Pesticides (Hansard, 18 October 1990)

§ 2. Dr. Marek
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of pesticides on agricultural land.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean)
The use of pesticides on land is tightly controlled under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

§ Dr. Marek
Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that that glib statement is nowhere near good enough? Will he take a leaf out of the Minister's book and rely on scientific evidence, and take into careful consideration the British Medical Association's paper and its harsh criticism of the Ministry? Will he abandon his cheap jibes and admit that there is nothing wrong with natural food? Will he admit that what is required is a lessening of pesticides, especially in affected water catchment areas, and thorough consultation with everyone interested in the matter?

§ Mr. Maclean
There is nothing wrong with any food if it is treated properly. That applies both to natural food and to food that has been treated with pesticides. If the hon. Gentleman bothers to read the report on pesticide residues that we published a couple of weeks ago, he will see that we are among the best in Europe in having the lowest pesticide residues. On the BMA report, the House should be told—if the hon. Gentleman knows—why some of the few scientists on the committee dissociated themselves from part of the report or resigned from the committee. I note that some other members were representatives of or spokesmen for Friends of the Earth and one was one of Mr. Ron Todd's men.

§ Mr. Jopling
Is my hon. Friend aware that if he wants to restrict the use of pesticides on farm land, one of the quickest ways would be to make an urgent and substantial increase in environmentally sensitive areas, where the use of pesticides is restricted? At the same time, he would be doing something to help the most urgent and dramatic crisis that is hitting our upland areas, about which I hope that he will do something very soon.

§ Mr. Maclean
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for having the nous and good sense to introduce environmentally sensitive areas when he did. They are an outstanding achievement and we are committed to reviewing their success in the future. However, I must point out to my right hon. Friend that pesticide use in this country has declined since this Government came to power. We are proud of that achievement, and also of the fact that we stress optimum and best use of pesticides—not maximum use.

§ Mr. Hague
Does my hon. Friend agree that this country has some of the most stringent and intensive tests of pesticides and releases more data about them than most other countries do? Is not it in the best interests both of agriculture and of the environment to emphasise the need for the continued development of new pesticides which can be more selectively and effectively targeted?

§ Mr. Maclean
I was surprised to see that the BMA report, which I have here, calls for more information and less secrecy. Has no one told the BMA that we swept away the last vestiges of secrecy surrounding pesticide data when my right hon. Friend the Minister made his announcement a few months ago? The report also calls for regulation. Has no one told the BMA that regulation is now under some of the toughest statutory controls in the world, which were introduced in 1985?

§ Mr. Hardy
Will the Minister reconsider his rather intemperate reference to Friends of the Earth? Does he not accept that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, while not adding to the comfort of the Government, have exposed many serious problems in the British environment?

§ Mr. Maclean
I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I have a great deal of respect for the work of Friends of the Earth. I was merely making the point that we should not get the impression that the BMA report was produced by top academic experts. The committee contained people who were not medically qualified, but who were spokesmen for Friends of the Earth. That is perfectly legitimate, but let us not pretend that all those who produced the report were academic experts.

§ Dr. David Clark
Does the Minister appreciate that there is considerable public anxiety about pesticides, and that the anxiety is heightened by the BMA report? The Minister's complacent answer this afternoon did not help matters. Will he confirm that 41 per cent. of the pesticides currently in use were approved before 1966, and that even with the Government's speeded-up programme it will take a further 15 years to review those pesticides? Will he further confirm that it is currently taking an average of four years to get approvals for new pesticides and that firms such as ICI and Shell have had only one or zero approvals since they made their applications in 1986?

§ Mr. Maclean
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain about the time that it takes to review pesticides and simultaneously complain that because we and the companies making the pesticides are so thorough it takes a long time to develop a new pesticide. If there is the slightest question mark over any pesticide, it is automatically brought forward instantly for review. We are prioritising the review of all pesticides so that those in the top category will be reviewed speedily.