Oral Answers to Questions
Joan Walley Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Rogerson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the concerns of his constituents about this site. I have looked into the issue, am aware of it and discuss it with the Environment Agency. If he and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington wish to meet me to discuss it, I will be happy to do so.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Does the Minister share the concern of Stoke-on-Trent boat club, and the Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs all over the country, about DEFRA’s deferment of the decision to stop Environment Agency navigation waters going over to the Canal and River Trust? Will he urgently review that situation and raise it with the Treasury?
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Lady has obviously been concerned about these matters for some time. I would be happy to hear more from her about the details and perhaps we could take the matter forward on that basis.
Oral Answers to Questions
Joan Walley Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Tony Baldry
What has happened at St Philip’s in Nelson is outstanding. I pay tribute to all who have made it happen. St Philip’s now homes a Sure Start project, a drug rehabilitation project and an Early Break project. I hope that churches and church buildings can always be at the centre of the community for wider community use.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is also important to prevent churches used by other denominations from closing. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the situation facing St John’s, an historic building in Burslem? A different denomination wishes to continue worshipping there, but urgent action is needed to ensure that all the community groups can continue to use the church as well.
Sir Tony Baldry
I have sufficient difficulties sorting out the problems of the Church of England. I do not have responsibility for how other denominations open or close their churches. That will be, if anything, a matter for the local planning authority.
Pollinators and Pesticides
Joan Walley Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of pollinators and pesticides.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate. Despite the fact that there are so many conflicting events going on outside the House, we have a healthy number of MPs here who wish to participate. I am grateful to everybody for attending.
The debate today is especially appropriate given that this year is the 50th anniversary of the publication of “Silent Spring”, Rachel Carson’s seminal work on the environmental cost of pesticides such as DDT. It is right that we should revisit the important issue of ecology and the relationship of plants and animals to their environment and to one another.
The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, conducted an inquiry on pollinators and pesticides from November 2012 to March 2013. We extended it because there were so many new developments as we carried on with our inquiry. We received 40 written submissions and we held seven oral evidence sessions. I thank all the witnesses to the inquiry. It was a unanimous report and I thank members of the Committee, some of whom are able to be present today and some of whom have sent their apologies. I also thank the Committee staff, who did a phenomenal amount of work helping us to compile our report, and put on record my thanks to Chris Miles of cdimagesanddesigns for his generosity in allowing us to use his photograph, “Pit stop” to grace the cover of the report. We are often told how accessible or otherwise House of Commons reports are, and we feel that thanks to him, the cover on our report is fitting. Bees like to go to bright, colourful flowers and we thought we would have the same for our report.
The EAC report was published on 5 April. In normal circumstances we would have been content to wait for the Government response to our report, but given that the European Commission took significant regulatory action in this area on 29 April, shortly after its publication, we felt that a debate was urgent and timely, and on behalf of the Committee I sought the opportunity to hold the debate today.
Let me put on record the favourable response that we have had from many who care about nature and wildlife. I thank Buglife, which affirmed that our report provides robust recommendations for the future of pollinators and the agricultural industry, and Friends of the Earth, whose recent reception in the House was attended by well over 100 MPs, although I was not able to be there myself. That testified how much support there is in our constituencies all around the UK for its bee action plan. The all-party group on agro-ecology welcomed our support. It, too, welcomes the recent decision by the EU to ban three types of neonicotinoid pesticides. The all-party group believes that to be the right decision, and calls for decisions on our food supply and environment to be based on science and not on extreme lobbying and scare-mongering by those who have an immense vested interest.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I compliment my hon. Friend for the report and her work on this issue. While I welcome the decision on particular pesticides, does she recognise that there is a wider question of eco-diversity that we have to address? If we do not, that will be something else that kills off the bee population in future. We must have a different approach to our natural environment in relation to agriculture.
Joan Walley
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. Our report clearly states that there is no one solution and that we need, as he rightly says, a whole new systemic approach. The core of our report is that we need to get the balance right between scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, but there are very many issues that relate to all this.
We have had further support from many members of the general public and concerned interest groups, not least Bedfordshire Beekeepers Association, which said:
“Your work has been an inspirational example of democratic scrutiny in action…we hope that you will be able to hold government to account and influence policy making both at national and EU level.”
This is exactly what we are doing today and intend to continue doing. This debate is by no means our only follow-up to the report. We are raising the issue today to see how the many things that need to be done can get done, with the direction of the Government.
The Committee decided to conduct our inquiry because the available evidence indicated that insect pollinators have experienced serious population declines in the UK in recent years. For example, we heard—this is quite shocking—that two thirds to three quarters of insect pollinator species are declining in the UK. Indeed, the 2013 report “State of Nature” assessed 178 bee species in the UK and found that half were in decline. For the benefit of the House, I should explain that insect pollinators include not only honey bees and wild bees but other insects such as hoverflies, moths and butterflies. At the moment, the honey bee is the sentinel species for all insect pollinators, which means that most scientific studies involve bees, but given the biological differences between the various insect pollinators, it is vital that the Government monitor a wider range of species. I hope that this is an uncontroversial point on which the Government will agree with my Committee.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
indicated assent.
