Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Following that profound statement, may I first agree with the Deputy on a couple of points, mainly on the importance of bees and the maintenance of bee populations? However, it is important to have some accuracy in this regard. The neonicotinoid pesticides that it is proposed by the Commission to be banned or restricted in their use are not widely used in Ireland and only 0.7% of insecticides used in Ireland are neonicotinoids. One should be clear in this regard. In addition, there is no evidence of a collapse of bee populations in Ireland, although bee populations are under pressure in some areas in Ireland. However, there is no suggestion that Ireland is experiencing the kind of collapse in numbers that has occurred in other countries in Europe. It is important to be accurate in this regard.

Neonicotinoid insecticides were discovered in the 1980s but not commercialised until the 1990s. They are synthetic chemicals related to the naturally-occurring nicotine. There are five different active substances within the neonicotinoid family and three of the five are subject of the Commission's proposed restriction of use. The Commission proposed an implementing regulation to amend the conditions of approval of these three substances and prohibit the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances. An attempt has been made by certain parties to attribute the phenomenon of colony collapse disorder in bees to the use of pesticides and more particularly the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. Anecdotal evidence suggested a link between the increased use of neonicotinoids and the rise in the frequency of colony collapse disorder and sub-lethal effects. The Commission proposal was discussed at the European Union's standing committee on the food chain and animal health on 14 and 15 March 2013 and the resulting vote was inconclusive, with 14 member states refusing to support the measures proposed by the Commission, including Germany and the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the matter will now be tabled at an appeals committee meeting in late April.

I opposed the proposal on the basis that, procedurally, the European Commission proposal should be based on the EFSA conclusions and the current proposal seeks to go far beyond that. The procedure to date has been for the Commission to approve or not approve an active substance, in consultation with the member states. Thereafter, each member state approves or does not approve products containing these approved substances and specifies risk mitigation measures, where appropriate. In this instance, the proposal is taking the decision making process away from member states and thus ignores the principle of subsidiarity, whereby approval of an individual product at member state level has heretofore been a matter of member state competence. I am concerned that a precedent is being set here. I also had some technical concerns with the proposal, including the proposed prohibition for use on some crops that are not attractive to bees and the proposed prohibition for use on crops based on the time of year in which they would be sown. For example, the proposal continued to approve use on winter cereals, while prohibiting its use on spring cereals. I also believe there has been insufficient consultation with experts who understand the precise context of actual use of these substances.

I have not been lobbied by anybody on this. I have received some e-mails but I have not been lobbied heavily. If I have been lobbied, it has been far more on behalf of bees than on behalf of any industry interests. My only interest here is in making a decision that is based on science and fact.

The UK is now finalising a very substantial field study on the use of neonicotinoids, which does not draw the same conclusions as the Commission has drawn. We must listen to that. I have no problem voting for restrictive use or a ban, if necessary, of certain substances if there is a direct scientific link which shows that the use of those substances is causing significant damage to bee populations. However, we must be sure that we make decisions based on science. Yes, we need a precautionary principle but there are conflicting views and science on this, which I believe are not driven by the industry but by Ministers and their teams in the Council of Ministers who want to make decisions based on science, trials and fact. In time, we will be able to make decisions on the basis of fact, but there is probably more consultation required before we do that.

See this speech in context