Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Earlier this year, we invited calls to a small grants scheme to promote farm productivity. It was over-subscribed, so we have put in an additional £7 million, making a total of £23 million. We intend to have additional calls later this year.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Yesterday, senior industry leaders were in Westminster as part of the Prince of Wales’s corporate leaders group, which is facilitated by the Cambridge-based Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. Industry will be key in tackling the environmental challenges of the future, but when will the Government acknowledge that far from being a burden, intelligent regulation is the key to environmental innovation?

[Michael Gove]

I think the Government have always acknowledged that. In the spirit of your comments about not underselling myself, Mr Speaker, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech I gave at the Policy Exchange four weeks ago on the need to reform capitalism. I am afraid that that is something only the Conservatives would undertake, because while we can reform capitalism in the interests of the country, the hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party would destroy capitalism and, with it, torpedo this country’s prosperity.

Fur Trade

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 200888 relating to the sale of animal fur in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The e-petition, headed “Ban the sale of animal fur in the UK”, explains:

“Fur farming was banned in England and Wales in 2000, followed by Scotland in 2002. However fur products can still be legally imported from other countries and sold here in the UK. Much of this fur comes from countries that have very weak or no animal welfare laws at all.”

I introduce the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and will begin with some history. The issue has become one of wide public interest, culminating in a significant campaign to build on previous legislation and end fur imports, but there has long been concern about the issue.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the legislative history; does he agree that the sensible next step is to extend the fur import ban to all species? Many of my constituents have emailed me to request that.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I assure my hon. Friend that that is the direction in which I shall proceed in the next few minutes.

To return to the history and as the petition states, 18 years ago Parliament banned fur farming in England and Wales. That ban was extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland in 2002. As the petitioners note, that means that in effect we now outsource the issue. We do not want fur farming on our own doorstep but are currently not strong enough to end our complicity in what can only be described as animal suffering. To end it, and reflect the national will, which clearly is that we should go further than we have done, we need more than just a domestic fur farming ban.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I was one of the MPs who voted for that ban in 2000. No man is an island, and no animal is either. Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent, Candace Gledhill, about the cruelty by which foxes, minks and raccoon dogs are kept in

“wire-mesh cages on fur farms for months on end”

and

“coyotes and other animal are caught in the wild using crude, inhumane steel traps”?

Does he agree that if we do not act on the matter and do at least what it is possible for us to do here, we are complicit in that cruelty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I agree; I shall come on in a moment to some of the cruelties that have been described—but I am still trying to look back 20 years. I shall get there. The ban was originally proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), in her private Member’s Bill, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. As some of us have cause to reflect, such Bills do not always get all the way, and sadly it was defeated in 1999. At that time, it was pointed out:

“The conditions in which mink are kept and slaughtered—highlighted last year by releases of mink by animal liberation activists—are now widely considered unacceptable. Mink are not domesticated, but are forced to live in small cages. Many show symptoms of extreme stress before being gassed and skinned.”

Those conditions continue today.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The debate is timely and my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on it. About 48 hours ago, a television programme was shown about mink farming purely for fur. Since 2000, 50%—5,000—of such farms are in 22 countries in Europe. That shows that there is a job of work to be done; does my hon. Friend agree?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I find myself in much agreement today—

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous. I, too, was around as a Member of Parliament when the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 was passed. Eighteen years later, it is inconceivable that other European countries, in particular, did not follow suit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, on the day when we debate the Ivory Bill, by which we will end that abhorrent trade, we can find ways to end the abhorrent trade in fur in this country, and to make exemptions where they are needed for historically and culturally valuable objects? Clearly, that can happen, and frankly it must, sooner rather than later.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I am in agreement. I am still trying to go back 20 years in my speech. I shall advance slowly.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Give up!

