are certain sorts of anti-fouling paint which might well indeed be harmful to oysters and the like. I take issue with something he said and that is the suggestion that in estuaries the tides run more slowly than on the open sea. The situation in most estuaries is the reverse. The tide will run but that does not mean to say that some damage might not be done to various forms of marine life. I certainly think that it is an area which needs proper investigation, and to that extent I would support this amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Radnor has explained in speaking to his amendment that this would deal with a problem of major concern to oyster growers. In our personal capacities I think that my noble friend Lord Swinton and I heard my noble friend Lord Radnor from rather different points of view. I am a non-oyster eating sailor and my noble friend Lord Swinton is a non-sailing oyster eater. But having said that, on behalf of the Government I would be reluctant to accept this amendment for two reasons. The first is that when the problem first came to the Government's notice, as indeed it has, it was agreed that the only suitable powers available to Ministers lay in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Radnor that the Government have been considering drafting regulations under that Act and I understand that an announcement may be made soon. In those circumstances, I would ask my noble friend to consider that it would be inappropriate to duplicate any possible action by the Government by taking powers in this Bill.
I think that I owe my noble friend who moved the amendment a little more explanation than that. I think that these paints, although my noble friend has explained the problem that it is argued they create in the marine environment, cannot be said to be

139
deposited in the sea in the terms which are being used in this Bill. The acceptance of the amendment would introduce a completely new concept into Part II and I think that that might be difficult from a drafting point of view. On those two grounds, I hope that my noble friend may feel that it is not necessary to press the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, certainly I am not going to press the amendment, particularly as I hear that action is likely to be taken under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. As for the rest of the arguments, I am a land-lubber and I do not understand about tides; but I was interested to read in my general researches that the oysters, shrimps, and so on, at Brighton are all right, whereas in the estuary of the Dart they are definitely not all right, so much so that certain oyster farmers have had to move their oyster beds elsewhere.
As to the last point my noble friend Lord Belstead raised, I expect he is probably right that it is not depositing. I think the scientific term would be "leaching". Whether to leach is to deposit I do not know, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Licences]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("and the provisions to be included in one").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would ask to take Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 with Amendment No. 15.
Amendment No.16: Page 8, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) A licensing authority—

(a) shall include such provisions in a licence as appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient—

(i) to protect the marine environment, the living resources which it supports and human health; and

(ii) to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea; and

(b) may include in a licence such other provisions as the authority considers appropriate.").

Amendment No. 17: Page 8, leave out lines 25 to 28.
Amendment No. 18: Page 8, line 29, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
Amendment No. 19: Page 8, line 41, at end insert—
("(2A) A licensing authority may require an applicant for a licence to supply such information and permit such examinations and tests as in the opinion of the authority may be necessary or expedient to enable the authority to decide whether a licence should be issued to the applicant and the provisions which any licence that is issued to him ought to contain.").
During the debate in Committee on this clause it was pointed out to me by my noble friend Lord Craigton that there is no express power in the Bill by which the Government may include provisions in a licence. My noble friend was speaking in particular of power to include a provision about "black boxes"—about which the Government have tabled a separate amendment to which we shall come in a moment—but the general point which my noble friend was making was taken. This amendment makes it clear that Ministers have the power to include provisions in a licence, and it sets out the criteria for deciding what those provisions should be. They are the same as those for determining whether or not to issue
140
a licence. I hope that my noble friend Lord Craigton may feel that this is a proper response to what he said on that occasion. If my noble friend does then I hope he will feel that the amendment is a good one. I beg to move.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I should like very much to thank my noble friend for accepting this suggestion of mine. With due humility I should say that it is not my idea but it is the idea of recommendation No. 32 of Part IV of the Conservation and Development Programme of the United Kingdom, which is the United Kingdom's action under the World Conservation Strategy.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 16:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 8, line 31, after ("requiring") insert ("(i)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I move with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 18B, 18C and 19A?
Amendment No. 18B: Page 8, line 32, leave out ("it") and insert ("the licence").
Amendment No. 18C: Page 8, line 34, at end insert—
("(ii) that automatic equipment shall be used for recording such information relating to any operation of deposit, scuttling or incineration mentioned in the licence as the licensing authority may specify;").
Amendment No. 19A: Page 8, line 41, at end insert—
(" (2B) Where automatic recording equipment is used in accordance with a provision included in a licence by virtue of subsection (2)(a) above, any record produced by means of the equipment shall, in any proceedings under this Part of this Act, be evidence, and in Scotland sufficient evidence, of the matters appearing from the record.").
I am grateful once again to my noble friend Lord Craigton for amendments which my noble friend moved in Committee and to which these amendments are intended to be a response. The amendments make it clear that the Government may include provisions in a licence which require the monitoring of licensed operators by way of a black box recorder.
My noble friend's original amendment in Committee referred to equipment for recording the site of the operation. We have widened this to cover any information relating to the operations, since there are other things which will be recorded such as time and rate of discharge. There is also an additional subsection which provides that the records produced will be admissible as evidence in the courts. I hinted in Committee that we might do that.
Once again I am grateful to my noble friend for raising what I think is an important issue, and I hope my noble friend may agree that this is a necessary improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 18B and 18C:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 19:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 19A:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 19A is consequential on Amendment No. 18A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Power to take remedial action]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No 20:
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("take such action as") and insert ("carry out any operation which").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26.
Amendment No. 21: Page 11, line 16, leave out ("an operation") and insert ("anything").
Amendment No. 22: Page 11, line 17, leave out ("carried out") and insert ("done").
Amendment No. 23: Page 11, line 20, leave out ("takes action") and insert ("carries out an operation").
Amendment No. 24: Page 11, line 22, leave out ("taking that action") and insert ("carrying it out").
Amendment No. 25: Page 11, line 23, leave out ("operation") and insert ("act or omission").
Amendment No. 26: Page 11, line 24, leave out ("take the action") and insert ("carry out the operation").
In this amendment and in the related amendments we have sought to express better what we intend in Clause 10, which is that any remedial action would be physical action such as removing articles from the sea bed, as opposed to administrative or legal action. This suggestion arose in consultation with the Water Authorities' Association and I am grateful to the association for its suggestion in this respect, which I believe is an improvement to the text of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 26:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 11 [Powers of officers]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 26A:
Page 11, line 33, leave out ("vehicles, aircraft and hovercraft") and insert ("and vehicles").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 26A, 26B and 26C:
Amendment No. 26B: Page 11, line 35, leave out ("vessels, aircraft, hovercraft and") and insert ("foreign vessels, foreign aircraft, foreign hovercraft and foreign").
Amendment No. 26C: Page 11, line 35, after ("structures") insert ("in the United Kingdom or").
These are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 26B and 26C en bloc:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [Powers of Ministers to test and to charge for testing]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 13, leave out from ("of") to end of line 14 and insert ("using for the purpose of treating oil on the surface of the sea any substance produced for that purpose.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment remedies a small flaw in the drafting of Clause 12. The clause refers to "oil dispersants", which are in fact only one type of the group of substances that we want to be able to test. The amendment widens the reference to include any substances used for treating oil spills. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Control of pesticides etc.]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 13, line 25, at beginning insert—
("(1Z) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect with a view to protecting the health of human beings, creatures and plants, safeguarding the environment and securing the safe, efficient and humane use of pesticides.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 28 and will speak also to Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 52:
Amendment No. 49: Clause 17, page 16, line 24, leave out from second ("for") to end of line 28 and insert ("any of the general purposes of this Part of this Act")
Amendment No. 50: Page 16, line 34, leave out from ("for") to end of line 35 and insert ("any of the general purposes of this Part of this Act")
Amendment No. 52: Page 17, line 27, at end insert—
("(6A) References in this section to the general purposes of this Part of this Act are references to the purposes mentioned in section 15(1Z) above").
As your Lordships will know, the Government have tabled these amendments in response to the view put forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the purpose of Part III should be clearly stated in legislation. I believe that the amendment we have here is a good example of the ability of our parliamentary draftsmen to produce in a few lines all that needs to be said about the general purposes of this part of the Bill.
The amendments to Clause 17 are simple drafting changes designed to make it clear that the enforcement powers provided are exercised for the purposes specified at the beginning of Part III, if your Lordships accept Amendment No. 28. I must point out, with my apologies, that both in line 24 and in line 34 of the succeeding amendments the wording to be amended follows the second "for" and not the first. There is therefore a very small slip in the drafting of those amendments.
I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 28 and the related amendments, which came entirely from the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Walston. I well remember that my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston said in Committee that what we needed was a pointer to what the regulations in Part III will aim to achieve. I remember also my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour commenting that, if we were to have a pointer, it ought to be clear, crisp and comprehensive. I believe that we have a statement here that is along those lines and not one which would be in the nature of a programme for pesticides.
We must bear in mind that we are talking here about the objectives for a forthcoming set of regulations. In that respect, I have borne in mind very much the warning given by my noble friend Lord Renton in Committee that regulations need to be drawn as widely as possible in order to prevent those adversely affected by them from evading them. We have here a statement of purposes which is widely drawn yet very much to the point. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Mackie and Lord Walston, and others of your Lordships who spoke in support of the objective we are trying to achieve with Amendment No. 28 and the related amendments—and express the hope that the two noble Lords particularly responsible for these amendments will agree that they are drafted along the right lines. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister and agree with him that the words drawn up by the draftsmen do fulfil the purpose we had in mind. They will obviously serve as a very straightforward guide to those people who have to draft the regulations, so that the regulations apply strictly for the purpose involved.
At the start of the Second Reading debate, my noble kinsman said that his side of the House hoped that the Government would endeavour to improve the Bill and to approach it in a non-partisan spirit. I must say that the Minister has responded very well to that plea. In fact, his behaviour during the course of this Bill has been a very model of the kind of parliamentary democracy that we on these Benches like to see. He listens to reason, he puts down the impractical, and he thinks again when he should think again. I do not believe that that kind of humane and splendid behaviour will get him very far in this Administration, where tough and unyielding adherence to the wrong path until a precipice looms appears to be the road to the Cabinet. But such behaviour will, without any doubt, elevate him in the estimation of the Members of this House—which is a model for parliamentary democracy—and will do a great deal of good for the citizens of this country, who will benefit from much better legislation because of his attitude. I thank him for that.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, if I may just miss out the commercial plug for a political party, I entirely agree with all that my noble kinsman has said.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister very much for this amendment and for his generosity in giving such credit as there may be for it to some of the views expressed
144
by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie and myself. This amendment certainly fulfils the objectives we had in mind and I am sure it is an improvement to the Bill. I do not wish to pursue the somewhat partisan line which my noble friend has taken in his commendation of the Minister's attitude, although I should very much like to associate myself with what he has said. I should also like to assure the Minister that, if at any time he finds his present seat uncomfortable, then we shall always be happy to find room for him on this side.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to welcome the amendment which the Minister has set down. Some of your Lordships will remember that in Committee I spoke at some length on the subject of soil and the importance of the soil in the context of the environment and the control of pesticides and residues. I want once more to urge the Minister to consider the possibility of specifically including the soil in the designation of the areas which he and his successors should protect under the auspices of this Act. I suggest that if the words,
"and the soil",
were to be inserted after the word "environment" in this amendment, the amendment would be measurably improved.
It has been argued to me that the word "environment" includes the soil. It could equally be argued that the word "creatures" includes human beings. I suggest to your Lordships that the specific inclusion of the soil would be very worth while in the context of this Bill.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke in this sense in Committee, when this amendment was originally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. As short a time ago as yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke to me about this point. I attached the Government's view to the concept that the environment covered the word "soil", even though I understood the reasons which prompted the noble Lord to inject the word "soil" into this amendment. I would go a little further and say that the word "environment" includes not only soil, but also air and water. Therefore, I think we must hesitate before we start off down the road of putting more and more things into what at the moment is both a succinct and a broad statement of objectives for Part III.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that consideration is given to any possible effects of pesticides on the soil when clearances are being considered. Data on residues in soil, the effect on earthworms, other soil invertebrates, soil microorganism and soil ecology generally are taken into account when clearing pesticides under the PSPS and will continue to be taken into account under a statutory approval scheme.
In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I am entirely committed to the seat on which I sit in your Lordships' House and to the side on which I sit. However, from this position I am very glad that the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, feel that Amendment No. 28 is right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Craigton Lord Craigton moved Amendment No. 28A:
Page 13, line 26, after ("importation") insert ("exposure for sale")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I withdrew this amendment in Committee on the promise that it would be considered before the next stage. This, I am sure, the Minister has done. Presumably he and his advisers have considered that the points which caused me to put down the amendment are already covered in the Bill. My first reason for putting down the amendment is that uncleared pesticides are now openly advertised and I do not want this to continue after the Bill becomes law. Hence the phrase "exposure for sale".
In dealing with this point in Committee my noble friend Lord Swinton said that advertising was covered by the Bill, as any person who supplied a prohibited pesticide in order that it might be offered for sale would be committing an offence. Therefore, the offence is to be in the supplying and not in the issuing of the advertisement itself. I suggest that it would be tighter to make it an offence to print and publish such advertisements. I am fortified in that thought by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which in Section 6, states that,
"if any person … publishes or causes to be published any advertisement … conveying that he [has] any of those things [for sale] he shall be guilty of an offence".
That is what I wanted to put in this Bill. Why could it not have been included in that form?
The second reason for the amendment is that under the Bill, as I read it, the stacking of prohibited goods in a warehouse or on the shelves of a shop is permitted if one simply takes the words "for sale". The offence lies in the actual sale when the goods change hands. If I am wrong and the word "sale" covers all these things, does not that interpretation—that is, the Minister's interpretation of "sale"—have grave doubts cast upon it, again by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which in Section 6(1)(a) states, (and it does not simply say "sells") that,
"if any person … sells, offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale … he shall be guilty of an offence"?
That is my case. I am supported by my legal adviser, who tells me that he can find no evidence to uphold any claim by the Minister that "sale" is deemed to include "exposure for sale". Therefore, this is not a policy matter, but a matter of drafting. I hope that the Minister will look again to see whether he can convince himself that there is something in what I am saying, so that this point can be considered before the next stage. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can reply to the concluding words of my noble friend by saying that I accept the principle of what he is saying and that I should like to be free to say that we will table Government amendments to Clauses 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(e) on this subject. I shall not conceal from my noble friend that the reason I cannot accept his amendment absolutely as it stands is that there have been some lengthy consultations on whether the wording would be exactly right. I am still not entirely sure that the wording which my noble friend has chosen, even
146
though apparently there is the precedent in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, would be suitable here. However, I make it absolutely clear that I accept the principle of my noble friend's amendment and, if he will allow me to do so, I shall respond on the Marshalled List at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I said what I said simply in order to fortify him in his arguments with his own advisers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 13, line 26, after ("supply") insert (", storage").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who in Committee drew the Government's attention to the fact that they must take powers to control the storage of pesticides, and this amendment is our response.
I remind the House that the wording of Clause 15(1)(e) empowers Ministers to dispose of pesticides, "imported, sold, supplied or used" in contravention of a prohibition, but not pesticides which might have been manufactured in the United Kingdom, submitted for approval but rejected and then stored on a manufacturer's premises. It is possible that we should not want such a substance stored here. We shall therefore be extending Clause 15(1)(e) to cover storage, as we are doing here to Clause 15(1)(a). I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the amendment and I strongly support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 13, line 33, at end insert—
(" ( ) provide that all individual packages of a pesticide preparation shall be labelled so as to make clear the danger of using any pesticide preparations formulated for use in agriculture for any other purpose.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment replaces Amendment No. 81, which we moved in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, thought not that we were going a little too far, but that it would be impossible to prohibit the misuse of pesticides. Therefore, we have now tabled this amendment which simply requires that the danger of using these preparations for any other purpose than agricultural use should be made clear on all packages.
As I said in Committee, there is a danger. I did something which was slightly dangerous, though I gave the preparation to who I thought was a responsible noble Lord to use. There are occasions when people will lend or give away sprays to gardeners and there are various other ways in which these sprays can be used. I know someone who uses a preparation as an anti-freeze in his car. I hope that this amendment, which requires it to be made clear on the packages how dangerous pesticides can be if used incorrectly, will in some way prevent a nasty accident arising from the stupidity on the part of some people. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I support this amendment. In view of the dangers arising from the misuse of chemicals, the amendment appears to be sensible.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and lordly brothers, if I may say so, for giving me an opportunity to repeat the Government's concern about the non-agricultural use of agricultural pesticides. I think we can concede that they have a very good point. We feel that the best way to deal with this issue is to give the assurance that regulations under the Bill will produce this or a similar provision about the labelling of pesticides, and indeed will also place restrictions on the supply of more toxic pesticides to domestic users. The powers to do these things already exist in Clause 15(1)(c) and I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we intend to implement these powers in the most appropriate way after consultation with the interests involved; that is, with the whole range of non-agricultural users. I hope that with the assurance that we intend to do that very thing under the regulations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I was temperamentally tempted to support the Brothers Mackie on this, but I think that my noble friend has gone an enormously long way to reassure us. But he has brought up the subject of regulations, and I think what I should like to ask him is this: will it be possible for your Lordships' House to have a good look at the regulations before they are published? However good they are, as they are subject to the affirmative procedure, we can either accept them all or chuck them out. We cannot look at them in order to amend and discuss them. I think that it is extremely important that your Lordships' House should have a chance to discuss them before they are in concrete form; in other words, we should have a chance to discuss them before they set.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, assures us that there will be a regulation to cover this point. That of course is the problem with the Bill. Many of the amendments put down have been dealt with in that way. We have been told that the Government will bring in a regulation. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that because of that we should have an opportunity to discuss the regulations when they are ready to see that they cover these points. I in no way suggest that the noble Earl the Minister will not carry this out, but we should have the opportunity just to make sure that such promises are carried out. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No.31:
Page 13, line 34, leave out from ("conditions") to end of line 35 and insert ("on an approval, when or after it is given".).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert—
(" ( ) provide for a temporary or permanent prohibition on the release of a particular pesticide or all pesticides, from an aircraft, either generally or in particular areas;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment again takes up the question of aerial spraying which we
148
debated at some length during the Committee stage on at least two occasions. I have no intention of pressing the amendment. It is tabled simply to get clearly on the record in Hansard what I hope will be a Government assurance that all the things which I suggest in my amendment are already covered by the powers which the Government are taking in the Bill.
At column 1545 on 6th December 1984, during the first day of the Committee stage, just before we broke for the night, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, asked some questions of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to which he got the clear answer, "Yes". But it was late in the evening and I thought that it would be useful to have that assurance on the record again and to extend it very slightly, as my amendment does.
The question that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, asked did not cover the possibility of a permanent ban on aerial spraying. He asked the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether Ministers would be able jointly,
"to refuse permission for the release of the pesticides over an area and for a period specified by them".
He also asked whether Ministers would,
"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".
The answer to that was, "Yes". I very much hope that the answer to my amendment will be that all the things that are included in it are covered by the existing powers.
While I am raising the question of aerial spraying, there is one other question that I should like to put to the noble Earl, if I may. It is about responsibility for aerial spraying in future. Now that it seems clear—and I hope that after this debate it will be entirely clear—that the Government in the shape of the Ministry of Agriculture will have considerable powers over aerial spraying, being able to ban it temporarily or permanently over small or large areas, it seems to me that the joint responsibility which will be exercised by MAFF and the Civil Aviation Authority will give rise to considerable confusion.
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the responsibility will in future be exercised solely by the Ministry of Agriculture, which would seem to me to have some advantages—and I understand that that is a view which might well be shared by his department—or by the CAA. Incidentally, it does not seem to have pursued its oversight of this area of agricultural activity with enormous enthusiasm. For example, there have been no prosecutions in at least three out of the past five years—for which I have figures—and only one or two in the other two years. Now that the Ministry of Agriculture will have fairly wide powers in this field, it would be sensible for it to have responsibility for aerial spraying. I hope that the noble Earl is able to comment on that. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have my name down as supporting this amendment. At the previous stage of the Bill I moved an amendment to control aerial spraying. There is nothing printed in the Bill at the moment to reassure the public about aerial spraying. I have had far more complaints about aerial spraying than about anything else. It is the most difficult aspect of relations with the public that I have come up against in a long period of spraying crops.