Joan Walley
I am very pleased to see the Minister nodding. I refer him to our recommendation 13: “Defra must”—I stress “must”—
“introduce a national monitoring programme to generate and monitor population data on a broad range of wild insect pollinator species to inform policy making.”
We felt that that is the bottom line and the starting point of what now needs to be done. As we went through our deliberations and came to reach our decisions, we endeavoured to find as much common ground among members of the Committee as we could before we turned to the issue of neonicotinoids.
Let me move on to the question of why insect populations might be declining. I want to make it clear at the outset that the health of insect pollinators is defined by a range of factors, including not only pesticides but urbanisation, loss of habitat, agricultural intensification and climate change; obviously, weather patterns affect things as well.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that the Government intend to issue—shortly, I believe—planning guidance on biodiversity. Does she agree that councils need to be encouraged and given the impetus to protect and restore bee-friendly habitats in their own neighbourhoods, which would make a real contribution to addressing the point she is making?
Joan Walley
I thank my right hon. Friend; she makes exactly the right point, and I absolutely agree. We need safe havens for wildlife, especially in urban areas, although it is not just about urban areas. The planning system underpins the whole issue of our natural capital and biodiversity. If we do not have guidance on how we protect and enhance our natural environment, the bees do not stand a chance.
Throughout our inquiry, the Environmental Audit Committee acknowledged the importance of sustaining agricultural yields, controlling pests effectively and maintaining food security. Indeed, those concerns were reflected in our final report. Equally, we were mindful of the value of insect pollinators as an ecosystem service to UK agriculture. I think that Members will be aware of the various estimates of the agricultural value of insect pollination, ranging from £500 million to £1.9 billion, depending on whether one takes into account the cost of replacement hand pollination. We felt that those issues ought to be given a value and taken into account.
In case anyone thinks that our report is just about a moratorium on certain neonicotinoids, I hope they will have a chance to read it in full and make themselves aware of the cross-cutting nature of our work and the importance that we give to using the common agricultural policy control to help British farming move as quickly as possible to integrated pest management.
As I have said, the Committee considered a range of factors that affect insect pollinators, but we were driven to scrutinise the effects of one family of insecticides—neonicotinoids—by the weight of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. For Members who are not familiar with neonicotinoids, I should say that they are a class of insecticide derived from nicotine. Following their introduction in the mid-’90s, they have been widely used in the UK on oilseed rape, cereals, maize, sugar beet and crops grown in glass houses. The body of evidence indicating that neonicotinoids cause acute harm to bees grew appreciably in the course of our inquiry, as new studies were published in heavyweight journals such as Science and Nature. In this case, harm to bees includes increased susceptibility to disease and reduced foraging and reproduction. If Members are interested in the particular scientific studies, I refer them to the Henry, Whitehorn and Gill experiments.
We heard that 94% of published peer-reviewed experiments on the effects of neonicotinoids on bees found evidence of acute harm. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the agri-chemical industry argued throughout our inquiry that the dosage used in those laboratory experiments was too high. In response it is worth pointing out that those studies used dosages derived from the best available data on the concentrations of neonicotinoids that bees encounter in the field.
The agri-chemical industry also likes to cite its own tests as proof that neonicotinoids cannot harm bees. However, the industry studies by which neonicotinoids were licensed for use in the European Union were not peer reviewed and are not open to scrutiny due to the supposed commercial sensitivity of the data. Furthermore, we found evidence in relation to the licensing of imidacloprid which calls into question altogether the rigour of the testing regime.
Against that background, we went on to consider the precautionary principle. By definition, insecticides kill insects. The precautionary question is whether neonicotinoid insecticides have an unsustainable impact on insect pollinators. The 1992 United Nations Rio declaration on environment and development states:
“Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
That internationally agreed definition of the precautionary principle was later enshrined in the Lisbon treaty and it underpins much of the work that has been done on sustainable development, including when the work of the Rio conference was built on at Rio+20 only last year in Brazil.
Throughout our inquiry, DEFRA used what it identified as a lack of full scientific certainty as an excuse for inaction. For example, at one stage the Department stated that it would require unequivocal evidence of harm before acting on neonicotinoids.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
In medical research, there is a huge issue with drug companies not publishing inconvenient data. Does the hon. Lady feel that that is a serious problem with neonicotinoids?
Joan Walley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point about commercial confidentiality and the lack of transparency. We hear a lot at the moment about lobbying and related issues, but if the agri-chemical industry wishes to make claims about the value of its products, it must open up the evidence to full scrutiny. There is no case for hiding behind so-called “commercial confidentiality”. That prevents the open, transparent and informed policy making that is so badly needed. I agree with the hon. Lady and her point relates to one of the recommendations in our report.
When the weight of peer-reviewed evidence rendered untenable DEFRA’s position on the need for unequivocal evidence, it claimed that it would commission the Food and Environment Research Agency to conduct a realistic field study to resolve the matter. That study was not peer reviewed and it was, as one witness to our inquiry presciently pointed out, clearly too small to provide conclusive results. It was undermined by fundamental errors in its execution, such as placing the various hives that were used in the experiments outside on different days of the year.
