MR PETER BEAUMONT AND MISS ALISON CRAIG

TUESDAY 2 NOVEMBER 1999

  180. Are we to understand by that that you might well drive people out of a job?
  (Mr Beaumont) I think, Sir, that it is unlikely because there are other factors at work besides simply pesticides and health and safety. We recognise that agriculture is in a different position but nevertheless as a matter of public policy we think that some of these chemicals are not appropriate to be used by people without training. It might also be right to say, Sir, that in addition to training people we should also certify the machines, which happens in many other countries, for example Sweden. It has been recognised as one of the factors which has been most conducive to reducing the over-use of chemicals by having, in effect, an MOT on the machinery as well as cars.

  181. You are not, surely, against the use of pesticides as a Trust?
  (Mr Beaumont) Sir, we are for the more responsible use of pesticides and alternatives to pesticides. I think everybody will accept in general that there is an over-use of chemicals, I think that is simply driven by the CAP and the need for farmers to grow in sufficient quantity in order to be paid. We would support that farmers should be paid for the way they farm and not simply for the amount of produce they produce, which is probably a separate argument.

  182. Do you criticise the HSE for failing to monitor the health effects of exposure to organophosphates?
  (Mr Beaumont) I am afraid so, yes. This may be a view in hindsight but I think it can be justified. In our view HSE has applied science too strictly, it has looked too closely to prove causation, to say that this particular chemical produces that particular effect. The Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists produced a report almost a year ago today in clinical management of the illnesses from organophosphate pesticides and they were faced with the issue of how do you prove whether a chemical causes an illness because, of course, we are all exposed to many chemicals. The view they took was that, for organophosphate sheep dip particularly, yes they can cause short-term effects, yes they can cause medium term effects, but the impact of long term low doses is not known, however, there are many people who are ill. The view the Royal Colleges took was there was a sufficient association between the dipping activity and the illness and people needing treatment. I believe I am supported in this view by the recent conference of IPMS at which Sir Robert May, the Government's chief scientist spoke and also David Fisk, ETRA's chief scientist and others in which the view of sound science was now put forward. Sound science involves not only the mechanics of causation, does this cause that, but also you have to pay regard to the limitations of your information and the uncertainty but also you have to take on board the concerns of those who are exposed to the risk. In those regards I would suggest that HSE has not done that. That may be, as I say, a view with hindsight but the view, I think, from many farmers has been that they have been more concerned to put the onus of proof on the farmers to show illness rather than take a more precautionary view that there is problem here. We cannot explain it, it may be many Nobel prizes before we can demonstrate the science to prove how illness ensues from exposurer but nevertheless we need to protect people's health. I think for many farmers it was unclear whether HSE were defending the licensing system for chemicals or providing information for doctors; it was unclear.

  183. Where do you think the major failing was? Was it in the remit given to the HSE, with the way it is structured or the individuals within it?
  (Mr Beaumont) I think it would be more of an attitude that it was up to the farmers to prove ill health and this was a very difficult issue. Nobody is going to pretend that OP sheep dips are a simple issue, but, given the amount of anecdotal evidence, there should have been a recognition that these things are possibly very dangerous. It is true that many sheep dippers can dip night and day over many years with no ill health whatsoever, but it is equally true that many cannot or have been regular farmers and suddenly become unable to carry on their livelihood because of the adverse effect. I think there should have been a recognition that even if we cannot solve the problem, we can warn those who are likely to be affected, and in the advice given it was unclear whether the advice was directed to doctors, to farmers or to chemical companies. When one reads Farmers Weekly and reads things like dipping `flu as an occupational hazard of sheep dipping, I think the feeling is there is ample evidence from which the conclusion could be drawn that some people, perhaps through genetic pre-disposition, perhaps through good or bad practice, or perhaps simply through ill luck, were made very ill by OPs. OPs in sheep dipping is a particular case, but of course OPs are also used more widely in other aspects of agriculture and grain stores and indeed in homes and gardens, so it is the top of the pyramid. It is noteworthy that one of the principal OP sheep dips in agricultural terms is now no longer supported by the manufacturers because, they will possibly say, the market would not support the gathering of more data, and it would perhaps be unkind to say that the health and safety data supporting the product were not available.

  184. Have changes been made now on how the HSE addresses this issue?
  (Mr Beaumont) I think there is a sea-change taking place and I think the interpretation of the scientific data is an issue for most agencies, particularly in the light of BSE and genetically modified foods. If the uncertainty issue can be taken on board, involving those who are taking the risks, then I am hopeful.

  185. What sort of additional training do you think agricultural inspectors are going to need if they are going to improve investigations into pesticide incidents?
  (Miss Craig) We think that there is a different mind-set needed for investigations. It is a completely different set of skills from what is needed for routine inspections. For agricultural training there should be a review of the training programme as a whole, for the interviewing of people and gathering evidence, and more specialist support from within the HSE about pesticides and how hazardous they can be.

