here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
1751 Pollinators and Pesticides<br />
6 JUNE 2013 Pollinators and Pesticides 1752<br />
In conclusion, I have three questions for the Minister.<br />
First, I believe DEFRA has said it will commission<br />
further field research on neonicotinoids and bees. Will<br />
that research be published in a journal and be peer<br />
reviewed? Will the Minister consider commissioning the<br />
British scientists who participated in the Gill and Whitehorn<br />
studies, rather than FERA, whose previous report was<br />
discredited? Is it DEFRA policy to reject all laboratory<br />
studies—and, by extension, scientific method—as a basis<br />
for action? Secondly, how will DEFRA ensure the<br />
effective implementation of the sustainable use of pesticide<br />
directive? Thirdly, will the Minister explain what changed<br />
between the first EU vote on 15 March, when the UK<br />
abstained, to the second EU vote, on 29 April, when the<br />
UK voted against a moratorium?<br />
The UK public are concerned about bees and pollinators.<br />
When I raised this at Prime Minister’s Question Time,<br />
he stressed the importance of the precautionary principle.<br />
As we look forward to the summer, people’s minds will<br />
be on gardening and planting, and farmers’ minds will<br />
be on planting and harvesting. It is critical that we hear<br />
from the Government on how they will respond to the<br />
EU moratorium.<br />
Several hon. Members rose—<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. May<br />
I suggest each speaker takes around 10 minutes?<br />
3.35 pm<br />
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): It is a pleasure to<br />
speak in the debate, not least because I am a member of<br />
the Environmental Audit Committee. I thank our Chair<br />
for the excellent leadership she has provided with this<br />
report and others. She is right on the importance of<br />
establishing a broad agreement, which the Committee<br />
did in its report—we have always achieved such agreement<br />
in previous reports, too. That is a good illustration of<br />
the Committee’s effectiveness, which I hope will continue,<br />
because we will do important work on investment in the<br />
green economy, which will result in a thought-provoking<br />
and important report.<br />
I am a former farmer, so I am familiar with the<br />
pesticides argument. I was principally a livestock farmer,<br />
but I could not escape other types of farming. I fully<br />
support the report’s recommendations. It is important<br />
that we recognise that bees are essential to our environment<br />
and to successful farming. That is well illustrated by my<br />
constituency—Stroud is recognised as world bee place.<br />
We have done a huge amount of work to promote the<br />
protection of bees, including wild bees, which are also<br />
at risk. I am extraordinarily proud of my constituency’s<br />
bee protection reputation.<br />
It is important to recognise that t<strong>here</strong> are more<br />
threats to bees than pesticides. We have heard about bee<br />
starvation and bee diseases such as varroa—I hope I<br />
pronounced that correctly; as a Northumbrian, I sometimes<br />
get my vowels slightly mixed up. We also know of a<br />
variety of other threats to bees. We should recognise<br />
that the Government see the problem and are taking<br />
action with the bee protection plan. I hope the Minister<br />
outlines how extensive that plan is, because we need to<br />
demonstrate that the coalition Government are determined<br />
to protect bees.<br />
It was disappointing that the UK did not vote in<br />
favour of the moratorium on neonicotinoids, but the<br />
moratorium is in place. As our Committee Chair correctly<br />
noted, that reflects the concerns and interest the Committee<br />
has spelt out. We had a lengthy debate on the seeds<br />
supply chain, and recognised that, for any moratorium<br />
to be effective, it would have to start later than we<br />
envisaged, which is right. It is good that Europe noticed<br />
that as well. The changes our Chair outlined are extremely<br />
welcome. It is good that the Government, through the<br />
field studies we have heard about, are determined to<br />
recognise the importance of the impact of neonicotinoids.<br />
Transparency is critical. As my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) noted, t<strong>here</strong> are too many<br />
occasions when one wonders how much we really know<br />
about what is being discovered or being hidden, so this<br />
matter would benefit from true transparency. I urge the<br />
Minister and the Department to consider the transparency<br />
of field studies, so that we know exactly what is going<br />
on and what the tests reveal. As the Chair noted, maize<br />
in Italy did not really suffer as a result of neonicotinoids<br />
being banned, but that is just one example. Everybody<br />
would benefit from more study and a more comprehensive<br />
understanding, including pesticide manufacturers. One<br />
problem that has to be borne in mind is that banning<br />
one type of pesticide might mean that other pesticides<br />
are used in an uncontrolled way. We have to monitor<br />
the use of all pesticides, especially when withdrawing<br />
neonicotinoids, as using different pesticides might make<br />
matters considerably worse. I am sure the Government<br />
are minded to do that.<br />
On the wider question of the common agricultural<br />
policy and overall farm management, as we move towards<br />
a reformed CAP it is important to recognise good work,<br />
such as that done by the Environmental Stewardship<br />
scheme. I would like to see more farmers using such<br />
schemes, and for those schemes to become more tailored<br />
towards the kind of issue we are debating today.<br />
Dame Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman speaks<br />
about further reform of the CAP. I am sure he is aware<br />
that recent reforms to the CAP have given national<br />
Governments discretion to switch subsidies to agrienvironment<br />
schemes, which could bring in much more<br />
bee-friendly habitats. Does he agree that the Government<br />
ought to be taking that step, rather than going on so<br />
much about what might be done in the future? Let us<br />
use what we have got now.<br />
Neil Carmichael: The Government are a Government<br />
of positive action. We are a coalition Government. We<br />
benefit enormously from having Conservatives on one<br />
side and Liberal Democrats on the other, and I am<br />
certain that that combination will bring about exactly<br />
what the right hon. Lady says.<br />
The right hon. Lady raises an interesting point about<br />
what amounts to the devolution of the CAP. From its<br />
inception, its impact has been characterised by either<br />
dominant nation states promoting certain types of produce,<br />
or, as in this case, by policy filtration, with different<br />
levels of government influencing outcomes by changing<br />
the nature of the policy. That was particularly prevalent<br />
in the early days in certain Mediterranean countries<br />
with regard to olives and so on. We should recognise<br />
devolution, but it is a double-edged sword. We in this<br />
country are able to do the right thing, but can we always<br />
guarantee that that will be the case in other countries<br />
that might have other priorities? I welcome those changes<br />
in the CAP, but urge the Government to do as the