My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s brief introduction to this debate, which he may want to repeat. The reason for tabling a stand part debate is not that we are necessarily opposed to the schedule, but a number of questions arise on which it would be helpful to have clarification. I raised this issue last week when we discussed the clauses on alcohol and the sale of liqueur chocolates to children. I find it difficult when asked to consider schedules to Bills—or any legislation—when there has been a government consultation but we do not have the responses to it. All that is available is the consultation document, the impact assessment and the government response to the consultation, not the consultation responses themselves.
I understand that in some cases there may be reasons of confidentiality, but the consultation document refers to personal information being kept confidential. That is of course appropriate, but I found it difficult to analyse and assess the Government’s proposals. It would have been very helpful to know what some of the experts and petitioners thought and what were the consultation responses. I shall come to a couple of reasons why.
The first issue is that of home use. The impact assessment says that known uses of Part 1 poisons for the home are rodent control and metal extraction. I have worked hard on this, but I do not know what metal extraction in the home is. I should be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me. I can think of other uses for small amounts of poison in the home, but metal extraction has got the better of me.
The list of consultees in the Government’s response to the consultation is interesting. Some clearly involve domestic uses, such as the British Tropical Fish Club, which apparently is different to the Tropical Fish Club. We have the Model Power Boat Association, the Pool and Water Treatment Advisory Group and the Ornamental Aquatic Fish Trade Association. It is more understandable why they would use Part 1 poisons in the home—albeit, I would think, in small quantities—but the issue of metal extraction has got me beat, so any advice would be gratefully received.
The Government’s charts in their summary of responses were helpful. Under questions for home users of Part 1 and Part 2 poisons, less than half of those who currently use such poisons would continue to do so. Perhaps the Government are seeking to reduce the number of poisons on the Part 1 and Part 2 list in the home, but I do not think that that was listed as an objective of the legislation. That is where the consultation responses would have been useful. Two of the questions in the consultation are: what do you use Part 1 poisons for and what you use Part 2 poisons for? Not being a scientist, not knowing what the chemicals are for, I would find that very useful.
The consultation also asked whether alternatives could be used and what they are. In assessing whether it is justified to say that more than half the people would not continue to use those poisons, would it not be helpful to know—and to have it in the summary or published in the consultation—how many of those people are likely to use alternatives to what is available now? As it stands, we may be preventing people who have ornamental fish or tropical fish tanks at home enjoying their hobby, or their sport with model boats and so on. I do not know because we do not have that information. If the Minister can address the issue of the consultation and the points that I have raised about the alternatives available, I would find that quite helpful.
3.45 pm
The other point that I would like to pursue with the Minister is the issue of licences. What is being proposed is a new licence, with home owners having to obtain a licence in advance for Part 1 use, although business users would not. Can he help me to understand the logic of saying that while a home user would need a licence in advance for what I imagine to be relatively small amounts of chemicals, although since that is not in the consultation I do not know what for, a business user would not? I would assume that a business user would have a much larger degree. If he could explain that again, I would find it helpful.
When this was brought forward the Government, quite rightly, took specific advice on the poisons from the Poisons Board, which recognised and identified some weaknesses in the current regulatory regime. Those are listed in the impact assessment, which says that:
“The poisons register in its current form does not prevent someone purchasing poisons for misuse … Licensing retailers does not add significant protection against misuse”,
and that:
“Business-to-business transactions are not monitored”.
So I understand why regulatory systems would be changed to address weaknesses but where issues such as poisons and explosives are concerned there has to be a presumption in all cases about public safety, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Yet if we read further on, it is quite clear that the Poisons Board’s preferred option was not the option 2 of licensing, which the Government are now proposing, but in fact was option 3.
It would be helpful to know why the Government took the advice of the Poisons Board on what weaknesses there are in the current regime but then did not take its advice on what the solution should be. Part of it is this deregulatory mania which the Government have. While no one wants to see unnecessary regulation, I am sure that the Minister and other noble Lords would accept that there are times when regulation is appropriate, particularly in areas of public safety. I am struggling to understand the logic in some of the Government’s thinking on this issue.
Can the Minister also say something about the costs of licences? What he has in the documents that I have read—there are a few—is what the costs will be for implementing the new licences. He says that businesses
will be liable for those costs, although it is something of an irony that after last night’s debate and other debates we have had on opting out of the European police and justice measures, the Government are now seeking some funding from the European Union to pay for specialised training in this area, so that businesses will not have to fund it themselves. However, the Government say that businesses will have to pay for training on the new regulations in regard to licences and that individuals will have to pay for those licences and, understandably, for cost recovery in regard to them. Unless I have missed it, I cannot find anywhere in the documents what the costs of those licences are likely to be. Is there anything that he can say to advise on what the costs will be?
I understand that the Government are committed to full cost recovery on licensing regimes but there remains one outstanding area where I am told that the Prime Minister himself has vetoed it. It is on the issue of firearms licences, which currently cost just £50 for five years and £40 for renewal. While I do not necessarily disagree with the Government’s view of having full cost recovery on these licences, it would be helpful if—again, on the issue of public safety—the Minister could say why those who have firearms and shotguns should not pay full cost recovery when somebody who wants some chemicals to keep their fish tank clean should pay full cost recovery. I am concerned that, having made a promise to have full cost recovery on all licences, there seem to be just two involving firearms that are exempt. I do not understand why that is.
Can the Minister also confirm that the enforcement body would be the Home Office? What funding has been made available for that? I am not convinced that the Home Office has a particularly good record on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. If the Home Office is to be responsible, we need an assurance that this will be properly policed and enforced; otherwise it will be a step backwards.
If there are weaknesses in existing legislation, should not those who deal with the consequences of such weaknesses in terms of explosives and poisons be consulted? Although the weaknesses are identified by the Poisons Board, I am not sure what the consequences are. What I found curious in the list of consultees—I assume that it is an almost complete list—is that, for example, the British Fireworks Association and many others were consulted but the fire service was not. If there are issues around explosives or around poisons that may escape into the air and cause difficulties, surely the fire service should have been consulted alongside the British Fireworks Association and others. If there are medical concerns relating to the home use of chemicals—for example, if someone ingests them—should the NHS not be consulted? We need to understand the extent of any problem that now exists, if one does, and to see whether there is any way in which this can be better dealt with.
I have posed a series of questions to try to understand the Government’s thinking. As I have said, we never want to regulate for the sake of regulating, but nor do we want to deregulate for the sake of deregulating if we are removing public protection. However, here it seems that we are merely replacing one set of regulations
with reregulation rather than deregulation, with additional costs to some users. If the parts of the Government’s consultation that we have been allowed to see are accurate, a number of people who currently use poisons in small amounts at home, such as for their fish tanks, may in future be prevented from doing so. If the noble Lord can address those points, that will be quite helpful.