149
We had a number of assurances. We were told about the CAA regulations. Indeed, there appears to be little doubt that aerial spraying can be controlled under the present law and certainly could be controlled by regulations. I think that the Minister will tell us that, and it is probably true, but it would do no harm to say so in the Bill. After all, this clause states only, "The Ministers may … by regulations". The amendment then sets these things out. I think that it would be very reassuring to the public at large to know that in the Bill there are powers for the Ministers to regulate or prohibit aerial spraying in some cases. I am fully aware of the benefits of aerial spraying and the need for it in some cases, but the public need to be reassured that Ministers have the power to regulate or stop the bad features of aerial spraying.
Lord Walston: My Lords, during the Second Reading of the Bill I suggested that aerial spraying might be one of the activities that could be entirely banned. Since then I have come to realise that that would not be right. As several of your Lordships have pointed out, there are undoubtedly areas such as bracken infested hillsides where aerial spraying is the only means of controlling weeds or improving grasslands. There are other aspects, such as certain types of potato spraying, where it is probably the only and certainly the most efficacious means. But I go along entirely with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie that aerial spraying can and should be controlled pretty drastically.
I am fully aware, as are other noble Lords, that the powers are there to control aerial spraying and to a certain extent are used. I am fully aware of the fact that there are many sprays which cannot be used for aerial spraying. But for all that, I agree that the amendment spells out in a reasonable manner the general feeling of the country—the users (the farmers) and the public in particular. I should be very happy if the Government could see their way to accepting the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister must be aware of the fear there is that the public will not appreciate what he said in Committee stage to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. When he very kindly met us to discuss various points of the Bill a few days ago, he reiterated what he had stated then and said, "We have the powers and we shall be prepared to use them". We accepted his word then and I think we still accept it. However, I think noble Lords who have spoken are emphasising the general public's fear and the fact that they do not necessarily read Hansard—very few of them, anyway. Although the various bodies concerned, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth and the Ramblers' Association read it, the general public do not do so.
Those bodies have said to us, "If you do not put something into the Bill that will definitely give us an assurance, a regulation of some description along the lines of this amendment, we will test the situation as soon as the Bill is passed". Therefore, although I fully accept the Minister's assurances that he gave to us, I
150
think he should give some consideration to this amendment which, so far as I can see, would do no harm and simply implement his assurances.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, we are in a certain difficulty here because amendments are going to come which will create what in effect could be called double legislation; in other words, which will put into this Bill and emphasise in this Bill powers that the Minister already has. I think the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is suggesting that that particular form of double legislation should happen concerning aerial spraying. It then follows that if you have double legislation for one aspect, you are over-emphasising or making sure that Ministers will carry it out. If at the same time you have a lack of double legislation for another, it could be assumed that people will not take it quite so seriously in spite of totally honourable and absolutely correct undertakings by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
It seems to me that there would be no harm in putting this amendment into the Bill. It seems to me that there is genuine public concern about aerial spraying. It is equally very true, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, says, that there are perfectly proper, correct, environmentally, agriculturally and silviculturally sensible places to use aerial spraying. But if we are going in for a little bit of double legislation, a little bit plus a little bit extra will not do any harm.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Onslow has raised the interesting question of double legislation. Generally speaking, I think that it ought to be avoided for obvious reasons. We do not want repetitive legislation in the statute book. But there are occasions when it is justified. I suggest that the principal occasion when it is justified is in order that legislation on a particular subject may be complete within itself, so that we do not have to make a cross-reference to legislation on some entirely different matter. Having said that, and not having done my homework on this particular amendment, I am not sure whether one should support it or not. However, all that I would say is that if the amendment that is proposed would help us to have this particular piece of legislation more complete, then this amendment or something like it might be worth accepting.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, of course I recognise the concern which has prompted this amendment. But I should repeat that the power which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, seeks with this amendment to provide for the Government is already provided by the general powers to impose conditions on the use of pesticides. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for pointing that out—although my noble friend went on to reach the conclusion that it would do no harm in this particular case to indulge in a bit of double legislation. But for the record, because the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has asked me this question, may I make it absolutely clear that it would be perfectly possible, using the power in Clause 15, to say that certain or all pesticides may not be sprayed from the air or that certain or all pesticides may not be applied from the air in certain cases—and that would be temporary or indeed it could be permanent.

151
Several of your Lordships, of whom the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was really the first, said in essence, "Why, then, do you not put it into the Bill? What is the harm in accepting this amendment?" I assure the House that I do not take pleasure in opposing amendments for the sake of it. But I think that if one starts to write down detailed provisions into enabling legislation, there is a risk of restricting the generality of the other provisions.
The expert on this is my noble friend Lord Renton. My noble friend admitted that he had not had the chance to look at this particular amendment in any detail. I should like to ask my noble friend if he would care to ponder and perhaps give me his advice, possibly afterwards, on the following supposition. Let us take, for example, the situation which we have in the Bill where there is the power to impose conditions on the import, sale, supply, storage and use of pesticides, which enables Ministers to set any conditions necessary to achieve the objectives now set out at the beginning of Part III of the Bill—I repeat, "any conditions".
However, suppose we decide to write into this Bill also a detailed power relating to aerial spraying—and when I say "detailed power", this amendment is specific—then I ask my noble friend Lord Renton whether there would not be a risk that if in the future a Minister wished to set conditions on, for example, how pesticides might be transported by road or rail, the courts might then argue that the Minister did not have the power since, thanks to the aerial spraying clause, it was implied that the legislation was limited to conditions which directly affected the farm and only directly affected the farm? That is a supposition. I put it to your Lordships. I ask my noble friend whether he would perhaps consider it and give me his advice in a moment or two.
However, before my noble friend replies—because I think he is going to take me up on the spot—may I jutst add two more things. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, again put a specific point to me. The noble Lord said, "Would it not be better for the Ministry of Agriculture to be the regulating authority so far as aerial spraying is concerned and not the combination of the CAA and the Ministry of Agriculture?" The situation is of course that the CAA lays down requirements which aerial sprayers must follow, under powers in Article 40 of the Air Navigation Order. A breach of these requirements would render the operator liable to prosecution or other enforcement action. Since 1980, there have been 12 prosecutions. I am taking the prosecutions which have come from both the CAA and the Health and Safety Executive.
I should simply say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on this point, that in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, on, I think it was, Amendment No. 100 in Committee, I indulged in a very lengthy statement of what the Government had been doing. That statement rested really on two main planks. The first was that the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Transport had been looking very seriously at what the rules and regulations were so far as safety from the air was concerned. I quoted the fact that on 31st July last year, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
152
Transport had consulted the chairman of the CAA and had been assured that vigorous enforcement action would be taken. On that occasion the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport also gave in another place a clear warning to aerial sprayers that the situation would be monitored closely over the next few years and if action taken did not prove to be adequate, more stringent measures would be taken. I outlined the way in which the rules had been tightened-up.
The other plank was that under Clause 15 we are, from the point of view of the Ministry of Agriculture, taking such wide powers—which of course had been criticised for their width in other parts of the Bill, but which here I think your Lordships would see to be an advantage—that I believe we can and we will complement what the CAA are doing. We will, from an environmental point of view, complement what the CAA are doing from an aerial spraying point of view. In essence, my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is that the division of responsibilities is right.
I should like to put to the noble Lord that when I replied to my noble friend Lord Craigton, saying that what he wanted was completely covered—I am now saying to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that it is completely covered—my noble friend Lord Craigton replied with one word, "Super". I did not think that I would find myself here on Report having to reply to shots from all sides of the House, saying that, despite the undertaking I gave on that occasion, we should write more into the Bill. I do not think that we should; I really do not. I think that there is a genuine danger. I have tried to spell it out. I hope my noble friend Lord Renton thinks that I am right.
If your Lordships will forgive me saying so, I am a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, questioned the answer that I gave to my noble friend Lord Craigton at the previous stage of the Bill. As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, he was not sure that I meant what I said because it was late in the evening. I think that I am more or less in the same state after dinner as I am, very often, before, in your Lordships' House. To be fair, the noble Lord said that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Craigton did not go to the point as to whether the spraying would be temporary or permanent. I think that I have replied to that.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before the Minister sits down. I have been reading his reply when he dealt previously with this matter. The whole of the reply relates to the powers of the CAA on control of flying and spraying. There is no word about any particular kind of spray. It may be contained in the CAA's regulations, but he said nothing about it. This amendment refers to particular pesticides. There is a big difference.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am sure, with great respect, that the noble Lord will recall, from his experience in the Ministry and throughout his career, that great care is, I understand, taken in giving clearance under the PSPS about the toxicity and the type of the pesticide being cleared for aerial spraying. I think that I am on record as making that very important point. All that falls into the Ministry of Agriculture's side of aerial spraying;

153
namely, what is appropriate to be sprayed from the air when clearances are given.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships to reply to my noble friend, who invited me to do so, may I respectfully say that I am sure he is right. We should be grateful to him for reminding us of the rule of interpretation of the courts. This is that if one thing is expressed, it may be assumed that other things are excluded. The dog Latin that we use in the courts is expressio unius est exclusio alterius. We should be grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of that.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. Indeed, I have had more forceful support for my amendment than I gave it myself in introducing it. I hope that this has shown the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that it had nothing to do with the time of night at which he gave his answer in Committee, but rather that there is continuing, considerable unease about aerial spraying felt on all sides of the House and particularly by the general public. I am sure that this is a matter to which we shall return as the Bill progresses towards the statute book. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving the clear assurance that he did. I hope that he accepts that an assurance in answer to a question is never quite as clear cut as an assurance given in reply to an amendment on the Marshalled List which covers all the issues that I wanted to be sure were covered by existing powers in the Bill.
I am still extremely unhappy—if I may say so, more unhappy than I was before today—about the division of responsibility between the CAA and the Ministry of Agriculture. It does not seem to me to be satisfactory. It is certainly complicated. I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of farmers, people engaged in aerial spraying or those concerned about environmental effects. I hope that it is an issue to which the Government will be able to give further attention in the coming weeks and months, particularly before the regulations are drawn up.
5.45 p.m.
I was interested in the off-the-cuff reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the question that he was asked. I should like to take a more considered stance on whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is right about the danger of being specific in one area, particularly given the further amendments we shall be considering in which we are being specfiic about other issues. I should like to think about that again and perhaps look at the Bill after Report stage. I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord for his clear indication that all these powers are already provided for in Clause 15. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 13, line 36, leave out ("any such") and insert ("an").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No 34.
Amendment No. 34: Page 14, line 12, leave out ("crops") and insert ("any crop").
Both are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 14, line 10, at end insert—
(" (ff) provide for the availability to the public, subject to any condition that the Ministers consider appropriate, of information supplied for the purposes of this section;").
The noble Lord said: I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 41A.
Amendment No. 41A: Page 14, line 26, at end insert—
(" (2A) In determining any provision to be made by virtue of subsection (1)(ff) above the Ministers shall have regard to the interests of persons supplying information to which that provision would relate.").
Your Lordships will recall that we discussed at some length in Committee the treatment which the Government would give to the information provided to them by companies seeking approval for new pesticides. At the time I gave an undertaking in three parts; first, that there would he provisions on disclosure in the regulations; secondly, that such provision would be drafted as the result of a detailed consultation; and thirdly, that the Government would continue to develop their existing policies on information in this field.
I recall that, in addition to the Front Bench opposite and the Liberal Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Walston and Lord Melchett, my noble friends Lord Peel and Lord Onslow and I think also my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Radnor were among many of your Lordships who spoke on this amendment. It was discussed quite late in the evening. All your Lordships attached considerable importance to access to test data when pesticides are being cleared. The response to the views expressed by your Lordships is Amendments Nos. 33A and 41A, which the Government have put down.
Those amendments are intended to indicate that there will be provisions on disclosure in the regulations, as I said in Committee. The exact extent of the disclosure and the detailed practical arrangements we must of course consider in the light of consultation with interested parties. But, if your Lordships agree to these amendments, there will be in the Bill explicitly the power to make information available. But the main objectives in exercising the discretion that the power gives will be, on the one hand, the interests of the public and, on the other, the essential commercial interests which are involved.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady Birk, have a specific amendment, Amendment No. 41B, about the public interest in all this.
Amendment No. 41B [as an amendment to Amendment No. 41A]: Line 3, at end insert ("public interest and the").
If the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will forgive me, I should like to refer briefly to the amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Baronesses about the importance of all this from the public interest point of view. The Government amendment that I am moving has been drafted to achieve the same objectives by including the words,
"subject to any condition that the Ministers consider appropriate".

155
Those words are included on the grounds, I am advised, that Ministers will always act in the public interest. In discharging that responsibility we will need to discuss with all those who are interested what information should be made available, where and when, and to whom, and over what time scales.
With regard to Amendment No. 41A, to which I am also speaking, we shall also obviously need to have some discussions. In coming to conclusions we shall need to take account of progress being made by the new working party on confidentiality of environmental data, announced by the Government in their response to the tenth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution before Christmas. These are the two amendments which are our response to the important debate we had at Committee stage on information on test data. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 41B at the same time as remarking on the other two amendments. First of all, may I say how very pleased we on these Benches are that the Minister has come so far in meeting us?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, may I first put the Question? The Question is that Amendments Nos. 33 and 33A be agreed to?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon; I was quite carried away by the importance of the subject.
First of all, I should like to say how much we welcome this amendment by the Government, but there are one or two questions which I am afraid I must ask before I come on to Amendment No. 41B. On No. 33A, the Minister used the phrase, "on the basis of information supplied". What information does he refer to? Is it only information supplied by the applicant? Is it information from scientific sources which might be on the Ministry's files? Or is it information from any other source which might have been given to the Minister as advice; are these pieces of information to be available, or is it simply the information referring to the application, the scientific data?
Turning to Amendment No. 41A, I am very glad to hear that Ministers always act in the public interest. Nevertheless, we should like to move No. 41B because we feel it should be written in. The Minister was kind enough to say, in a letter to my noble friend Lord John-Mackie, that the amendment would take account both of the public interest and of the commercial interest of the onus of information; but I think many of your Lordships will agree that it is probably better if the words are actually written in.
I should like to quote from a proposed Bill on freedom of information which is being discussed by the Freedom of Information Campaign. I shall not quote from it at length, but it includes safeguards in its request for information. One is that any information which would impair the defence or security of the country should not be disclosed and another is that any information which would prejudice the enforcement of any statutory requirement by giving advance notice of any proposed inspection or measurement should not be disclosed. I give these simply as an
156
example of the kinds of interest that should be protected as well as commercial interests. I hope the Minister will agree that the public interest should be written in, and I look forward to hearing his reply on the questions about the quality and the range of information which can be supplied.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, should very much like to welcome the Minister's attitude on this very important question of the availability of information. It certainly is a tremendous step forward and one which will be welcomed in a great many circles. I should like to ask a couple of technical questions. Is it not a fact that any product which is used here will almost certainly be used in the United States? There, information with regard to the tests is available on application. Is it not a fact also that any reasonably organised or reasonably competent chemical company can crack a formula fairly quickly once it gets hold of the product, and that it is fairly straightforward? I wholly and completely agree that the commercial interests should be safeguarded, but they should be safeguarded by international patent laws which are adhered to. Obviously the Minister has studied the matter, and I should be very grateful if he can tell me what are the practical difficulties.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I support these two amendments, and also the third amendment, although it may not be entirely necessary. I accept that this is a fearfully complicated problem. On the one hand, we all of us, I am sure—certainly I do—wish to see an extension of freedom of information to enable those who are interested to satisfy themselves that nothing is being hidden, that there is no dirty business going on underneath the carpet. On the other hand, following on that particular train of thought, I should like to express my own personal complete confidence in those distinguished scientists who are concerned with a lot of this work—the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Scientific Subcommittee. I hope that those who do this work—and do it admirably—will not feel that any concession that is made to freedom of information is in any way casting doubts upon their own personal integrity or scientific ability. I think that that should be made very clear.
There is also a further point, following on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. As I understand it, the freedom of information aspect of this is not concerned so much with the protection of patents of the actual methods of making these things. Quite apart from anything else, there are a certain number of countries which do not adhere to the international agreements on patents, and they are perfectly free to take the formulas and make them in contravention of those international agreements. As I understand it, it concerns far more the toxicity tests, which themselves are very lengthy and extremely expensive. The cost of carrying them out adequately may run into millions of pounds.
It would be perfectly possible, if there were complete freedom of information concerning these toxicity tests, that they could be obtained by some of the manufacturers in countries such as Korea, Taiwan or Bulgaria, which can make these things but have not themselves carried out the toxicity tests. They could, if

