National Pollinator Strategy

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on obtaining this debate. It comes at a very important point, following the conclusion of the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiries on neonicotinoids and pesticides and on the draft pollinator strategy, and action that might be forthcoming as a result of that and of the two-year EU moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids that has got under way. I, too, urge a rapid passage towards a final national pollinator strategy, which is urgently required. I want to reflect on one or two things that ought to be rather more emphasised in that strategy, particularly those that arise from the work that the EAC has done on the matter.

I join the hon. Lady in emphasising that we are talking about pollinators, not just about domestic bees, or even wild bees, although it has been important that a lot of the campaigning on these matters has related to Members and other people in public positions standing next to people dressed in large bee outfits.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

As somebody who has done the bee photograph twice, I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he agree that the essence of our Environmental Audit Committee report is that there is a strong case for protecting bees and that our work should inform a proper national plan?

[Dr Whitehead]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I was going to say. I hope he was not one of the people wearing a bee outfit who stood next to me; I think he probably stood next to somebody else in a bee outfit.

The “Bee Cause” campaign and various others have done well to concentrate on the threats that pollinators face, but we should reflect not just on bees, both domestic and wild, but on pollinators across the board. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has said, they are, collectively, such an important element in the national health of our crops and fruits, and they interact with the natural environment in a whole range of other ways. We do not understand wild pollinators to the extent that we should; indeed, our EAC inquiry found that the general research is very ragged. We need to obtain a deeper understanding, particularly of pollinators in the wild. I hope the Department will take cognisance of that.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the relationship between the evidence produced by those who manufacture insecticides and those who commission it from a more green point of view is one of considerable mistrust? Would it not be a good thing if they could get together and agree on the outcome of their research? Perhaps then we could make more progress.

[Dr Whitehead]

I agree that the research commissioned by companies that have an interest in the outcome, particularly in field trials, can cause considerable mistrust. The research does not need to be done entirely independently, but the process does need to be clear and transparent. The companies should put their hands on the table and follow standards and protocols that can be supervised by external bodies. There is also a question mark in my mind as to whether the Department itself is awaiting a perfect piece of research, as it were, to inform its future findings. The Committee has concluded that there is no such thing as a perfect piece of research in “natural conditions,” because they have already been compromised. We should apply a probability principle to work that has already been done and then add properly peer-reviewed and supervised additional research to it. That might be much better than adopting the tentative but alarming position—which I think still pervades this debate—of simply considering how the research might inform us for the future.

[Zac Goldsmith]

On the point about over-reliance on industry data, which we might call contaminated data, a piece was recently written in The Times by Lord Ridley. He claimed that the neonicotinoid ban means that 50% of oil seed rape crops have been devastated, because they have not been protected. However, figures released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs only a few days ago show that the loss of yield is about 1.35%, which is well within the bounds of ordinary seasonal and annual fluctuations. That very clearly illustrates the danger of relying too much on industry data. Lord Ridley takes the industry or big business line on almost every issue, but I think we should be very cautious about attaching too much importance—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has got the message.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about the extent to which we need a better overview of the policy implications of the various elements in the research. I want to concentrate briefly on that point.

I remain concerned about not just the Environmental Audit Committee’s original inquiry and the Government response to it, but the latest Government response, which was published just two or three days ago, to the Committee’s second inquiry. The response is apparently very tentative about how far the Department is bound by the two-year moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids, and about whether the Department will consider simply reintroducing the use of neonicotinoids at the end of the moratorium.

Is the Department prepared at the very least to make time available for researchers to come up with much more definitive conclusions before it lifts the moratorium? I would prefer—there are caveats on the research, but it seems to me that overwhelming evidence for this is already available—for the Department, rather than considering what to do about neonicotinoids at the end of the moratorium, to go further than that and say, “That is it, as far as neonicotinoids are concerned. What we need to do for the substantial element of the national pollinator strategy is to get much clearer and better definitions of integrated pest management.”

