I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause seeks to exempt organic pesticides, including solutions of tobacco leaf juice or live ladybirds.

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend so early in his speech, but it is worth recording how grateful we Back Benchers are for all the work that he has done behind the scenes on private Members' business over the past three or four weeks. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend is on his feet.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he may not be too pleased that I am on my feet when he hears what I have to say. He may disagree with my views on organic farming and organic pesticides. I had some responsibility for the matter some years ago when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, although I have probably largely forgotten all about it since those days.

I believe that new clause 2 is necessary. I am concerned about the requirement on the producers of pesticides to produce all the relevant data for pesticides approval. I believe that during my time at MAFF the relevant data could amount to a cost of about £20 million per approval.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Is he not worried, as I am, that some unscrupulous manufacturers could, as we have seen in the medicines sector, produce products masquerading as organic which are not actually organic, thereby evading the relevant regulations? Does he, therefore, agree that his new clause may not go far enough, as there should be some definition of what is meant by organic in this context?

That is possible, but MAFF and the pesticides safety directorate are not easily fooled by someone writing organic on the label of something that is not an organic product. The new clause is a probing clause, and I do not pretend that it covers all eventualities. A definition of an organic pesticide may be necessary.

I am concerned that we are losing more and more organic materials and organic pesticides in the same way as we are losing, in veterinary medicine, some products that are not used very much—they are used for various small animals and are not sold in large quantities. It is not worth the manufacturer spending time to make the product or spending the millions of pounds on research necessary to bring it to market and get a licence.

It is the same with pesticides. Coal-tar washes are used on roses, and Fairy Liquid is used to wash roses and remove greenfly. Admittedly, it is not a permanent killer, but it is successful for a few days. Many people—retired people and older gardeners—with the chance to treat their roses daily, wander round their gardens and take action every day. They are happy to use such materials, even though they may not be as effective as Glyphosate as a weed killer or as some of the other insecticides that are highly effective in killing most bugs except whitefly. I should be most grateful to anyone who could find something to kill the whitefly in my greenhouse.

There are products that gardeners have used for many years apparently quite safely, with no apparent risk to human health, either from inhalation or absorption through the skin. They have been effective when used on plant material or vegetables, and have not proved dangerous.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many beekeepers are concerned that the treatment that they have been using, TALC, will be made illegal and they will be required to use a chemical formulation instead of the present arrangements with which they are satisfied?

I was not aware of that, but it is another example which adds to my general concern.

I was alerted to the problem by catching on the wireless recently an edition of the better gardener's question time programme which has moved to Classic FM. I heard some advice given by one of the panellists, whom I had better not name—but he had a wonderfully rich Yorkshire accent. He gave wonderful advice on how to treat disease infestation, but was told that the organic product he suggested was now illegal under rules, possibly EC rules, that MAFF is going to implement. He said, "My simple advice is to carry on using it and ignore the rules." That is not advice which I could naturally espouse, but it showed that materials that have been used without problem for at least 50 years by gardeners are now being outlawed.

May I press my right hon. Friend on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) a minute or so ago? I am not satisfied that there is a satisfactory definition of organic for this purpose. I say that in all friendliness to my right hon. Friend, who has tabled a new clause which rests heavily on the concept and use of organic pesticides as opposed to non-organic pesticides. Is he satisfied that a sufficiently adequate, comprehensive and workable definition of organic exists for the purposes of his new clause in altering the Bill?

No, I do not believe that such a definition exists at present, but I believe that it should be possible for MAFF—a much underestimated Ministry—and those in the pesticides safety directorate to come up with an acceptable and workable definition. All I look for from the Minister today is a steer on whether the Government may be tempted to take this approach. The Bill will go to another place and it may be possible for their lordships to come up with a definition. Alternatively, at some future date, a definition of organic could be added to the Bill, as that is probably required to make proper sense of the new clause.

I am seeking to make a point in principle with the new clause. While we welcome the Bill, I am concerned that it could bring about a further tightening of the noose around all those so-called organic products. One could say that a coal-tar wash was initially made up of a synthesised product, but it has been used safely for at least 50 years. I see no reason why it should be outlawed now purely because it is too expensive for the manufacturers, users or, in some cases, the gardeners in their small co-operatives, who use a mixture of Fairy Liquid and some other material. Those materials have no doubt been approved and tested for human safety, but the combination of the different materials has not been tested and approved because the manufacturers of Fairy Liquid did not design it for use on roses. Fairy Liquid may be safe on the hands and good for the dishes, but it was not designed for gardening purposes, so it will not be granted a MAFF licence of approval.

