here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament 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
1771 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 JUNE 2013 Pollinators and Pesticides 1772 that the evidential basis for the decision is weak because we do not have evidence from field trials. If the evidence suggests that laboratory results are replicated in field conditions, we will want to take a decision, because we want to protect our pollinator populations. That is important. I have very little time left because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North needs to respond to the debate. She asked three questions, including one on the precautionary principle. I hope I have explained our approach on that. She asked about the research and the difference between laboratory and field studies, and about the EU directive on the sustainable use of pesticides, which I believe the Government will implement in full. More work needs to be done on pesticides across the board. It is a misrepresentation to say that the wicked seed companies are pulling the wool over the eyes of the rest of the world. We need transparency of evidence so we know exactly what is happening during the regulatory process and beyond. We are speaking to those companies to ensure that they provide the greatest possible transparency. The hon. Lady asked what changed between the abstention and the decision to vote no. The answer is that we pressed and pressed again on the need to commission the evidence that we believe would have given a sound basis for the decision, but we did not secure agreement. That is why we are in the position we are in. The Government are determined to do everything we can to protect our bees and pollinators. They are essential not only to our economy, but to our environment and our ecology. We will take all necessary steps to do so. 4.58 pm Joan Walley: This has been a useful debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), and my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Martin Caton), for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). The Environmental Audit Committee will consider what we can do to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East in her efforts to make Bristol the capital of green cities. We have had the Friends of the Earth breakfast. In view of our debate, the question is whether, at quarter to 3 or two minutes to 5, there is honey still for tea. The Committee has sought to produce a timely and considered report. We intend our recommendations to be part of an ongoing process of parliamentary scrutiny. It might be in our interests that the Government response will be delayed, just as the integrated pest management report was delayed—it might be in our interests if the delay means we will get a more informed response, and if the Committee will have greater engagement on how such multifaceted issues can be developed. The breathing space of the moratorium we have as a result of the European Commission might help to take the debate forward, and we would welcome a fully informed response from the Government. However, we do not want the Government simply to dismiss the Committee’s work, and we do not want the lack of targets and everything else in the integrated pest control plan to continue. The Committee is a team and this has been a team effort. We want to engage with the Government on how we can ensure, working with farmers and business, and all those people in the British countryside— 5pm Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
- Page 15 and 16: 1667 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy)
- Page 17 and 18: 1671 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy)
- Page 19 and 20: 1675 6 JUNE 2013 Business of the Ho
- Page 21 and 22: 1679 Business of the House 6 JUNE 2
- Page 23 and 24: 1683 Business of the House 6 JUNE 2
- Page 25 and 26: 1687 Business of the House 6 JUNE 2
- Page 27 and 28: 1691 Business of the House 6 JUNE 2
- Page 29 and 30: 1695 Mau Mau Claims (Settlement) 6
- Page 31 and 32: 1699 Mau Mau Claims (Settlement) 6
- Page 33 and 34: 1703 Public Administration Committe
- Page 35 and 36: 1707 6 JUNE 2013 Student Visas 1708
- Page 37 and 38: 1711 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
- Page 39 and 40: 1715 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
- Page 41 and 42: 1719 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
- Page 43 and 44: 1723 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
- Page 45 and 46: 1727 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
- Page 47 and 48: 1731 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
- Page 49 and 50: 1735 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
- Page 51 and 52: 1739 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
- Page 53 and 54: 1743 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
- Page 55 and 56: 1747 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
- Page 57 and 58: 1751 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
- Page 59 and 60: 1755 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
- Page 61 and 62: 1759 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
- Page 63 and 64: 1763 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
- Page 65: 1767 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
- Page 69 and 70: 1775 Augmentative and Alternative 6