In such a way, we could move from neonicotinoids to other forms of pest management that are more appropriate for the overall health of our pollinator population in the longer term. I must say that I am disappointed that the Government response lacks a definition of an integrated pest management scheme. For the final strategy, I urge the Minister to look again at a much better, more understandable and clearer definition of how integrated pest management might continue following the moratorium, so that we can move to a much more organic, less pesticide-intensive and certainly more modern ways of ensuring that our pollinators are protected as far as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her promotion of food and farming in her constituency and the massive success in securing this investment. It is fantastic to know that coffee produced in Hatton will be enjoyed from Houston to Hannover as a result of this new investment, and I wish this every success.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

18. Is the Secretary of State concerned about the export of food and drink packaging used in this country? Is she looking at measures to introduce things such as packaging recovery note offsets to ensure that such packaging is recycled in the UK rather than exported?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and that is certainly something I will be looking at and discussing with my junior Ministers.

Overseas Territories (Sustainability)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I want to commend the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, which carefully drew a line between the United Kingdom’s responsibilities for environmental stewardship and sustainability in relation to its overseas territories and the interests, concerns and devolved rights and responsibilities of the populations of those territories. The Committee carefully drew that distinction in its report, but I am afraid that the Government’s response to the report did not.

In the introduction to the 2012 White Paper, the Prime Minister said:

“We see an important opportunity to set world standards in our stewardship of the extraordinary natural environment we have inherited.”

The White Paper itself set out principles of maximum devolution, where possible, of decision making to the populations of the UK overseas territories and assumed a continuing reduction in calls upon UK resources in that regard. It also set out the possibility of independence, with the wholehearted support of the populations of those territories if that is what they wished.

The White Paper also made a distinction between inhabited and uninhabited overseas territories. As we have already heard, that distinction is, shall we say, a little blurred, at least in the case of one overseas territory, which appears to be uninhabited, but in fact probably cannot be so regarded in the longer term.

In their response to the Select Committee’s report, however, the Government made a rather different point. They said:

“It would be inappropriate for the Government to take greater ownership of environmental issues”,

while at the same time saying that, while

“we encourage Territories to extend the UK instruments of ratification of MEAs and recognise the benefits they can bring, this should only be done when Territories are certain that they have the capacity and—where necessary—the provisions in place to meet the obligations under those agreements. The Government recognises that most of the Territories are small islands or island groups that face resource and capacity constraints which affect their ability to consider or implement treaties.”

That, of course, is true, but what about the difference in how those overseas territories themselves are situated in terms of resources and population? There is enormous diversity in our overseas territories, ranging from the Cayman Islands, with a population of 54,000, and Bermuda, with a population of 64,000—both arguably with substantial resources to meet the requirements regarding sustainability and to implement treaties suggested in the Government’s response to the Select Committee—down to islands such as Pitcairn, with a population of 51. It is clear that a number of those overseas territories would never be in a position to accord with the sort of considerations that the Government set out in their response to the Committee.

In terms of marine conversation zones and fully operating marine protected areas, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith)—I fully support what he said about the ambition for the UK and for those overseas territories to have those zones—it will inevitably turn out that the territories relating to those zones cannot fulfill the sort of obligations that the Government suggest in their response. Therefore, there is no alternative. The UK simply has to face up to the fact that those need to be properly resourced from the UK, with UK intervention and UK oversight of those zones in future. I am particularly—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we have to leave time for the wind-ups. I call Kerry McCarthy.

Migratory Birds (Malta)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Randall]

That is good news. We would all welcome those arrests, which we want to see happening more often. Malta holds the only derogation for recreational spring hunting of turtle doves and quail, and we all know that that provides a smokescreen for illegal hunting. The UK Government and the European Commission must insist that Malta abides by the spirit, as well as the letter, of the EU’s birds directive and habitats directive and puts an end to spring hunting for good.

Malta sits on the central Mediterranean bird migration flyway between Europe and Africa. Every spring and autumn, large numbers of birds fly over the islands on their migration between the two continents. Many are shot in Malta. Spring hunting is significantly more damaging than autumn hunting, as it reduces the numbers of birds returning to breed. That is self-evident.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is he willing to emphasise how much this is a British issue? British birds are migrating over these routes. Does he have any estimates for the effect that Maltese shooting has had on British bird numbers over the years?

[Sir John Randall]

Many of the birds are not in fact coming to Britain, although some are. For cuckoos in particular, we now know more about their migration, and we know that they are British birds. Regardless of whether the birds are British or not, they are European. On that point, I am a European.