157
they wished to export to some third country which required to have knowledge about the toxicity tests, and if there were complete freedom of information, pick up all the relevant data concerning the toxicity tests, present them to the government of the other country and say, "This is perfectly safe. It has passed the toxicity tests; here are the tests", without necessarily saying whether they had done them or whether some other people had done them. That, as I understand it, is the main objection to complete and unfettered freedom-of information.
It is very hard to get round those conflicting points of view, but I think that these amendments between them do so in the best possible way. I do not say it is an ideal way but it is certainly as good a way as I think human ingenuity can for the moment work out. Therefore it is quite right to say that the public interest must be taken into account, and also the private interest of those particularly concerned.
There is one further point on which the Minister can perhaps give us rather more information. I understand that the United States—this was mentioned at Committee stage—has freedom of information legislation which enables people to look at all these things which we have been discussing. I understand also—and here I should be most grateful to the Minister for information, if he has knowledge of this—that it is still in the experimental stage. It has not been going on for very long, and so far the results of it have not been properly assessed. I believe it would be misleading for us to point to the United States and say, "They have this. If they are satisfied with it, why can't we have it?". I should be most grateful if the Minister could enlighten the House on that matter.
6 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I should briefly like to say how delighted I am that the Minister has seen fit to incorporate this clause in the Bill. However, having listened to previous amendments being discussed, I feel that one has to ask oneself the question: when should one be specific or not specific? I spoke to my noble friend Lord Renton beforehand and he advised me—and I am sure that he is right—that an amendment such as this within an enabling Bill should be as wide as possible. But my noble friend the Minister quite recently made the point that it would be appropriate for certain aspects of amendments to be tightened up. So when it is right to be specific and when it is not right is something that I do not really know.
However, having said that, I am grateful to my noble friend for having incorporated this incredibly important amendment into the Bill, although I must confess that personally speaking I do feel that perhaps it would have benefited from some of the specific points that were incorporated into other amendments—one to which I put my name in Committee and the other which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am concerned that the phrase, "subject to any condition" is a fairly wide one. I shall therefore be watching very carefuly what goes into the regulations, with that particular point in mind.
I should like to ask my noble friend two specific questions on this amendment. First, how does he see
158
this important information being made available to the general public? Secondly, is it going to be retrospective? If it is not, then I hope that it will, therefore, be written into the regulations in very clear terms. Having asked those two questions, I should like to reiterate that I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for having incorporated this very important amendment into the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is really saying that my noble friend should be a Social Democrat. I was always brought up to take the view that it was the Conservatives who had no principles and that they just did things because they happened to be right. I think that my noble friend has shown this to be absolutely how we should do it. One really must say, "I thank you very much indeed for showing flexibility in mind and intelligence"—perfectly normal standard Conservative habits, but it is nice to recognise them occasionally.
It would seem to me that it is quite worthwhile going into the experiences of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 1970. That Act has been going now for 15 years and Congress is about to begin a new inquiry into it. Indeed, the pieces of information which I have obtained are not something that I have just invented—I have obtained them from the extremely helpful American Agricultural Attaché here, because I took the trouble to ask him about the matter.
That brings me to one further point. The regulations will be indescribably complicated on this particular subject to take up the correct balance, as shown by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, between what is absolutely right for people to know as regards test data, toxicity, etc, and the equally correct and vital protection of high technology, high earning companies which have benefited British agriculture and the British general standard of living quite considerably. There are two pillars which have to be protected. Therefore, it seems very important that we should get a chance to look at and discuss the regulations before they are cast in pillars of stone.
The other matter that I wanted to raise was this. Shall we take account of the American experience, and will my noble friend ask our agricultural attaché in the United States to give him reports on how it has worked so that we can use that experience for our own benefit?
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome very much the amendments which the Government have put down on this subject. Rather than reiterate the points that have already been made, I should like to say a word about Amendment No. 41B which my noble friends on the Front Bench have put down and to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, addressed himself in moving this amendment.
I cannot help wondering who had the nerve to advise the noble Lord that all Ministers always act in the public interest. Any of us who have served in any government of any party would be hard pressed to suggest that every Minister in that Government had always acted in the public interest, without getting a laugh or something worse in reply.

159
But in looking at Amendment No. 33A and the wording that it contains, I can see that, where Ministers consider something appropriate, they are deemed to be considering something appropriate which is also in the public interest and not acting against it. That does not seem to me to be the same argument as the one addressed by my noble friends' amendment, which is an amendment to the words in Amendment No. 41A.
As I see it, Amendment No. 41A is telling Ministers to what they should address their minds, in particular when considering what information to release under the provisions of Amendment No. 33A. I think it undesirable that Ministers should only have their minds directed, as they do at the moment in Amendment No. 41A, to the interests of the person supplying the information. Of course it is right that their minds should be directed to that matter; but surely it is also right that at that moment in the Act, as it will be, Ministers' minds should also be directed to the public interest in having the information made available? That, as I understand it, is what my noble friends' amendment would do.
It might be better if my noble friends' amendment said—and this is a drafting point—"public interest in the information" rather than just "public interest". But it seems to me that there is a balance to be struck in releasing information—a balance between the public interest in having that information available and the commercial interests of those who supplied it. It is to those two matters which Ministers ought to have their minds directed in Amendment No. 41A. Indeed, in the letter which the Minister kindly sent a number of us, he said that Ministers would take account of both those factors.
Therefore, I do think that there is real merit in Amendment No. 41B and I hope, when we get to it, that the noble Lord, having thought about it, will be disposed to accept either that amendment or something very like it. It is vitally important that when Ministers come to decide what information to release, they should not be able to say that the overriding factor they have to consider is the interests of those who provided the information. The factor that they should have to consider is the balance of interest between that and the public interest in having that information made available to the public.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I, too, am particularly glad to see this amendment being brought forward. I think that it is reasonable to take the view that most farmers are not bad guys. How can they be expected to respect the interests of the environment, and, indeed, of their neighbours, if they do not know as fully as possible the facts about the products which they are using? Therefore, I believe that adequate information will probably be even more important than the more restrictive aspects of this Act. I was for that reason particularly pleased to see this amendment.
However, I do not personally envy the Minister the task of reconciling the interests expressed in Amendments Nos. 33A and 41A. I ask whether he could give us a commitment that he will do everything possible to maximise the amount of information—
160
information relevant to the objects of this part of the Bill—which will be made available to farmers and other users?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have mentioned many of your Lordships who took part in the debate on this subject in Committee, and once again we have had a considerable debate at the Report stage. First, let me say thank you to your Lordships for the welcome—sometimes a qualified welcome—that all of your Lordships have been good enough to give to the fact that the Government have responded to what your Lordships have said on this difficult subject by coming forward with an amendment which, if agreed to, will put on the face of the Bill a provision as regards divulging information so far as data on pesticides are concerned.
The first question, from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked in essence what type of information would be supplied. If I may use the expression, I do not think that there is any secret about this. Through the drafting of this amendment, we intend that the information will be for the purposes of Clause 15. It is from Clause 15(5) that the sort of information which would be revealed will be drawn.
In speaking on behalf of the Government, I think that I have always made it clear that, if we brought forward an amendment of this kind—which we have now done—we should be talking about test data. But exactly how this would be done would be subject to discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, encouraged me to be as forthcoming as possible. I must say to the noble Lord that, if this is written into the Bill, obviously we must discuss it very seriously with the interests concerned—but discuss it in the context of having a provision relating to this on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked what was the difficulty; he asked why we have to agonise over what sort of information might be divulged; he asked why it cannot be done as it is done in the United States. With respect, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, gave the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, the answer. I am no expert on the situation in the United States and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for speaking about this for a second time, having taken the trouble to get in touch with the American Embassy in this country. My information is that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is absolutely right on the ground that the system in the United States is comparatively new. My understanding is not the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. The noble Lord said that more or less anyone can obtain the information on the other side of the Atlantic. My understanding is that there are restrictions on commercial competitors and presumably—and I say "presumably" because it would obviously be a matter for the courts, and indeed for the courts in another country—if the commercial competitor simply obtains information from elsewhere, the courts would take this very seriously into account. So, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, it is not as straightforward in the United States as I perhaps thought when I listened to the noble Lord and, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, it is the case that the system in the United States is in its very early stages.

161
Perhaps I may just add a few words on the question of commercial confidentiality. The concept which we have in Amendment No. 33A of using the word "appropriate" is not included only because of the public interest. There will be some data, particularly on processes and formulations, which will be of little public interest in the safety field but which will be of great value as trade secrets. All regulatory authorities exclude such data from disclosure and we would do the same. Moreover, the safety data themselves have commercial value as in some cases they represent many years' research by the originating company. Even such of it as is disclosed must, we believe, be made available under conditions which protect the investment in testing made by that company. This is essential if we are to establish conditions which encourage the continued development of new and more effective products—a process in which the United Kingdom can and should have a fair share of the action.
6.15 p.m.
In addition, my noble friend Lord Peel asked me two specific questions. First, my noble friend asked how information would be made available to the public; secondly, he asked whether the publication provision would be retrospective. My noble friend has taken a close interest in this particular part of the Bill and perhaps I may tell him that both questions have to be discussed with all the interests concerned before the regulations can be made. I do not think that there is any difficulty about the first question, but we should have to work out the details. On the second question, my noble friend will know very well the Government's distaste for retrospective legislation, but at the same time on the face of this Bill there is nothing which says that the publication provision could not be retrospective.
My noble friend Lord Onslow, who, equally, has taken a very close interest in this part of the Bill, asked me for the second time the direct question as to whether the regulations, which he said will be complicated, could be laid in draft. I endeavoured to refer to this particular matter during the Second Reading debate on the Bill, when I made a rather oblique reference to the other place. I meant that, because we are not under such constraints of time in your Lordships' House (although we certainly all have enough to do), it is very much easier to be able to respond to a question of this kind in your Lordships' House and to say, "Yes, indeed, arrangements will be made to ensure that regulations can be laid in draft and that, through the usual channels, arrangements can be made for a debate". I cannot conceivably give an answer of that kind as regards another place. I hope that my noble friend will not think that it is an unsatisfactory answer when I say—and I think that my noble friend has made an important suggestion—that I shall certainly draw his suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister, and that I hope a little later on to be able to give him a more satisfactory answer.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend moves on, subsection (3) of the clause says:
162
"Regulations shall be made by statutory instrument and no regulations shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that I had better take advice on that particular point. My noble friend Lord Renton is a very wise adviser. Just at the moment his advice has put me in a certain difficulty. As this is a somewhat generic question which my noble friend Lord Onslow has asked about the laying of regulations, perhaps I may have a moment or two and try to reply to it when I speak to a succeeding amendment.
I should like to make one last point and it is important that I should, because in a very short time we shall come to the amendment in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady Birk—Amendment No. 41B, to write the words "public interest" into the Bill. I should like to make it clear beyond peradventure that, in moving this amendment on freedom of information, we have the public interest in mind. The advice of parliamentary counsel to me is that, by saying that this would be subject to any condition that Ministers consider appropriate—and despite the joke that we have made about Ministers acting in the public interest—in parliamentary language that would mean that the public interest was taken into account. We can debate this matter again in a few minutes when we deal with the amendment of the noble Baronesses, but I thought that I would make that comment in order to be absolutely clear.
Perhaps I may return to where I began. If your Lordships agree to this amendment, it will mean that we shall have put on the face of the Bill a provision about making information available. I know it means that we shall need to have consultations and I know that it is hedged by two particular provisos, one being the public interest and the other being the interests of the suppliers. But I give noble Lords an assurance that we shall pursue this so far as the regulations are concerned. I hope that your Lordships will accept that as being the good intention of the Government in this matter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him whether we are to discuss Amendment No. 41B separately, because I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke to it along with the other amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and simply say that this is a matter for the noble Baronesses to decide. As help has arrived from another quarter, perhaps I may reply to my noble friend Lord Renton. The answer to the reference to regulations being laid in draft in the Bill is that regulations are draft regulations until they receive the approval of Parliament. The reference to draft regulations is standard, and not a special provision of this Bill.
If we feel that we can go down that road it is possible that we might be able to send some form of consultation document to all noble Lords who are interested, containing full details of proposals about the making of the regulations. But this is exactly the sort of thing that my right honourable friend needs to think about, because it affects both Houses.

163
I should like to rest on the fact that in raising the question of laying the regulations in draft and having a discussion on them, my noble friend Lord Onslow has made an important point, and one that I should like to take away and discuss with my right honourable friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 34: [Printed earlier: col. 154.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 14, line 12, after ("any crop") insert ("primary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 36 and Amendment No. 57.
Amendment No. 36: Page 14, line 12, after ("food") insert ("products").
Amendment No. 57: Page 21, line 41, at end insert—
(" "primary food products" includes all fresh food suitable for human consumption and processed food products after the first stage of processing;")
I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the care he has taken to follow up his promise on my Amendment No. 63 at Committee stage to look carefully at what I had to say. He has written to me at some length. I am particularly grateful that he took the trouble to have copies sent to me at my snowbound country address.
However, notwithstanding this exchange of correspondence I believe that there is some argument for the amendments which I am proposing now. In his letter my noble friend makes it clear that powers for regulations are intentionally wide in view of the importance of protecting the public in relation to pesticides, and so as to enable unforeseen circumstances to be tackled in the future. My noble friend went on to say that these potential extra powers were balanced by the affirmative procedure for regulations, to which my noble friend Lord Renton had recently drawn our attention.
In addition my noble friend tells me—and this is welcome news—that the present intentions for regulations would probably be initially limited to the lines proposed by my present amendments. At least that is the way I read it. This is most helpful, but my noble friend persists that the Government must have powers to take regulations so far as is ever necessary in the food processing chain even if manufacturers do not have direct control over pesticides several stages back in that chain. My noble friend quotes examples of residues over which manufacturers do not have direct control. He mentions lead, arsenic, fluoride, and mineral hydrocarbons.
I should like to take issue with my noble friend on the reference to those contaminants and in making comparison between them and pesticide residues. Contaminants are inherently uncontrollable at source, and indeed in the case of lead may, for food products, be derived from the cans in which certain food is packaged.
Pesticide residues on the other hand are directly related to the method and level of application, and are therefore amenable to upstream controls. Furthermore, my noble friend is comparing just four contaminants whose presence, even after second stage processing, can be determined by relatively easy analysis with a large number of pesticides whose presence is much more difficult to determine.
I should add that the trade associations with which I have been associated, and which have the problem of some products direct from the farm gate, have for some years taken special steps to establish their own policies for checking residues. For example, the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance, whose members import cocoa from tropical countries, have had a residues working party to supervise the quality of imports for over 10 years. Such countries do not have the resources or the skills to test samples. Accordingly companies dealing with raw cocoa test samples of every imported batch and blend them accordingly to ensure that the resultant residues balance is within acceptable limits.
This leads me to another point made by my noble friend, that the Government must take power to protect the public from doubtful food imports. This must cover the final stage of manufacture for relevant foods. This I would agree to in principle wholeheartedly. Indeed, the precautions taken by the members of the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance, to which I have referred, show how those manufacturers voluntarily take their own measures to protect the public.
Furthermore, the need for such protection is recognised in the EEC Commission's proposals for directives controlling residues in cereals and products of animal origin. I would, however, suggest that the question of imported foods is a distinct one and demands a separate approach from that to which I referred earlier and which my amendment is particularly designed to cover.
If it is necessary to have a further amendment which deals differently with imported foods maybe that can be done, but in my amendments I am dealing in the main with the question of tackling foods produced in this country. Therefore, I feel that perhaps my noble friend might think that there is rather more to my amendment than he thought in the first place.
As your Lordships will have noted I have altered its terminology to try to accommodate the situation as I saw it at the end of the Committee stage, and I would hope that my noble friend might be able, if not to accept this amendment, to agree to consider for a later stage something which might replace it, and possibly consider the question of imported foods separately. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, I should point out that, in view of the last amendment which was carried, "any crop" takes the place of "crops".
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in correspondence my noble friend Lord Mottistone told me—and he has repeated it in his speech on this amendment—that the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance, who have the task of ensuring the quality of cocoa imported

165
from third countries, have had a residues working party for over 10 years monitoring the process of testing and blending batches. My noble friend, who has done so much work for the industry, modestly said in his letter that it was the industry which had done much to ensure quality standards, especially where it dealt directly with raw materials. My noble friend gave me one or two other examples.
I accept of course what my noble friend says, but the Government really have an overriding concern in this area which is that we should be able to control the presence of pesticides in food at whatever stage in the food chain they are applied. I shall certainly look closely at what my noble friend said at the beginning of his speech about certain substances which I had referred to in correspondence, and to which my noble friend referred in his words.
6.30 p.m.
May I say on my side that it is quite wrong to suppose that pesticides in the cereal sector are applied only in the field? It is not something which my noble friend has said, but is a conclusion to which anybody might come in listening to this exchange of views. In fact pesticides are widely and increasingly used to control pests in stores and, to a degree, in food processing premises. It is quite conceivable that there could appear in packeted breakfast cereals, in bread or in biscuits, residues which were not present at an earlier stage. This is something which I do not think we should say we are simply not able to control.
The advantages of being able to set residue limits in processed foods, in particular in processed foods that constitute staple items of diet, such as bread, have been appreciated in many countries. There are, for example, internationally accepted maximum residue limits for certain pesticides in white and wholemeal bread. I do not pretend that the main issue is other than in the primary product or in its early stages of processing, but we must surely not exclude the possibility of taking action at a later stage if that were to be proved necessary.
I take my noble friend's point that if we want to deal with imports we could perhaps arrange that in a separate amendment. Indeed I am certain we should, because foreign suppliers sometimes make use of raw materials which we should not on residue grounds find acceptable in the United Kingdom. But I rest my case on what I have already said. I think that the question of imports is just an added issue.
I give an assurance that any use of the power of this Bill will be subject to scrutiny under the affirmative resolution procedure and the full public consultation which I have spoken about so many times. I am sorry I am disagreeing with my noble friend. I will read very closely what my noble friend has said, but there is a real difficulty in trying to go down the road which my noble friend wants, which would result in blocking off any power to ensure the safety of the public by having a power to control residues at any stage in the food chain. That is something that we want to hesitate long and seriously over. The Government do not feel that they can take that course.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I find it disappointing that my noble friend has not changed his approach, but on the other hand I can take encouragement from his courteous undertaking to look with care at what I have endeavoured to say. Perhaps I may make one final point and that is that the difficulty is compounded, and therefore the cost of doing the testing is compounded, the further one gets away from the farm gate. I trust that that particular aspect of the matter will be borne in mind by my noble friend in whatever regulations in this area he will put together. But at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 23, at end insert—
("and
( ) specify the maximum degree of volatility of any pesticide formulation.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope we need not to be too long on this amendment which we debated at the Committee stage, though we have altered one word to take in the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about maximum volatility. We have therefore included the word "maximum".
When we debated this in Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, at first seemed encouraging about the inclusion of volatility and the factors to be considered before granting approval. But as the debate progressed some doubt appeared to creep in. Volatility tests are available and are used in the United States. It seems that levels can be ascertained and defined for control purposes. We had what one might almost describe as a volatile discussion on whether or not it was to be a factor to be considered. The answers from the Minister were not clear by the end of the discussion. I wonder whether he has had time to think about it and whether he can now reassure us on this point.
There was also the question of the effect of vapour drift on indigenous broad-leaved plants and the question of compensation for damaged nature reserves, which the Minister seemed to indicate at one point might be an acceptable consideration. As we understood it at the end of the debate, this was to be the subject of a letter to my noble friend Lord Melchett from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. But I understand from my noble friend that up to a few minutes ago he has not had the letter.
I therefore move this amendment in the hope that we may clear up these few obscure points and that it will not be necessary for us to pursue it any further.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment as I did at the Committee stage. I am sorry for not chasing up the noble Lord for the letter I was expecting from him, but I hope he will appreciate that a number of items have arrived from the Government rather late in the day for this Report stage. I make no complaint about that because many of these have been welcome amendments from the Government, but it has made it difficult to check what answers have been received from the Government and what amendments the Government are to put down for Report stage.