[Daniel Zeichner]

No, I am not going to give up—but I give way.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Before the hon. Gentleman steps back 20 years I ask him to step forward a few months, because as we leave the European Union whatever barriers may have prevented us from raising standards on imports at the point of entry will have gone. We will be free to decide whether we want to continue to import the proceeds of one of the grimmest of human activities. I suspect that, like people who have signed the petition and the majority of those who have written to their MPs, the majority of Members would support such a move.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Tempting though it is, I do not intend to widen the debate on to other issues. I am still trying to go back 20 years, so I shall continue for the moment. At that time we were of course fortunate in having a Labour Government, and they took up the cause. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 was passed, and the then Minister of State, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Baroness Hayman, said:

“It has a simple and a clear basis. The Government believe that it is wrong to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. In the Government’s view, fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 1130.]

That was true then, and is true now for the huge numbers signing the petition—hundreds in every constituency—and for many other people, which is why it is wrong for our country to continue to support such an industry, whether it lies inside or beyond our borders.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many consumers who think they are purchasing fake fur products are actually purchasing real fur products, and that in the past few years there has been quite a trend for what is really cruelly produced real animal fur to be retailed as fake fur? Does he think that trading standards need to play a role in ensuring that there is greater awareness and proper labelling of fur products?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman is prescient. I will come on to fake fur later, and I agree with his observations.

Since the implementation of the ban, we have effectively continued fur farming internationally, by allowing in fur imports. Some estimates put the value of the fur imported at £670 million. Humane Society International, which has campaigned powerfully on the issue, estimates that, based on the value of pelts at auction houses, that may equate to some 2 million animal skins imported into the UK in 2016 alone.

I want to say a little more about the conditions in which animals are kept. Beyond the simple idea that farming animals simply for their fur is wrong, the animals in fur farms are too often forced to live in terrible conditions. Humane Society International recently held a drop-in for MPs, and I am sure that some colleagues present for the debate will have attended it. We saw harrowing videos of how animals are treated in the fur trade, and we saw examples of cages and the very small spaces in which animals farmed for fur spend their entire lives. It was a very graphic demonstration of what we are talking about, and it is not easily forgotten—as it should not be.

There is plenty of expert scientific evidence. The European Commission Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare puts it clearly:

“Current husbandry systems cause serious problems for all species of animals reared for fur”.

As we have heard, animals such as foxes and minks are suited in their natural habitat to roam far and wide. When those animals are farmed for fur they are kept in small cages less than 1 metre square.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

We rightly banned fur farming about 20 years ago, to end such barbaric and unnecessary suffering, but does my hon. Friend agree that as long as we continue to import fur we are complicit in creating a market so that animal suffering continues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and near neighbour. Complicit is a word I have already used, and that is effectively what we are by maintaining this trade.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on a very fine speech. By banning fur imports, we would depress that market, but would we not also set a good example to other countries? We have a proud record of humane treatment of animals in this country and we could inspire other countries to do the same.

[Daniel Zeichner]

All my hon. Friends are so prescient that my hon. Friend has now stolen my peroration, but never mind; we will come to that in time.

On the subject of faux fur, I do not think anyone, on witnessing or reading the evidence given recently to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about the living space allocated to some of these poor animals, could help but be sickened.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It was my Bill, which was talked out in 1998, that became the 2000 Act. One reason I took it forward was that the Farm Animal Welfare Council had made clear that there is no way to humanely keep wild animals such as mink in cages and farm them—I do not really call it farming—for their fur, and that a ban was the only way to tackle the inhumanity that that implied. It is true in this country, which was the first nation to ban fur farming, and true in the rest of the world.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend’s comments, and commend her for the work she did all those years ago. Now we have the opportunity to build on that and go further.