An open season runs from 1 September to 31 January, during which 41 species of bird can be legally hunted in unlimited numbers, but the trouble is that there is a mix of legal and illegal hunting. Spring hunting is not usually legal in the European Union. Article 7.4 of the birds directive obliges member states to ban hunting of species to which hunting regulations apply during their period of reproduction or during their return to rearing grounds. Malta is the only country in the EU with a derogation from the directive. The directive states that derogations made be made

“where there is no other satisfactory solution…to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers.”

In 2009, no spring hunting of quail and turtle doves was permitted for the first time ever due to an injunction from the European Court of Justice, which ruled that too many birds were being killed. It followed a complaint from BirdLife Malta to the European Commission in 2005 and a petition to the Maltese Prime Minister with 115,000 signatures from RSPB members. In 2010, however, spring hunting was reopened despite an ECJ ruling that by allowing spring hunting in the 2004 to 2007 period, Malta had failed to comply with the conditions for derogation.

Hunting in Malta currently breaches many if not all of the conditions for derogation. The spring hunting derogation specifies that a maximum of 16,000 birds can be killed, but each licensed hunter is allowed to kill four birds in total of turtle dove and/or quail, so more than 40,000 turtle dove and quail could be shot by licensed hunters. Turtle doves are in serious decline in western Europe, and this hunting is taking out the remaining populations. An agreement between the new Maltese Government, elected in 2013, and the FKNK, Malta’s largest hunting organisation, allows every registered hunter to obtain a spring hunting licence, meaning that more 10,000 hunters are supposed to hunt just 16,000 birds. At the same time, the spring season has been extended.

The current derogation framework is frequently abused by the hunting community in Malta. Consecutive spring hunting reports from BirdLife Malta show that the number of birds shot is much higher than allowable bag limits set by the Maltese Government. The derogation framework allows two species to be hunted, but more than 19 species were observed to have been shot or were brought into the BirdLife Malta office by volunteers last year. The same is true this year, as we saw in the video blogs. Many of the species targeted every spring hunting season are threatened in Europe, including Montagu’s, marsh and pallid harriers, common cuckoos and nightjars. One of most heart-rending scenes in the video blogs was the euthanising of a Montagu’s harrier that had been shot.

It has become increasingly difficult to gather evidence and numbers as poachers become more sophisticated in their illegal activity, including using illegal electronic lures and even hunting birds on the ground at night. It should not be imagined that it is a fair contest of man and rifle against his quarry; this is slaughter, pure and simple. Some on the island claim that the activity is traditional. Indeed, it was, but there is no place for such traditions in the 21st century. Bear baiting and cock fighting were once traditions in this country, but I do not think that anyone is arguing for their return.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend has already invited me to visit Bradford on Avon. I am happy to do that and to discuss with the local authority any concerns it has about the current situation.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

In the light of the Department’s withdrawal of the funding for the EU programme on bee decline, how will the Department provide an evidenced response at the end of the two-year ban on neonicotinoids as pesticides?

[George Eustice]

We have a number of work streams looking at this issue, including one by the Food and Environment Research Agency, but I repeat that this Government take very seriously protecting habitats for bees and promoting pollinators. That is why it is a key part of our common agricultural policy aims.

Pollinators and Pesticides

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is true to say that very little of what is discussed in this Chamber is beyond dispute. Indeed, only on Tuesday, a scientific hypothesis that has been shown to be supported by 97% of scientists writing about it in a review of 12,000 papers—namely, anthropogenic global warming—was nevertheless merrily being debated by hon. Members as though that near certainty did not exist. Questions concerning what is happening to bees and pollinators, what the causes are and what role pesticides may or may not play in the problems that we have heard this afternoon are occurring with bee populations are far less certain than that. It is thus potentially a matter for a great deal of dispute.

I want to reflect on the related problem that we as legislators have in addressing those issues and deciding how best to take action on them. The Select Committee’s work on this issue was an exemplar of how to go about that when the members themselves are not experts. Interestingly, however, as we have heard, the Environmental Audit Committee has rather more experts on it than one might think in respect of those who hold a certificate in apiculture. Also, several members are active or former farmers who have a great deal of knowledge and information about how these things work in general. The Committee did not go about its business in any kind of sensationalist manner. It operated carefully, quietly and at some length, seeking a large range of thoughts, opinions and experts in order to shed some light on what is a very knotty problem.