167
The problem of volatility is one that affects a number of agricultural interests particularly. That was stressed at the Committee stage, but it is also a problem that affects a number of native flowering plants. My concern is that, while the Ministry have now accepted—and have taken considerable steps to warn users of formulations likely to be volatile—the consequences for other agricultural crops, particularly broad-leaved crops, they have not yet taken on board the amount of potential and actual damage caused by pesticides which are volatilised to nature conservation interests—the interests of those concerned with wild plants, hedgerows, banks and so on in the countryside. I hope that that is a point which the noble Lord has had time since the Committee stage to take on board and will now be able to say something about.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for raising this issue again. It gives me the opportunity to tell the House what I thought I had written to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about after the Committee stage of the Bill. But, if I did not put pen to paper or if the letter has gone astray, I offer my apologies to the noble Lord, I will look into that. I am extremely sorry.
The object of the amendment is obviously to protect the environment and therefore we must take it seriously. I should like to explain that the volatilisation of an active ingredient following the application of a pesticide product is dependent on many factors, including vapour pressure, the co-formulant, interactions and the meteorological and atmospheric conditions prevailing. Nevertheless I assure your Lordships that the Pesticide Safety Precautions Scheme already provides for notifiers to give details of the volatility of the active ingredient of a pesticide and to provide information on the type of vegetation susceptible to the product.
I should say one thing which is important. It has been suggested again that the PSPS does not take into account anything other than the target crop. That is not the situation. We ask for volatility of products because we can then tell how far the product is likely to fly under certain conditions and what the effect will be on the surrounding vegetation. An integral part of the registration procedure involves an evaluation of the hazards of spray drift known to be associated with the proposed method of application. The restrictions imposed on aerial application of certain active herbicides, synthetic pyrethroids and other things are the result of such evaluations.
Consideration may be given also to the likelihood of problems arising from volatilisation when such a potential is identified—for instance, a high level or wide range of biological activity, high vapour pressure, proposed use pattern and so on—and appropriate restrictions placed upon users. As we will propose to use the legislation, approvals would be refused, revoked or granted only on strict conditions and if information presented in support of an application for approval or information already to hand suggested a risk of volatilisation likely to have a deterimental effect on the environment. The powers to do this are already in Clause 15.
The only thing that I would add is that I think I wrote to the noble Lord on the 18th January. It was a
168
late letter. I am sorry that I did not write before and I am more than sorry that because of the date on which I wrote the noble Lord had not already received it. I am also sorry that I am being rather unforthcoming and not accepting the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I think that in essence the Minister has reassured us that volatility is one of the applied tests and is a recognised hazard which they take into account. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 14, line 24, at end insert ("and "approval" means approval under regulations").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) In exercising their powers under subsection (1) above the Ministers shall make such arrangements as may be appropriate to ensure the rapid clearance of all applications for approval for the use of safe pesticides similar to those previously approved in accordance with regulations made under this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I warned my noble friend Lord Belstead in Committee (in col. 197) that I might have to ask him some more questions on the problem of deciding what chemicals should or should not be given rapid clearance. I now table this amendment which asks the Government to give rapid clearance to all similar chemicals be they manufactured by the same company or not.
I was interested to read a report in Big Farm Weekly last week which stated that the British Agrochemicals Association is prepared to accept rapid clearance for any chemical in which the active ingredients are the same even though the formulation may be different and the producing company different. This is slightly different from the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Belstead in Committee who stated that the company would have to be the same.
In the same article it was stated that clearance should take less than seven days and that no charge would be made although when the Bill becomes law the Government propose a modest charge. This modest charge, according to the article, will be modest enough to allow one farmer to collect one vanload of chemicals. I am therefore asking my noble friend whether this is a correct report, in which case I feel that he can probably accept my amendment. I know that my noble friend has no wish at all to restrict competitive imports but the mere fact that the Government have introduced through this Bill statutory regulations for agrochemicals will automatically make it easier to prevent or obstruct or make more difficult the importation of similar chemicals. Therefore, I believe that the Government must correct this by putting positive words in the Bill to encourage such similar imports. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, may I raise one question with the Minister? While having some sympathy as a

169
farmer with the objective which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and others have in moving this amendment, I am worried about the use of the word "similar" because that seems to me to go very wide indeed. I accept the argument that the import of chemicals which in every important respect are the same as a chemical formulation which has already been cleared should be able to be done quickly and cheaply. But that is not the same, it seems to me, as saying that something which is similar should be given quick and cheap clearance. I think that something which is similar may easily be different enough to be very dangerous to the operator and to the farmer importing the chemical or whatever. I wonder if the Minister agrees with my interpretation of that particular word in the amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should like briefly to say that I support this amendment simply because it is something which seems to be on the side of the farmer and to help him to be more competitive in his purchasing. Naturally, the bias both in Committee and on Report has been on looking at the environment. I think that this amendment produces no troubles as far as the environment is concerned. If we did not have this rapid clearance, it would be against the farmer and I would think that that would be a great pity. I think that at times the farmer's efficiency and his power to make money out of his land must be taken notice of.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley. My noble friend the Minister expressed very satisfactory intentions about imports of chemicals. That is not in doubt at all. I know that he does not wish to restrict imports unreasonably. However, the industry still remains anxious about similar products, hence the amendment, which is largely to ascertain the Government's intention regarding rapidity of clearance for other imported safe pesticides.
When we use the word "similar" I understand that it is intended to refer to pesticides with the same active ingredient but different formulation or adjuvant of a kind where difference in formulation is known not to have any bearing on safety. There are a good many of these in practice. While clearance presumably may take a little longer in these cases than identicals from the same manfacturer, I hope that nevertheless it will be rapid.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of my noble friends Lord Stanley, Lord Radnor and Lord Monk Bretton, that pesticide users should have access in a free market to all the safe and effective products that they need. It was to try to help to fulfil that need so far as farmers are concerned that we introduced a procedure for the rapid clearance of identical imports only a few weeks ago. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is right. The whole argument here turns on the use of the word "similar" in the amendment.
May I take up a minute or two of your Lordships' time by putting on record the meaning of the word "identical" when we introduced the procedure for the
170
rapid clearance of identical imports. We agreed with the European Commission, before bringing in that rapid clearance procedure, that identical imports could come in and be cleared very rapidly. The definition of "identical", agreed with the European Commission and in principle with other organisations such as the National Farmers' Union and the British Agrochemicals Association, was as follows.
First, in order to be identical, the active ingredient or ingredients are produced either by the same undertaking as the material in the currently registered product or by an associated undertaking and are the same, within the variations accepted by the competent United Kingdom authority at the time of the original notification. Secondly, "identical" had to rest on the fact that the formulations of each of the products are produced either by the same or any associated undertaking and the differences, if any, in the formulations of each as regards the nature, quality and quantity of the components have no material effect on safety. The important point of that agreement is that, to all intents and purposes, the active ingredients and the formulations of both products must be the same, if we are to be confident that the imported product is as safe in use as the product already cleared for use in the United Kingdom.
However, we recognise that formulations can vary slightly from time to time. A dye might be slightly different, or a different wetter might be used, and the definition of "identical" which I have just read out is sufficiently flexible for such variations to be ignored, so long as they do not affect the safety of the product. But my noble friends' amendment seeks to get a rapid clearance system for pesticides which are only similar—a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has put his finger—and this really presents a difficulty. Two products are similar when only the active ingredients of each are the same, but formulations differ and differences in formulations are not matters of detail, as might be thought, but may have a significant effect on the safety in use of the product. Each formulation requires separate evaluation by the United Kingdom's expert authorities and could not possibly be cleared via the simple method which we have introduced to deal with identical products.
I am sorry that I am not being helpful to my noble friends over this amendment, but we are talking about an absolutely fundamental point here—the ultimate safety of the product. I hope that I have said enough to convince my noble friends, and those of your Lordships who are concerned about access to pesticides, that we have already introduced a system which maximises access while at the same time maintains safety. This system would, of course, continue under the separate framework which we propose. But what we cannot do is to extend it to products which are simply similar, for the reasons which I have endeavoured to explain.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am not sure that I am at all happy with my noble friend's reply. I feel that the way in which he replied would allow an unscrupulous manufacturer to keep out what my noble friend calls "identical imports". The only comfort that I can give myself, and perhaps my noble friends, is that when we reach Amendment No. 43 we

171
might be able to come to a better arrangement, because there would be a body which would decide what was identical and what was similar. I find the two words difficult to comprehend in this context, as I think we all do.
I realise that we are all on the same footing here. We do not want to have unsafe chemicals imported. On the other hand, we want chemicals that are similar—I am told that I must not use that word—coming in very quickly. I shall withdraw this amendment again and shall read very carefully what my noble friend has said, because it was not particularly easy to understand, from a practical point of view, the different definitions of "identical" and "similar". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 14, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The simultaneous application of approved pesticides by means of the same machine shall be deemed to be approved under regulations made under this section, unless, having regard to the desirability of protecting the health of human beings, creatures and plants, and of safeguarding the environment, the Minister directs otherwise in any particular case.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I read very carefully the remarks of my noble friend Lord Belstead on my Amendment No. 75 at Committee stage and I am tabling this amendment to try to ensure that, in my noble friend's words at column 205 of the Official Report, only a blatantly dangerous mix should be prevented. Your Lordships will remember that this has to do with tank mixing. This amendment would allow a farmer to mix any approved chemicals, unless prevented by the Minister as being dangerous to human beings, creatures, plants or the environment.
I have two points to make on this. First, if a farmer wishes to mix two approved chemicals and the result is damage to his crops—for instance, if he were stupid enough to put grammoxone in with a fungicide—the blame is surely on the farmer and he must take the consequences. This is the existing arrangement and it is what is called "at farmers' risk". I want that to go on and I believe that this amendment would allow it.
The second point is that I cannot think of a case where mixing two approved chemicals could cause harm, apart from harming a crop, and, as I have said, if a farmer wishes to destroy his own crop, he is surely at liberty to do so. Indeed, it might even help with the surpluses. I am therefore saying that tank mixes are innocent until proved guilty. I hope that my noble friend will accept this amendment and, at least, say that the philosophy behind it will be in the regulations. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I should like to say that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is one of which we would approve, mainly because of the tremendous saving in spraying costs that there is in tank mixes. But as he rightly said there are dangers. People are stupid and mix the wrong things, but if this amendment allows us to be stupid, so be it. But the instructions that one gets on most packages and in leaflets are very clear and there should not be any major mistakes in tank mixing. I think that this amendment is one of which we would approve.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should very briefly like to support this amendment mainly because, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said, it is commercially correct to use tank mixes and all the other considerations seem to have been guarded against very adequately.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I absolutely take the point which has just been made by my noble friend Lord Radnor, that it is of advantage to a farmer to combine two or more spraying operations into one. That is a right and sensible thing to do in the right circumstances. I am very glad that pesticide manufacturers are increasingly indicating on their product labels when this is possible, even for products manufactured by different companies.
But I do not think it ought to be assumed that any pesticide can be mixed safely with any other and that, if it does not come out right, that is just too bad so far as the crop is concerned. Some are physically incompatible and would react together to form a precipitate in the spraying tank and I do not think that the farmer to whom that happened would be very pleased. From the point of view of the safety of employees and farmers themselves mixing other products might result in a more toxic solution or one which would penetrate the skin more readily, which would be equally unacceptable on safety grounds. So we are talking about a very serious situation here. This is why I am very glad that my noble friend has moved this amendment.
We are on important ground and it is right that the Government ought to say what they think should happen. We are more draconian than my noble friend in his amendment. We believe that it is much safer for consumers, the environment and farmers alike, if tank mixing is restricted to those combinations which have been screened for the sort of risks that I have described. Obviously, we cannot move to that immediately. The situation is that at the present time the Government have already approved a substantial number of tank mixes, and once this Bill becomes law we intend to strengthen the screening arrangements as quickly as possible. By that I mean that we will do our best, for instance, to encourage producers to submit applications for tank mixes, if possible with their applications for clearance. In that sort of way, and in others on which I am sure we can consult the interested bodies. I hope that we can restrict tank mixing to combinations which have been screened for the risks that I have described. With respect to my noble friend, I really think that the amendment goes too far and I have tried in my reply to explain some of the dangers.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, if I may say so to my noble friend, that was a rather more helpful reply. There are two points that I want to make quite clear which, judging by the remarks he made, I do not think I got over. He made the point of a precipitate forming, and certainly that does happen. It is very irritating, but that is what I had in mind when I talked about a farmer being very stupid. If he wishes to be stupid, I see absolutely no reason why he should not be. It is quite nice to be stupid occasionally.
7 p.m.
The other point, which is much more serious, is the question of whether by mixing the chemical one makes it more toxic. Once again, I ask my noble friend whether he has any examples of this happening. Obviously my noble friend cannot answer now but perhaps he will let me know when he is discussing this with his advisers. I can think of possibly one example, a rather rare one; but by and large I do not think this happens.
The point that my noble friend has seized here is that he is going to allow individual producers to put forward for clearance tank mixes. Perhaps he will write to me about that. If an individual farmer puts forward for clearance a tank mix, will he have to pay a sum to have this cleared? This could be very expensive. I do not see companies putting forward for approval and clearance cross-company tank mixes. This is where my problem comes. I shall finish by saying once again—I said it in speaking to my last amendment—that maybe here is a case where my Amendment No. 43 could help again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, knowing very well that my noble friend will write to me on those two points.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 14, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) In exercising their powers under subsection (1) above in relation to crops, the Ministers shall specify the maximum rates at which pesticides may be applied by reference to the maximum quantities of pesticides which may be applied to each unit of area.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have been talking consistently about the protection of the environment so this amendment might be a change in that it is designed to protect the farmer. It was suggested in Committee by a number of noble Lords—certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Walston—that it would be very difficult, and I should have thought impossible, for a farmer to be left in the position of judging residues from the pesticide that he is going to leave in his crop. As the Bill is written at the moment, he is left responsible for this situation.
The amendment which my noble friend Lord Stanley put down in Committee covered all manner of things. My noble friend Lord Swinton objected to that, but said that he could agree—or I think he said he felt that it was perfectly easy to agree—to having maximums defined for most things. Then, your Lordships will remember, he mentioned rodenticides as one of the things that would not be suitable. So we framed this amendment to cut out those things which I and my noble friend felt were inappropriate. I have confined the amendment entirely to crops and that should make it much more acceptable.
There is little else to be said about it, except that presumably the Government will have approved these pesticides. There will be a label on the package saying what rates and what instructions should be followed. It would seem only too simple that the powers that be should then overstamp such instructions which would show the farmer whether it was right or whether it was
174
wrong. Then he could plead when he was taken to court that at least he had done his best to follow the instructions.
I am quite aware that later in this Report stage of the Bill we shall be debating the question of due diligence. I am not a man of the law but "due diligence" sounds rather a woolly phrase to me. I feel that whatever happens to the question of "due diligence" later on in the Bill, it is only right and proper that the farmer should be able to fall back and say, "I have put on this pesticide at a rate suggested by the makers and endorsed by the Government. Therefore, I have done my very best." I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, my noble friends and I brought this matter up at Committee stage, referring to Clause 15(1)(g) in line 12, page 14, which states:
"specify how much pesticide or pesticide residue may be left in crops, food or feeding stuff".
It appeared to us then—and it still does now—a most extraordinary way of proceeding to say how much residue may be left. When in fact you are asking manufacturers to specify practically everything else on the labelling of the product and on the instructions, surely it would be right and proper simply to say in subsection (g) how much pesticide may be applied or pesticide residue may be left. When I saw the amendment of the noble Lord, I thought that this fulfilled the same purpose. It is extraordinary to say that you may leave only so much without giving some guidance as to how much you should apply. It appears to me that this amendment is very logical, and I await with great interest the Minister's reply.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I also support the amendment. I thought that last Autumn the Parliamentary Secretary in another place intimated that a maximum rate would be specified. I am now a little lost as to why we do not have a maximum rate. I go along entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie: if a farmer wants any sort of comfort, he really wants to know what the maximum rate is and that if he goes above the rate it is probable that a residue will be left in the crop and the farmer will therefore be liable.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, although agreeing with the spirit of this amendment, I am under tremendous difficulty about the fact that we do not know how much residue various different pesticides leave. We would get into very great difficulties if this amendment were accepted as it is written now. There is the other problem that it may be perfectly safe to put on a particular pesticide with a controlled droplet sprayer or an electrostatic sprayer but dangerous with a hydraulic sprayer.
I feel that far more research is required on residues and on the amount of pesticide to be put on with the multifarious sprayers before the amendment can be accepted.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Radnor for changing the amendment which my noble friend proposed in Committee. We can see the real issue much more clearly in this

