Neonicotinoids on Crops

Jo Churchill Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

My general experience of these things is that the more science we have, the more evidence gaps get identified, so we never actually have a perfect picture and all we can ever do is make the best judgment we can with the science that we have. However, I do believe that much of the work that is being done—for instance, by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology—will mean a big increase and big improvement in our understanding of neonicotinoids in the future. Some of the work that we are commissioning as part of our national pollinator strategy will also assist in that process.

I want to turn now to the specific emergency authorisations in relation to the three neonicotinoids. We had two applications: one for Cruiser and one for Modesto; they were the products in question. The first application from the National Farmers Union asked for an authorisation covering 79% of the area of England. The conclusion, which was published, of the Expert Committee on Pesticides was that although it acknowledged that there was a problem with cabbage stem flea beetle in particular that could not be controlled by other means, it believed that an authorisation covering 79% of the country did not satisfy the requirement of its being strictly confined and restricted. For that reason, it recommended refusal of the first application. I accepted that: I refused the first application.

There was subsequently a second application from the NFU, bringing much more detailed evidence from agronomists of the impact on the ground of cabbage stem flea beetle in particular, county by county. On the basis of that, it put in an application for use over 5% of the English area, which roughly represented the area of Suffolk, which had suffered particularly badly. The Expert Committee on Pesticides assessed that second application and concluded that it satisfied all the requirements, so it recommended that we approve that emergency authorisation and that is what we did.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain whether we are doing impact assessments that will directly look, in terms of an evidence base, at whether the four counties that have been given an exemption have in fact suffered greater degradation of their bee population, because that gives us a perfect example to look at? From talking to beekeepers, it appears that they have not experienced that, so are we looking at the results before last year and after these past 120 days in 2015?

[George Eustice]

One point that I will make to my hon. Friend is this. We have granted an authorisation for 5% of the area; it is predominantly in Suffolk, but also in the surrounding counties. I was going to come on to this point, because my hon. Friend the Member for Bath also raised it. It is actually quite difficult to get a scientifically robust evidence base when one has a mixture of fields around. Far more important is the work being done by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. That is scientifically robust; the right controls are in place; and we will get a much clearer picture.

I want to move on to some of the points made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who was here earlier, made a point about the benefits of spraying in the evening. He is absolutely right. When I worked in the industry as a farmer, it was always good practice to ensure that one sprayed at night, for two reasons. There tends to be a slightly more still environment—less wind and less drift—but also, crucially, bees do eventually go to bed. If people spray in the evening, most of them will have returned to their hives, so that is good advice, and advice that is pushed strongly by the voluntary initiative that I mentioned.

The chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), raised the issue of the publication of minutes. I know that it was a criticism made of us that we were trying to hide something. Let me be clear: we were hiding nothing. The summary of the minutes of the 20 May meeting, which was the first one—the one at which the first application was discussed—was actually published on 7 July, and the detailed record of the 7 July meeting, the second meeting, was actually published on 24 September. There is no conspiracy reason for the delay in that publication; it is simply that the subsequent meeting where the minutes were agreed by the ECP took place on 22 September. They had their minutes, they agreed the minutes and they published them thereafter. There is no attempt on the part of the Government to hide anything; the reasons for the authorisations are there and clear for all to see.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) asked whether chemicals might come off seed treatments and end up in hedges. She is right; concern has been expressed in some of the science that there may be leaching, which may affect wildflowers in hedges. I am sure that that is something that the European Food Safety Authority will look at as part of its evidence.

I was also pleased to hear mention of the fact that the APPG on bees will have its own apiary. In the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have our own hive on the roof of Nobel House, and we harvested our first honey this year.