The problem was well summed up in a book published recently by the Canadian author, Douglas Coupland. He posited as a starting point of his novel that bees had been declared extinct. Then, across America, five people were found who had been stung by bees, and they were all arrested and immediately investigated by scientists on the basis of that apparently counter-scientific fact relating to the continuous existence of bees. Douglas Coupland was, I think, a little unscientific in setting out a world in which there were no bees, without taking account of the large number of other pollinators that exist alongside bees.

We know from the evidence produced before the Select Committee that the problem is not just about honey bees; in fact it is not just about bees as it is about all the pollinators that operate in our environment in such a fundamentally important and basic way to ensure that our ecosystem continues in a recognisable way. If the sort of declines that the Committee heard about are to continue at the same rate over the same sort of period, not just several bumble bee species but large numbers of bumble bees will be extinct.

The Committee was told that 600 solitary bees can pollinate as well as two hives containing 30,000 honey bees, so it is not just about honey bees. As our Committee Chairman mentioned, they are a sentinel species, but it is nevertheless the case that hoverflies, butterflies and all sorts of other pollinators are in steep decline. We were told that 66% of larger moth species in the countryside are declining, as are most of the bumble bees—we were told that six species had declined by at least 80% in recent years. As we have heard, hoverflies are declining, and 71% of butterfly species are declining at an alarming rate. We do not have data on the vast majority of the other pollinators, and we have to take some of those sentinel species as indicators for those other species, but we certainly do know that something is beginning to go seriously wrong with the species that pollinate our crops, flowers and food.

So I do not think the Committee had a choice in the conclusions it might reasonably draw from the material presented to it, given that, as legislators, we have to make choices when we are not necessarily complete experts in a subject. We are responsible for what happens and we have to take the best shot we can in terms of getting the best evidence available to inform our judgments. The evidence that came before the Committee demonstrated clearly a strong relationship, not only where neonicotinoids were used, but, for example, where crops were routinely dusted. Farmers cannot purchase oilseed rape seeds in this country that have not been dusted. Whether or not they think there is a problem with their crops, they simply have to plant those crops, which have, systemic within them, the effect of the neonicotinoid with which they have been dusted.

The Committee heard about the various studies done by Henry, Whitehorn and Gill, which demonstrated a strong causal link between neonicotinoids and an effect on bees in a laboratory. We also heard about the continued difficulty in conducting adequate field trials. One person who contributed to our evidence suggested that getting scientific certainty from field trials would cost about £20 million and take 10 years, if that is what one wanted to do. So we cannot deal in absolute scientific certainty on these things and, in terms of decision making, nor should we. The conclusions that the Committee reached on what should be done about neonicotinoids are absolutely right, given what we, as legislators, are charged with doing. I continue to be a little dismayed about the extent to which it appears that this is not quite the route the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking in its representations on pesticides, pollinators and bees.

I welcome the notion that further, and, we hope, much less flawed, field trials will be carried out urgently, which can get further indicators to the fore. I also welcome the idea that we should try to ensure that integrated approaches are brought to the fore in the future management of pesticides. It has been implied—the Committee unanimously felt that this was not the case—that there are no alternatives to neonicotinoids if they are taken off the roster of usable pesticides for those plants. I hope that we can use different methods of pesticide management and ensure that the crops are well maintained, with advice and assistance from DEFRA, in a way that a number of people say is not possible to do.

We remain in a world in which there is an enormous amount that we do not know. I hope that DEFRA will monitor developments involving non-bee pollinators much more closely, will keep them well to the fore in the views that it expresses and the action that it decides to take, and will continue to look at the evidence that is being produced about elements that are thought to be having an impact on colony decline. I hope that its consideration will bring together such issues as varroa mite habitats, food availability, husbandry, and, indeed, climate change, in order to create a more complete picture of what is going on.

Let me emphasise again that we do not know the details of what is going on. We do not know what is the prime cause of decline. What we do know is that there is a decline, that it is very serious, and that we can do things about it. That is the essence of what the Committee is saying in the report. It does not seek to provide all the answers; it does not look for a silver bullet; but it does suggest that there is a strong case for taking action. I hope that DEFRA will take precisely the sort of action that we need, in order to ensure that our pollinators are healthier in the future and our ecosystem revives as a result.

