here - United Kingdom Parliament

1769 Pollinators and Pesticides
6 JUNE 2013 Pollinators and Pesticides 1770
[Mr Heath]
We recognise that there is still a need for targeted
conservation action for our most threatened species.
Natural England’s species recovery programme is designed
to help with projects to support priority species, such as
the short-haired bumblebee. Many Members have made
the point that we are talking not just about the honey
bee, but about many other native bee species and other
non-bee pollinators. My noble Friend Lord de Mauley
has announced that he is considering the development
of a more holistic health strategy to cover all pollinators.
He has been meeting interested parties, such as Friends
of the Earth, to explore what added value that approach
could bring.
We will continue with our wider work to understand
and counter the various factors that harm bees and
other pollinators. DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser and
Ministers have met a number of interested parties to discuss
that work, including non-governmental organisations.
We will seek to host discussions with other stakeholders
over the summer.
As I have said, there are many things that we do not
yet understand about the reductions in pollinator
populations. There are many major factors, including
the varroa mite, which was mentioned by the hon.
Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), foulbrood and
the undoubted effects of climate change and environmental
and ecological changes in this country. That is why
some experts are very unclear as to the quantifiable
effect of pesticides. The British Beekeepers Association
keeps an open mind on that, as do we. We want to know
what the connections are and to see the evidence.
Let us return to the issue of pesticides. As we heard in
the debate, the European Commission recently adopted
a ban on the use of three neonicotinoids on crops that
are “attractive to bees” and on some cereal crops. The
ban also covers amateur use, so the Government do not
need to bring in an extension.
It is documented that we did not support action, the
reason being that we had urged the Commission to
complete a full assessment of the available scientific
evidence, taking into account new field research that we
had carried out. Let us talk about that because it is a
serious issue. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent
North asked whether we reject laboratory evidence, but
of course we do not; it is extraordinarily important.
However, we would like some coherence between what
we see in the laboratory and what we see in field trials.
That does not make field trials the only thing that
matter, but such a correlation is not presently there.
From laboratory tests we are clear that neonicotinoids
have a toxicity for bees. We do not know, however, what
the exposure is in a natural environment, and the two
things go together. Many things are toxic but do not
create a deleterious effect in the field simply because the
exposure is too low. That is where we must do a lot more
work, and that is exactly where we are commissioning
it. We were clear that the work done by FERA was by
no means a satisfactory field trial. We never pretended
that it was; it had to be done quickly to meet a timetable—
set not by us, but by others—to give at least some
indication of whether that correlation was there. Incidentally,
I will not accept criticism of FERA scientists on that
basis. They are extremely good and do their work in a
totally dispassionate and independent way on the best
scientific principles. They were asked to do a quick piece
of work—which they did—and that is why it was not
peer reviewed, as would be normal practice. We felt it
was important to put the matter in the hands of the
Commission, which was about to make a decision on a
highly contentious subject.
I make no apologies for recognising that there is, of
course, a strong imperative to look at evidence that suggests
a toxic consequence and, where possible, to take a
precautionary approach to these matters. However, a
precautionary approach is not as two-dimensional as
sometimes suggested and must take into account the
consequences of the action in question. The hon. Member
for Glasgow South mentioned the economic consequences,
and of course that is a factor, although not an overriding
one.
Of far more concern is a point also raised by hon.
Members about alternative pesticides that are fully legal
under EU law and that it would be perfectly proper for
people to use, such as pyrethroids, organophosphates or
carbamates, because the potential is that they would be
even more damaging to the pollinator population. That
concern does not mean that we should not take action
against neonicotinoids if the evidence is clear that they
are causing problems in field conditions, but it was not
unreasonable to say that the paucity of field-trial evidence
was astonishing.
I do not have portfolio responsibility for this matter,
but when I looked at it with a view sympathetic to what
the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North was saying,
I was amazed at how little evidence there was in field
conditions, which I think exposes a failure of the scientific
world to address the problem. I hope that we can play
our part in persuading others across the European
Union to take a more rational view of where we concentrate
our research so that we get the evidence we need, and
that is what we are trying to do. Although our assessment
is that the risk to the bee population from neonicotinoids,
as currently used, is low, we may be wrong and evidence
may come forward from trials that shows otherwise. If
such evidence is there, we shall, of course, accept it, but
we need more complete evidence than we currently have.
The European Commission has committed itself to
a review of evidence by 2015, which we want to be
founded firmly on a strengthened scientific evidence
base. We will play our part in that and are currently
talking about the design of field trials that might be in
place during the moratorium period, so that we can
gather evidence, not just on the honey bee, but on other
bee species as well. The FERA research was on the
bumblebee rather than the honey bee. It is important
that we understand how other species are affected.
Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD): I take a great
deal of pleasure in knowing how much my hon. Friend
knows about the subject and how sincerely he takes it to
heart, but does he understand that some of my constituents
see the careful words he has just spoken as indicating
that the Government are ducking and weaving? May I
ask him, in the nicest possible way, whether the Government
will be in a position to take a decision when the further
research is done or whether they will want still more
research to be that little bit more certain?
Mr Heath: Let me be very clear—I am not the world’s
greatest scientist, although I have a scientific degree—that
we cannot have scientific certainty; we can have only a
balance of probabilities based on evidence. We think