Going back to the awful conditions faced by animals, sometimes they are overfed to become much larger than their frames are suited to. Apparently that yields more fur but, unsurprisingly, it can give the animals terrible health problems. As some hon. Members have already mentioned, while fur farms in the UK were at least regulated, we have no control over those fur farms abroad.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in the time he is giving people. Does he agree that, 20 years or so ago when the ban was brought in, absolutely nobody would have thought there would be such a market for the import of animal fur, and it is vital we toughen the legislation on that?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Going back to those fur farms abroad, the evidence is somewhat contested and there are different conditions in different countries, but it seems to me that the straightforward answer to that is to stop the outsourcing in general. It is not a case of it being out of sight, out of mind; while we are still allowing imports and the sale of fur in this country, I fear we are still complicit, culpable—call it what you like, but we are responsible. Turning to public opinion, it is clear that there is overwhelming public support for a fur ban.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate. Some 100,000 people signed this e-petition, and 400,000 people signed a petition taken to 10 Downing Street. That is an indication of the large volume of the general public who are against any type of fur farming whatever. Does he agree that it is time the Government listen to the half a million people who have said, “We need action and we need it now.”?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The petition itself is testimony to the strength of public feeling, but on top of that, a YouGov poll in February this year showed that 69% of the public, nearly seven in 10, would support a ban on the import and sale of fur in the UK. There is a significant majority across Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters too. It is cross-party. It is not a party political issue; it crosses party political allegiances.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous. I understand that we currently import fur from two other fellow European Union members, Poland and France. Does he know whether we have the power to prevent the imports as an EU member?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I will come very specifically to that point later in that speech, but my belief is that we do have the power.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the widespread public support. One should always be careful to differentiate grassroots and astroturf in email responses. On this issue, it is clear that there has been sustained interest for a long time from all the different areas of my constituency, all indicating a deep and long-standing concern that the trade should be ended. I am sure that that is true of other hon. Members as well. That is not just a transient mood, but a long-standing demand.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The number of hon. Members present shows the breadth of support, and the petition shows that it is consistent across the country. It has also been a response to some strong campaigns. There have been 109,554 signatures to the petition, but there is a spectrum of support behind it from significant organisations, including the Humane Society International; businesses such as Lush; and a range of cultural figures such as Brian May of Queen and Evanna Lynch of “Harry Potter”. It is fair to conclude that our country wants to ban fur.

It is not just the UK. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting a Finnish member of the European Parliament, Sirpa Pietikäinen, who leads the cross-party group on animal welfare. She assured me that there is growing and widespread support not just in the Parliament but in countries that have traditionally been more sympathetic to the fur trade.

The faux fur issue is an added complexity that is currently being probed by the EFRA Committee. The public are being duped into buying fur by mistake. We have a bizarre situation where less scrupulous retailers, or retailers that have been misled by wholesalers or people further down the supply chain, mislabel their products as faux fur when in fact they are real fur. That is partly a consequence of the fact that, from some suppliers, the real fur is very cheap, which says a lot about how it is produced.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

The nub of this particular item on the hon. Gentleman’s agenda is that it is perfectly possible for anybody half-bright to tell the difference between faux fur and real fur. It is done all the time. The fact is that it is because it is cheap that this material is brought into the country and sold by supposedly reputable outlets. They are conning the public. Should we not throw the book at the people doing that?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we look hard at the people doing that, but in some cases it is not necessarily easy to tell. Hon. Members who were shown examples at the exhibition in the House a few weeks ago saw that, if it is only one or two pieces disguised within a wider piece, it is hard to tell. Some are very cheap indeed—fur bobble hats keep turning up in this context. The consumer is unlikely to know that fur is in the product. It is important that we crack down on those retailers, but to do so we must have a system. That means giving trading standards officers across the country support and resources.

Of course, if we ban fur imports in general, customers will no longer be in the position of buying what they think is fake but is actually real. Many organisations that made submissions to the EFRA Committee’s inquiry on the fur trade lamented the inadequate fur labelling regime we have in this country, which leads to some of that mis-selling. Hopefully, from that Committee’s work, we will see some practical recommendations.