Ash Dieback Disease

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

In this instance I can put my hon. Friend’s fears to rest because the EU has not impeded what we have sought to do in any way. Indeed, we have been working extremely closely with colleagues in other countries who, to date, have faced a much larger incidence of this disease than we have. We have been able to learn from their experiences and put those lessons into action in this country.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Minister will understand that the felling of a large amount of timber may have an effect on the wood services industry and the price of timber. Will he issue advice—perhaps he has advice now—on the safe storage, curing and drying out of wood that has been felled, to ensure that the pathogen does not persist?

[Mr Heath]

We will certainly issue such guidance. The ban also deals with the movement of timber and timber waste products in this country. There is no evidence that the pathogen persists in felled trees and wood products but, nevertheless, we believe that an appropriately precautionary response would be to restrict movements in this country, and that is what we have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

Yes I do, and we are. The Health and Safety Executive’s chemical regulation directorate, along with the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the European Food Safety Authority, have looked in detail at Stirling university’s research. They believe that it is interesting and adds to the debate, but that on balance the risks do not require a ban of neonicotinoids. However, in DEFRA we have commissioned further research, through the Food and Environment Research Agency, using expertise from Stirling university, which provided the original piece of research, because we want to make absolutely sure that we are getting this right.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the Environmental Audit Committee is undertaking an inquiry into hive collapse, bees and pesticides. Will he undertake to ensure that his Department supports the inquiry to the best possible extent and also responds at the earliest possible date to its outcome?

[Richard Benyon]

I hope that in the reply I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) I showed the seriousness with which we are looking at this issue. We know that pollinators benefit our economy by around £450 million a year. That is a service that nature provides. We want to make absolutely sure that we are protecting that, and we will work with any organisation that is doing research of that kind.

Rio+20 Summit

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Rio summit of 1992 represented what many people saw as a comprehensive programme of aspiration towards an international understanding of sustainability and a move towards a sustainable world economy. As the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) set out, a number of important things came out of Rio 1992, which I believe was signed up to in the end by 178 Governments. It was to a large extent informed by the unsurpassed definition of sustainability from Brundtland—that it is development

“that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

That is the famous part, but the central definition refers to other things from Brundtland, such as

“the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and, the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.”

If anything, it is that second element of sustainability that we have let slip by over the 20 years since Rio.

As hon. Members have mentioned, Rio led among other things to an outpouring of local enthusiasm in the form of Local Agenda 21. I was an enthusiastic Local Agenda 21-er at that time, but we were probably naive about implementation and subsequently about what sustainability actually meant.

I was recently invited to an interesting seminar on sustainable aviation. There, I wondered whether the concept of sustainability might have been pushed a little to the margins. As far as the approach to Rio+20 is concerned, it is important to get clear what we mean by sustainability and what we mean in respect of the needs and the limitations that go with the sustainability concept. We must then address those matters very seriously in the Rio+20 discussions.

Things have certainly not happened since the original Rio along the lines that those who participated and lauded what happened there would have expected. Although considerable progress has been made with the millennium goals that were set at the Rio+10 summit in Johannesburg, most of them will not be met by 2015, partly because, as I think we now know, many Governments who say they will do things simply do not do them. Being clear about that at Rio+20 will be an important part of securing a realistic outcome from what it may achieve.

Rio+20 is likely to proceed on a much more sombre basis than earlier summits of this kind, but as other Members have pointed out, last year’s Durban summit on climate change demonstrated that expectations can sometimes be confounded, and I hope that we can approach this summit in that spirit. The fact that it has been demanded by the developing world rather than by developed nations makes a significant difference. It will look to the themes of Rio, but it will do so in terms of everyone’s development. It will consider the concept of a green economy in the context of sustainable development and the institutional framework that will make it possible, and I believe that it will do so in the light of the whole Brundtland report rather than just the oft-quoted first line. It must concern itself with the carrying capacity of the planet and with its concomitant—the need for global equity in the sharing of the resources that go into sustainable development.

