Pesticides (Hansard, 7 January 2004)

§ Andrew George
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) sources and (b) methodology was used to calculate (i) buffer zone sizes, (ii) grassland area affected and (iii) arable area affected in the Pesticides Safety Directorate discussion paper proposals for the Introduction of No-Spray Buffer Zones Around Residential Properties in England and Wales. [145984]

§ Alun Michael
The consultation document included four possible buffer zone sizes. These were 6 metres (reflecting a quarter section of a typical spray boom), 1.0 metres (the minimum set-aside width); 100 metres; and 300 metres.
362W
For the purpose of the consultation comparisons of the economic effects of introducing these various sizes of buffer zones were made. Information was sought from the Rural Development Service's Geographic Information Unit. The Unit estimated the area of both arable and improved grassland adjacent to built-up areas in five selected areas. This was done utilising the Land Cover Map 2000 which is derived from the analysis of Earth observational satellite imagery. The resulting data was then extrapolated to provide a total figure for England and Wales.
It was always acknowledged that these figures were illustrative, and one of the purposes of going to consultation was to see if these estimates could be refined further.
A decision is yet to be made of what size, if any, buffer zone will be introduced. Further work is being carried out to determine more accurately the areas affected.

§ Andrew George
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from how many of the organisations and individuals invited by the Pesticide Safety Directorate to the stakeholder meeting on 13 October about the consultation on plans for greater access to information about crop spraying written responses were received(a) by the official deadline and (b) after the deadline. [146018]

§ Alun Michael
The meeting on 13 October was held with rural residents' interest groups to discuss the issues raised by the informal consultation exercise on public access to information on pesticide use and to identify how practical measures might be introduced.
Those who attended were invited because it was felt they would be in a position to address the practical issues raised, rather than solely on the basis of having submitted a written response to the informal consultation.
Of the 33 representative organisations and individuals who were invited, five attended, 10 submitted written responses to the informal consultation by the official deadline; the remaining 23 did not submit a response. The official deadline was extended from 31 August to 30 September to take account of the summer holiday period.