Our view on the study, which was that we should not accept it, was confirmed by the European Food Safety Authority on Tuesday, when it identified the same weaknesses as we did.
Joan Walley
I am glad to see the Minister nodding his head. The conclusion was that there was no reason for EFSA to change its view.
DEFRA told us that its pesticides policy was underpinned by the precautionary principle. I fear that in this case, that statement of intent has not been matched by DEFRA’s actions. Interestingly, the private sector appears to be more willing than DEFRA to implement precautions. In the course of our inquiry, we heard that major do-it-yourself chains such as B&Q, Wickes and Homebase were withdrawing neonicotinoids from sale for domestic use, and supermarket chains such as the Co-operative have prohibited their suppliers from using neonicotinoids in anything other than exceptional circumstances. I also welcome the press release from Waitrose, which states that it is looking to do the same in respect of flowering crops.
As our report was taking shape and we were having involved discussions among ourselves, we had to extend the length of our inquiry to take account of developments elsewhere, because it was clear that we were being overtaken by events such as the European Commission’s regulatory action. Although the growing weight of published scientific research did not impress DEFRA, it led the EC to take action. The EC is responsible for licensing chemicals for use in European agriculture. It instructed EFSA to draw up new risk assessments for neonicotinoids in relation to bees. The revised risk assessments led the EC to propose measured regulatory action, with a two-year EU-wide moratorium on the use of three of the five neonicotinoids on crops that are attractive to bees.
The EC proposal was put to a qualified majority vote on 15 March. As we all know, the vote was inconclusive and the UK abstained. The hung outcome of the vote allowed the EC to implement the appeal procedure, which led to a second vote on 29 April. I understand that between 15 March and 29 April, there was intensive lobbying and negotiation in Europe. Indeed, I went out personally to present our report to the European Commissioner. Finally, the EC amended its initial proposal. It recognised the need to delay the introduction of a moratorium to allow the seed supply chain time to adjust, which was a recommendation of our report. That is an example of how my Committee focused on the practical outcomes for the agricultural sector. We did not want to make any knee-jerk recommendations and we wanted there to be time for the matter to be properly understood and acted on.
In the second vote, on 29 April, the UK shifted from abstention to active resistance by voting against the proposed moratorium, despite the concessions made by the European Commission. However, countries such as Germany, France, Spain and the Netherlands all voted for the moratorium, which will consequently be introduced across the EU on 1 December 2013.
What effects will the two-year moratorium have on UK agriculture? First, I want to highlight that when neonicotinoids were banned for use on maize in Italy, there was no negative effect on yield. Secondly, the moratorium will prevent farmers from using neonicotinoids on
“crops that are attractive to bees”,
which of course excludes sugar beet, crops grown in glass houses and winter wheat; it is quite a proportionate measure. Thirdly, neonicotinoids are a relatively recent innovation. Oilseed rape, for example, was a viable UK crop before the introduction of neonicotinoids in the mid-‘90s.
Some have argued that a moratorium on neonicotinoids will lead farmers to spray greater quantities of other more environmentally harmful pesticides, such as organophosphates and pyrethroids. However, it is open to DEFRA to ensure that that is not the case. It is clearly in the interests of the environment, food security, minimising resistance among pests and maximising agricultural incomes that the least possible amount of pesticides is used in agricultural production. Indeed, in talks I have had with different bodies they have said that such a moratorium will mean that there must be a focus on what to do and what alternative proposals to come up with, so that we incentivise a more healthy approach to crops.
To that end, integrated pest management is a broad approach to plant protection that minimises pesticide use and encourages natural pest control mechanisms. By 1 January 2014, all pesticide users will be required to adopt IPM under the European directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. If UK farmers practise IPM, the argument that a moratorium on neonicotinoids will lead to unfavourable environmental outcomes does not hold. I believe that was very much a deciding factor in the Committee’s reaching its unanimous decision.
DEFRA does not appear to have prioritised compliance with the directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. The directive states:
“Member states should adopt…quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to reduce…the impact of pesticide use on the environment.”
However, a DEFRA official dismissed such targets as “meaningless”, which sits uneasily with the Department’s stated commitments to integrated pest management. Indeed, our report was halted or delayed because the Government were slow to make a full response to that European directive.
Other than the recommendations on the moratorium of certain neonicotinoids, the importance of monitoring the health of pollinators and the introduction of integrated pest management, many other detailed issues arise from the Committee’s report that relate to risk assessment and risk management. Those include reforms involving the European food safety authority, where our Government, should they wish to, could take the lead, CAP reform and recognising the importance of less secrecy and greater transparency in the risk assessment trials undertaken by the agrochemical industry—the point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to delay their response to our report, which was due this week, but I look forward to their detailed response on the work we have carried out. For now, however, events have moved quickly and DEFRA did not take our advice when the issue was raised by the European Commission.