  186. Have you got any solutions to the problems that are faced across the whole board, not just on the agricultural side, where, if inspectors are trained up, more and more they then become highly poachable because there is not the same relevant training outside or, if there is, effectively it is possible to be trained for nothing? Is there is anything you can offer as a solution to that?
  (Miss Craig) GPs have the National Poisons Information Service as an emergency resource, they can ring into that and there should be a specialist unit within the HSE which inspectors can ring.

  187. You argue that you want an environmental Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. Can you explain why you think that is a good idea?
  (Mr Beaumont) It is not necessarily perhaps a matter for this Committee but it seemed appropriate to raise it because the same products used in the same place in the same way cause both health and environmental problems. Given the geographical spread of farming and the resources and skills of HSE, it seems—I do not say a waste—unnecessary to duplicate all that effort with another agency which then looks at environmental issues. I am concerned that, for example, on the issue of sheep dipping organophosphate pesticides are gradually being phased out by a different set called pyrethroids. Organophosphates affect health, pyrethroids may affect water quality and have environmental implications particularly for fish and aquatic organisms. So we are replacing one problem with another and it seems there is such a congruence of interests that the same operation gives rise to similar effects, and many pesticides have effects on both health and the environment.

  188. You think that should be the HSE rather than the Environment Agency?
  (Mr Beaumont) I think perhaps it is a matter for the agencies, but perhaps for the farmer one set of visitors might be appropriate. Certainly there can be inter-agency understandings. Given the specialised nature of farming, as I say the geographical spread of farms and the congruence of the problem, it seems an opportunity missed that although COSHH requires a health assessment, and that is of course quite right, yet there is not a parallel requirement for an environmental assessment. The Food and Environmental Protection Act does say, of course, that minimum pesticides should be used concomitant with the protection of health and the environment, but there is no risk assessment which can be gone through in the same way.

  189. Are you saying that should be done with the same people, not just the same agencies but the same people?
  (Mr Beaumont) Either the same people, Sir, or at the same time or in tandem because the risk assessment process is very useful; it is a model which has been adopted throughout Europe. If the environment can be added into it, that would be a great protection.

  190. I understand what you are saying but I am wondering whether you would always have a problem because someone would lay more emphasis on one side than the other, where their particular interest lay perhaps?
  (Mr Beaumont) I think it is difficult and it may be horses for courses, it may be a question of having a pool of people who have one expertise and the other expertise in the same office, but I certainly think that the issues are so congruent that there would be an economy of scale. Indeed the Ministry of Agriculture now requires farmers using certain pesticides to conduct an environmental assessment if there are going to be risks to water. We would say, "Why limit it to water? The exercise is the same."

  191. Do you believe there is a conflict of interest between the HSE registering pesticides and also policing their use?
  (Mr Beaumont) To a certain extent, yes. The registration is done by in effect six departments, of which HSE is one, and HSE takes the lead in non-agricultural pesticides which include anything from wood preservatives, perhaps certain local authority herbicides, they also have an involvement with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in sheep dips. I think it goes back to the points we were making earlier about the OP sheep dip issue and who was HSE acting in the interests of, and I think there is an understandable difficulty. An agency which is responsible for licensing something then might find it difficult to say, "Actually we wonder how safe this is." There is a tendency to throw the onus on to the victim or the complainant and I think it is very difficult to take an unbiased and independent stand. It is assumed "Because we have licensed things, they must be all right." I think it is also the case that on an individual personal level, the individual inspectors who certainly have the job of prosecuting if things go wrong, but whose main work is advice and trying to encourage good practice, might find themselves in a difficult position if it was they themselves who had to prosecute someone whose farm they had visited—I will not say every year because inspections are perhaps only once every ten years, if that—but it might be difficult for them to prosecute. I think there is a case for a specialised arm or department to do that, if only to accord with the suggestions that my colleague, Alison Craig, made, that different training is perhaps needed to investigate and assemble evidence for a prosecution. There needs perhaps to be a more immediate link to that speciality because, in the case of many pesticides, if you want to demonstrate there has been negative use or there has been over-exposure, you may have to take blood tests within a day or two days. So someone needs access to that information to say, "If I bring this case to court, I have to get in there now and get the evidence straight away." So there may be a case for those specialist skills, but I think for individual inspectors and for the Agency it is difficult to be seen to be facing both ways, and indeed the evidence we have from farmers and from people who wish to have an incident investigated is that they in many cases, not all cases, are unsure which way HSE is facing.

  192. So do you have any hard examples which you could supply the Committee with of cases where there is a demonstrable conflict of interest where people who have contacted you feel perhaps the wrong decision has been taken because of this conflict?
  (Mr Beaumont) Subject to confidentiality, I am sure we could supply them.

  Chairman: On that note, thank you very much for your evidence.