May I suggest a very simple definition of organic that might well fulfil the purpose: any naturally occurring substance?

I am grateful for that; it might fulfil the purpose. However, many naturally occurring substances, when refined or treated, can become highly potent. No doubt a MAFF scientist would quickly say that such a definition would not be acceptable. Some of the most dangerous chemicals and compounds are naturally occurring. As an avid mushroom collector, I am aware of the dangers of naturally occurring substances.

I remind my right hon. Friend that one of the greatest complaints made by manufacturers of some of the traditional or well-established products is that testing them in the United Kingdom often incurs a five-figure cost, whereas to license the same product in France or Belgium costs £100 or £200 because those countries accept that, if a product has been used for 20 or 30 years, it is de facto safe.

My hon. Friend is right. I believe that there are different charges in different European countries, and Britain probably has some of the higher charges. I am, however, absolutely adamant that we have higher standards of inspection and approval. I had the pleasure of hearing the Minister of State speak to the Food and Drink Federation a few weeks ago. He said that he had not had any dealings with MAFF before becoming Minister of State and that it was an eye-opener to see that what went on in the various directorates under his command was—I think—infinitely better than he may have believed in opposition.

MAFF has generally suffered much unfair abuse over recent years, yet the work of its various professional committees and directorates is of a very high standard. I would bow to no one in saying that the people who check pesticides and veterinary products, and who work on safety committees in this country set the highest standards in the world—even higher than the Americans, who like to believe that, with their Food and Drug Administration, they operate high standards. They are much more liable to political manipulation than we are.

12 noon

The Government are keen to boost organic farming, but they will find difficulty in doing so. The previous Government tried to give such farming a little boost, and this Government are trying even more. Although many people say that they would love to eat organic produce, and when asked whether they want products covered in pesticides they will, of course, say no, the public are still not prepared to pay the very high premium on organic produce, especially as most cannot tell the difference in taste. Some people may have a fine enough palate to do so, but many cannot, and do not find the premium worth paying. If the Government want to boost organic farming, it would be correlative to take steps to try to ensure that pesticides used by organic farmers and gardeners are not inadvertently driven off the market. There is no malice on the Government's part; they do not particularly want that to happen.

If the previous Administration were keen, as this Administration are, to boost organic farming, there must be some definition of organic. Could that not be related to the new clause?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Soil Association Ltd. has criteria for determining organic produce, as well as some criteria for determining what organic farmers may use as pesticides on their crops. Such a definition would not be watertight, but it would take us about 90 per cent. of the way down the route.

If the Government want to boost organic farming, they must consider carefully continuing to allow in the marketplace materials that farmers and gardeners have used for years, which have not, of course, been approved by all the committees and been given a MAFF licence, because it is not possible to spend the £20 million necessary to have them tested.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned licensing, which I think costs about £7,000 or £10,000. That is nothing in comparison to what has to be paid in research to get a product to the point where it can be taken to MAFF, along with about 200 ft of documents. At least 10 years of research and product development, at a cost of about £20 million, are necessary in order to introduce a new pesticide to the market. If manufacturers spend all that on research, they have to sell an awful lot of produce at a fairly high price before they begin to recover their outlay. They will get a return on their investment only if farmers buy an awful lot of it, and it is used extensively in the large glasshouse industry or on grain farms, or in other enterprises with a large acreage and many users.

Inevitably, the manufacturers will not make pesticides or organic materials for little market gardeners and other small guys, to be used in a minority or niche market. If the day ever comes when organic farming is the majority market, it will be worth while for manufacturers to make products for it.

I suspect that the Government will not be able to accept the new clause today, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say that it contains a point worth taking further, either in another place or with simple amending legislation, to try to ensure, as far as is possible, that, while protecting human health and safety from dodgy materials made in the garden shed, legitimate organic pesticides are available for those who wish to use them.

I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) introduced his new clause, and especially for what he said about my Department, repeating my own words. I recall the night in question, and we were deprived of the chance of listening to the president of the National Farmers Union because we had to be cleared out of the hotel when the fire alarm went off.

