UK Parliament / Open data

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Before speaking to Amendment No. 285A, which is in this group, I should like to say to the Minister that I have withdrawn Amendments Nos. 281, 286, 287 and 289. I did so because we were satisfied and grateful for Amendment No. 283, which the Minister has introduced. I should like to add that I entirely endorse what my noble friend has just said about this clause. There are real difficulties here that the Government will have to address. My Amendment No. 285A deals with the very wide-ranging new powers that the Bill gives to pesticide inspectors. It is important—indeed, essential—that the inspectors carry out their duties with great diligence and proper consideration. The National Farmers Union—and I declare an interest as a member of that body—rightly pointed out in its brief:"““We are concerned that the person who legitimately has a prescribed pesticide may be treated unfairly and penalised.””" Therefore, it is essential that,"““the interests of legitimate users of pesticides are respected.””" That point is extremely well made. Amendment No. 285A would ensure that such an inspector must have regard to any relevant code of practice. I welcome government Amendment No. 283 and the subsequent amendments, but they do not go far enough; it would be extremely helpful if the code of practice could be adhered to in the Bill. I shall raise one other issue. Given that the Government have stated in the Explanatory Notes that they intend to publicise the pesticides that are to be included on the precluded list, could that list be circulated to the relevant representative organisations and notices placed in the appropriate press in addition to it being made available on the Defra website? I ask the noble Lord to consider that request, as it would be extremely helpful.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c19-20 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top