§ The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)I have now completed a detailed consideration of the outcome of two consultation exercises regarding the introduction of buffer zones and information on pesticide use. As a result I would like to announce a number of measures designed to provide additional reassurance about the pesticide regulatory process, and to improve public access to information about pesticides used.
First I would like to announce that the royal commission on environmental pollution has agreed to my request to carry out a special study to examine the scientific evidence on which DEFRA has based its decisions on the risks to people from pesticide exposure.
I requested this study following a detailed evaluation of the responses made to the two public consultations launched on 21 July 2003, which sought views on the introduction of buffer zones around residential properties near farms, and how residents can best be informed of the pesticides that are being sprayed.
My number one priority has always been to ensure that the safety arrangements we have in place for pesticides do the job of protecting the public. The independent scientific advice I have received, both from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides and DEFRA's chief scientific adviser, is very clear that the existing system provides full reassurance. I am confident that no new scientific evidence has come to light that would provide a safety based justification for buffer zones, and I have therefore decided against their introduction around agricultural land.
Nevertheless the responses to the consultations demonstrate that there is a perception that the current arrangements, and in particular the assessment of risks, are inadequate. I have listened to the concerns of campaigners who hold strong views about how crop spraying has affected their health. Their views are undoubtedly sincerely held and although no new scientific evidence was produced to support their case, I believe the time is now right for a fresh and independent appraisal of the science. This is why I have asked the royal commission to examine the scientific evidence on which the regulatory system is based. The commission will be free to take a new and independent approach to the question. Further details about the scope and management of the royal commission's study will be released in due course.
I have also decided to introduce new legal measures requiring farmers and growers to keep records of pesticides used on crops and to make those records available to the public via a third party. Officials are contacting general practitioners' and lawyers' 38WS representatives and those for community health councils to explore whether they would act as third party representatives in such cases. These measures are at the early stage of development, and will require changes to existing pesticide regulations to put them into effect. I will bring forward proposals for parliamentary consideration at the earliest opportunity.
In parallel, a pilot study will be set up to explore how residents living next to farms can be notified in advance of pesticide use. The study will look at the practicality and cost of various options for how notification can take place. Officials are working on the terms of reference for the study and further details will be published as soon as practical.
These measures are in addition to a biomonitoring study already being arranged to look at the effect of pesticides in the air. There is also an on-going study, co-ordinated by the working group on risk assessment of mixtures of pesticides (WIGRAMP) into the effect of numbers of pesticides used in combination.
I also intend to invite key stakeholders to a meeting in the near future to explain the reasoning behind the decisions made.