175
amendment. I see a difficulty in compelling Ministers to set maximum application rates per unit of area in every single case even in relation to crops since such units would be inappropriate in some instances. In saying that, I am thinking, for example, of pesticides which are applied to individual plants or trees, to crops in stores or indeed as wood preservatives. Between the Committee and the Report stages of the Bill the British Pest Control Association has reminded me that Part III applies to agriculture, to pesticides for industrial premises and for public health. That reminder from the BPCA was timely because it illustrates the difficulty of drafting enabling legislation too tightly thinking of agricultural chemicals, when we are dealing also with industrial pest control and wood preserving.
I should like to reassure my noble friend and noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment that the powers the amendment seeks to provide are most definitely already contained in Clause 15(1)(c) in an enabling form, and the Government have already indicated that these powers will be fully and appropriately employed regarding maximum application rates and agriculture.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, made a very important point about putting this absolute responsibility upon the Government, from the point of view of not knowing, in different circumstances, to what extent the residues of pesticide applications will degrade and to what extent they will be left. Having presented all the difficulties, I think that I need to give an assurance to my noble friend who moved this amendment and to other noble Lords who have spoken.
My assurance is this: while saying that we are very resistant to being tied down in the way that this amendment wishes to tie the Government down, none the less we will certainly give all the necessary guidance to farmers to prevent any residue limits being inadvertently breached. The point made by my noble friends about farmers being left in the dark to some extent is an important one. However, this matter is one that we must discuss with the organisations concerned. We want the best advice on how to give guidance to farmers in this particular regard. With respect to my noble friend who moved the amendment. I do not feel that his amendment is the way to do it.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I must admit to being somewhat disappointed with that reply. I can see the difficulties which my noble friend has outlined, and I can see also the difficulties outlined by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie—although I feel that the difficulties he mentioned are not insuperable.
What saddens me is that at the end of the day the poor farmer is still in a very difficult position, despite the assurance which my noble friend the Minister has just given. I am not sure in what form all this help will get through to the farmer. It would seem much simpler to give real help to the farmer and—why not?—to the industrialist who has to fumigate his factory or meet whatever the other conditions are.
Although I am prepared to withdraw this amendment for the moment, I must say that I will go away and consider the matter very carefully. I shall be
176
prepared to raise the matter again at Third Reading if I feel that it is necessary and sensible to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 41A:
[Printed earlier.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 33A. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, I must now call Amendment No. 41B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 41A, in the name of Lady Nicol.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 41A, Amendment No. 41B:
[Printed earlier: col. 154.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have already spoken on this amendment to some extent but I nevertheless feel that I must speak to it again, because the discussion we had earlier was rather disappointing.
First, in relation to Amendment No. 41A, I am surprised that the only protection which is being offered in the interests of persons supplying information is that of withholding information—from the public, presumably. What happens if the public interest and the interests of the person supplying the information clash? Why should there not be other safeguards for the persons supplying information, such as proof of research work being carried out or proof of financial involvement in the production of the formula—or indeed of the purchase of the formula—before production could commence, or before the thing could be bought? Could not that be considered a protection that would allow further information to be released to the public instead of keeping it within very narrow bounds?
So far as Amendment No. 41B itself is concerned, I find it difficult to accept the explanation offered by the Minister. Amendment No. 41B refers to Amendment No. 41A and not to Amendment No. 33A. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable addition to Amendment No. 41A to say that the interests of persons supplying information and the public interest should be equal considerations in determining the provision.
I did not feel much satisfaction at the results of the earlier discussion and I wonder whether the Minister has anything more to add—particularly in respect of the idea of providing protection for the suppliers of information other than that of withholding information. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I really do not like opposing the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on this particular amendment because she has been very wise in many of the contributions she has made to the debate on this Bill. But it seems to me that there are two points to be considered. First, if one inserts the words "public interest" here, the assumption is that all the other regulations can be made solely for the purpose of enriching the Minister, by him taking bribes from chemical companies, or some such thing.

177
To do so would be to isolate the public interest in one part of the Bill only, and we know that that is very far from people's minds.
The second point made by the noble Baroness with which I did not agree was that she questioned how one could compare the public interest with the interests of the chemical company, or whatever it might be. The point is that the public interest takes into account everybody's interests. The public interest bears the old Latin tag of pro bono publico—that is, for the benefit of the public. That means that everybody's interests are curtailed and that it is for the Government to govern pro bono publico and for nothing else. That is why I oppose the inclusion of the phrase proposed in what is otherwise an extremely sensible set of amendments—Amendments Nos. 33A and 41A.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister will need to look at this matter again in the light of the advice he has received and taken from his noble friend, Lord Renton. If the Minister makes the assumption that Ministers always act in the public interest, and then he makes a specific amendment with Amendment No. 41A that,
"the Ministers shall have regard to the interests of persons supplying information",
then he goes wholly against the dictum of his noble friend, Lord Renton.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that when one instances the particular—and he backed this with a rather more complicated Latin phrase than did the noble Earl—then one really is taking away from the dictum that Ministers always act in the public interest. I cannot see how acceptance of this amendment could do anything but good. I believe that the Minister is in a slightly difficult spot here, although no doubt he will wriggle out of it with his usual charm. I do feel the Minister needs to consider this point again.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I also hope that the Minister will take another look at this matter. In what he has said about the amendment so far, he has drawn our attention to the wording of Amendment No. 33A, where it states that,
"any condition that the Ministers consider appropriate",
may be applied to the release of information. I take that point. The noble Lord has said he is advised that "appropriate" means in the public interest, and I understand that. But surely the reason why there are two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—Amendments Nos. 33A and 41A—is because there are two stages to this process. I believe that this is where the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has misunderstood the purpose of Amendment No. 41B.
I can see that, in determining any conditions which Ministers want to impose under Amendment No. 33A, they will take into account the public interest. That is provided for in the noble Lord's amendment. With respect, I do not believe that there is any argument about that. But there is another question which Ministers have to decide and to have in their minds: they have to determine provisions made by virtue of Amendment No. 33A. That is why I assume that there are two subsections involved and not just one.
178
It is in the second of those that the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has introduced specifically states that Ministers must consider something. What they have to consider is the interests of persons supplying information. Again, I am sure that is right. But I am sure it is wrong that at that point it is the only thing that the amendment, as drafted, suggests they should consider. Surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in the letters he wrote, at that point they should be considering two things—two conflicting interests—which Ministers have to reconcile. One is the interests of people supplying the information and the other, which is not provided for, is the public interest in having access to the information.
It is not the public interest in imposing conditions on the information, which is already provided for in Amendment No. 33A, but a different public interest and one which I do not think is provided for: public interest in having access to the information. That is what I believe Amendment No. 41B provides. It is a serious point, which has not been covered by the word "appropriate" in the earlier amendment. I hope the noble Lord will be able to consider that, if not this evening, at some stage before Third Reading.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to say a brief word on this amendment to which I have put my name with that of my noble friend Lady Nicol. What has been said by my noble friend Lord Melchett and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is absolutely correct. The two amendments are not on all fours, though my impression is that the Minister feels that they are. They are saying different things. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that it isolates the public interest, but if he looks again, he will find that the contrary is the case. If he is using the pro bono publico argument, in that case it should not have regard to the interests of persons supplying information but should have regard to the public interest which would take in, as it were, the smaller. The greater would take in the smaller—the public interest would take in the interests of persons supplying information.
It might be that the amendment we are now discussing would not be necessary if Amendment No. 41A was not drafted in the way it is. I found some difficulty in accepting the proposition in Amendment No. 33A:
"subject to any condition that the Ministers consider appropriate, of information supplied for the purposes of this section",
but I can see that one can interpret it as "in the public interest". However there is no way that Amendment No. 41A can be interpreted in this way, especially in the way it is drafted at the moment, because we cannot get away with the words:
"Ministers shall have regard to the interests of persons suplying information to which that provision would relate".
If that is left in the Bill, it will cause a great deal of trouble and a great many people will feel very dissatisfied. It will provide an opportunity for some people to interpret it—after all, it will be legislation—in a way which could be contrary to the public interest.
The amendment was tabled rather late. The Minister will agree that his Amendment No. 41A was not available until yesterday and so our amendment

179
had to be tabled rather rapidly yesterday evening. As this is very important and a certain amount of disquiet has been expressed, I ask the Minister to take back his amendment and consider it again because I can assure him that the amendments are not on all fours. It may well be that something quite different will emerge.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is necessary for me to spell out what your Lordships have so far been good enough to agree to this afternoon on this particular subject. First, we have agreed as a result of Amendment No. 33A that the regulation-making powers shall include the power to make information available. Secondly, it is to be made available in the "public interest" in the sense that the wording of Government Amendment No. 33A says that it will be,
"subject to any condition that the Ministers consider appropriate".
Although I know that some of your Lordships will think that a rather strange way of talking about the public interest, I assure you that that is one of the reasons why the word "appropriate" is used, so I am advised. That is certainly the intention of the Government.
Therefore, we have the regulation-making power, which is similar to all the other regulation-making powers in the Bill, to make information available, although I have underlined in my words to your Lordships this evening the importance of putting this on the face of the Bill, and it is to be done in the public interest. However, there is a proviso. The proviso is that regard shall be paid to the interests of the suppliers of information, and that is put in a separate amendment because, I am advised, from a drafting point of view that is the way to do it.
Many of your Lordships who have spoken on this subject and who, incidentally, have criticised my noble friend Lord Onslow as in some way not understanding the Government amendments—although I believe he understands the Government amendments very well and has interpreted them more briefly and clearly than I am now doing—have criticised the Government amendments and are supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness and, in essence, saying that there is something sinister here. The very opposite is the truth. I should have thought that in practically every case I can think of the public interest and the interests of the suppliers are going to be as one. I say that because I think it is necessary in the national interest to protect investment in testing done by companies, often at enormous expense. This is essential in order to encourage the development of new and more effective products and, indeed, safer products in this country.
However that may be, the fact is that the Government were absolutely determined to bring forward Amendment No. 33 to make sure that the proviso of the commercial confidentiality, where it is necessary, should be upheld. That is why we tabled Amendment No. 41A. I believe that it was absolutely right to do so. I have tried to be helpful between the two stages of the Bill, and although we have had an enormous amount of agreement this evening, I have to tell your Lordships flat that there is no question of my considering again the amendments on confidentiality of information.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I put this question to him? Despite what he has said, I am still asking him to reconsider. Amendment No. 33A applies to a different part of the clause; it relates to line 10. That is a different set of words from those at line 26. I think it should be put on record that there has been no implication that the Minister, the department, or anyone else, is acting in a sinister manner. We are arguing that the way this has been drafted is not achieving the result that the Minister has explained so eloquently. I am afraid that we still feel that this is so. That is why I ask the Minister to reconsider.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I support what my noble friend says. We do not mean to imply that we see anything sinister in the Government amendment. If we give what appears to be undue emphasis to this amendment, it is because on the question of information to the public there is no more important part of this Bill. Everything else that happens within it must take second place to the principle of freedom of information, or as near to freedom of information as one can get. That is why we have pushed this amendment rather hard. However, I see that nothing is to be gained by pushing it any further and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 41A agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that this might be a convenient stage at which to adjourn consideration on Report of this Bill. Before doing so, may I suggest that we do not return to this Bill before half-past eight?
I beg to move that further consideration on Report of this Bill be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Dangerous Vessels Bill [H.L.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF CATHCART in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Saving for section 12 of Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 and sections 511 and 512 of Merchant Shipping Act 1894]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("1971") to ("; and") in line 32.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 2: Page 3, line 38, leave out from ("1894") to ("; and") in line 40.
The amendment to subsection (1) is necessary to correct a slight inaccuracy. The subsection contains a saving for the Secretary of State's powers under Section 12 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971. Those powers are described as being concerned with oil pollution only, while in fact they have since been extended by a statutory instrument to other polluting substances also. The simplest way to put the matter right is to delete the description of the powers. Strictly speaking the description is not necessary.
The amendment to subsection (2) also deletes a description of powers, which in this case are held by receivers of wreck and which again are being saved by the subsection. This deletion has no legal effect and is being made simply to secure consistency of style between the two subsections. If the powers saved by subsection (1) are not to be described, it is considered that those saved by subsection (2) should also not be. I beg to move.
Lord Walston: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for both these amendments. As he said, they are minor ones. They do not in any way alter the substance of the Bill. They simply clarify one or two points and correct one minor inaccuracy which was in the original Bill. I am sure that the Bill will be improved if your Lordships' Committee accept both amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 2:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until half-past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.34 until 8.30 p.m.]

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 14, line 30, at end insert—
("(3A) The Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument jointly establish a committee to give them advice when consulted in accordance with subsection (3C) below, and Schedule [The Advisory Committee] shall have effect with respect to it.
182
(3B) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3C) The Ministers shall consult the Committee—

(a) as to any regulations which they contemplate making;

(b) as to approvals which they contemplate giving, revoking or suspending; and

(c) as to conditions to which they contemplate making approvals subject.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment and to speak to Amendment No. 66:
After Schedule 4, insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE

  THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  1. The Minister shall jointly appoint the members of the committee, and shall jointly appoint one of those members to be chairman.
  2. The committee shall, at such time in each year as the Ministers may jointly direct, send to the Ministers a report with respect to the performance of the committee's functions.
  3. The Ministers may jointly make provision by regulations with respect to the terms on which members of the committee shall hold and vacate office, including the terms on which any person appointed as chairman shall hold and vacate office as chairman.
  4. The Ministers shall provide the committee with such staff and such accommodation, services and other facilities as appear to the Ministers to be necessary or expedient for the proper performance of the committee's functions.
  5. The Ministers may pay to the members of the committee such remuneration (if any) and such allowances as may be determined by the Ministers with the consent of the Treasury.
  6. The Ministers shall defray any expenses incurred with their approval by the committee.
  7. The committee shall not be taken to be the servant or agent of the Crown or to enjoy any status or immunity of the Crown.
  8. Regulations under this Schedule shall be made by statutory instrument and a statutory instrument containing any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
  I must apologise to your Lordships that these amendments have little of the original simplicity and charm of Amendment No. 99A, which was promoted by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in Committee, which I think simply said that the Government should consult the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. But this amendment, Amendment No. 42, is inspired by the same thought. I am glad to be able to say that the Government are very happy to bind themselves to consult the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in the preparation of regulations as well as the granting of approvals under this Bill. Then, of course, Amendment No. 66, which I am putting to your Lordships with this Amendment No. 42, is a schedule setting out the arrangements for setting up the Advisory Committee.
  Our problem was that the committee had no statutory existence hitherto. Although I have rather a guilty conscience, in that I must admit that I did not exactly jump at the suggestion which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, put to the Committee, which was all this ought to be put on a statutory basis, nonetheless I have to say to the noble Baroness that subsequently I thought better of it and felt it desirable, first, that the Committee ought to be set up formally, and then that it had to be given some tasks statutorily. Hence the length of the amendments. I should perhaps mention that we are giving the committee broader statutory functions than those sought by the promoters of Amendment No. 99A, as I have already said: to be

  183
  consulted over the preparation of regulations as well as being responsible for the approval of pesticides.
  The second main area of work for the committee, which of course it carries out most expertly at present, is that on pesticide approval. I think it is right that it should be referred to on a statutory basis. In doing so, we are giving status not just to the committee but to the principle of objectivity in the provision of advice to Ministers in the environmental field. That is not an easy principle to maintain in practice when passions are so easily aroused, but it is a principle which nonetheless I commend.
  I should just say that the present chairman and the committee have served the public interest admirably. It is the Government's intention, if these amendments are approved, to invite the chairman of the committee to continue in office when the committee receives statutory status under this Bill. In saying that, may I express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, might not press their Amendment No. 53. When we come to it, I shall be able to give an assurance that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides does and will continue to have three assessors with environmental responsibilities and they are from the Department of the Environment, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Natural Environment Research Council. The Department of the Environment is also consulted about the membership of the ACP.
  So, having received advice, not least from the Opposition Front Bench, on the desirability of setting up the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in statutory form, and then, as my noble friend, Lord Stanley, was anxious that statutorily the Government should be enjoined to consult with the committee, I have come to move Amendment No. 42 and with it Amendment No. 66. I beg to move.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we shall be delighted not to move the amendment in our name, which was put down before we had seen the Government amendment, which was, in company with some others, a bit late going in. I am delighted to hear that the new committee is to be the ACP. That removes a long list of questions which I had been proposing to put to the Minister on the composition and powers of the new committee. One assumes, and I hope it is right to assume, that the powers of the ACP will remain as they are. Although there may be just one or two residual questions which I should like to clear up, I can but welcome very warmly indeed the proposal which the Minister has made and the amendment which he has put forward. I assume, and I hope it is right to assume, that the annual report which he promised will be published as we thought and that all the things which the committee did before will carry on as before.
  However, there are just one or two small questions about which I am not clear. This may be a shortcoming in my own knowledge, but I hope the Minister will bear with me if it is. The committee will offer advice to the Minister when consulted. Has it the power to offer advice, to initiate advice of its own accord? This seems to me an important power. Although I am not pressing the point tonight, I should
  184
  like the Minister's comment on it.
  I should also like to know what procedures lead to review of a product at the moment. Who can start a review? Would the committee have that power if they felt that it was necessary and if they had not had an approach from the Minister? Who decides when a review is necessary within the Ministry? How does that come about? Can members of the public, which includes members of the farming community, ask for a review to be carried out if they are uneasy about a particular pesticide? Can the advice of the ACP, or whatever the new committee is called, be sought on that? Finally, will the minutes of the committee be available for public scrutiny, or simply the annual report? As I say, I am delighted with the amendment which the Minister has put forward. So far as I am concerned, it shortens the debate by about 20 minutes.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, should like warmly to welcome the Minister's reaction. I have very few points to make. The noble Baroness wants to know if the Committee can offer advice. Of course, committees can always offer advice; whether or not it is taken is a different point. Why do we say that the Minister may, by order, establish the committee, and then, the Ministers shall consult the committee? It is one of the oldest points, but I wonder why there is the difference there between the two. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has some points on the composition of the committee so I shall not put them. I shall content myself with welcoming this excellent step on the part of the Ministry.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for this amendment. At this stage I should say that I am not happy that the tasks that the Committee is being asked to carry out are wide enough. I was hoping to expand on this in my Amendment No. 43, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I prefer to leave the expansion of the work, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has in mind, too, and to discuss it perhaps on my Amendment No. 43. Meanwhile, I very much welcome this amendment from the Government.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to noble Lords for their reaction to this Amendment. No. 42, and, with it, to Amendment No. 66. The noble Baroness said that she assumed that the annual report would be published, as we have already decided is very desirable. That assumption is absolutely right. Broadly speaking, the committee's functions carry on with the additional statutory responsibilities laid on the committee about being consulted regarding regulations under the Bill. The noble Baroness asked whether the committee would be able to initiate advice. The answer is yes. I realise that this is a point that is often asked. It is important so far as committees are concerned. I am glad to put that on the record.
  The noble Baroness asked about procedures leading to review. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I had some exchange in Committee about how the review would work with regard to timing. If your Lordships will forgive me, I shall not go into that again. The question put by the noble Baroness was rather