- Page 71: 1779 Augmentative and Alternative 6
- Page 74 and 75: 267WH Drugs 6 JUNE 2013 Drugs 268WH
- Page 76 and 77: 271WH Drugs 6 JUNE 2013 Drugs 272WH
- Page 78 and 79: 275WH Drugs 6 JUNE 2013 Drugs 276WH
- Page 80 and 81: 279WH Drugs 6 JUNE 2013 Drugs 280WH
- Page 82 and 83: 283WH Drugs 6 JUNE 2013 Drugs 284WH
- Page 84 and 85: 287WH Drugs 6 JUNE 2013 Drugs 288WH
- Page 86 and 87: 291WH Drugs 6 JUNE 2013 Drugs 292WH
- Page 89 and 90: 109WS Written Ministerial Statement
- Page 91 and 92: 113WS Written Ministerial Statement
- Page 93 and 94: 117WS Written Ministerial Statement
- Page 95: 121WS Written Ministerial Statement
- Page 98 and 99: 1223W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
- Page 100 and 101: 1227W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
- Page 102 and 103: 1231W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
- Page 104 and 105: 1235W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
- Page 106 and 107: 1239W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
- Page 108 and 109: 1243W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
- Page 110 and 111: 1247W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
- Page 112 and 113: 1251W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
- Page 114 and 115: 1255W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
1771 Pollinators and Pesticides<br />
6 JUNE 2013 Pollinators and Pesticides 1772<br />
that the evidential basis for the decision is weak because<br />
we do not have evidence from field trials. If the evidence<br />
suggests that laboratory results are replicated in field<br />
conditions, we will want to take a decision, because we<br />
want to protect our pollinator populations. That is<br />
important.<br />
I have very little time left because the hon. Member<br />
for Stoke-on-Trent North needs to respond to the debate.<br />
She asked three questions, including one on the<br />
precautionary principle. I hope I have explained our<br />
approach on that. She asked about the research and the<br />
difference between laboratory and field studies, and<br />
about the EU directive on the sustainable use of pesticides,<br />
which I believe the Government will implement in full.<br />
More work needs to be done on pesticides across the<br />
board. It is a misrepresentation to say that the wicked<br />
seed companies are pulling the wool over the eyes of the<br />
rest of the world. We need transparency of evidence<br />
so we know exactly what is happening during the<br />
regulatory process and beyond. We are speaking to<br />
those companies to ensure that they provide the greatest<br />
possible transparency.<br />
The hon. Lady asked what changed between the<br />
abstention and the decision to vote no. The answer is<br />
that we pressed and pressed again on the need to<br />
commission the evidence that we believe would have<br />
given a sound basis for the decision, but we did not<br />
secure agreement. That is why we are in the position we<br />
are in.<br />
The Government are determined to do everything we<br />
can to protect our bees and pollinators. They are essential<br />
not only to our economy, but to our environment and<br />
our ecology. We will take all necessary steps to do so.<br />
4.58 pm<br />
Joan Walley: This has been a useful debate. I thank<br />
all hon. Members who have spoken, including the<br />
hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), and my<br />
hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Martin Caton),<br />
for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Llanelli<br />
(Nia Griffith), for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) and for<br />
Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). The Environmental<br />
Audit Committee will consider what we can do to<br />
support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East in<br />
her efforts to make Bristol the capital of green cities. We<br />
have had the Friends of the Earth breakfast. In view of<br />
our debate, the question is whether, at quarter to 3 or<br />
two minutes to 5, t<strong>here</strong> is honey still for tea.<br />
The Committee has sought to produce a timely and<br />
considered report. We intend our recommendations<br />
to be part of an ongoing process of parliamentary<br />
scrutiny. It might be in our interests that the Government<br />
response will be delayed, just as the integrated pest<br />
management report was delayed—it might be in our<br />
interests if the delay means we will get a more informed<br />
response, and if the Committee will have greater engagement<br />
on how such multifaceted issues can be developed.<br />
The breathing space of the moratorium we have as a<br />
result of the European Commission might help to take<br />
the debate forward, and we would welcome a fully<br />
informed response from the Government. However, we<br />
do not want the Government simply to dismiss the<br />
Committee’s work, and we do not want the lack of<br />
targets and everything else in the integrated pest control<br />
plan to continue. The Committee is a team and this<br />
has been a team effort. We want to engage with the<br />
Government on how we can ensure, working with farmers<br />
and business, and all those people in the British<br />
countryside—<br />
5pm<br />
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).