Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard
Beekeeping is a pastime that is enjoyed in rural and urban areas, and it is something that matters. It is not just about local produce; it helps to support an ecosystem that we all depend on—from our vibrant, beautiful gardens through to the food we eat. What matters to bees should matter to us all, because it affects every single one of us.
Bees, along with other pollinators, play a crucial role in our ecosystems. The decline in bee populations affects not only our country’s biodiversity but our food security. It is paramount that we as politicians take the issue more seriously. One third of the UK’s bee population has disappeared in the last decade, and the UK has already lost 13 out of our 35 native bee species. That should make us think about what we are doing to safeguard those remaining species and ecosystems, and how we are not only protecting habitats from being lost, but increasing available habitats for insects, for pollinators and for nature.
I have listened intently over many years—from when I sat on the Front Bench, where my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) is sitting today, to where I sit now—to Ministers talking about the importance of nature-based recovery and of encouraging more of our farmers to take nature-based solutions to heart. I welcome that change in language, and we have seen an important policy shift in recent years, but if we are to make it real and deliver that nature-based solution, emergency authorisations for bee-killing pesticides simply cannot sit alongside it; they are incongruous with it. Continuing the use of bee-killing pesticides amounts to environmental vandalism.
I back British farmers. One of my two little sisters is a farmer, and the other works in agricultural products. This issue matters. I represent an urban constituency in the south-west of England, but I know just how important farming is to the south-west and to our rural communities, because without farmers, there is no food. It is really important that we understand that, so I back farmers’ concerns.
I understand that there is a real issue around the viability of crops affected by the diseases that the emergency authorisations are seeking to address, but I want to look at those authorisations. When we left the European Union, the Government said they would follow the evidence and not make decisions without it—DEFRA said that on a number of occasions, even though a prominent former Environment Secretary might not have been very kind about experts. However, the Government are not following the evidence here. Will the Minister explain why they are not following the expert group’s advice? When do they expect to be back on track with that? Do they have alternative science that gives a different perspective from that of the expert group? And what guidelines have they given the experts about commenting on the authorisations?
It is important to recognise that this is the fourth year in a row where neonicotinoids have been allowed for emergency use, but if we look at the words in the emergency use authorisation, I doubt there has been an emergency for four years in a row. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester: four years in a row is not emergency use; it is a pattern that has allowed a type of behaviour to continue. If it was an emergency, there would have been one year of emergency use, and activity to correct that would have taken place.
In the first of the debates I called a number of years ago, one of the Minister’s predecessors told me that these were temporary emergency authorisations that would last only three years at most. We are now in the fourth year of temporary emergency authorisations, and I am not certain from anything I have seen from the Government that there will not be a fifth, sixth and seventh emergency authorisation if they are re-elected. I do not get the sense that there is a destination that the Minister is driving us towards, and what I would like to see is a clear destination.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I am grateful to the hon. Member because he is making an important point. It may be helpful to the House to understand that a further check and balance on the authorisation for emergency use is whether the threshold is met for the product to be deployed. Only where that threshold is met is the product deployed in the open market. In 2021, that threshold was not met, so the product was not deployed in the open market—that was not felt necessary. The science says that where there is an issue and a challenge, we will use the product, and where there is not, as in 2021, that product will not be allowed.
Luke Pollard
I agree with the Minister about the thresholds, but they do not detract from the fact that the Government have effectively established a baseline that they will authorise emergency use of neonicotinoids every year, notwithstanding that emergency use is subject to a threshold being met.
I do not see how we can be in the fourth year of an emergency without some urgent and emergency action being taken to address it. It would be kinder and more honest in this debate to say that the Government now have a standing policy to authorise the use of bee-killing pesticides for sugar beet crops, but a threshold has to be met. For me, that would seem a more honest appraisal because, after four years, it is a reality that this is authorised every year, and I do not think it should be.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a farmer, although we do not and have never produced sugar beet at home. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this interesting debate. We agree on more than we disagree on, including the necessity to find a way forward, to which I wholly subscribe.
Decisions to allow or not to allow the use of pesticides are based on careful scientific assessment of the risks. The aim is to achieve a high level of protection for people, animals and the environment while improving agricultural production. The decision to grant the emergency authorisation of Cruiser SB was not taken lightly and was based on robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks and benefits.
The emergency authorisation was issued with a strict threshold for use. The seed treatment was authorised to be used if—and only if—a virus incidence rate of 65% or more over the summer months was forecast by the independent model developed by Rothamsted Research. That forecast was made on Friday 1 March.
