Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-244)
8 FEBRUARY 2005
MS HILARY
ALDRIDGE AND
DR ANDY
CROXFORD
Q240 Mr Wiggin: A 10% cut would be quite
significant, so are there any plans afoot to perhaps allow domestic
users to use different types, so that you at least could monitor
them, or just ignore the whole thing?
Dr Croxford: There are moves afoot
to provide them only in ready to use formulations, so that reduces
the disposal issue, and also to provide sensible pack sizes so
that you are only provided with enough to use for one season,
and you do not have a pesticide that you buy and then you keep
it in your shed for the next 10 years or whatever.
Mr Wiggin: It depends on the size of
your garden as well! One of the areas that matters of course is
the biodiversity element and gardeners do now represent quite
a lot of biodiversity in the UK, and it seems as though the Environment
Agency is doing what was criticised earlier, which is picking
on the easy targets—and in this case that will be the farmers—and
missing 10% of the whole problem, which is the domestic thing,
which is why I wanted to cover that with you.
Q241 Chairman: The amenities sector is
also very significant, so we know that a lot is being missed actually.
I just wonder, if you were sitting on this side of the table what
you would expect this Committee to conclude? I am tempting you
to answer! Are we in a mess?
Dr Croxford: I know you have been
critical of this approach already, but I would like to start out
with a clean sheet of paper, list our problems, where do we want
to get to, what are our options, how effective are each of those
options, how much do each of them cost, what is our most cost
effective strategy to get from where we are to where we want to
get to? That is our package. That sounds a very simple thing to
do in the three sentences and obviously is a very complex thing
to do, but if we want to have a strategy that is really strategic
that is what we need to do, rather than just cherry pick things
which seem like good ideas.
Q242 Mr Wiggin: And we could have a proposal
that we could be discussing and pulling to pieces and criticising
and trying to be constructive about, but at the moment we just
have nothing, and that makes it very difficult, does it not?
Ms Aldridge: I think we have bits
of a jigsaw and what you are hearing, we are painting pictures
of different parts of it and we desperately need that overall
package that we could then pull apart or criticise and say, "That
is great, we will move forward that way."
Chairman: I think David Drew just wanted
to come in at the end.
Q243 Mr Drew: Just as a final afterthought.
Is part of the problem with this in as much as there is a bigger
agenda, which is the whole issue to do with chemicals? We have
the arguments going over the directive in Europe, we have an increasing
concern being voiced by some elements in the general public that
they are not very happy about what they eat with regard to chemicals,
which is the pesticide side. But also some of the issues about
chemicals in the air and so on, and, dare I say, NGOs seem to
be able to pump out—not necessarily things into the atmosphere
but the cards to us about peoples concern, and I noticed in the
pack of stuff that I have had today that there is a new chemicals
campaign being launched by Friends of the Earth. Where are we
in terms of pesticides in that whole gamut of activities with
regard to chemicals? Or is this distinct? Is this something that
can be separated and put on the side, and deal with pesticides
and the rest of the chemical debate another day?
Dr Croxford: In October 2003 we
launched our chemical strategy which includes pesticides but which
goes across the board, across all chemicals. Part of that work,
as I mentioned earlier, includes our prioritisation of which chemicals
we should be most concerned about, pesticides included. But there
are many other chemicals that we are concerned about, industrial
chemicals that we are concerned about. So we are trying to take
a broader sweep at this and not just single out pesticides because
they have their own regulatory system and because there is a lot
of machinery in place to allow us to target pesticides. We are
trying to take a broader approach to chemicals.
Q244 Mr Drew: But that is a good answer
for not doing anything immediately. For a politician occasionally
they want an early easy hit, which is pesticides. They are not
going to sort out the rest of the chemicals in the environment.
That is a wholly subjective and, dare I say, quite a difficult
debate in terms of the scientific rationale. But pesticides could
be resolved satisfactorily. We have seen that there is some common
basis for that today—not a lot with the industry, but the
industry, I think, could be brought to heel. Do you not see something
to be driving forward here?
Dr Croxford: I was trying to paint
the broader picture of how pesticides are part of a broader debate
on chemicals, but clearly we can push forward on pesticides and
we are pushing forward on pesticides as we are with other types
of chemicals.
Ms Aldridge: I do not think we
should use the fact that it is part of a bigger picture to stop
any work until we know how that whole system works, because we
will never move forward.
Chairman: I think we might conclude that
ourselves. Thank you very much indeed, Environment Agency, for
your evidence. As usual I say to you, if on reflection you want
to add anything or amend anything that you have said to us, please
feel free to write to us. Thank you very much for coming.
| 