It is worth noting in passing that the evidence from both the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Select Committee noted that the Government have not carried out any assessment of the size of the fur trade in the UK. That could show either a lack of diligence on the Government’s part, or that the contribution to the UK economy is of no great significance. I suggest it is probably the latter.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) asked whether we can ban fur should we wish to. The advice I have been given is that we can. Straying into trade territory, which is slightly controversial at the moment, I am told that the World Trade Organisation rules contain article XX (a), which provides an exception to the trading rules for measures that are necessary “to protect public morals”. In 2010, the European Parliament and Council banned trade in seal products in the European Union. That led in 2015 to a challenge from Canada and Norway, which fell when the WTO upheld the right of the EU to prohibit trade in seal products because it was a proportionate measure necessary to protect public morals. That may not be quite the terminology we would use, but hon. Members will get the drift. That important case indicates that WTO members have the freedom to define—with proof—their interpretation of that phrase.

[Maria Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, because we no longer produce fur domestically, the WTO could not conclude that anything we did was about benefiting our local industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She again pre-empts my argument—I will come to that strong point in a moment.

There is a clear case for that same WTO exception to be applied because there are legitimate and widespread public moral concerns about fur, as we have heard. Similarly, within the European Union, as we currently are, our trade is governed by the principle of the free movement of goods, as set out in articles 34 and 35 of the Lisbon treaty. Article 36 provides a similar clause to that in the WTO rulebook, permitting trade barriers in specific circumstances. It says:

“The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.”

I therefore argue that there is a legitimate argument for the UK to prohibit fur imports on grounds of public morality, similar to the exemption allowed under WTO rules, which has been used successfully, as I just mentioned.

I am told that there is no known EU case precedent for the application of the public morality exemption in the trade of cruel animal products, so this would be an important first and perhaps a welcome gift to our friends in Europe. Crucially, as the UK has no domestic production of fur, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said, a UK fur import ban could not be viewed as disguised discrimination or protectionism. To use that defence to impede trade, we will need to prove that the public morality against the fur trade is significant and sustained, which is demonstrated, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said earlier, by decades of deep support for a ban in opinion polls, plus the massive public response to the Fur-Free Britain campaign.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I do not wish to draw the hon. Gentleman away from the core of the debate, but given that he has just outlined why he believes that there are grounds within EU legislation for our stopping the import of fur, does he think that we might set other precedents and extend that to the import of foie gras, which I am deeply uncomfortable with?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour. I had not necessarily considered that, but as so often with legislation, it seems that there is more scope to do things than people tell us. There may be more flexibility than is sometimes suggested, so that may certainly be worth looking at.

[John Spellar]

That is an extremely important point and is actually an important part of the wider debate. Many of these issues are not a matter of EU regulation—they are a matter of political will and choice in this country. The debate’s clear message to the Minister needs to be that the Government have options and should exercise them, and not keep hiding behind a figment of rules from Brussels, which do not have the weight that the Government put on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I once again find myself very much in agreement with my right hon. Friend. My conclusion is very much on those lines, which you will be glad to know I am finally coming to, Mr Hollobone.

The Government’s response to the petition said:

“While some fur products may never be legally imported into the UK the Government’s view is that national bans are less effective than working at an international level on animal welfare standards.”

That sounds very laudable, although it is in fact civil service waffle. I hope the Minister will show some more ambition, exactly as has been suggested. The Government’s response sets up a false dichotomy. A national ban would not stop our Government from continuing to work on international animal welfare, and it would give our country a firm platform from which to work with others. We should be leading, as we should be in Europe generally.

Having had a quick glance at the House of Commons Facebook page and its coverage of the debate, I have to say that I do not think I saw one comment advocating maintaining the import of fur into this country. The vast engagement seems to be entirely on the side of a fur ban, which also seems to reflect the feelings and the comments made by hon. Members.

The EU banned the import and export of cat and dog fur in 2008, and the Fur Free Alliance has active campaigns across the world. New Zealand prohibits mink fur imports; India banned imports of several species of fur; São Paulo adopted a fur farming ban in 2014 and an import and sales ban in 2015; and West Hollywood became the first city in the world to ban the sale of fur in 2013. A few months ago, San Francisco became the largest world city to ban the sale of fur. Designers such as Gucci and Versace have adopted fur-free policies, as have high street retailers such as Topshop and House of Fraser.

