here - United Kingdom Parliament

1761 Pollinators and Pesticides
6 JUNE 2013 Pollinators and Pesticides 1762
[Kerry McCarthy]
their national pesticides action plan to incentivise farmers
to use non-pesticide methods of pest control and set out
a route for reducing overall pesticide use. There needs to
be a real shift towards more wildlife-friendly farming in
the UK.
I was pleased that the Committee investigated the use
of pesticides both on agricultural seed and on plants
and seeds sold by garden centres. One constituent, a
secondary school teacher who has been planting a wild
meadow in the school where she works, recently wrote
to me when she was appalled to discover that the plants
she was buying to attract insects could actually be
harming them. I am pleased to learn from the report
that many of the UK’s largest gardening retailers, including
B&Q, Wickes and Homebase, have voluntarily withdrawn
non-professional plant protection products that contain
neonicotinoids, but I urge the Government to accept
the Committee’s recommendation that we should implement
a full ban on the sale of neonicotinoids for public
domestic use, to help create an urban safe haven for
pollinators.
My final point is about the EU vote. As we have
heard, the UK Government were one of eight Governments
who voted against a ban, but thankfully the vote was
carried by a narrow majority and the UK will not be
able to opt out. The press has carried reports of intense
secret lobbying by British Ministers on behalf of chemical
companies in the run-up to the vote. In a letter released
to The Observer under freedom of information rules,
the Environment Secretary told the chemicals company
Syngenta that he was “extremely disappointed” by the
proposed ban. He said that
“the UK has been very active”
in opposing it and that
“our efforts will continue and intensify in the coming days”.
We know that the Government said that they opposed
the ban because they felt that there was insufficient
scientific evidence from field trials to justify one, but
I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the
Government went beyond that in working so closely
with chemical companies to oppose this moderate two-year
suspension while further tests are carried out.
I congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee
on its report. Out of all the Committees in the House, it
has produced some absolutely fascinating reports, such
as its report on protecting the Arctic and the report on
green investment that is coming up. This has been a very
interesting debate.
4.20 pm
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): I, too, congratulate the
Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon.
Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan
Walley), and her team on the very thorough work they
have done in this report. I also want to take the opportunity
to express my concerns about the Government’s
commitment to reversing bee decline, particularly in the
light of the decision to vote against an EU-wide ban on
neonicotinoid insecticides.
The need for action to reverse bee decline is highly
urgent. All species of bee in the UK, including wild
bumble and solitary species as well as managed honey
bees, are suffering steep decline. In the last century, the
UK has lost 20 species of bee and 47 surviving species
are considered to be vulnerable or endangered. Such a
rapid decline in bee populations, not just in the UK but
across the world, poses a serious threat to global food
production, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol
East (Kerry McCarthy) has just mentioned.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation
estimates that about a third of all plants or plant
products eaten by humans are dependent on bee pollination.
The vital importance of bees to our environment and
economy has long been known to the experts, but the
critical role of our natural pollinators is only beginning
to gain a wider appreciation.
Imaginative national campaigns, such as the Friends
of the Earth campaign for a bee action plan, have had
an impact in informing people about bee decline and
gathering momentum for a comprehensive strategy from
the Government. It is clear that the importance of the
issue has also hit home in countries such as France and
Italy. Italy is not always known for its interest in the
environment, but it has led the way in banning certain
types of pesticide before the moratorium was voted on
by the EU.
For those of us who have been waiting for the
Government to step up to the mark and action a
comprehensive plan to reverse the ruinous decline in the
UK’s bee population, the recent decision by Ministers
to vote against the EU ban on neonicotinoid insecticides
came as a blow. Thankfully for the bee population, the
weight of support for the ban among other EU member
states enabled the European Commission to proceed
with a two-year moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids,
but the UK’s action confirmed the Government’s
fundamental misunderstanding of their responsibility
on the issue and betrayed a worrying lack of insight
into where their priorities should lie.
DEFRA Ministers are hiding behind the need for
what they call “clearer proof” of harm to bees caused
by neonicotinoids. Indeed, they attempted to discredit
the findings of the European Food Safety Agency,
which concluded that the insecticides represented a
“high acute risk” to honey bees and other pollinators,
by pointing out that they were based on the results of
lab tests rather than “field evidence”. There were those
that hoped that by capitalising on the difficulty of obtaining
field evidence they could get away with maintaining the
status quo.
The UK field study cited by DEFRA Ministers as
proof that neonicotinoids did not pose a risk to bees
was pronounced hopelessly inadequate by EFSA. The
bumblebee hives intended as controls in the experiment
had been contaminated by neonicotinoids, and the study
was found to be deficient in a large number of other
ways. EFSA also expressed pointed concern about the
manner in which the authors had
“elaborated and interpreted the study results to reach their
conclusions”.
Needless to say, the study was brushed hastily under
the carpet and Ministers were forced to stop touting it
as sufficient proof that a ban was unnecessary, but the
disregard for suggestive evidence that neonicotinoids
cause harm and the massaging of scientific evidence to
suit current policy causes real concern. Most troubling
is that the Government have completely missed the
point: in this situation, given the potential truly devastating