European Standing Committee A
Wednesday 26 March 2003
[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]
Sustainable Use of Pesticides
[Relevant Document: European Union Document No. 10665/02.]
2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Mr. O'Brien.
Pesticides are valuable tools in crop protection. However, they are hazardous materials and carry a potential risk to people and creatures. The Government's key policy objective for pesticides is to protect people and the environment from potential adverse effects. Within that constraint, we aim to ensure that pesticides are available to assist crop production and to protect the competitive position of United Kingdom agriculture.
I shall explain our policy. There is a statutory requirement that pesticides can be sold or used only if approved by Ministers. All applications for approval are subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny and pesticides are approved only if they pass tough safety hurdles. Regulatory science develops over time and approvals are therefore reviewed to ensure that they meet modern standards. The United Kingdom approval system is progressively being replaced by a European Community regime with similar aims and scientific standards.
The approvals process ensures that, if used according to legal conditions, pesticides will not cause unacceptable harm. However, use according to that process does not eliminate all risk of harm. Hazardous substances are still released into the environment and there may be some exposure to them. The approvals system sets required standards at national level and cannot be used to minimise the impact of pesticide use in all situations. It is therefore not a complete solution to the need to reduce risk to the minimum.
For those reasons, we encourage the minimisation of pesticide use. That means that we contribute to the development of ways to reduce the impact of pesticides, encourage uptake of those techniques and encourage use reduction and alternatives to chemical control. The work of the Pesticides Forum is an important part of that impact-reduction project. The measures taken under the industry's voluntary initiative have the potential to deliver real environmental benefits through the greater uptake of best practice.
The Commission's communication, the subject of today's debate, is an early stage in the development of the Community's sustainable use strategy for pesticides. Its main objectives are set out in the sixth environmental action programme. They are to
Column Number: 4
minimise hazards and risk to health and the environment; to improve controls on use and distribution; to reduce levels of harmful active substances, replacing the most dangerous; to encourage low-input or pesticide-free crop farming; and to establish a transparent system for reporting and monitoring progress.
The Commission intends to make formal proposals for the strategy early in 2004. The communication sets out its initial analysis and some possible instruments that might be included in the strategy. The list is long, but it may be worth mentioning a few points. The communication suggests the establishment of national plans to reduce hazards, risks and dependence on chemical control. That would include substantial national discretion to deal with sustainability issues in locally relevant ways. However, there might be general restrictions on pesticide use, including in environmentally sensitive areas, and a general ban on aerial spraying.
The communication discusses mandatory measures to spread best practice, including in the handling of packaging and unused products, the training and certification of users and the inspection of spraying equipment. Common agricultural policy payments could be linked to compliance with those requirements. There would be consideration of financial instruments to influence user decisions, although the Commission does not seem at present to favour a European-wide levy or tax on pesticides.
The communication was addressed to the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. The Council agreed conclusions in December, which are papers for the debate. The European Parliament is considering the communication in its plenary session this evening. The Government support the need for a thematic strategy, which will complement existing legislation by improving controls on pesticide use. We welcomed the publication of the Commission's communication and find most of its content sensible. We have consulted widely with UK stakeholders and are drawing on the responses in developing our ideas and national strategy.
I want to comment on three issues in the communication. First, there is the proposal for substitution of more hazardous active substances by less hazardous ones, or by alternative products or techniques. The Government support that approach in principle, although it is not altogether straightforward to apply in practice.
Secondly, the range of proposals to improve the take-up of best practice is close in many respects to actions taken in the UK by the Government and the industry under the voluntary initiative. The difference is that the communication proposes a sweeping set of Community-level mandatory requirements. The Government consider that more national discretion of means is probably required to achieve common outcomes set at Community level.
Thirdly, on a related theme, we must consider whether the general balance between national and EU action is appropriate. There is a good case for
Column Number: 5
harmonisation of sustainability and environmental protection standards in the use of pesticides, but the Government agree with the Commission that differing national circumstances require flexibility on the measures taken to achieve those standards. We therefore support the idea of national plans and we have announced, in response to a report by the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, that we will move ahead with the development of a UK plan to integrate policies contributing to the sustainable use of pesticides.
The thematic strategy is a welcome step towards sustainable farming across Europe and the Commission's communication is a good starting point, although further consideration is needed of some of the proposals. We believe in encouraging techniques that minimise the use of pesticides, looking at alternatives and the most efficient use of pesticide application. That is beneficial to farmers and growers, as it is to the environment in terms of input costs. In recent years, many changes in the areas of efficiency and new product development have been beneficial as regards pesticide use. However, we can do much more to put in place a sustainable strategy and I believe that the EU proposal is an important part of doing that. Our national strategy is a way to work towards that ourselves on the basis of our needs, circumstances and priorities in the context of the EU-wide approach.
The Chairman: I now invite questions, which will conclude at 3 pm.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. I do not know whether other colleagues agree, but would it be appropriate if we removed our jackets?
The Chairman: Hon. Members may do so.
Questions will continue until 3 pm, after which time we shall start the debate. Questions must be brief and asked one at a time.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): I am grateful, Mr. O'Brien. It is an enormous pleasure to serve under your benevolent chairmanship. I hope that it will be benevolent.
The Minister will be aware that there is enormous variety in the EU between farmers and between states on the use of pesticides, their effective handling, efficiency of use—the safety culture—and levels of training. How can we hope to have a common approach while those disparities exist and how does the document propose dealing with them?
Mr. Morley: The whole idea of a thematic approach is to set up certain standards and procedures, several of which are already common to all member states. In the proposal for the approval and review of new chemicals and new pesticides, an EU approach is suggested—that would be standard practice. Different soil and climatic conditions account for the different ways in which member states use pesticides. Some of that is inevitable. We need to have some flexibility in recognising the needs of different nations; that applies to our needs as well.
There are some key issues. There should be some common standards—for example, in handling,
Column Number: 6
application and disposal. Those are important health, safety and environmental issues, and there is no excuse for applying different standards. I am sure that member state legislation as it stands relates to that and, although the responsibility lies, rightly, with individual member states, we would expect uniform enforcement across member states. I should be surprised if an individual member state wanted the health and safety of agricultural workers to be put at risk, or the environment to be put at risk of being damaged. I am confident that those applications and standards would be applied properly in other countries, as they are in our own.
Lawrie Quinn: I welcome the Minister back from his journey to the orient on behalf of the country's need for water. He touched on the different levels of sophistication in different agricultural systems. Farmers in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby tell me that there is a great issue concerning training and the keeping of records. Will the Minister advise the Committee whether there are any proposals for the European Union to address the levels of sophistication and the different agricultural systems, which range from peasant agricultural systems at one extreme to technologically complicated systems in certain parts of East Anglia at the other?
| 