In conclusion, I have three questions for the Minister. First, I believe DEFRA has said it will commission further field research on neonicotinoids and bees. Will that research be published in a journal and be peer reviewed? Will the Minister consider commissioning the British scientists who participated in the Gill and Whitehorn studies, rather than FERA, whose previous report was discredited? Is it DEFRA policy to reject all laboratory studies—and, by extension, scientific method—as a basis for action? Secondly, how will DEFRA ensure the effective implementation of the sustainable use of pesticide directive? Thirdly, will the Minister explain what changed between the first EU vote on 15 March, when the UK abstained, to the second EU vote, on 29 April, when the UK voted against a moratorium?
The UK public are concerned about bees and pollinators. When I raised this at Prime Minister’s Question Time, he stressed the importance of the precautionary principle. As we look forward to the summer, people’s minds will be on gardening and planting, and farmers’ minds will be on planting and harvesting. It is critical that we hear from the Government on how they will respond to the EU moratorium.
Martin Caton
I completely agree, and I am coming to the Government’s pesticides action plan, which is actually an “inaction plan”—to be quite honest, it is a disgraceful document.
We looked at the pesticide approvals regime at EU and UK levels, and found a system flawed at both. Put simply, it works like this. The chemical company puts together the scientific data to support its application and submits a dossier to the regulatory authority in any EU member state. That authority’s experts make their own assessment, which is set out in a draft assessment report. That is then reported to the European Food Safety Authority, which conducts a peer review by experts from other EU countries. Its conclusions are sent to the Commission, which makes a proposal—for approval or not—to the Council of Ministers. After approval, companies can apply to the regulatory authority in any member state for permission to market their product. The regulatory authority in the UK is the chemicals regulation directorate of the Health and Safety Executive. The CRD prepares a scientific evaluation, which is considered by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, which is a statutory, independent body that advises Ministers on whether approval should be given.
On the face of it, the whole thing sounds quite rigorous, but we found significant flaws. First, as our Chair said, the pesticide manufacturers that commission the research to submit to the regulators keep control of that research. In practice, that means that the data on safety under which a chemical is licensed are not put into the public domain, denying effective academic access and, therefore, independent criticism. In contrast, some of the academics who gave evidence to us reported that their research was openly published, which meant that where it showed a link between pesticide use and pollinator decline, defenders of the agrichemical industry would go through their work with a fine-toothed comb looking for a way to rubbish it, sometimes deliberately misinterpreting it to do so. We believe that it should not be beyond the wit of humankind to ensure maximum transparency without threatening genuine commercial sensitivity.
Another problem with the process is that, up to now, the EU approval system has explicitly addressed only the risk to honey bees. That probably would not be too bad if the honey bee were one of the more fragile and sensitive pollinators. If that were the case, and it survived exposure to a product, it would be likely that other, tougher pollinator species would be fine. In fact, we heard evidence that the honey bee is probably the most robust of the pollinators when it comes to pesticide exposure. Bumble bee research, for instance, shows the clear detrimental impact of neonicotinoid use. Some pollinators, such as hoverflies, have very different life cycles from any bees, and therefore have different exposure routes. Such pollinators remain unconsidered at present. We urge DEFRA to introduce a representative range of sentinel pollinator species in UK pesticide risk assessments, and to work for the same arrangements across the EU.
We also came across an example that showed that, however good the approval system might be in theory, it can fall down badly in practice. The neonicotinoid imidacloprid had to be re-evaluated in 2006. Germany’s regulatory authority produced the draft assessment report. One of the properties to be assessed was the propensity of the pesticide to accumulate in soil and water, and the assessments were carried out in two trials here in the UK. The results of the tests were misreported in the draft assessment report, however. It concluded that
“the compound has no potential for accumulation in soil”.
That is exactly the opposite of what the trial evidence showed. When the European Food Safety Authority conducted its peer review of the German assessment, it identified the pesticide’s apparent tendency to accumulate, and concluded:
“The risk assessment to soil dwelling organisms cannot be finalised because the assessment of soil accumulation is not finalised.”
This formed part of the text of the EFSA peer review sent to the Commission, so one might have expected that body to refuse approval until the accumulation question had been answered.
The European Commission Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health considered EFSA’s report and, astonishingly, gave imidacloprid its approval, stating that it presented
“no unacceptable risks to the environment”.
There was no mention of accumulation in soil. That was a clear and dangerous failure of the assessment process. We argued that the process needed to be tightened up by empowering EFSA to include in future peer reviews action points that the Commission must address.
We looked at the growing body of evidence linking neonicotinoid use with pollinator decline. This was taken seriously by a considerable number of academics, but dismissed by the agrichemical companies, mainly for two reasons. First, they claimed that the trial doses were higher than would be used in practice. Secondly, they stated that the experiments had been carried out in the laboratory or only partly in the field, and claimed that they could trust only field trials. That Orwellian mantra, “Field trials good, laboratory trials bad”, was repeated often during our inquiry.
DEFRA’s real underlying attitude to assessing the risks of pesticide use was inadvertently given away in a 2012 document, “Neonicotinoid insecticides and bees: the state of the science and the regulatory response”. As our Committee Chair has said, the Department stated that it needed unequivocal proof in order to support a moratorium.
