---

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

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

12.59 pm

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

My first objection is that this is not a private Member's Bill; it is a Government handout Bill. The Minister admitted that it is a Government Bill that had been kicking around on the shelves of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the previous Government,

27 Mar 1998 : Column 845

and it was still kicking around on the shelves of MAFF under this Government, until someone pulled it down, dusted it off and put it into the House.

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 pm

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

The fact that when a Back Bencher is looking for a Bill to promote, he finds out which Bills in an area of interest are waiting on the shelf is, in itself, no argument against

27 Mar 1998 : Column 846

the system. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example. I should love to reform the law on inquests. I know that there has been a file on the Home Office desk for years on reform of inquests, but nobody has done anything about it. One of the Bills that I would consider if I ever won the ballot--I do not know what one has to do--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I would rather the hon. Gentleman did not stray into the way in which the House works, but stuck to the Bill's Third Reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 pm

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

1.6 pm

Sir Richard Body (Boston and Skegness): I have one eye on the clock as I am conscious that we have some good Bills yet to discuss.

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

27 Mar 1998 : Column 847

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

1.7 pm

Mr. Paice: I, too, understand the desire to move on.

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

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

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

---