Allister deplores Parliament vote on pesticides
13 January 2009
TUV MEP Jim Allister has expressed disappointment at the European Parliament's approval of the Pesticide Directive at Second Reading. The rejection of amendments, tabled mostly by members from the British Isles, to require a proper impact assessment before pesticides currently relied on are banned, was particularly disappointing.
Speaking after the vote Jim Allister said:-
"Once more in Parliament we have seen a rush to regulate, with scant regard to common sense or consequences. The herd instinct to push through what is presented prevailed. Yet, northern European cereal and vegetable production will suffer as essential pesticides are withdrawn over time.
Now, the fire-fighting which will have to be focused upon must centre on ensuring that the UK Government takes full advantage of the derogations and roll-over provisions which exist in regard to retaining some essential pesticides where demonstrably no acceptable alternative exists. Last week Secretary of State Hilary Benn declared his opposition to the EU proposals, now, it is over to him as DEFRA Minister to act to protect British interests by maximising available derogations and roll-over approvals."
Speaking earlier in the debate Jim Allister said:-
Jim Allister (NI). – Madam President, I do not accept that we have yet got a balanced package on this matter. For me this debate highlights two follies: first the abject folly of the EU, without pausing for even an impact assessment, dashing down the road of banning multiple plant protection products, not caring that there are no substitutes and that indigenous food production will drastically suffer, particularly in the cereal and vegetable sector, and thereby forcing ever-increasing dependence upon imports from countries who care nothing about these things.
Madam President, I have heard much talk in this debate about science, but what sort of science is it that does not subject itself to proper impact assessment?
The second folly is that of my country in particular, which is perhaps the most affected by these proposals, having subjected itself to qualified majority voting in the Council on these matters to the point where we are now probably going to be impotent to resist them. It is due to the idiocy of subjecting ourselves to qualified majority voting that we find ourselves in this position, and yet some under Lisbon would say we should hand over more and more subjects to that category.