Joan Walley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making these points. This sums up the flawed basis on which permissions were being given throughout the whole regulatory procedure. We are now presenting the Government with the opportunity to take a leadership role, and we want them to follow up exactly on the recommendations in our report.
Martin Caton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will now conclude my speech, as I have gone over the 10 minutes you suggested, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr David Heath)
This has been an extremely good debate and I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and her Committee for their report. She knows that we have had a short delay in responding to her, for the precise reasons that she had a short delay in producing the report. The circumstances have been changing quickly and we want to get it right, so I apologise to her and her Committee for that. My noble friend Lord de Mauley is responsible for this area, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that it falls to me to respond to the debate in this House.
I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) for his balanced remarks, which showed that this is a complex issue. I am interested in it, not least because as Minister for agriculture I know that bees and pollinators are crucial. I cannot underline sufficiently how important pollinators are to agriculture and horticulture, so of course I have that interest.
I also have an enormous personal interest in the issue. I spoke from the Opposition Benches about bees for a very long time. I spoke on the subject right back in June 1998, when I said:
“We need a step change in investment in the investigation of bee disease if we are to stem a worldwide phenomenon that is lapping at our doorstep and has the potential to become a crisis, both for the insect population and in economic terms”.—[Official Report, 17 June 2008; Vol. 477, c. 204WH.]
That is what I said in 1998, so people are now free to quote that back at me, but I meant it. We were arguing then in the context of very little work at Government level on bees. It took the best part of a decade before we pressed the previous Government to start taking the issue of bees and pollinators seriously, which they did: we now have the national bee unit and I think we now need to go one step further in our approach.
I welcome the opportunity to highlight what the Government have been doing in relation both to pollinators and pesticides and to our future plans. We take this issue extremely seriously. It is crucial. Contrary to what some have said, specifically in relation to neonicotinoid insecticides, we have kept the evidence under close and open-minded scrutiny and we continue to do so. We will restrict the use of insecticides. Obviously, neonicotinoids are now dealt with under the moratorium, but we will deal with others as well, if the evidence shows that there is a need to do so. I will come back to that point later.
The hon. Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Glasgow South pointed out that pollinators face many other challenges. It is critical that one issue, such as the use of particular pesticides, does not dominate the debate, because so many other individual factors, when taken together, have a complex effect on our pollinator population.
Joan Walley
The Minister has said that the Government will take action if the evidence shows that they need to. Will he explain how that relates to the moratorium delivered by the European Commission?
Mr Heath
I will come back to the specific issue of neonicotinoids in a moment. The moratorium is in place, so we will, of course, fully comply with it. We do not not comply with decisions of that kind. I will return to the evidence, because it is a critical issue.
I repeat that bees are essential to the health of our natural environment and the prosperity of our farming industry. The “Biodiversity 2020” document has been mentioned. We have set ourselves the challenge of achieving an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and preventing further human induced extinctions of known threatened species. We have put a landscape scale approach to biodiversity conservation at the heart of “Biodiversity 2020”. It is vital that that approach is effective in helping to conserve our most threatened species.
Nature improvement areas are beginning to make a difference for species on the ground. The 12 Government-funded NIAs are by no means the sum total of our ambitions. We want to see that approach rolled out more widely by enthusiasts across the country. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is seeing exactly that in her city. We want that to be extended and it is clearly already happening.
We want to make environmental stewardship more effective. As the House knows, we are in the process of negotiating CAP reform. It is not clear what the outcomes will be. We do not know the extent to which greening measures will be in pillar 1 or pillar 2, or the exact recipe that will emerge from our decisions on agri-environmental schemes that derive from pillar 2 or voluntary modulation. This matter is a key consideration in that context and I will certainly be pressing for it in the outcome.
Joan Walley
This has been a useful debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), and my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Martin Caton), for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). The Environmental Audit Committee will consider what we can do to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East in her efforts to make Bristol the capital of green cities. We have had the Friends of the Earth breakfast. In view of our debate, the question is whether, at quarter to 3 or two minutes to 5, there is honey still for tea.
The Committee has sought to produce a timely and considered report. We intend our recommendations to be part of an ongoing process of parliamentary scrutiny. It might be in our interests that the Government response will be delayed, just as the integrated pest management report was delayed—it might be in our interests if the delay means we will get a more informed response, and if the Committee will have greater engagement on how such multifaceted issues can be developed. The breathing space of the moratorium we have as a result of the European Commission might help to take the debate forward, and we would welcome a fully informed response from the Government. However, we do not want the Government simply to dismiss the Committee’s work, and we do not want the lack of targets and everything else in the integrated pest control plan to continue. The Committee is a team and this has been a team effort. We want to engage with the Government on how we can ensure, working with farmers and business, and all those people in the British countryside—
Horsemeat (Supermarket Products)
Joan Walley Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Is not the problem fragmentation, split responsibility, enforcement, the role of trading standards officers and cuts to local government? Has the Minister had a meeting a Cabinet level, across all Departments, to get a policy that is fit for purpose?