Britain has a chance to lead the way in Europe and across the world and become the first country to ban fur imports and trading. What an opportunity we have.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has been incredibly generous with his time. Does he agree that we in this country sometimes underestimate our power to influence and show leadership? What a powerful statement of intent it would be if we were to take this decisive action and ban fur imports into our country.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful that there has been a cross-party voice appealing to the Secretary of State, who is not normally shy in coming forward to seek such opportunities. Why will he not grasp this one? This is what the public want. It is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

It has been a good debate and there have been many thoughtful contributions from all sides.

I joined the Petitions Committee only recently, and this is the first time I have introduced a debate. It is a testimony to the power of the e-petitions process that so many people got engaged, signed the petition and are watching us today. My worry is that they will think that all we have had is a debate. That is the challenge for the Minister to go away to think about.

We have had a discussion with excellent contributions. The one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) was particularly telling. She started on this process many years ago and summarised the debate with passion, saying that, in effect, there is no such things as humane fur farming. There is the question of whether a ban can be made while we are members of the European Union but, in my limited experience of this place, one thing that I have noticed is that what we can do often depends on whom we ask and how much we want to do it. That is the real question.

We have heard from every single political party in the House—from Conservative and Labour Members, Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party—and there is almost unanimity. One of the great Presidents of America, Lyndon Baines Johnson, famously said that politics was about counting the votes. I have been counting the votes and—I am looking at the Government Benches—some Members have self-declared already, tonight. This House has the votes. What it needs is a Government willing to introduce a ban. That is what the public expect.

I hope the Minister will go back to the Secretary of State with the very strong message from this House that it is time we banned the fur trade.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 200888 relating to the sale of animal fur in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Thanks to my hon. Friend’s advocacy, I have had the opportunity to visit one of the distilleries in his constituency. I hope to be able to visit many more over the next few weeks, months and years. He is a brilliant advocate for the interests of the Scotch whisky industry. There are huge opportunities as we leave the European Union. There has been a particularly dramatic increase in exports of single malts since 2000 because of the effective and principled advocacy of people like him. Whether it is Glenlivet or Aberlour, they roll around the tongue perfectly, and they both have no better advocate than my hon. Friend.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T4. A quarter of our rivers are at risk from unsustainable abstraction, which is a particular problem in the south and east. When will the Government actually take action to tackle unsustainable water abstraction?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

We have been considering this carefully. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement on the publication of our abstraction plan within the next month. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will enjoy reading it, and I am happy to discuss it with him later.

UK Bee Population

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk]

Of course. This is not a zero sum game. It is not the case that a product that is bad for bees is therefore good for farmers or the other way around. It is not beyond the wit of our scientists to come up with products and pesticides—by the way, pesticide is not an evil word—that can be sprayed on to our crops without causing the collateral damage that we want to avoid.

It is the points made already that lie behind an apocalyptic quote attributed to Albert Einstein—of course, it may well be entirely apocryphal. He is alleged to have said:

“If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years left to live.”

That may be a little apocalyptic, but it does make the point that bees play a crucial role in our food supply.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. I would like to go back to the point about the alternatives. I wonder whether he saw the observation by the excellent Bumblebee Conservation Trust, which said that

“many other non-neonicotinoid pesticides can and do cause harm to bumblebees and other pollinators, and we must ensure that neonicotinoids are not simply replaced by equally-problematic equivalents.”

Does he agree that there is a danger of a switch back to dangerous pyrethroid-based pesticides and that we equally need to guard against that?

[Alex Chalk]

We must not move from the frying pan into the fire. It seems that the Government have been absolutely robust in showing that it is only those products that can show they do not cause that collateral damage that will get through the net. That principle must be maintained, because pollinators are in decline worldwide.