  185
  different. It was, "Who can press the trigger for review?" The answer is that this can be done by Ministers in the ways that I tried to set out in the exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in Committee. But it can also be done by other people—by the committee itself and indeed by members of the public by expressing their views in correspondence and that sort of thing.
  I think that publication of the annual report is highly important but I feel that publication of the minutes would not be something that a committee of this kind—or indeed any committee—would particularly wish. There is no secrecy. It is simply a question that what is stated in committee should occur between members of the committee, while the conclusions of what the committee intends to do and is doing will obviously go into the annual report.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked why there is the rather strange wording that the committee is set up by order. I have the horrible feeling that we are again into the situation where we found ourselves just before we broke for dinner about the drafting of the divulging of information amendments. The fact is that the parliamentary draftsman has advised us that the way to put this into the Bill is to say that, in pursuance of the general regulation-making power, by regulations the committee may be set up. However, in moving the amendment, I make clear that we are responding to views expressed in the House and that we intend to do this. Once the committee is set up, then it is right from a drafting point of view to say that it shall be consulted. Really of course to put the duty in the Bill means that the power is bound to be exercised. I hope that that is a satisfactory reply on that point.
  My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley would like to say more about the tasks of the committee. I would suggest that we wait perhaps until the next amendment to discuss that topic.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 14, line 30, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Ministers shall appoint a committee for the purpose of advising them on the exercise of their powers under this section and in framing the committee's terms of reference shall have regard to the desirability of maximizing—

  (a) the scope for users of pesticides to improve the cost-effectiveness, timeliness, and flexibility of pest control operations; and

  (b) the scope for the development and adoption of new technologies including pesticide application techniques, together with integrated pest management.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Belstead has kindly, and, as all of us, I think, believe, correctly accepted the suggestion of most Members of the House that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides should be consulted by the Minister. In doing so, he has accepted the important position that ACP, if I can so call it, has to play and, indeed, will play in the future. I could not agree more. In order to help the advisory committee to carry out its work, I am suggesting in this amendment that it appoints a sub-committee in line with the suggestion made by the
  186
  noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in their Amendment No. 120 in Committee.
  In reply to the noble Baroness's amendment, my noble friend stated that such a quango was not necessary, as the advisory committee was fully equipped to deal with the problem. I obtained a list of the members of the advisory committee prior to the Committee stage. I was impressed by their expertise. As my noble friend Lord Belstead said, they were members from a range of medical and scientific backgrounds.
  8.45 p.m.
  This constitution was entirely correct when the scheme was voluntary. Now that it is to be statutory, a new problem confronts the advisory committee, one that has raised its head throughout discussion of this Bill from all sides of your Lordships' House. It is how we are to encourage new technology. For instance, how are we to make sure that new types of sprayers are developed and that, as they are developed, the correct formulation of pesticide is developed with them? How are we to ensure that tank mixes are efficacious and safe? We have already dealt with that matter today, and I am still not happy. How are we to ensure that the problem of catering for minor crops is dealt with? How are we to ensure that similar agrochemicals get rapid clearance? That we have also discussed.
  My suggestion is simple. It is that the advisory committee should deal with these problems. However, in order to do so, its constitution, I believe, must be widened to include such organisations as the AFRC, the NIAB and the NIAE, ordinary practical farmers and, indeed, members of the agricultural machinery trade, which seems to be lacking here, hearing in mind that the sprayer is just as important as the spray if we are to achieve accurate and careful application of pesticides. If this was done—my amendment suggests a sub-committee of the advisory committee—all the problems of my noble friend Lord Belstead in respect of new technology, so important to the farmer and, indeed, to the conservationist (I much regret having to separate the two for the sake of convenience because, in 90 per cent. of cases, their interests are the same) would be over, at any rate all his problems on this Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Stanley on this amendment. I strongly believe that it is most important that someone is there to carry the flag for innovation in this organisation once it becomes statutory. When I say "carry the flag" I am referring to paragraphs (a) and (b) of my noble friend's amendment. The points that we have in mind are principally that, so long as safety is not put at risk, farmers should be given the maximum scope to improve cost-effectiveness, timeliness and flexibility. Without this, the important innovative role of farmers is at risk of being lost. That would bode no good for farmers, for reduced dependence on pesticides or, for that matter, for environmentalists.
  Personally, I would leave to my noble friend the Minister how to incorporate our amendment with his. I am anxious to hear his opinion. I believe the idea of

  187
  a sub-committee to be a good one. I wish to endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Stanley about the contributions that could be made by the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering and the Agriculture and Food Research Council.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I was delighted when I found on the Marshalled List the Government amendment proposing a committee. I had not realised that it would be the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. It is none the worse for that. I was disappointed that the terms of reference of the committee related only to regulations and approvals of conditions. I feel that an opportunity would be missed if the Minister were not to consider the possibility of extending the remit of the committee to looking at some of the more creative things that need to be done in the control of pests and diseases if we are effectively to take care of both the farming community and the environmental interest.
  If we are really concerned to achieve those objects, we must look at opportunities to encourage a positive role. I think that Amendment No. 43 and, indeed, Amendment No. 44, which have been set down in my name, among others, probably quite effectively outline the kind of things this committee ought to be looking at—either the committee as a whole or the committee through some form of sub-committee. One example is the scope for uses of pesticides to improve the cost-effectiveness, timeliness and flexibility of pest-control operations. In the small organisation which I run we employ an entomologist and we have discovered, in controlling one particular root fly, that by applying the granules which we use through a special applicator which we have designed we can apply them in bands. There are several alternatives more effective in the control of the particular insect pest, and at the same time we do not sterilise the whole of the soil but only a strip of the soil underneath the plant. It is a tiny example of the kind of thing which can be achieved with creative thought and imagination.
  It is not particularly in the interest of the pesticide company to evolve this kind of technology. I believe it is the kind of technology that has got to be introduced in the interests of the farmer and in the interests of the country as a whole, through the environmental lobby, by some sort of national organisation which could be stimulated by the committee we are talking about. These are application techniques I am talking about, I suppose. The same applies also to the maximising of the range of chemicals available to minor crops and to substantially similar uses. I therefore ask the Minister whether he will consider including in the objectives, the alternative reference of the committee, a creative role of this kind.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should also like to support the idea behind the amendment. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has said about the importance of somebody taking a creative role in this process. It seems to me that that has been somewhat lacking in recent years. The very slow and difficult progress which CDA spraying has made would illustrate that, and the very real fears which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has expressed more than once about the prospects for
  188
  CDA spraying under the regulations drawn up as a result of this Bill are an indication of the worry that nobody is going to be looking forward to see how policy on pesticide use should develop or what new initiatives should be taken to limit the use of pesticides, to develop new, more selective techniques, to develop safer techniques, and to develop cheaper techniques for the farmer.
  It is that lack, or what at least appears to be a lack, of any mechanism through which anyone involved in this process now that it is going to be statutory and therefore possibly rather less flexible than the voluntary scheme that I think is worrying. I would hope that the advisory committee which will now be reborn in this statutory role—I add my welcome to that expressed by other noble Lords for the Government's amendment—will be able to take that forward-looking view of what is going to happen and not simply be there to comment on the minutiae of regulations and to clear particular chemicals for uses for which the chemical companies want them cleared. I strongly support the purposes of the amendment. I would hope that we could involve those with environmental expertise rather more strongly than the amendment appears to suggest, but I think that is a point of detail at this stage. I hope that the idea behind this will prove acceptable to the Government.
  The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I support this amendment, particularly because of those positive elements about which many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, have spoken. It just occurs to me that it is perhaps a bit cumbersome to have a sub-committee. I heard the word "quango" mentioned; I think it was in Committee. Perhaps there is a sort of compromise here, simply by going back to Amendment No. 42, which has just been passed, reconstituting it in such a way that its terms of reference are widened to cover the points which have been made by many noble Lords and widening its constitution, in regard to people, to include the sort of representation which has also been mentioned.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think we should all agree with the spirit of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said he agreed with the amendment which we put down in Committee, which suggested a sub-committee. I have just gone through what we said on that occasion and I cannot find any word at all of a sub-committee. It was a plain amendment to make the ACP statutory, with powers that a statutory committee would be given. But I think there is no question about it: widening its powers might, if I may say so—I am not quite sure what the right word is—slightly dilute them. A sub-committee to deal with the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, mentioned, particularly the development of new techniques, etc. might not be a bad idea, because it is a specialised job which includes looking at sprayers and all the techniques that there are today, compared with the general principle we have been discussing today: the safety of pesticides, the testing of them, and everything else. I certainly should support the amendment along those lines.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, should briefly like to support what my noble friend has said. The

  189
  amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, covers the whole question perhaps more comprehensively than that of noble Lords on the Front Bench. It certainly provides an admirable opportunity for dealing with many of the problems we have actually failed to deal with in this Bill. One particular point in question was an amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Radnor on the question of suitable levels of pesticide. This presumably would be a golden opportunity for this committee to deal with problems such as that. The question of machinery has also been mentioned. It is specifically mentioned in this amendment that the committee would actively monitor and encourage the use of the most desirable machinery that was available.
  But there is a general point I should like to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench. This applies to both this committee and to the Government committee; that is the question—the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, touched on it—of the constitution of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Amendment No. 28, which my noble friend on the Front Bench moved earlier, mentions that the Bill shall have effect with a view to protecting the health of human beings, creatures and plants, and safeguarding the environment, etc. I hope very much that this particular amendment will be taken into account when the constitution of the committee is formulated, so that it will not simply be an agricultural committee but will also look after the interests of the environment at the same time.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, should like briefly to support the amendment, if what it means is that the basis of the committee would in fact be broadened and it would not consist solidly of scientific boffins. It would be a great help if we could have on it an environmentalist, a farmer and an engineer, because the whole subject is not simply a question of the formulae or anything else; it is the whole field of the expansion of techniques to suit the whole of the industry and the environment. If that is what the noble Lord means to do, I shall support him.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive another short intervention from this side of the House, I ask whether, if the Minister finds the establishment of another committee unacceptable on grounds of expense, or for any other reason, he would consider establishing, at either a university or a farming institute, a research fund which might be able to do just what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has suggested, but perhaps in a cheaper way.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government certainly share the concern expressed by your Lordships that the development of improved pest control techniques needs to be encouraged. From the point of view both of the environment and of the economic situation of pesticide users, whether they are farmers, food processors, wood preservers or public health operators, it is self-evidently beneficial to encourage the development of the most efficient pest control methods possible. The effect of my noble friend's amendment is to require the Government to appoint a
  190
  committee to provide advice directed towards improved pest control techniques. I am reminded of the saying that if ever there is a problem to be confronted the Americans always initiate a programme and the British always set up a committee.
  However, I would not wish to be flippant about this matter. At the same time I would not want this opportunity to slip without making the point that things are being done at present in this respect without the setting up of a special committee. The advisory service of the Ministry of Agriculture—ADAS—has for many years been advocating and encouraging the adoption of pest control techniques which involve the minimum application of pesticide and which fully exploit biological control. For example, integrated pest management is now practised in top fruit and in glasshouse crops and research is in progress to develop integrated pest management in field crops and for particular cereals. In addition, research is in progress to evaluate new pesticide application techniques that may contribute to the improved targeting of pesticides on the pests concerned. I say that because I feel very strongly that so often more is going on in this field than perhaps sometimes we realise.
  The way in which I should like to respond to this amendment is to say that I assure your Lordships that we are already reviewing the scope of the various expert panels which assist the advisory committee in its work. Incidentally, the advisory committee does, of course, include the AFRC. If your Lordships would be prepared not to press the amendment, I give the assurance that I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend what has been said, and we shall most certainly take into account what has been said in this debate this evening in considering the need to review the scope of those various expert panels. Because a review is taking place of the expert panels of the ACP, I think it would be rather a pity to include in legislative form, and more or less for all time so long as the legislation lasts, a provision about one particular committee, because however important a committee of this kind would be, it is one of several upon which the ACP depends. In view of that assurance, I hope that your Lordships will feel that the amendment should not be pressed.
  There is one final point that I should like to make and which I had forgotten. My noble friend Lord Peel in referring back to Amendment No. 28, which is the statement of objectives, said that he very much hoped that the constitution of the advisory committee panels would reflect the broad objectives of Part III of the Bill. I have no hesitation in saying to my noble friend that this will most certainly be taken into account.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I think it is necessary to say that most of your Lordships who have spoken this evening on the subject of this amendment are at the receiving end of the advice of ADAS on these subjects. It is possibly reasonable to assume that if we were all entirely satisfied with the advice that we received and the extent of the research which is being carried out, we would not have spoken as we have.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am not quite sure what to do about this amendment. I shall start by saying that I was interested in the remarks made by my

  191
  noble friend Lord Belstead, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble friend Lord Peel about encouraging new machinery. By chance, I was a member of your Lordships' sub-committee that looked into agricultural and environmental research. During the course of the proceedings of that sub-committee the director of AFRC, Dr. Riley, came up with the statement that they were actively involved in looking at CDA and electrostatic sprayers with a view to reducing inputs and outputs, which is something that we all want to do. That if fine, but I wonder how many people actually read the little booklets that your Lordships produce.
  I am still worried whether the work being done at Rothhamstead does or will get through to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides which will in future hold the key to all these problems. Therefore, I repeat that the purpose of this amendment is to make absolutely certain that all the parties meet and that the right advice is given to the Minister. From the reply that has been given by my noble friend the Minister, he obviously thinks along the same lines. I am still not happy, and I shall read his remarks very carefully, that the method that he is suggesting—namely, a series of liaison committees—will work and so on. I am still not happy that it will achieve the aim.
  It is not very often that I and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, agree 100 per cent. But on this occasion I am glad to say that it looks as though we certainly do so. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said that I misinterpreted his original Amendment No. 120. It may be that I misinterpreted the words, but I do not think that I misinterpreted the spirit. I have to tell him, with a certain amount of humility, that this idea was slightly pinched from his amendment, or the philosophy behind his amendment, or what I thought was the philosophy behind his Amendment No. 120.
  I shall not go on. I may well have to come back to the matter on Third Reading. I could divide the House, but somehow or other my noble kinsman the Chief Whip might have a coronary if I did so. I do not think that it would be wise; it would not be sensible; and it certainly would not be responsible. Therefore, I shall leave the matter for the moment, but I do not guarantee that I shall not come back to it on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 14, line 30, at end insert—
  ("( ) In contemplating any regulations made under this section for the approval of pesticides, the Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of—

  (a) maximising the range of crops and pests for which pesticides are approved; and

  (b) ensuring that approval is extended without delay to substantially similar uses.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am still not clear—and this rather came out on the last amendment—that the clearance of agrochemicals for minor crops will be quick and cheap. My noble friend Lord Belstead referred to this problem in Committee on 11th December last year, at col. 205, when he said:
  "There are several options as to how this could be done and when we feel that we have hit on the right one we shall certainly be consulting the industry about it".
  192
  I need hardly say that I believe that the right one is my Amendment No. 43. However, I am now asking my noble friend whether he has made any further progress, but I am also suggesting that this amendment be tied in with responsibility on the advisory committee to activate. Again, it could be the answer.
  Finally, I should like to repeat my request, which was made at col. 208, that old chemicals (as I referred to them), which are still suitable for minor crops, would continue to be approved even if no specific company applied for their re-approval. I beg to move.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Stanley; I thought that we had dealt with Amendment No. 44 when we discussed Amendment No. 43, and that is why I did not move it. I think that my noble friend has moved this amendment in the most eloquent terms. It seemed to me that the Minister gave us extremely satisfactory assurances at the Committee stage, and I, too, was intending to ask whether any progress had been made in determining the kind of methodology by which clearance could be given for minor crops. I appreciate that there is a very grave problem because of the cost of clearance, and the question is: who will pay? If any further guidance can be given to us, it would indeed be words of comfort. If not, we must rely on the Minister's assurances given during the Committee stage.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is an important amendment and the Government attach considerable importance to growers of minor crops having access to the full range of pesticides necessary to them. For that reason we have been studying this issue with great care since the last stage of the Bill. Officials of the Ministry of Agriculture have discussed one or two ideas—it would be going rather far to call them proposals at this stage—with various sectors of the industry concerned. I believe it is fair to say that those on whom we have tried out our ideas have been reassured as to the Government's intentions in this area.
  The possible solutions which were mentioned during the previous discussion on the Bill were either to require manufacturers to seek approval for all crops when making their applications for clearance for pesticides, or to give growers direct access to the approval process. Perhaps I may share with your Lordships some thoughts which the Ministry of Agriculture has not so far spoken about in public, but which I think it is quite right to discuss at this stage of the Bill.
  Further discussion has made it clear that the first possibility—that is, to require manufacturers to seek approval for all crops when they apply for clearance—would involve some considerable problems, partly because it would be difficult to predict in advance the full range of crops on which a material might be used and partly because problems of liability for crop damage would mean that most of the "extra" uses would still not appear on the product label. We could hardly blame the manufacturers for that. The front-runner, if I may so express it, therefore seems to be the possibility of giving growers direct access to the approval system without requiring them to generate expensive data, and in a manner which