The right hon.Gentleman has raised an important point. Clearly the new clause must be in order, or it would not have been selected by Madam Speaker, but the essential purpose of the Bill is as a piece of freedom of information legislation. I freely admit that it was a handout Bill left over from the previous Government, and not an invention of the present Government. It has been hanging around Whitehall gathering dust for a while. However, it fills a gap identified some time ago, and we are pleased to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) in promoting it.

The cost of bringing new pesticides and veterinary medicines on to the market has been raised. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is right to say that, despite the high costs of the licence and the documents needed to submit the application—those fill several filing cabinets; I have seen them in the stores both at York and at Weybridge—it is the research that gets the product to that point which is the most expensive.

I take the point that some products are used by individual gardeners as home remedies, and I imagine that the pesticides inspectors turn a blind eye to those for home use. However, when we are talking about products that may be used on foods for consumption, we are in a different ball game. We must be very rigorous about what we allow to be sprayed on food.

The Minister will know that many people grow their own food for home consumption, and they could have problems. Will he say something about that? Secondly, am I right in thinking that if there were an organic pesticide it could not be patented as other pesticides could, and that is why some of the chemical industries are not interested in producing one? Much research would be necessary; we have already heard how expensive that is. Yet, after all that, anybody else could produce the pesticide, too, because no patent would be involved.

I do not know the specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. I am about to deal with the organic aspect, but I do not know whether the problem with organic pesticides is the inability to patent them. The hon. Gentleman's point is well made; that probably is the case. However, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, we have not been able to produce a definition of "organic". We freely admit that that is a problem. The word "organic" is hard to define.

We must not assume that natural products are automatically safe. That is why I ask the House to resist the new clause. Even if we could define the term, we still could not have a general exemption for organic pesticides en bloc because they are not always safe. I have one example for the House—that of derris, which is permitted for use by organic growers, yet is extremely toxic to aquatic life. Just because a product is labelled "organic", that is not a buzzword for "safe". Like the previous Government, we want to improve organic production. This country has the worst record in the European Union for the amount that we produce organically. We import most of the organic foods on sale in our shops. There is no good reason why we cannot substantially increase organic production, despite all the difficulties involved.

The new clause mentions the use of live ladybirds. The pesticides regulations already exclude the use of ladybirds and certain other products that present no great risk or are covered by other legislation. The purpose of this Bill is not to deal with pesticides in the round; its provisions are very narrow. Clause 1 deals with freedom of information to the public about pesticides, and clause 2 deals with improving the operation of investigations where allegations have been made, bringing it into line with the normal procedures of the health and safety directorate.

First, I declare an interest: I am a farmer and user of licensed pesticides.

It is a good idea to place on the record the fact that pesticide use in the United Kingdom is probably the most tightly regulated in the world. The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 sets out the framework for the licensing and use of pesticides, and ensures that pesticides are used only if they are safe.

The Bill may lead some people to think that all pesticides should be outlawed because they are highly dangerous and injurious to human health. That is a common fallacy. Without some pesticide use, it would be impossible to produce food that the average modern housewife would want to buy. Although we want to encourage organic production, because of the price differential between non-organic and organic produce, the average modern housewife will go for the cheapest product. That is invariably produced using pesticides, which enable a greater quantity of clean food to be produced.

I am all for encouraging organic production, which can be achieved with a properly sustained public information campaign and advertising. One of the main planks for organic production is that only carefully and narrowly defined pesticides are allowed. The Minister has already referred to derris, a naturally occurring organic substance which our ancestors knew about generations ago.

Given that that environment is so tightly regulated, and that the Government will shortly introduce the Food Standards Agency to tighten the use and control of pesticides and food safety in general even further, I am not sure whether the Bill is necessary. Ministers should explain to the general public what extensive powers they already have.

I am not a gardener, but my constituency is full of gardeners who grow produce for home consumption—for their families and for others around them. For all we know, they may sell their produce from the garden gate—that still goes on in my constituency. That is why the provisions in the Bill need to be strengthened. The Minister said that, now and again, people turn a blind eye. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill is too strictly interpreted, it will cover people who grow food for their own consumption? The Minister did not respond to that point.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Garden pesticides and commercially used pesticides are controlled in the same way, but it is much more difficult to enforce regulations on home-used products. I am a practitioner who knows how to use the pesticides—there is a huge difference in the way in which they are mixed, in their application rates, in the spray nozzles that are used and in the effect of weather conditions. A huge number of factors affect the amount of active ingredient that ends up on the plant, which is one of the difficulties—

Order. This is all very interesting, but it goes well beyond the scope of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the terms of the new clause.