Ash Dieback Disease
Joan Walley Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Heath
I can certainly confirm that we are taking all measures possible to deploy colleagues in the Forestry Commission, those working in forest services and people from FERA to identify the incidence of disease wherever it can be found. We will look closely at a suspected further case in a mature tree. It is important to realise that there is a national forest inventory through which symptoms of disease are looked at across the board all the time. There were 8,000 inspections of ash trees under the inventory last year and it was found that the trees were, in fact, in very good health. Only 61 cases of any signs of ill health in ash trees were discovered, and none of them was due to Chalara.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
There is concern because while it is now late autumn, this was discovered much earlier in the year. Leaving aside that delay, will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will work with the Woodland Trust, which has great expertise in this issue and has a series of asks for the Government?
Mr Heath
It is important that we work with everybody; this is not something that we can leave entirely to the scientists and the experts. Anyone who spots an incidence of disease in trees would do well to advise the authorities. We can then use the great body of voluntary organisations that are interested in the health of our forests to do all we can to deal with the disease as quickly as possible. I repeat that there was not a delay over the summer. Planting does not take place during the summer period and, as far as we are aware, the voluntary moratorium has worked very well.
Incandescent Light Bulbs
Joan Walley Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Sheila Gilmore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. In the two examples that I mentioned, the reaction to exposure to the bulbs was extreme and rapid. Many people suffer in a lesser way, but it is nevertheless an issue for them and something that we could, and should, avoid. However committed we may be to our energy obligations—and we should be—it is important not to ignore the adverse effects on some of our population.
The scale of the problem is not insignificant. In answer to a written parliamentary question on 1 February 201l, the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton) referred to figures that estimated that 250,000 people in the EU are at risk from increased levels of ultraviolet radiation or blue light generated by compact fluorescent lamps.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the Departments for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for Business, Innovation and Skills, and for Energy and Climate Change should work in a cross-departmental way to see what further research could be done in the European Union to look at the long-term effects of new technologies on people who have a pre-existing condition? We must start looking at what long-term changes might be needed, while also having regard to those who are suffering now, and we must see whether there is a way of obtaining a dispensation so that such people are not exposed to those causes of ill health, as appears to be the case at the moment.
Sheila Gilmore
As chair of the all-party lighting group, my hon. Friend has extensive knowledge of that subject and the issues that should be raised. Although long-term research is always helpful, we must also focus on the impact on individuals. As the Health Minister indicated, the figures she gave could equate to 30,000 or 40,000 people in the UK being affected by this problem. Those, however, are people who are known to have a pre-existing condition, and the Spectrum Alliance estimates that the true number of people affected in the UK—with, as has been said, varying levels of impact—could be as many as 2 million, many of whom are already suffering from conditions such as migraines or autism.
The science behind this issue may not yet be entirely resolved, and although the light bulbs in question have a clear impact on people, we must do some research into the matter. Low-energy lighting operates differently from incandescent bulbs in terms of levels of ultraviolet radiation, electric fields, flicker and peaks in light wavelength, especially with blue light. As yet, research has not been sufficiently in-depth to enable us to say which features of fluorescent bulbs have an effect on health, because they differ from incandescent bulbs in multiple ways. We do know, however, that people’s health is not affected in the same way when they use incandescent bulbs.
Let me be clear: I do not seek to discourage the use of low-energy light bulbs and lighting where that is useful and helpful. I acknowledge that climate change is one of the most significant challenges that we face as a country and I welcome the positive contribution that lighting can make in reducing our energy consumption. However, I do not believe that it would be right to implement the ban on incandescent light bulbs so dogmatically that people suffered. That is the crux of what I am saying.
Richard Benyon
We are lobbying the Commission to bring the research forward before 2014. That is a key point that we want to get across. I will discuss the matter with my colleague, Lord Taylor, and he in turn will talk to Health Ministers to see if there is any wriggle room that will allow some form of exemption, such as the one that the hon. Lady described. I liked her suggestion about the possibility of using pharmacies. We are open-minded. What we do must be legal and recognise that there is a problem that we want to resolve.
The regulation includes a requirement for it to be reviewed before 2014, but we think that that should be done sooner. We will work with our European partners to ensure that the review takes full account of the best available scientific evidence on the health effects of artificial light. We are therefore pressing the Commission to ensure that the research is completed much earlier in order to feed into the review.
Energy efficient lighting, with other energy efficient products, can produce significant energy savings.
Joan Walley
I am listening hard to the Minister. Can he give my hon. Friend an indication of the time scale? Will he report back to her on the discussions that he intends to have with Lord Taylor about the health issues and what he referred to as the “wriggle room” within what is legal?
Richard Benyon
I will talk to Lord Taylor, as I agreed, subsequent to the debate. If the hon. Lady will allow me to say so, it will be for him to contact her and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East to see how we can take things forward. I recognise the genuine concerns that have been brought to the attention of the House through the early-day motion and today’s debate. I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh East that the Government take these matters seriously and we will seek to resolve the concerns of her constituent and our constituents who are affected.
Rio+20 Summit
Joan Walley Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to open this debate on behalf of the Environmental Audit Committee following our report on the preparations for the Rio+20 summit. I am pleased that so many members of the Committee are in the Chamber. I am grateful that the Minister is in his place and say at the outset that I acknowledge that the Secretary of State is on other urgent business to do with this topic. We welcome the Minister and look forward to his comments.