  193
  would place liability for the minor use of the product on the grower. We shall, of course, gladly give consideration to any other ideas on the subject during our consultations, which are continuing.
  I understood from the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stanley when we last debated this subject that he was reassured about the Government's intentions that we were determined to try to ensure that growers of minor crops were not placed at a disadvantage. I have tried to take your Lordships a little more into the confidence of the Ministry this evening. I hope that you will feel that I have not been inactive since the last stage of the Bill and that my noble friend will think that it was worthwhile for the exchange of this information to table this amendment.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. Let me assure him straight away that I have never—nor I think has any Member of your Lordships' House—considered him to be inactive. He may be many things, but he is certainly not inactive. I know that he has worked extremely hard on this Bill. I am grateful for the progress that he has made. I was interested in running out the first alternative; I can clearly appreciate that, although it was a starter, it would probably have come up against a few hurdles. I must admit that I like the idea of the second solution. I expect that when I leave the House many people will come to me and say for some reason or other "No, that is not a starter, either". I am most grateful to my noble friend for following this up. I am sure that with his endeavours and with everyone's help we shall come to the right solution. I think that we have moved along this path satisfactorily. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 45:
  Page 14, line 34, at end insert—
  (" ( ) After a period of four years after the passing of this Act all spraying on areas over 5 of a hectare must be done under the supervision of a person carrying a certificate of competence in all spraying operations and it shall be the duty of the Minister to see that training facilities are available.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in some detail at the Committee stage and, although there was some support from your Lordships for the thinking behind the amendment, there was certainly direct criticism of the fact that, by requiring every operator to be trained, we were putting an undue burden upon farmers. Therefore, in resubmitting this amendment we have made an important change in the wording so that the obligation for training now rests with a person who is supervising the operation and not with every operator who may be undertaking spraying. We feel that to be a reasonable compromise and one which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships.
  I think it is common ground that, however careful one may be about this whole subject, unless the final operation—that is, spraying—is done with due care and attention and with some skill, then much of the previous care will be negated. Therefore, we feel that it is reasonable in those circumstances to require a
  194
  supervisor to have a certificate of competence so that he may train others in the skilled work which is necessary in order to spray properly.
  9.15 p.m.
  We feel that it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to see that training facilities are available. We feel, also, that the Agricultural Training Board is a body ready, willing and able to undertake the kind of training which the amendment proposes. I think it is also true to suggest that in due season the Commission of the European Communities will probably think in terms of extensive harmonisation covering member states in respect of this whole business of environmental and food protection.
  Undoubtedly, if their thoughts turn in that direction it is reasonable to assume that they too will insist on a degree of training for those who are directly concerned in this operation. There are certainly precedents for that in the harmonisation proposals requiring a certificate of competence in road transport for those who are supervising commercial vehicles.
  Also in question here is the health and safety of workers, because, although the Bill makes provision for consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, undoubtedly even a competent worker is himself at risk if he has not been properly trained in the use of the spray, and he may also put at risk those who are in his vicinity at the particular moment when he is misusing the apparatus he has been given to spray with. I hope that we have suitably amended our original proposition and that, as it now stands, this amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I think that this particular amendment has a large number of holes in it. First, the gentleman who is to do the spraying may not spray more than half a hectare without a certificate of competence. Half a hectare when? Between lunch and dinner? Before breakfast? Does he have to leave a gap? Under what circumstances may he spray half a hectare? That seems to me unreliable.
  Who is going to issue the certificate of competence? Is it going to be the farmer concerned? Is it going to be the Agricultural Training Board? Is it going to be the European Commission? Is it going to be the United Nations Food and Agricultural Association? The thinking behind this is fairly doctrinaire, and we should avoid, if we can, too many driving licences or MOTs. We should leave it to the farmer to allow the person to spray, provided all the other regulations are in force, and leave it to him to make sure that his own machinery is used properly. This amendment is full of holes, and I have endeavoured to demonstrate just a few of them.
  Lord Walston: My Lords, there may be some holes in this amendment, but I cannot go along with the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in this respect. I think we have all agreed, particularly having listened to the various debates we have had on this general subject, that agricultural sprays are potentially toxic substances. They are dangerous to wild life; they are dangerous to plants; and they are dangerous to human beings.

  195
  They are being used on an ever-widening scale and it is right and proper that they should be, but surely we have the analogy of, for instance, the motor car. In the days when it was hardly used at all anybody could get on a motor vehicle and drive it, a potentially lethal weapon. When it became widespread in its use and it was realised that it was a potential danger, it was seen to be necessary to introduce regulations so that only those who had a certain skill in driving—regrettably a very low skill in many cases—were allowed to do so. I would suggest to your Lordships that toxic chemicals now come within that range. It is right that those who employ them should have some understanding of what damage they can do, how they should be used, and how they should be used to the best and most efficient advantage.
  Therefore the amendment, even though it may have a hole or two in it, attempts to do something that the Bill should do. It is similar to the amendment which my noble friends Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lady Robson of Kiddington and I put down at Committee stage. It is not necessary for everybody who gets on a tractor with a spray behind it to have some qualification; I do not think that would be realistic. However, it is necessary, and will become increasingly necessary, that those holdings, other than the smallest ones, which employ sprayers and spray their crops, should carry out spraying under the supervision and the responsibility of somebody who has a little more than a smattering of the elements of what spraying involves and what sprayers are.
  I do not believe that this amendment suggests that people should go on a six months' course to an agricultural college to qualify for this certification. About three or four nights spread over a winter period would give adequate training on the elements of proper spraying and proper control of these admittedly toxic substances. So long as there is one person on the farm who takes responsibility—be it the farmer himself, his son or the spray operator on a large farm—that is a step forward which sooner or later we shall have to take. I think it is wise that we should take it at this time. I therefore support this amendment.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that pesticides are dangerous. I also agree with what my noble friend Lord Onslow has said. I cannot possibly imagine how this sort of legislation ever sensibly could be put into practice. It seems to me that if we are to move forward in this direction—there is certainly merit in it—surely the way forward, as has been done with straw burning, is for a code of practice to be introduced through the NFU. I do not know whether a code of practice on the spraying of pesticides exists. I suggest to your Lordships that if we are to move forward in this direction that is the way to do it.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes, perhaps I should point out that a code of practice is not mandatory. We only dealt with straw burning effectively when it became a by-law and was enforceable by law. I do not think his analogy is worth tuppence.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment. I strongly agree with what my
  196
  noble friend on the Front Bench has just said about by-laws on straw burning. I do not remember the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, describing that as draconian when we were urging the Government to introduce the by-laws. Quite the reverse; I believe that he supported it, as he did in taking some steps towards improving the skill of people operating machinery applying pesticides. When we discussed this at the Committee stage, he came up with the suggestion that only craftsmen should be allowed to spray. I shall not suggest that that is draconian. However, I hoped that in return he would not suggest that this modest amendment was draconian; but he has just done so and quite unfairly.
  It may not be practical to limit the area sprayed in the way which the amendment suggests. It is important, and agreed by all of us at the Committee stage that people operating machinery with dangerous chemicals—not potentially dangerous, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, but actually dangerous—should be properly trained and should be as skilled as possible. That is in the interests of everybody concerned, and I hope that some form of encouragement, if not requirement for training, will be supported by the Government.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, at Committee stage I acknowledged the importance of training and mentioned the considerable contribution made by the agricultural training boards supported by Government funds. A large proportion of pest control operators both in agriculture and in the industrial and public health sectors have received training and I go along with all that your Lordships have been saying about the desirability of that. Users of pesticides must have an interest in ensuring that they and their employees know how to use those pesticides effectively and safely. The responsibilities put upon them by our legislation is going to make this all the more necessary. But if the Government need to do more in legislation, the authority is there in the Bill in our power to impose conditions on use.
  Our statement of intention in paragraph 10 which I circulated before the Committee stage makes it clear that the Government will consider training and certificating as conditions of approval, although I was at pains to make it clear on that occasion that we would be extremely careful to consult about this and not to place unreasonable burdens upon the individual farmer. I may say in passing that several trade associations have stressed the need for adequate training and have offered to organise training schemes. I am grateful to them for their constructive suggestions. But the main difficulty, I think, is that we really need to do a lot more talking with all the interests involved on the needs and practical possibilities before we can legislate.
  My noble friend Lord Onslow picked some holes in this particular amendment and I must say that I think that each of the holes that my noble friend picked was by no means unreasonable. My noble friend Lord Peel made the point, which I think is a valid one, that something in the nature of a code of practice would be exceedingly helpful. If I may add the difficulty from the Government point of view, it is this. What does one do, for instance, if one has a situation of a two-

  197
  man operation—not unusual in agriculture at all—and the fully-trained operator is then unavoidably absent through illness at the exact moment when the spraying has to take place? I am not saying that that should preclude us from thinking that at the end of the day we have to make some more definite arrangements about training. But I am saying that a consideration of that kind should lead us to give a good deal more thought than simply saying, as we do in Amendment No. 45, that training shall be mandatory.
  Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, if I may say so, I did not say that the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was not helpful. I said that his analogy was not good. That is a slightly different thing.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall not venture into the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie and my noble friend Lord Peel on that point. I shall content myself with ending by saying that we shall be continuing our consultations once this legislation is on the statute book. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, will not mind me resisting this amendment on the grounds that I have given. I think that we, all of us, are trying to pull in the same direction. It is a question, however, of exactly how far one can go. With respect, I think that this amendment really goes too far.
  Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his observations and no less grateful to those noble Lords on all sides of the House who have seen some merit in this amendment. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 14, line 43, leave out ("any of its international obligations") and insert ("any international obligation to supply information; or
  (c) to enable the government of the United Kingdom to determine what action it should take in order to fulfil an international obligation of any other description.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, during earlier discussions of this Bill your Lordships, really from all parts of the House, expressed concern about the need to inform importing developing countries about the nature of the pesticides which they are importing and the extent of any risks attached to the use of those pesticides. On behalf of the Government I said then—and I should like to repeat it now—that the Government share the concern and have been wholehearted supporters of international initiatives in this area. In fact, as your Lordships will be aware, the United Kingdom has agreed in principle to the United Nations environment programme proposal on information exchange, and it was with that agreement in mind that we included in our Bill the power to obtain information from exporters and others in order to meet our international obligations, as my noble friend Lord Swinton explained at the previous stage of the Bill.
  9.30 p.m.
  However, during our previous discussion on this topic I was asked whether this Bill included the power
  198
  to put "prior informed consent" into effect; that is, for the export of a pesticide to be banned until the intended recipient government had indicated its consent, if such an obligation were agreed internationally. I can now answer that question; and I have to admit that I did not give very much of an answer at the previous stage of the Bill.
  The first point that I should like to make in answer is that there exists the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939, which I understand enables us to restrict exports where, on grounds of policy, we find it necessary. Indeed, to come up to date, there is an order in being at the moment, the Export of Goods Control Order 1981, which has been made under the 1939 legislation and which subjects a great many goods to controls. Although that legislation dates from 1939, it is, I am advised, entirely appropriate to use it if necessary. I am pleased to reassure your Lordships that this issue has recently been tested in the courts and my advice is that these powers under the 1939 Act and the 1981 order are appropriate for use.
  I was not entirely sure that your Lordships would be particularly pleased if I came to the House and simply said that, so I am bringing forward for your Lordships' consideration Amendment No. 46, by which it is intended to make it clear that under this Bill the Government could obtain information not only in order to pass it on to other countries, but also to enable us to decide on any other action which we might need to take in order to fulfil our international obligations. If our international obligations were to involve prohibition on an export, then the power exists under the 1939 Act.
  I should like to make one more point, if I may. I would not wish anything that I have said in moving this amendment to be construed as Government approval for the principle of prior informed consent. That issue is being discussed in the FAO at the present time. However, I am confident that taken together these two measures give us a wide range of powers to control exports of pesticides. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it is true that the big exchange in Committee took place on whether or not the Bill gave power and one is now satisfied that that power exists, be it under the 1939 Act of by virtue of this amendment. But the other remarks of the Minister have to be disappointing for those of us who were concerned that we should wish to follow the policy of prior informed consent. I know that there are difficulties. I know that perhaps it is at this moment not a perfect way of doing things. I know that there are many governments who might find difficulty in understanding the requirement and who therefore might not be capable of, if you like, getting full value from that particular agreement. Nevertheless I think it would have been greatly to our credit if we had taken an initiative on this line, and not simply waited for international obligations to make us do it.
  I must say that of course I welcome the amendment as far as it goes. I am merely saying that I wish it had gone a bit further. I wonder whether the Minister can give us some idea of how the Government see the outcome of the FAO requirements after they have been debated with the United Kingdom; what our

  199
  Government are hoping to achieve and what will be our attitude if the final agreement is not entirely to our liking. Can he also give some idea of how he sees the timetable of these discussions? Are they likely to reach a conclusion this year or next year, or will it be in our lifetime?
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as one of the noble Lords who moved at Committee stage an amendment to include the words "or export", I can do nothing but totally welcome the amendment. It seems to me that we have now got the balance absolutely right. All these third world countries said with perfect justification that they did not want to be governed from Whitehall and that they would rather go their own way. It is therefore totally inappropriate for us to say, "You shall not have this from us because we do not think it is good for you". It is exactly the same as us saying to the Nigerians, "It is wrong for you to execute an armed robber or postpone his execution for 24 hours because you want to use the polo pitch for another game of polo", which is what they did the other day. It is not our business.
  We must make absolutely certain that we have the powers to fulfil our international obligations and we must make certain that they are in the Bill. What we must not do is to say, "You, oh third world country, need Whitehall to look after you." I am not sure that Whitehall's writ runs to Guildford or Yorkshire, let alone Nigeria. I suggest to your Lordships that that is the attitude which we should take towards this amendment and I also suggest to your Lordships that the amendment strikes exactly the right balance between correct control and nanny-ing somebody else.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like very much to welcome the Government's attitude in this matter. I should like to back up the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol: what constitutes an international agreement? Do we have wholly to agree and sign on the dotted line that this is an agreement, or will a resolution passed with us agreeing with some points constitute an international agreement? I think that this is quite an important point and I should like the Minister's reply to it.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, as somebody who also joined at some length in these debates at Committee stage, I should like to welcome the Government amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may not be surprised to hear that I do not entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that the balance is now exactly right, but the Government have taken a significant and important step in the right direction.
  I hope that the negotiating stance at the FAO and in other places where prior informed consent has been discussed will be to favour it, although I do not as yet get that impression from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I should not want to delay the proceedings at this stage by doing anything more than welcoming the significant step that the Government have taken.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the general welcome that has been given to Amendment No. 46. I am not being as helpful as I perhaps might be to the noble Baroness, who asked me
  200
  several questions about the FAO negotiations, in that I must explain first of all that I am not going to say that we have been supporting prior informed consent in that particular forum, because we have most certainly not been saying that in public. But at the same time I must remain silent as to what our view exactly is because I should not want to do anything to jeopardize our negotiating position. What is certain—I hope that this does give an indication of what the United Kingdom's view really is—is that I did record in my opening remarks that in the United Nations environment programme we had agreed in principle to the proposal on information exchange. We were very ready to do that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked what constitutes an "international obligation"—that is the wording in the Bill. If I may say so, I think it means exactly what it says. It would be an obligation to which we were committed because we had signed in whatever way we needed to do as fully as possible and we had shouldered the obligation. Under those circumstances, when the obligation had been fully accepted by this country, then of course the full effect of Amendment No. 46 would come into play.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 47:
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
  ("Misused pesticides
  No pesticide shall be approved under section 15(1)(b) above if it appears to the Ministers, on advice from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Health and Social Security or the Department of the Environment, that it is being persistently misused, whether wilfully or accidentally.").
  The noble Lord said: This is a new and I hope improved version of an amendment that I moved at the Committee stage and which was then criticised by a number of noble Lords on two grounds in particular. First, the original version made mention of pesticides which were being persistently misused and which were likely to be so. In the amendment before your Lordships, I have removed the words, "or likely to be so". In addition, a number of noble Lords were not happy at the idea that anyone other than Ministers, as defined in the Bill, should be in a position to remove the approval, or not approve, a pesticide that was being persistently misused. I hope that this amendment will therefore commend itself to your Lordships to a greater extent than did the amendment I moved at Committee stage.
  At Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, rested his arguments against the amendment as it then stood—apart from the two grounds that I have mentioned—on the basis that there was already a body of law that made a criminal offence the persistent misuse of pesticides of the kind that I was concerned about. He mentioned in particular the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It is true that for many years before the Wildlife and Countryside Act, under the Protection of Birds Act, deliberate poisoning of protected species, and more generally deliberate poisoning of birds of prey which are protected, has been a criminal offence. Nevertheless, there has been and continues to be a large number of incidents of specially-protected birds of prey being deliberately poisoned.
  For example, since the Wildlife and Countryside Act was implemented in September 1982 and until September 1984, of the two chemicals which have in recent years been most persistently misused, there were 28 incidents involving alpha chloralose—all of them against the law, as the noble Lord the Minister said before. The incidents involving misuse of that chemical continue. Those incidents affected, for example, 11 buzzards, a golden eagle, and a peregrine. Mevinphos—the other chemical persistently misused in recent years—has been involved in 18 incidents since the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Again, those incidents involved buzzards and one human being.
  Over the years, the problem has been that although it is a criminal offence to use a pesticide that is lethal to wildlife to deliberately set out to poison protected species, poisoning incidents have continued at a high and very worrying level—particularly those affecting vulnerable species such as buzzards, golden eagles, and peregrine falcons.
  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds takes most of the prosecutions which are brought in this area. It is not an area where the police tend to be particularly active, although co-operation between them and the RSPB has been very good in recent years. The RSPB and the RSPCA take most of these cases, and their view consistently has been that where a chemical is persistently misused, it should be withdrawn from use if the damage being done through that misuse is so great as to justify such a step being taken; that is despite the existing law on the subject.
  It has been the case with a number of other dangerous substances which have had a legitimate use and an illegitimate use that if the criminal law was not sufficiently effective to prevent the illegitimate use of that substance, then it was sensible for society to remove it from circulation for ever, or at least for some time. I believe the same should apply to a limited number of pesticides, and that it is likely to continue to apply to a limited number of pesticides in future years. I feel therefore that a power of this kind should be provided by the Bill. At the moment, I believe that such a power does not exist among the powers which the Government are taking under the Bill and I did not hear anything in Committee to suggest otherwise. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the Government and your Lordships will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, there seems to be no need to repeat at any length an argument which we have had to the effect that if we pick out one example of something that we wish to prevent we may be frustrating ourselves by excluding others. I am beginning to think that the road to legislative hell, which is unnecessary complexity, is paved with good intentions. So often we have well-intentioned amendments which have, or might have, exactly the opposite effect to that desired.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, I follow that argument which the noble Lord has made previously this
  202
  evening, but surely it only applies in those cases where the power to do what the amendment seeks already exists in the general powers in the Bill. I do not believe that that applies in this case.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, it seems to me, rightly or wrongly—and perhaps we shall be told by my noble friend Lord Belstead whether it is right or wrong—that where Ministers are given a discretion of the very wide kind contained in, for example, Clause 15 (1)—which is to become subsection (2)—(a), (b) and (c), to leave them with that wide discretion may be very much more sensible than trying to pick out certain spheres of anxiety. Once we pick out one sphere of anxiety, we may make it more difficult for other spheres of anxiety to be enforced. Therefore, my humble advice would be not to accept this amendment but to leave the matter to the general powers contained in the Bill.
  Lord Walston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is very persuasive, but I am afraid that he has not persuaded me and I hope he will not persuade your Lordships. The intention is, of course, admirable. But, as I understand it, it could mean that a chemical of great value to food production which is illegally used to destroy some golden eagles could, on the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Health and Social Security or the Department of the Environment, but, significantly, not the Ministry of Agriculture, be denied for the use of food production. That does not seem to me to be the right way to set about it, any more than I would consider it to be right to abolish the use of alcohol because in certain cases it has been misused by a minority of its consumers. Therefore, I hope the Government will not see fit to accept the amendment.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I rise only to put to your Lordships that if one uses wood and wire netting one can make a trap to catch peregrines. That does not mean we should not use wood or wire netting. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if someone in the Nature Conservancy Council says, "Please do not do it", the Minister is then obliged not to do it and must ban the chemical concerned. I believe that that would be very unwise.
  Finally, we do not ban motor cars, although they kill 6,000 people a year. We have to be very careful before we accept these forms of legislative straitjacket. Of course, we should be very vigilant and, if people misuse chemicals, it is the people who do the misusing who should suffer rather than those who use them legitimately.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think from what has been said on this amendment that we ought clearly to be wary of it. I think that there are three main reasons for that. The first, as the noble Lord himself said, is that misuse is already an offence under other legislation. It would also be an offence under regulations to be made under this Bill. That leads me to the second reason. Surely what is really needed is good enforcement. I very much hope that the efforts of the new enforcement officers authorised by Ministers, and the continuing action by other organisations, will make a major contribution in the future.