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject is so interesting, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) led me astray. The new clause relates to the use of naturally occurring substances. It states:

"Regulations made under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 shall not apply to old or new organic pesticides".

My general remarks related to the importance of the method of application of organic and inorganic pesticides to their effectiveness.

On the definition of "organic", my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) pooh-poohed my suggestion of a naturally occurring substance. As with any simplistic concept, people will find ways in which to get round regulations. However, I should not have thought it beyond the wit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its specialist advisers to come up with a satisfactory definition.

Given the panoply of licensing authorities, it should be possible to exempt some organic pesticides, which would help the organic sector. As the Minister said, organic products are much more widely available on the continent than in this country. Indeed, the lack of home-grown organic products is a deficit in our food production system. Unless the new clause is accepted, the Bill could make conditions for the organic sector even more difficult. I hope that the House will accept at least a variant of the new clause.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), I declare an interest as someone who occasionally uses pesticides.

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is rightly concerned about costs to the industry. We shall, I hope, soon discuss an amendment that I tabled specifically to address that issue.

The new clause relates to the use of organic, naturally occurring, chemicals, including old ones. On this occasion, I must resort to supporting the Government, as the Minister was absolutely right to suggest that the matter is not as simple as it appears to be. I very much welcome his comment that just because something is natural or organic, that does not mean it is safe. It is right and proper that we should put to rest the mystique that often surrounds organic products. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and others will be aware, many plants and vegetables contain chemicals that, although naturally occurring, can be very toxic if taken in extreme quantities or extracted and used in some other way.

Rhubarb.

I take it that my hon. Friend is politely reminding me that rhubarb is one such plant, rather than referring to the quality of my speech. He is right. Rhubarb, potatoes, spinach, mushrooms and many other foods contain naturally occurring chemicals that are toxic and should not be used.

The new clause refers to the use of old organic products. That is not a new idea; it goes back a long way. In about 400 BC, Democritos of Abdera recommended soaking seeds in sedum juice to protect them against disease before sowing. A little later, in about 50 BC, Plinius the Elder reported on the use of ashes, crushed cypress leaves and diluted urine as crop protection products. Not many hon. Members would want such things applied without any regulation, which is what is being proposed.

Given that my constituency is in the north-east, where leek growing and competitive leek growing are important, I would hate my hon. Friend to stop people from using the traditional methods to grow leeks, which include using urine and burying old mattresses. Those people would be alarmed to be caught under the pesticides regulations.

I was close to my hon. Friend's constituency all day yesterday and am well aware of some of the activities that go on there. I certainly do not want to prevent keen gardeners from doing such things. I am merely concerned, as are my hon. Friends, to ensure that the legislation is properly targeted so that it does not have any unfortunate side-effects or consequences.

Even if the new clause were accepted, organic pesticides would still have to be licensed. As I pointed out, our licensing system is one of the most stringent in the world. It specifies the concentration of the naturally occurring produce, the formulation and the maximum residue levels permitted in plants, so the public would still have extensive and stringent protection if the new clause were accepted.

My hon. Friend is right, but we are considering the information that is made available to the public. If something is to be licensed and to go through the rigorous process to which he referred, it is only right and proper that relevant information should be made available. As the Minister said, the previous Government prepared this legislation, but did not have time to introduce it. I shall table some amendments that may improve it a little, but the public should have access to the information. I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue the matter further because of the great problem of defining the word organic.

None of the definitions stands up, including "naturally occurring products", when one considers all the naturally occurring products that are toxic. If the new clause is added to the Bill, we will merely create another opportunity for lawyers to argue at length about the definitions used in it, which I do not want to do.

I do not want to delay the debate. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the Bill is not about regulation but about information, which is what we should be discussing.

All the flaws of the new clause have been pointed out, but I will remind hon. Members of them. They are the difficulty of defining "organic" and the fact that organic material can be toxic. It is as simple as that, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) may feel able to withdraw the new clause.