All parliamentarians must engage with this issue; those of us on Select Committees are legislators who are there to hold the Government to account. We have already seen, in organisations such as GLOBE International, what a powerful contribution Members of Parliament from different Parliaments around the world can make on these important matters.
The report is the first by our Committee to be debated on an estimates day. The timing of the debate could not be better. This morning, along with other MPs, I was privileged to be able to attend the launch of the report, “Resilient People, Resilient Planet”, which comes from the high-level panel on global sustainability set up by the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and which was presented to us by Janos Pasztor. In their report, he and the panel members make a truly powerful case for global change, and that is what we have to address in the run-up to the Rio+20 summit. This debate also comes after the publication of the zero draft of the United Nations outcome document for the summit.
We began the Select Committee inquiry early, starting last spring, so that we had time to examine what the Government are doing to make Rio+20 a success and so that we could play a part in getting attention for the summit, including the pre-summit events, the actual negotiations and, crucially, the follow-up work that will be needed. If action was needed at the first Rio Earth summit, 20 years on we need solutions more than ever. Governments and politicians the world over need to get their act sorted. Equally, we have to take this to every community around the UK and to the people we live next to and work with. People in countries, towns and cities the world over need to urge the decision makers to do more.
Whatever agreements are reached at Rio, the summit is not just about one country or one negotiating bloc; it is about developing and developed countries, the haves and the have-nots, and not just one generation, but future generations. This Rio conference will affect us all today, tomorrow and in the days and years ahead. We therefore have to make it a high-level event, where we change the way in which we do politics. It is a crossroads. From now on, policies should be formulated and budgets made on the basis of what is right for the long term. We should give notice that we will change course because we believe that following a more sustainable path will enhance human well-being, further global justice, strengthen gender equity and preserve the earth’s life-support systems for future generations.
We all know that it is 150 days to the start of the Olympics. I wonder whether people in Parliament and out there are aware of the countdown to Rio. There is a bit of a paradox here. We have to be cautious and guard against the impression that this summit is the be-all and end-all. We have to remind ourselves that no instant wins or quick fixes are likely to arise from it. Rather, we need a change of direction. Rio+20 must be seen as a starting-off point for new initiatives, rather than a signing-off point to end a process.
The Select Committee report calls on the Prime Minister to attend the summit to show the UK’s commitment. His office informed us that he would not be able to do so because of a clash of dates with the diamond jubilee celebrations. That seems to have prompted the United Nations and Brazil to move the summit to later in June to allow not just the Prime Minister, but other Heads of Government to attend. The response to the report states that decisions about who will attend Rio, apart from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will be decided on later, as will the decision on the need for a special envoy. Right from the word go, the Government have to be careful not to be on the back foot. This matter has to be clarified.
I have no quarrel whatever with the Secretary of State going out there. It is vital that she attends. I know that she is very committed and that she has been involved in all the preliminary stages. However, I believe that for the full backing of the team, the Prime Minister needs to be there, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, the scientists and the business leaders. The UK team have to make their mark. At a time when the world is changing; when environmental debt needs to be as high up the agenda as economic debt; when we face temperature rise and biodiversity loss unless we learn to live within our planetary boundaries; and when we have one opportunity for the international community to frame the new priorities and to work out how we will each, individually and collectively, engage with this matter, we need the UK Prime Minister to be there, actively shaping the new agenda and understanding what alliances are being forged.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that as we are a global leader in embedding natural capital in the national accounts, which I hope will be a central feature of the summit in Rio later in the year, the Prime Minister has a strong story to tell? He will be able not only to boast of our work in that area, but to share it and further strengthen our alliance with the Brazilians, who are an emerging and important power.
Joan Walley
I am very grateful for that intervention, especially as it comes from the hon. Gentleman, who plays such a constructive role in the work of GLOBE legislators not just in the UK, but internationally. This debate is about how we can best use our best practice and leadership and be part of the ongoing process.
It will be no good if we are not seen as one of the main contributors to a new multilateral process. The questions are as difficult as they can be and there are no easy answers, especially if we are not fully committed and on board. It is not in the UK’s interests to be sidelined in any way as the Rio agenda is formulated and then carried on after the summit. This discussion came up at the launch earlier today. This is not a question of the Prime Minister going out there to grandstand; we want him there so that he can understand and be part of the process. When the Minister winds up, I would be grateful if he could tell us what discussions the Secretary of State has had with the Prime Minister about this issue and whether we can expect him to make a commitment to attend.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could address another of our recommendations and say whether the UK will appoint a special envoy to champion some of this work in the years ahead. It was important that we had a special envoy to deal with forestry issues. I am grateful that the very capable hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who played such a distinguished role in forestry issues, is present. I hope that what happened to him does not happen again if our recommendation for a special envoy on biodiversity for Rio is accepted.
The objectives for Rio+20, as set out by the United Nations, are
“to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges.”
In practical terms, the two main themes of the conference are
“a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication”
and
“the institutional framework for sustainable development”.