  203
  I shall say nothing about the point which was so well put by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. He made that case without the need for any repetition by me. But-there is a third point which, if I may, I wish to put on my own behalf. It arises from what my noble friend Lord Renton said. We have the powers in the Bill. In setting up the structure of the new enforcement arrangements we shall of course be looking closely at the problem of misuse. Undoubtedly, enforcement arrangements will depend on the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, on which of course all the four organisations listed in the noble Lord's amendment are present as assessors.
  Before I finish, let me give one example. The noble Lord is well informed and in his speech he gave several examples of where misuse had occurred. Whenever there is misuse, it is always a tragedy. For instance, I notice that he mentioned the product Mevinphos. If the advice that I was given about that is correct, it is an insecticide, is highly toxic, and at one time was used for poisoning carcases to kill foxes. On advice, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides insisted on a change in the formulation. That was done. We are not talking about an organisation in the ACP which has no teeth and is not prepared to take action.
  I think that it would be very difficult to accede to this amendment which in some strange way would be taking the power to give advice and to take action out of the organisation which we have put in statutory form this evening in the Bill and put it only in the hands of the four organisations whose representatives are present as assessors on the ACP anyway. For those reasons I would add my voice to those of other noble Lords and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not press the amendment.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, no, I will not press the amendment. I should like to make two points, if I may. I accept that it would be sensible to operate some system of this sort through the statutory body. But the
  204
  noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will appreciate that I had to re-draft this amendment before having the advantage of seeing Government Amendment No. 42, I think it was, which set up the advisory body as a statutory committee.
  There is one other point that I should like to make. There has been something of a history of attempts to legislate on this problem. The most recent attempt before this was made during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, when exactly the same point as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, have made about the importance of enforcement and of catching those responsible was accepted by your Lordships' House, and an amendment was made to that Bill which would have placed a limited degree of liability on landowners on whose land such poison was illegally placed. That was accepted by your Lordships' House as a whole, but unfortunately not by the Government, and the amendment was removed from that Bill when it was in another place. I think that your Lordships' House at least made an attempt to improve enforcement in this field by making it easier to bring prosecutions against those responsible, but that did not survive the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in another place. It is really for that reason that concern is continuing, and I am afraid the problem will not go away.
  I should like to see what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, when I read Hansard tomorrow. As I understood it, his reply to his noble friend Lord Renton behind him was that the general powers provided in Clause 15 would allow Ministers to restrict or indeed remove from use a pesticide which was being persistently misused, if they felt, on advice from the advisory committee, that that was desirable. If that was the case, I am inclined to agree that a specific power of this kind is not necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 48:
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
  ("Control of advertising
  Ministers may make it a condition of an approval given under section 15(1)(b) above that any person causing or permitting any advertisement for a pesticide to be published, broadcast or otherwise disseminated ensure that the advertisement carries a statement of any restrictions imposed by Ministers on the pesticide's use.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also was an amendment at which we looked during the Committee stage of the Bill. At that stage I moved a similar amendment and I received a sympathetic response from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. This is in Hansard, col. 241, of 11 th December. In particular the noble Lord said that the Government had it in mind that,
  "Ministers might make it a condition of approval that a supplier should ensure that any advertising carried a statement of certain restrictions which Ministers had imposed on the product's use".
  The noble Lord made the point that there were already sufficient powers in the Bill to achieve that, should they wish to do so. I am therefore not intending to press the amendment on the assumption that that remains the case, that sufficient powers are available in the Bill. However, I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord has had the opportunity to take his thoughts any further forward and whether it will now be the case that Ministers will make it a condition of approval that a supplier should ensure that advertising material will carry a statement of the restrictions placed on the product's use by Ministers. The noble Lord said that that was the point he was going to consider; that it might happen. I wonder whether he can take it any further forward and tell us that it will happen.
  The final point on this is that I think there is really quite widespread concern, as I said at the Committee stage, about some of the advertisements that appear for certain pesticide products. There has been correspondence in the farming papers from farmers concerned about the nature or the style of advertisements. I recently received some correspondence about an advertisement produced by ICI in a trade journal, for a weedkiller for use in parks, which the advertisement claimed,
  "killed very nearly every wild flower which I sowed in a paddock on our farm a couple of years ago from a wild flower seed mixture to get a herb-rich meadow on the field".
  It is that kind of advertising which I am afraid is doing the pesticides industry no good at all. It is why I think that some indication in advertisements that there are restrictions on the use of certain products would be a valuable step forward. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in this amendment. I think it seems a very sensible thing to do. I should say this to the noble Lord the Minister. When he considers producing regulations along these lines, if there are long and complicated restrictions on the use of the chemical, it might be difficult to get in a half page or quarter page advertisement for that chemical in a farmers' magazine the whole of a detailed list of what the actual restrictions are. It might be difficult to have a very detailed and complicated list of restrictions. However, I think there is certainly
  206
  merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is trying to achieve.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I must say I was in agreement until the noble Lord gave his example. I personally do not desire to grow a great deal of wild flowers in a pasture. Normally I sow a pasture in order to provide food for animals. In that case, I do not look on the wild flowers with a tremendous amount of respect. The buttercup is not my favourite food for cows or any other beast. While I do not deny that the noble Lord has a perfect right to grow every form of wild flower, I grow grass for cattle and/or sheep to eat. If I want a certain number of herbs it is very sensible to sow herbs in the strip. However, I would not say that the noble Lord's example would encourage me to vote for the amendment.
  10 p.m.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. This is a sensible amendment. It is almost a natural conclusion to all this complicated legislation that your Lordships have been discussing and enacting. If we can have stated on a packet of cigarettes that smoking can dangerously affect your health, there is no reason why we should not have a warning on a fungicide that it can seriously affect the health of insects. It is a sensible amendment. I support the noble Lord.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, we agree, I think, that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is on to an important point. I should like to give a more friendly reply than I gave last time, because there is no doubt that this is a serious issue. All pesticides cleared for use in the United Kingdom have restrictions placed on their use at the present time. Their use is restricted to specified crops and restrictions are placed on the timing of application. Some may only be used in agriculture while others are available to gardeners. Some may not be sprayed from the air; some may only be used under licence by trained operators. And so one could go on.
  If this amendment became law, all advertisements would have to carry all those restrictions. It was, I think, my noble friend Lord Onslow who made this important point. Not only do I think that this would be impractical; it would also, I believe, defeat the object of the exercise. Even if room was found on the label to list all the restrictions, such a mass of instructions would only confuse the reader. Surely, the aim is to warn a potential purchaser of factors that might affect his choice of pesticide. In my view, this would best be done if, in the regulations, we require the inclusion in advertisements of important restrictions which might, for instance, state, "This material may not be applied from the air", or, "This material may not be applied within so many metres of water". Those are just two suggestions of the way we could go.
  It is a familiar argument that this is best left to regulations. I believe, however, that, in this case, the power is there to require such restrictions in the conditions provided in Clause 15. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will feel that this responds to what he was saying. The noble Lord was, in essence, asking, "Can this be done?" and, "Has the

  207
  Government's thinking gone any further?" My answer to both questions is "Yes" and "Yes, again". Our thinking has gone further. I hope that I have been able to outline some of the ways in which we are thinking.
  Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has been very helpful. I agree with his arguments and those of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. It would probably be counter-productive to insist on every advertisement containing every single restriction. It would detract from the importance of the significant kinds of restriction that the noble Lord mentioned. That sounds to me a sensible argument. I am grateful for the positive response to both questions that I asked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 [Enforcement powers]:
  Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 48A:
  Page 16, line 15, after ("Ministers") insert ("or a local authority within the meaning of section 72 of the Food Act 1984 (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the 1984 Act)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, in a sense, echoes our discussion on Amendment No. 1 at the beginning of the Report stage. There is still concern at the exclusion of local authorities as such under the Bill, even though it is accepted that officers of local authorities may be designated under Part III as enforcement officers. I presume that this designation will take some form of attachment. It would be helpful, when the Minister replies, if he can make clear whether the officers from local authorities who are to be so designated will be drawn from the ranks of the trading standards officers or if they will be exclusively environmental health officers.
  The view has been expressed that the Bill, good as it is and necessary as it is, constitutes an erosion of power to a centralised national administration. It is accepted that that erosion is not deliberate, but it is still a matter for regret. That is one reason why, in this amendment, an attempt is made to restore the local authority as a body capable of appointments under this clause.
  In further justification of the amendment, it is argued that local authorities have valuable local knowledge and experience of areas in which they operate. This is especially so as regards the inspection of records of pesticide usage, and it is felt that this could be made use of by incorporating the amendment into the clause. The amendment, broadly speaking, advocates the concept of power-sharing and it does so in the interests of speed and enhanced protection for producers and consumers alike, especially from the build-up of experience which local authorities inevitably have, and will have, of users of pesticides. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 48A.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am happy to be able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that Clause 17 gives the Government sufficient powers to authorise local authority officers to undertake an enforcement role. I know, from my talk the other day with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the representatives of the
  208
  AMA who were with her, that officers are anxious to have a role to play, and indeed I know they will have a role to play. We are going to be consulting them on the nature and extent of their participation as we prepare the regulations.
  The noble Lord asked if enforcement officers would be trading standards officers or environmental health officers. This I think would be a matter for local authorities to decide. I would add the point that Schedule 2 sets out in considerable detail the powers of enforcement officers, and at paragraph 4(c) there is included the power to take samples, which, if I may say so, means that the reference to being a sampling officer in the second of these two amendments would not be necessary. I hope the assurance that I have given the noble Lord on these two amendments will be sufficient for the noble Lord not to press them.
  Lord Gallacher: My Lords, given that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, I have to explain that Amendment No. 49 should read:
  "leave out from second "for" to end of line 28".
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 49 and 50.
  [Printed earlier: col. 142.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, both Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are consequential upon Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I propose to take these two amendments together.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 17, line 12, at end insert—
  (" ( ) Where any person has incurred loss or damage in consequence of the service of a notice under subsections (4) or (5) above, but is not subsequently convicted of an offence under section 15(6)(a), the Ministers shall be liable for the loss or damage.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief because I know my noble friend will not accept this amendment. However, I must tell my noble friend that I have been approached this evening, since I moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, by a number of Members of your Lordships' House who are still expressing concern over the whole question of compensation; and therefore I intend to reserve my position. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment in the words my noble friend Lord Stanley has used. Here again, once more, it seems that the farmer might incur loss and have no sensible or practical redress. That seems wrong. I should like to reinforce what my noble friend has said: that the whole area of compensation seems at the

  209
  moment a little bit unsatisfactory. We spoke about it earlier on. In point of fact, Amendment No. 6 was withdrawn, so that was not spoken to. I, too, must reserve my position, possibly to look at it very closely, and also to look very closely at the whole spectrum of compensation and think about it with a view to bringing it forward at Third Reading.
  Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Health and Safety Executive's inspectors are an experienced and responsible body of men not given to the reckless distribution of unnecessary notices, as I am sure the farming community would agree. I simply say to my noble friend in answer to this amendment that really the amendment would mean that these officers would be forced to seek a conviction when the public interest might be better served if they did not do so. It would also mean that it would be impossible to serve notices under subsection (6) because that relates to the risk of the commission of an offence and, therefore, is a preventative measure.
  Everything that I have heard said on this Bill leads me to believe that surely it is better to have the power in the Bill to prevent an offence rather than to be forced to wait until one is committed and then prosecute the offender. The damage to health and the environment would already have occurred, and if we accepted the amendment, that would be the situation. It is on those grounds that I feel that I cannot accept the amendment.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 52.
  [Printed earlier: col. 142.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
  Clause 20 [General defence of due diligence]:
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 54:
  Page 19, line 7, leave out ("or")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this point at the Committee stage, at some unearthly hour of the night, and failed to understand the answer given by my noble friend Lord Swinton and so I have tabled it again. My amendment would allow the farmer to use the words "due diligence" as a defence, as originally appeared in the Bill until the Government took it out. As this is a lawyers' argument and I am not a lawyer, perhaps your Lordships will allow me, for I hope the first and last time, to resort to reading the argument put to me by my legal advisers.
  This defence was removed as a valid defence to an offence under Part III of the Bill at Committee stage. It is now proposed that the defence be reintroduced to apply to Clause 15(6)(a) of Part III of the Bill. It has
  210
  been suggested that as a matter of law the defence can apply only to offences which would otherwise be strict liability offences in so far as there is no defence available to them. However, I am advised that there is no reason in law why the defence of due diligence should be restricted to such offences. Certainly there can be no logical reason to include this defence where there is a prescribed mens rea attached to the defence. Thus, no attempt is being made to vary Clause 15(6)(b) which states, for example, that a person must not make a statement "recklessly".
  However, Clause 15(6)(a) states that the individual who has allegedly committed the offence shall not be liable so long as he has a reasonable excuse. "Reasonable excuse" has not been defined in the Bill, and so the question is left unanswered as to the meaning of the phrase. A "reasonable excuse" would probably apply where an event occurred which was totally outside the control of an offender. An excuse which could reasonably account for why the offence came about may be acceptable; as an extreme example, if an illiterate person cannot read the instructions on a can of pesticide, would that be reasonable excuse for the commission of an offence being created under the Bill? It may be a realistic one. It would seem unreasonable that while a person has an excuse which is regarded as reasonable by some unknown standard and therefore has a valid defence, a person who has exercised all due diligence may not.
  It is therefore imperative that the matter be clarified and that the defence of due diligence should be restored as a defence to Clause 15(6)(a). The range of offences created by Parts I and II of the Bill are not so different as to render the application of the due diligence defence inappropriate to Part III. Indeed, as a matter of consistency, and for the avoidance of confusion, due diligence should be reintroduced as a defence to Part III.
  Perhaps I should add in my own words that, as a run-of-the-mill schoolboy, I was frequently accused—of course, unjustly!—of not being diligent. Therefore, I think that the words make some sense to the layman, particularly the lazy and rather slapdash operator or farmer. I beg to move.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as the noble Lord's two amendments are being taken together, I should point out that there is a misprint on page 19, line 7 of the Bill, where "91(1)(a)" should read "9(1)(a)". That refers to Amendment No. 55.
  The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. I am advised that the phrase "without reasonable excuse" is wider than the general defence of due diligence, so it would be rather illogical to apply both defences to the offences in Clause 15(6)(a), but not necessarily impossible. However, I think that I understood about as much from the noble Lord's legal brief as, by the sound of it, he did reading it himself. Therefore, I should like to reconsider this amendment in the light of the offences and defences in the Bill, and hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think that I understood my noble friend to say that he would reconsider this matter. If he did so, I shall withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 55, not moved.]
  Clause 22 [Interpretation]:
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 20, leave out line 31.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 [Emergency prohibitions]:
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
  [Printed earlier: col. 117.]
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 60:
  Page 25, line 17, leave out ("or feeding stuffs")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 61 to 64:
  [Printed earlier: col. 117.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Officers and their powers]:
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 65:
  [Printed earlier: col. 137.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Particulars to be contained in registers]:
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 65A:
  Page 31, line 31, at end insert—
  ("4A. The results of any toxicity tests carried out for the purpose of determining whether a licence should be issued or the provisions to be included in one.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I undertook to look at an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, concerning the disclosure of the results of toxicity tests. Your Lordships may recall that these are already, and will continue to be, disclosed; but I agreed on that occasion that there ought to be specific mention of them, which was the case that the noble Baroness was making. The present amendment is in response to the noble Baroness and refers to "any" tests. Since, as I explained in Committee, not all applications require them, it allows us to consider results of tests carried out by others, and it describes the purpose of the tests. I have discussed the text with the noble Baroness and I believe that it meets her concerns. I hope so. I beg to move.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to rise once more and thank the Minister not simply for this amendment but for his courtesy and helpfulness throughout the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 66:
  [Printed earlier: col. 182.]
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential. May I thank the noble Baroness for those kind words, and the rest of your Lordships for your help throughout a long day. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.