This is not purely a UK situation or indeed a European one. The trend is not uniform, but an independent review of the evidence on the status and value of pollinators published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs back in 2014 drew attention to the large losses caused by the varroa mite in the early 1990s. Since then, there has been, as has been said, the Asian hornet. Indeed, the loss of flower-rich habitat is another important cause of the recorded decline in diversity of wild bees and other pollinating insects. If I may be parochial just for a moment, that is just one of the reasons why I am so delighted that Cheltenham Borough Council was persuaded to rethink its plans to rip up the vibrant and diverse floral displays that nourish local pollinators in the town.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

15. Fine words, but our bee population requires more as the research published in the peer review journal Science demonstrated just a few weeks ago. Will the Secretary of State today pledge to end the use of neonicotinoids in the UK and tell us whether the precautionary principle adopted by the European Union will be transposed into UK law?

[Michael Gove]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to ensure that our bee population and our pollinators are protected. I pay close attention to the science in that report, and we will ensure that our policy on neonicotinoids follows existing EU protections and is enhanced in line with the science.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend, and in fact I propose that we meet by walking the national trail together.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

There is growing concern about the environmental impact of microbeads, the tiny pieces of plastic that are found in many consumer products and are now swilling around in our oceans. The Americans and Canadians are moving to ban them. What are the UK Government doing?

[Rory Stewart]

We are very clear that microbeads potentially pose a serious threat, because the stuff does not biodegrade and it can collect toxic material. We have run a research programme and have been working very hard to make sure that the full 500 million members of the European Union sign up to a common position, but if we cannot get a common position out of the EU, we are open to the possibility of the United Kingdom acting unilaterally.

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) and the many petitioners on raising this important subject; I can report that many of my constituents are positively buzzing with excitement at the prospect of this debate.

We all agree that we need bees: they pollinate our food crops and wild flowers and play an essential role in supporting wider biodiversity. As we all know, however, their numbers have declined dramatically. DEFRA described the trend as “severe” and admitted that the sharp decline in England is greater than that experienced by any other country in Europe. We have lost more than 20 species of bees in just over a century, and 35 bee species are considered to be under threat of extinction. This is clearly a very serious issue.

The reasons for the problem are complex and many. They include habitat change, the spread of pests, diseases and invasive species, and climate change. The list goes on, and its breadth is intimidating to lay people. Those multiple pressures and stresses are sometimes linked and interrelated, so our responses must be sophisticated, but there is one contributory cause that could and should be tackled now: the use of pesticides, and in particular of neonicotinoid pesticides.

As we have heard, neonicotinoids have been used widely by farmers in the UK for pest control purposes on a range of agricultural and horticultural crops—in particular, as seed treatments on oilseed rape, cereals, sugar beet and maize. Neonicotinoids act on the brains and nervous systems of insects, including bees, and affect motor function, feeding, learning, homing, foraging and reproduction.

Two years ago, the European Union restricted the use of three types of neonicotinoid pesticide—a move supported by the majority of EU member states, but, ironically, not by the “greenest ever” coalition Government, who were one of just a handful of member states to oppose the measure. That decision flew in the face of hard, sound evidence. Indeed, the European Food Safety Authority concluded that the three commonly used neonicotinoids posed an unacceptable danger and

“A high acute risk to honey bees”.

It recommended a full ban on all neonicotinoids.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good case. As he said, it was disappointing that the UK opposed the ban. Does he agree that the scientific evidence gathered since then has strengthened the case in favour of a ban?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I very much agree. Those of us who have ploughed through the detailed report find it overwhelming. It was disappointing that, after opposing the earlier advice, the coalition Government published a 10-year national pollinator strategy for bees and other pollinators that did not go nearly far enough. Specifically, it ignored the challenge that neonicotinoid use poses to pollinators.

