§ Sir Richard BodyTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what use he has made of his powers to ban the export of toxic pesticides which are already banned from use on agricultural products in the United Kingdom; and if he will consider taking powers to ban the import of any food that has been treated with a pesticide, the use of which has been banned in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. MacleanThe United Kingdom participates in the United Nations environment programme's (UNEP) notification scheme under which we notify the importing country of any exports of pesticides which are banned or severely restricted here. A pesticide which is not approved in the country may legitimately be permitted in other countries, since usage, climatic conditions and soil types all have an important influence on safety. In the United Kingdom statutory maximum residue levels have been set for some pesticides which are not approved for use here.
§ Mr. BoswellTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the regulatory process by which pesticides are approved.
§ Mr. GummerFollowing is the answer:
1. The statutory framework for the approval of pesticides is laid down in Part III of the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985 and under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. A system of Departmental and independent assessment of data ensures that only pesticides found to be safe are approved for use. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, supported by the scientific subcommittee, take account of risks to humans, animals and the environment in making recommendations to Ministers on approvals.
2. The introduction of statutory controls on pesticides under FEPA has led to a significant increase in the volume of work in MAFF's and HSE's Evaluation Units. Although the waiting time for applications to extend uses of approved products has been halved over the past year, two key tasks remain: to review to current standards those products approved some time ago, and to speed up the consideration of applications for new pesticides. These are objectives to which consumer, environmental and industry interests attach great importance.
3. To meet these challenges my colleagues and I are providing for further substantial increases in resources in order to improve the effectiveness of the evaluation process. Within the MAFF Evaluation Unit the numbers of scientific staff in post have risen from 25 in April 1986 to 54 currently. In the coming 12 months we shall increase 544W these by a further 60 per cent. to 86. We have introduced special pay scales to recruit and retain the specialised scientific staff required.
4. The physical resources available to the Unit are also being enhanced. New accommodation is being acquired, which will bring the Unit together on a single site, at the AFRC's Harpenden complex. This will be the first MAFF office to be equipped in 1991 with computerised office systems, costing about £1 million, to enhance efficiency.
5. In addition to recruiting extra scientists, we are planning to contract out discrete blocks of work in order to increase throughput. Several independent laboratories have been approached and specimen contracts will be issued shortly as a pilot exercise. The contract work will of course be subject to close monitoring for quality assurance. The internal resources saved will be switched to the highly demanding emergency reviews.
6. Because of the high standards of safety which we apply, and the complexity of modern regulatory work, the training of the new staff will be given high priority. Although this will absorb significant resources we nevertheless aim to increase threefold the capacity to process new pesticides, from eight in 1990–91, to 12 in 1991–92, 20 in 1992–93, and 25 per year thereafter. This is a realistic plan and these targets are stretching but achievable.
7. Similarly the number of reviews of older pesticides, full and partial, will rise from 12 in 1990–91 to 29 in 1991–92, and 37 in 1992–93. The total number of pesticides registered in the United Kingdom before 1981 is over 250 and all these will be reviewed, subject to a priority ranking exercise which is being established, with the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. For agricultural pesticides, we intend this work to form part of a co-ordinated 10-year European Community programme for the review of older pesticides. Indeed, what we have proposed will more than match our likely share of the Community programme. We always of course check as a matter of urgency any approved pesticides against which doubts have been cast. On non-agricultural pesticides the United Kingdom Government has taken the lead in pressing the EC for a harmonised approach similar to that proposed for agricultural pesticides.
8. We have already approached all approval holders to alert them to the review programme and to ask whether or not they hold data packages for their products which are capable of meeting modern standards. Those who have not replied will shortly have their approvals withdrawn.
9. To ensure that such a large review programme does not recur we have decided that in future all approvals will be time-limited, so that regular reviews will be required automatically if re-approval is sought.
10. Inevitably the increase in resources will give rise to an increase in fees for the approval of a new active ingredient. The increase from £7,000 to £30,000 has taken effect from yesterday. The pesticides industry as a whole has made public its willingness to pay for the additional resources necessary to provide a better service.
11. A key element in maintaining public confidence in the safety of approved pesticides is the advice from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides which is impartial and of the highest level of expertise. My colleagues and I have decided that all evaluations prepared by the Committee and the data underlying them will be made available for public scrutiny in as open a way as anywhere in the world.
545W12. Although our data indicates that our food generally contains very low levels of pesticide residues I have been examining how we might obtain further reassurance on the safety of our food. The Government already carries out an extensive programme of testing food, feedingstuffs, human tissues and wildlife, costing £1.5 million per year. We have approached representatives of food manufacturers, retailers, and local authorities who also perform a significant number of tests and they have in principle agreed to make their results available to the Government. This will greatly enlarge the data available on residues. For example, we know already that the number of samples of wheat available to us will be multiplied at least ten times.
13. In relation to non-agricultural pesticides there is also a good story to tell. Since April 1987 the numbers of HSE scientists dealing with pesticide approval have increased from 6.6 to 18.5. This will further increase to 25.5 in April 1990, and it is intended to reach the complement of 31.5 by April 1991. However, as with MAFF, this will require that the training of staff is given a high priority and there is no significant loss of staff to outside organisations.
14. Thus it is envisaged that by 1994 evaluation work of new active ingredients will start immediately an application for approval is received.
15. HSE plans to have completed its review programme of older non-agricultural pesticides within the next 10 years. Reviews have already been initiated on a number of active ingredients on which there has been public concern, and a review programme drawn up for the rest.