HC Deb 31 July 1984 vol 65 cc209-10W
Mr. Tim Smith

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Government have reached a decision on the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's recommendation in its seventh report that it should be mandatory for aerial crop sprayers to give advance warning to the occupiers of adjacent land, and that where this would be impracticable aerial spraying should not be used.

Mr. David Mitchell

The Government have given very careful consideration to this recommendation. In formulating our response we have been conscious of the need to safeguard the public and the environment without adding unduly to the regulatory burden on crop sprayers and the farmers they serve.

The Royal Commission recognised that aerial sprayng of crops is a valuable technique particularly when the ground is too wet, the crop too high, the scale of infestation or the area of land to be treated too large to make the use of ground machines practicable. It is already subject to extensive controls applied by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Health and Safety Executive and we have proposed a number of improvements in our response to the Royal Commission's other recommendations. However, we believe that the position could be further improved by clarifying the notification requirements to emphasise what is expected of operators and to ease the task of enforcement in the event of a breach. I therefore propose to invite the CAA to do this by setting out in its guidance to operators what will be considered to constitute acceptable notification of the occupiers of adjacent land, making it clear that this will include the delivery of written notices to the appropriate addresses.

The delivery of pre-printed notification cards containing the required information is a simple, quick and effective procedure. By making it clear that this will constitute acceptable notification there will be few occasions in which it would be impracticable for an operator to give warning. Operators will be required to reproduce the amended notification requirements in their aerial application manuals, drawing the change to the attention of all concerned and underlining the importance attached to proper notification being given. The notification must include the name, address and telephone number of the operator, the nature of the spray product, the probable time of application and indicate that details of the operation are being lodged with the police.

The complaints statistics kept by the CAA do not suggest that disregard of the current notification requirements is at all widespread, indeed, quite the contrary. Nevertheless, where such disregard is shown it is a serious matter. The CAA has the powers it needs to take effective action if its requirements are not followed: it can bring a prosecution or in extreme cases revoke an operator's aerial application certificate.

The chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority has assured me that the new requirements of prior notification will facilitate enforcement and that the authority will not hesitate to prosecute operators if it has adequate evidence of failure to notify in the appropriate manner. The chairman has reviewed the enforcement activities of the authority in this area and has confirmed that vigorous enforcement action will be taken.

We believe that the new measures together with the existing safeguards will deal adequately with the problem but we shall be monitoring the situation closely over the next three years. We shall not hesitate to take more stringent measures if a need becomes apparent in that time.