Organophosphates: Licensing Policy (Hansard, 26 May 1999)

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) and the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) regularly keep one another informed and consult where appropriate on policy issues and safety matters. Both these government agencies are represented on the official group on OPs. This high-level group of officials was set up by the Government in 1997 with the primary aim of ensuring effective co-ordination among government departments and agencies.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. It would seem that what he says is not entirely what is carried out. Is he aware that when the OP information network became aware that the Pesticides Safety Directorate was looking at particular groups of OPs, it asked whether the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's evidence on diazinon, which is a major constituent of organophosphate sheep dips, cat and dog flea collars and various pesticides used in domestic situations, could be made available and was told that because of commercial confidentiality and Section 118 of the Medicines Act no information held by the VMD could he passed to the PSD? Does not the noble Lord think it extraordinary that in these days of joined-up government, and supposedly joined-up 916 thinking, these two organisations, whose scientific committees are looking at the same organophosphate, cannot talk to each other?

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, the issue of providing data for the PSD on diazinon did not arise because the pesticide approval holder chose not to support the products in question. The bulk of data on the safety of diazinon held by the VMD is from published sources and there would have been no difficulty in providing it to the PSD. In the event that the PSD had asked for data provided to the VMD on a confidential basis and by a company, which is controlled by Section 118 of the Medicines Act, it would still have been provided if there were a safety concern relating to human health which the data would assist in resolving. As I said, there are regular exchanges of views between the VMD and the PSD on particular issues. Each agency routinely copies to the other reports of meetings and information on safety evaluation.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, how will the situation be affected by the new transparency under the access to information Bill?

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, it is already in a sense transparent. The official group on OPs meets regularly. All its reports are published; indeed, its latest report is in the Library. In respect of this matter, there was no need for a freedom of information agenda because the information was already in the public domain. I repeat that if human safety is involved, the information is made available as a matter of course, despite the requirements of the Medicines Act.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not think me in any way offensive when I ask whether he agrees that his original Answer was foggy in the extreme, had the fingerprints of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food all over it, and therefore would stand a great deal of improvement?

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, I do not find the noble Lord in the least offensive. What other noble Lords think, I do not know! The situation is as I explained it. It was not foggy; it was quite clear. The product, diazinon, was removed from the approved list by the PSD because the manufacturer had chosen not to support the application. The market for the product was small. It was used for the making of compost and in mushroom production. Obviously, because of the size of the market the manufacturer decided that it was not worth the cost of seeking approval.
The use of diazinon in a sheep dip is completely different and is rigorously controlled. Yes, MAFF drafted the Answer. I read it and approved it.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his first Answer to the Question was not in the least foggy? It is the only one I understood!

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, now follow that one! The noble Lord said that there was full 917 communication between the two organisations. Could he explain why it was that the OP information network was therefore misinformed? Concern about the matter was expressed to me some 18 months ago and I was waiting for the results of the inquiry before I raised it. Could the noble Lord say when the OP group will report again? It published one report late last year, but will it report again soon?

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, I am not sure of the date of the issue of the next report. The departments involved in that group are the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Department of Health; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; the Ministry of Defence; the Health and Safety Executive; the Veterinary Medicines Directorate; the Pesticides Safety Directorate; the Medicines Control Agency and the territorial departments. That is an excellent example of joined-up government.