It might be salutary to compare that starting line with what we thought obtained at Rio 20 years ago. The work of the Stockholm resilience centre at Stockholm university was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton), and was examined in some detail in the Select Committee’s report. The centre asked what the planet could put up with in a number of areas before its sustainability threshold was breached. What were the planet’s sustainability boundaries? It considered 10 of them: climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorus cycle, global freshwater use, land system change, the rate of biodiversity loss, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution. That work made it clear that we have not only transgressed three of those boundaries—the rate of biodiversity loss, the nitrogen cycle and, of course, climate change—but have often done so in a startlingly profligate way, and are close to doing so in three other areas: ocean acidification, the phosphorus cycle, and land system change.

Rio+20, then, is not just about how the planet can carry sustainable development, but about how can we row back and make the planet sustainable again, in terms of the carrying capacity that the Stockholm resilience centre set out so carefully. We should, however, celebrate some of our international successes. For instance, as a result of an international convention, we have returned ozone depletion to a point at which carrying capacity has been restored, and have done so through international negotiation and discussion in a way that was not thought possible a few years ago. That analysis, however, tells us only some of the tale. The reason for our transgression of the boundaries that I have mentioned is, overwhelmingly, the extent to which the developed world has hoarded its access to the planet’s carrying capacity at the expense of all other countries.

This is about sustainable development, but it is also about a worldwide green economy that is based on fairness and equity. In that context, it is clear that the proposals that Colombia and Guatemala are bringing to Rio+20—there may not be time to organise their sustainable development goals properly, but I think they understand that, and see this as a starting point—do not counter the existing millennium goals. I refer to the adoption of sustainable development goals for all, not just developing nations, relating to combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting sustainable human settlement patterns, biodiversity and forests, oceans, water resources, advancing food security, and energy sustainability. All those are sustainability goals for the whole world: they do not simply mean that the developed world is giving back some of what it took from the developing world in the first place.

I think that the promotion of global resources will inevitably have to be developed in order to promote those goals. I hope that the United Kingdom will support the idea of a global transaction tax—even if it does not support efforts to introduce such a tax at European level—with the proceeds going to the development of these sustainability goals.

[Martin Horwood]

I strongly support the hon. Gentleman in making that call. The Government may have been right to reject a financial transaction tax at an EU level, which would have meant a real risk of driving businesses to other financial centres. A global financial transaction tax would avoid that risk.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I appreciate his continuing loyalty to his adopted coalition on the issue. I thought someone had to go it alone and advance this idea, but he is right: a global transaction tax that everyone could unite around would be a far preferable way of proceeding, particularly if that tax was clearly hypothecated for the purposes of global sustainable development and global equity.

I agree with what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said about her approach to Rio in her recent speech to NGOs. Rio must be a workshop, not a talking shop. I also agree that being green is integral to sustainable economic growth and that we must put value on our carrying capacity so that it becomes an integral part of our economic transactions, not merely the fuel for them to take place. We must also add the essential ingredient of global equity in respect of resources. I hope the Secretary of State will pledge that the UK will push for that goal at Rio and call for the Colombian agenda of sustainability with global equity to be moved decisively forward.

That is the shape of the outcome I want at Rio. I do not want to be back here in 20 years talking about Rio+40 and wondering what might have been. By then it will be too late, as the Stockholm environment institute shows.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said. The fact is that it is unlawful for a Minister to legislate if he knows that it is unlawful to do so. According to all the advice that we have been given, using section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would be extremely likely to raise a judicial challenge, which would not benefit the position.

I have made it clear that we are taking the matter forward. We are exploring all avenues, both in the Department and more widely outside Government, in trying to find the best way of satisfying the desire of the House.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My Department takes responsibility for safeguarding the environment, supporting farmers and strengthening the green economy. In addition, it has responsibility for animal health and welfare. Accordingly, I would like to take this opportunity to draw colleagues’ attention to the written ministerial statement and accompanying “Dear colleague” letter setting out the changes we are making to the pet travel scheme. I believe these changes strike the right balance between making it easier for people who wish to travel with pets and maintaining the protection people have a right to expect. They are consistent with our commitment to science-led, evidence-based policy making.

[Dr Whitehead]

Tomorrow, the League Against Cruel Sports will hold a national conference on wildlife protection with the support of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other organisations. On the eve of that conference, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have dropped their plan to hold a vote to enable the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004 in this Parliament?

[Mrs Spelman]

We have not dropped our plan to hold a vote. That is part of the coalition agreement and it is in our business plan.