This autumn, the Government, despite the growing evidence demonstrating the adverse impact of neonicotinoids on pollinator numbers, granted an emergency authorisation for their use. In my county of Cambridgeshire, it allowed farmers to plant oilseed rape with neonicotinoid-treated seeds, which sparked many protests across my constituency and contributed to half a million people across the country signing petitions.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that decision was made a little too soon, as not enough research had been done?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Many people felt that at the time. We all agree that the challenge is how best to take a science-led approach to the use of pesticides. We must balance the need to support farmers and protect food security with the need to protect wildlife and reverse the decline of pollinators.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

As a former vice-chair of the all-party group on honey bees, I welcome this debate but I caution my hon. Friend that it is difficult for farmers and those of us who are not scientists. On 26 August, the European Food Safety Agency put out a press release stating that neonicotinoids should continue to be banned, even though it was still gathering evidence on a procedure that did not close until 30 September. It is now considering that evidence and looking at whether the ban should continue. That does not help, and makes the issue more confusing for people.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These issues are complex, and we are trying to balance the various risks. The Government said that they will listen to the scientific evidence to inform any changes to their position, but despite the strong evidence they still seem to be sticking their fingers in their ears. Since the EU restrictions were introduced two years ago, many peer-reviewed studies have been carried out in lab and real-world settings that underline how damaging such chemicals are for bees.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I just want to fly in on this debate with the observation that the Environmental Audit Committee published a powerful report in the previous Parliament on this very issue. The new Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee is here—or at least he was. That report is well worth reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Bees are the gift that keeps on giving to parliamentarians.

I understand farmers’ concerns. Local farmers have explained to me that they have lost crops when they have not been able to use such pesticides. But taking a wider view, there is no really compelling evidence showing widespread crop failure since restrictions on neonicotinoids were introduced. In fact, the 2014 DEFRA report found that in the immediate aftermath of the banning of neonicotinoid pesticides in 2013, the net yield for rapeseed actually increased by 16%. Furthermore, bees have a crucial role to play in improving crop yields and quality. A decline in pollinators as a consequence of neonicotinoids will paradoxically harm the very crops that farmers are trying to protect, and many farmers appreciate that fact.

[Mrs Gillan]

Would the hon. Gentleman welcome the countryside stewardship scheme that, ultimately, the Government announced earlier this year? I understand that the scheme, which will amount to £900 million, will be open to people competing for projects, with particular emphasis on bees and pollinators. Extra points will be given to agreements that work to support bees, pollinators and other farm wildlife. Surely that is a really good opportunity for people in the countryside—farmers and others— to bid for projects under the scheme and, hopefully, to produce the evidence we need to keep our bee population healthy.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Stewardship schemes have always been important in rural areas. I strongly support them and, as someone who believes in intervention, I will continue to do so.

New research suggests that neonicotinoids might be damaging food production. There is some evidence that apples pollinated by bumblebees exposed to neonics are of a lower quality to those pollinated by neonic-free bumblebees. Although I sympathise with and understand the concerns of farmers who argue that they need such chemicals to grow their crops, it is worth bearing in mind that, given the rate at which bee colonies are collapsing, before long many existing crops will be at risk unless farmers take the very expensive action of pollinating their crops themselves—a service currently provided free of charge by bees across the country.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree that the decline in the bee population in this country is higher than in any other country in western Europe. The hon. Gentleman is contending that the reason for that decline is the use of such pesticides. If that is not correct—I do not know whether it is or not —can he suggest a possible alternative reason, or does every route that he has used to explore this issue lead him to conclude that such pesticides are the cause of the decline in the bee population in this country?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The hon. Gentleman comes to the sensible conclusion—the one that I am coming to—that the use of neonicotinoids is the prime problem that we should be acting against. When all is said and done, pollination services are critical for both ecosystem function and crop production and are estimated to be worth between £430 million and £603 million a year to UK agriculture.

In conclusion, bees have been the unhappy victims of neonicotinoid use. Their decline is not only devastating for wildlife, but damaging to food production and our agricultural economy. It is time that the Government ended what some of us fear might be a slight case of knee-jerk anti-Europeanism, listened to the public pleas and scientific sense and ensured that our bees and farmers can flourish.