Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 22 January 1985 vol 459 cc133-80

4.32 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) in relation to a British vessel, British aircraft, British hovercraft or British marine structure, wherever it may be:
2. (b) in relation to a foreign fishing boat, only if it is within British fishery limits; and
3. (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—
1. (i) it is in the United Kingdom or United Kingdom waters: and
137
2. (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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) shall include such provisions in a licence as appear to the authority to be necessary or expedient—
1. (i) to protect the marine environment, the living resources which it supports and human health; and
2. (ii) to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea; and
2. (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 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 moved Amendment No. 16:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

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 moved Amendments Nos. 18B and 18C:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

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 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 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 moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 26:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 11 [Powers of officers]:

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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; 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 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 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". 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 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 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 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.

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— 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.

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: 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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.

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 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.