BCPC has responded to Defra on the Government’s drive to change the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) to a non-statutory expert scientific committee guided by advice from the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent review.
 
“Whilst BCPC is prepared, in principle, to support the Government’s preferred option – to replace the ACP with an expert scientific committee – this support is conditional on answers to some key questions,” said Dr. Colin Ruscoe, Chairman, BCPC.

“It is important that the Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD) can access expertise that it does not have itself and so needs a standing advisory committee of experts,” said Dr. Ruscoe. “The current arrangement – where ACP is a statutory, advisory Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) – provides a number of safeguards which would not exist in the proposed expert scientific committee and could compromise its public credibility.”
 
“The drive within Government to make this change is understandable,” said Dr. Ruscoe. “However, no details are given in the Consultation document on the proposed new Committee apart from its non-Statutory Status. In order to support the change, we would need assurance on a number of points,” explains Dr. Ruscoe.

There are several areas that BCPC is concerned about. Firstly remit and reporting. How will the Committee operate and who will it report to? Will it simply respond to selected issues raised by CRD or will it raise issues of its own and those voiced by the public? Will decisions of the Committee be binding on CRD / Ministers or is it just intended to have an advisory role? BCPC believes that the Committee should have the power to make its own decisions irrespective of political consequences.

Secondly, there are concerns about membership of the Committee. BCPC feels that it is important that the members should have no vested interest in the outcomes of decisions and that there should be sufficient members with ‘real world’ knowledge and experience of pesticides and their use – i.e. not just experts in toxicology or environmental impact. It also believes that the Committee should have the power to take wider opinion from sources beyond its membership if it deems that this is necessary.

BCPC also raises the questions of the process for ensuring adequate meeting frequency and attendance to ensure that authorisations are not unduly delayed, as can be the case at present. And will the Committee have a budget for research funding to investigate issues, where answers are currently lacking?

“Finally, in order for BCPC to support this move we need to be assured that the Committee will retain and foster a risk-based framework and approach for the use of pesticides in the UK,” concludes Dr. Ruscoe.