The use of Cruiser SB on sugar beet in England will be allowed this year as yellows virus incidence thresholds, as predicted by the Rothamsted model, has been met. Emerging sugar beet seedlings and young plants are vulnerable to feeding by aphids, which transmit several viruses collectively known as virus yellows. These viruses lead to reduced beet size, lower sugar content and higher impurities.
We withdrew authorisation for the use of pesticide products containing three neonicotinoids on outdoor crops at the end of 2018. Since then, sugar beet growers have been adjusting to the new conditions. In 2020, there was severe damage, with 24% of the national crop being lost, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), recognised. Many individual growers were severely affected and less sugar beet was planted in 2021, because some growers were reluctant to take the economic risk. In recent years, the virus threat has been relatively low.
This year, the threshold has been set at a predicted virus incidence of 65% or above. That is a slight increase from last year’s threshold. The change reflects our improving understanding of the fit between the model used to predict virus incidence and the real-world outcomes. The aim of the threshold is to ensure that Cruiser is used only if damage is predicted to sugar beet production.
Members will be aware of the strict conditions of use that have also been set as a requirement of the emergency authorisation. As the threshold has been met and neonicotinoid-treated seeds will be planted, those conditions are in place to mitigate risks to the environment, including risks to pollinators. Neonicotinoids take time to break down in the environment, and during that period, may be taken up by flowering plants. The conditions for use of Cruiser SB therefore allow only a limited range of crops, none of which flowers before harvest, to be planted in the same field within 32 months of a treated sugar beet crop.
Growers must also comply with a stewardship scheme. As part of that scheme, treated fields are monitored to determine the levels of neonicotinoids in the environment. Full details of the conditions of use have been published online.
To be clear, we remain committed to the existing restrictions on neonicotinoids. Emergency authorisations are approved only where strict legal requirements are met. There must be special circumstances. Use must be limited and controlled, and the authorisation must appear necessary because of a danger that cannot be contained by any other reasonable means.
Daniel Zeichner
I wonder whether we could turn the question round. What would need to happen for the Minister not to grant a derogation? I cannot really see circumstances in which this situation is likely to change.
Mark Spencer
There are circumstances where it is likely to change. There are advancements in other products that are coming forward in the marketplace. The gene editing Act offers opportunities for research institutes to find alternative genetic possibilities to help improve resistance within the sugar beet plants to some of these pests and diseases. In those circumstances, as those new technologies come forward, of course they will be assessed on their merits. We are very keen to support the development of alternatives to try to help sugar beet producers and the environment at the same time.
Daniel Zeichner
As I said in my speech, it is not that tolerant varieties or alternatives are not already available; it is that there is an economic cost. I do not really see how that is different from the situation the Minister has described. They will not necessarily provide the same level of yield, even with the gene editing. There will still be a cost.
Mark Spencer
Let me give way to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, and then I will take both points at the same time.
Luke Pollard
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said. The Minister set out the reasons for Cruiser SB’s authorisation. Could he be equally clear about the plan to address it? What measures are being taken, how are those measures being assessed and how can we as interested parliamentarians scrutinise progress against those measures, so that that we are not here next year having the same debate with the same possible alternatives, but not yet having them in action? Can he set that out in a reply to Members in this debate, or as a written ministerial statement, so that we can see what plan his Department is pursuing?
Mark Spencer
The plan that we are pursuing is working with the sector and the scientific community to try and bring those advances forward as soon as possible. It is not possible for me to stand here today and predict what those advances may be in the next 12 months or five years. Clearly, we have to work with the sector. British Sugar is putting an awful lot of work into trying to improve sugar beet growing in terms of its practice and the products available.
To return to the point I was making, the aim of the threshold is to ensure that Cruise will be used only if there is predicted to be a danger to the sugar beet crop. Those criteria have been met at the moment. There must, of course, be special circumstances. Use must be limited and controlled, and the authorisation must appear necessary because the danger cannot be contained by any other reasonable means. That emergency authorisation allows a single use of neonicotinoid on a single crop under very strict conditions to mitigate the risk to those pollinators.
My decision was informed by the advice of DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser, the Health and Safety Executive and the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. I also considered economic issues informed by analysis from DEFRA economists. The scientific advice concluded that with the proposed conditions of use there were no concerns for human health. In respect of environmental risk, potential risks to bees were considered in particular detail.