It is clearly inappropriate for the new clause to be added to the Bill. I appreciate the difficulties that have been pointed out, but I hope that I have flagged up a little problem with which the Government will have to grapple. I should have liked to grapple with it five or six years ago, but the matter was a low priority because we had to carry out so many reviews of existing pesticides.

After the Government have speeded up or completed the reviews, and if they want to encourage organic farming, they must turn their mind to the problem of organic compounds, some of which are made in garden sheds and are highly dangerous.

We have had an excellent debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 20, at end insert

'which shall not include the cost of original research on the pesticide. nor the costs of collating the information for Government departments or the manufacturer's own use.'.

We discussed costs in Committee, and I asked what charges would be levied on those who wanted access to the information. The Minister gave a number of assurances. On reflection, I think that they should be in the Bill, but the problem is the vexed question of what is meant in law by the phrase "attributable to".

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

It would be unreasonable to expect members of the public who want access to the information to pay such costs, but fine words do not necessarily achieve the results that we want, which is why the assurances should be in the Bill. The cost of providing the information—in Committee, the Minister mentioned photocopying—would be low, but I am concerned. The Minister has answered parliamentary questions on the subject. One of his replies stated:

"The cost of providing information to the public about agricultural pesticides is borne by the Department and, certain publication charges apart, is not recovered from the public."

Most seriously, he added:

"An estimate of the cost of provision of this service cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs." — [Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 74.]

If the costs are to be the basis for introducing a charging mechanism, we must know what they are. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and the Minister must reconsider the issue. If they can be worked out, the Minister's answer is not as helpful as it could be; if the cost of provision cannot be disaggregated from the other costs of the pesticides safety directorate, there is added impetus to agree to amendment No. 1.

I am concerned that there is no accurate basis on which to arrange the charging mechanism. In another parliamentary answer, the Minister stated:

"The costs of providing information to the public under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 is borne by the Department. No charge for the work is passed on to the agrochemical industry." — [Official Report, 20 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 75.]

That is technically correct, but I have raised the matter with the agrochemical industry, which told me that few, if any, requests have been made to view data in the pesticides safety directorate reading room. The directorate also made the point that it would therefore be wrong to devote manpower and expenditure to prepare the information for disclosure if there was little public interest in seeing that information. Another written answer revealed that there were only seven requests in 1997 to see the data. However, the British Agrochemicals Association clearly suggests that disclosure would impose costs on the agrochemical industry.

I have also read the Minister's comments in Committee, which were partly helpful, but not very. I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reinforce the points that my hon. Friend is making. In Committee, the Minister said:

"I understand that the Pesticides Safety Directorate has an incredible number of overseas visitors who trawl through the paperwork in the library." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 March 1998: c. 6.]

That strikes me as totally at odds with the answers received by my hon. Friend. The issue is clouded by confusion and misinformation, so I do not know how we can expect to achieve a proper costing mechanism to fulfil the requirements of the Bill.

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

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

I shall follow directly on what my hon. Friend has said, because it strikes me that the position is getting unnecessarily muddled. The problem arises from the wording of Bill, which is not as helpful as it might be, even though the Minister claimed that the phrase

"reasonably attributable to the supply of information"

represented a breakthrough, which I doubt. The word "reasonable" has a distinguished history in legislation in this country and is deemed generally to be understood, but in this case I wonder. In Committee, the Minister said:

"We intend to fix charges at no more than the cost of supply. Generally speaking, that will be the cost of photocopying—large administration costs will not be involved." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 4 March 1998; c. 5.]

I wonder whether that will be the case.

I am not sure whether I entirely agree with the amendment. It states—not unreasonably—that the cost

"shall not include the cost of original research on the pesticide, nor the costs of collating the information".

So far, so good, but it continues:

"for … the manufacturer's own use."

If a manufacturer required information, it might not be unreasonable to require the manufacturer to pay for it. A distinction should be made between the private citizen and the manufacturer. I am, therefore, not totally happy with the amendment.

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

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

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

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

We are discussing the phrase

"costs reasonably attributable to the supply of the information".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to clarify the costs issue. The Minister helpfully outlined the costs involved. However, I bring back to the written answer that he gave me four days ago, in which he said:

"An estimate of the cost of provision of this service cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs." — [Official Report, 23 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 74.]

On what basis will the Government work out the charging mechanism that will be in the Bill?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I, too, understand the desire to move on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.