HSE concluded that a number of potential risks to bees, including acute risks to bees from all routes of exposure, were not of concern for this use of thiamethoxam under the proposed conditions of use. Further advice from the chief scientific adviser was that remaining risks, including those from following crops, were likely to be acceptably low given the conditions of the use proposed.
In taking the decision, we have wanted to be as transparent as possible and to give access to the information considered during the decision-making process. We have published documents outlining the key elements involved in making the decision, which can be accessed on gov.uk. That includes the HSE emergency registration report, where Members can access the full HSE risk assessment.
Looking to the future, we do not wish to see the temporary use of neonicotinoids continue longer than is strictly required. The development of alternative sustainable approaches to protect sugar beet crops from viruses is paramount. That includes, as I was saying, the development of resistant plant varieties, measures to improve crop hygiene and husbandry, and alternative pesticides. British Sugar, plant breeders and the British Beet Research Organisation are undertaking a programme of work to develop such alternatives. The Government are closely monitoring progress and in January provided £660,000 towards a precision breeding project to develop resistance to virus yellows in sugar beet, helping to expedite the transition away from neonics.
In addition, the Government recently held a roundtable with members of the British sugar industry and environmental organisations to discuss the industry’s progress on implementing alternatives. I have urged British Sugar and others in the sector to drive forward the plans so that their outputs can be implemented in the field at pace. This afternoon’s discussion gives us an opportunity to recognise the need to develop alternative, sustainable approaches to tackling these plant diseases.
The Government are fully committed to the agricultural transition to repurpose the land-based subsidies we inherited from the EU, which did little for the environment or farmers. That is why we are delivering on a new and ambitious system that rewards farmers and land managers for their role as environmental stewards, which starts with the sustainable farming incentive. Last year saw the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive, which includes the introduction of paid integrated pest management actions. Specific actions to support more sustainable pesticide use include: paying farmers to carry out assessments and produce integrated pest management plans; establishing and maintaining flower-rich grass margins, blocks or in-field strips; and payments for not using insecticides or for planting companion crops. Those actions are already supporting farmers to minimise the use of pesticides and incentivising the uptake of alternative pest control methods. Encouraging lower-risk and alternative approaches to pest management will be a prominent feature of the national action plan on the sustainable use of pesticides, which will be published shortly.
As I have outlined, the decision to allow the limited and controlled use of new neonicotinoid-based pesticides on a single crop was not taken lightly and is based on the most robust scientific assessment. We will continue to work hard to support our farmers, and to protect and restore our vital pollinator populations.
Luke Pollard
I do not quite buy the Minister’s argument. Will he reflect momentarily on the other uses of neonicotinoids in our wider economy, including in flea treatments? I recognise that he may not have the answers in the folder in front of him, but this might be an area that he could ask his officials to investigate. We are at the start of exploring the issue, and I would be grateful if he could set out the path that he thinks would be useful to take in order to explore the matter further.
Mark Spencer
I am more than happy to continue to explore that issue. It is interesting that the hon. Member should raise it at this moment in time because we are doing some work in that regard, and there is a statutory instrument coming on veterinary medicines and their deployment. He will be aware that some flea treatments require a veterinary prescription and some can be done under the jurisdiction of an expert—I hesitate to use that word; for example, it might be in a pet shop, where there is some expertise. Others treatments can simply be bought of the internet, so there are different levels of treatment. The Department needs to be careful that such products are of benefit to pets, but also of their impact on the environment. We will consider that robustly as we move forward. I thank him for highlighting that matter and thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Mark Spencer
On a point of clarification, the product is not sprayed. There is no aerial spraying of neonicotinoids at any point, and I would not want to inadvertently mislead the House.
Samantha Dixon
Crops are being treated with this particular chemical, which I find disconcerting. As I set out in my speech, concerns are shared by constituents up and down the country that instead of the chemical being used in an emergency situation, its use is becoming routine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for broadening the debate into the use of the chemical in pet treatments, and I thank the Minister for his comments about how the Government are considering addressing the issue. An SI may not be the most appropriate way to do that, given the need for the wider concerns about neonicotinoids to be aired, as he said, as transparently as possible; an SI is not the route that most of my constituents would want to see followed. I go back to the point I made earlier about the use of parliamentary time to consider and debate these issues.
Hopefully, this time next year we will not be debating this issue. Hopefully, that will not be necessary, as alternative means of controlling the specific disease referenced today will have been found, but I hope that everyone here understands how worried people are about the future health of bee communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the environmental impact of neonicotinoids and other pesticides.