The Select Committee report described the lack of progress on sustainable development since the first Rio summit 20 years ago, which I am sure many Members were involved in taking forward, perhaps in local government. It identified a new impetus for urgent action and for a greater appreciation of our planetary boundaries. The report discussed the merits of new sustainable development goals and recommended that they take forward the millennium development goals, but with the key difference of applying targets to development as well as to developing countries.
The report emphasised how the green economy agenda needs to protect those who might be disadvantaged by it. We need a fair green economy that respects the social justice pillar of sustainable development. The report highlighted the need for the green economy to take account of the value of ecosystem services and beyond-GDP measures of economic activity, including well-being. It noted the need to involve the private sector in the green economy and recommended mandatory sustainability reporting by companies in their annual reports and accounts.
The report said that there is scope for the creation of an international court on the environment, which would provide a forum for adjudicating on environmental cases. However, it noted the Government’s line on United Nations institutions—that the focus should be on making the existing systems work before inventing new ones. We thought that that was a reasonable line to take, but stipulated that the UK should not insist on it if it would get in the way of a wider agreement on the substantive issues, such as the green economy.
The report stressed the importance of engaging with civil society and, more importantly, of finding creative, imaginative and innovative ways of engaging with the public. I know that the Liaison Committee is keen that Parliament should go out to the community. We are looking to hold a special event at St Martin-in-the-Fields on 21 May involving the “Hard Rain” project to express the importance of this agenda not just through the words of politicians, but through art, music and photography.
The Government’s response to our report is fine as far as it goes, but far more work on the ground is needed. That is why it is so important that we flag up the matter in today’s debate. I welcome the Government response, however, which was positive overall. As we would expect, it accepted the importance of the Rio+20 summit and the need to contribute to making it a success. I welcome the fact that the Government are fully committed to sustainable development, but we always hear a lot of warm words about the importance of mainstreaming sustainable development across all policies, and we would like to hear a little more about how that will actually be done and how the Government intend to raise the profile of Rio+20. I know that since our report was published the Secretary of State has spoken to non-governmental organisations and business groups, including on 9 February at the Guildhall. It would be helpful, though, if the Minister could set out what further action the Government will take to generate and maintain engagement on Rio+20.
Another relevant issue, that of mobilisation, was raised at a conference chaired by Nick Stern under the sponsorship of the United Nations Foundation. We need to concentrate on solutions and on leading by example, so local initiatives all over the country are important, such as the one at Keele university that I attended just last week for green week on the occasion of the inauguration of Jonathon Porritt as the university’s Chancellor. Such initiatives follow on from the “Hard Rain” project, which was a solutions exhibition showing that we need to think not about nightmare scenarios but about what we can do. We need to work together to create solutions.
The Government agreed with us that business involvement in the green economy is key. However, their response did not address the important point that we raised about the need for a fair green economy that reflects the social dimension of sustainable development.
Another detailed aspect of our report was our reference to the proposed international court for the environment. We asked for the Government’s views on the pros and cons of setting up such a court. We appreciated their thorough response describing the lack of international appetite for a court that would bind countries. We understand that, but a more modest proposal doing the rounds was a court that would make only declaratory decisions. We would appreciate an update on that from the Minister, including what further developments and discussions there have been.
In the run-up to Rio, it is important that we place our preparations in the context of UK policy. We must examine the issues that the UK should be interested in, so that we can lead by example. Our constituents should be pushing us to push the Government to get the best deal for the UK. We should never be satisfied. We need a deal that acts as a catalyst for green growth, takes account of fairness, defines what we mean by a green economy and does not use green growth as a euphemism for economic growth. It needs to take account of best practice in other legislatures, such as Wales, where there is legislation on sustainable development.
We can start now the discussions about a new framework and a new economy that invests for the long term and offers a future for humankind in which we can live within our environmental limits in a fair and just society. All Departments of our Government must lead by example at home, whether on finance, business or international development. They must consider the causes of poverty, not the symptoms, and embed sustainable development in cross-cutting policies to invest for the long term. We must have the resources to show what the UK can do at a time of transition.
Local Agenda 21 achieved a huge amount at the first Rio summit, and we need to see what equivalent outcomes we can get at this one. I wish to highlight the enormous efforts of many countries, particularly Colombia, whose ambassador is in London today not just garnering support and building consensus on the five main issues—energy, food security, water, sustainable cities and oceans—but doing all he can with other countries, including the UK, to promote the sustainable development goals.
We do not have time to go into detail about many aspects of what we need, such as on forestry. It is really important that we have a time-bound commitment to far more areas of forestry, managed by indigenous people and local communities. I hope that when today’s debate is over, Ministers will have a greater understanding of the fact that they need to keep Parliament up to date with all the initiatives that are under way, including proposals, actions, the changing positions of different countries and what can be done to address possible hurdles. The Environmental Audit Committee wants to be part of that process and actively engage in the progress that the Government make.
I also ask the Minister whether we can have regular updates on the work being done in our bloc, the European Union, in the run-up to Rio+20. How do the Government intend to take forward any commitments reached at Rio, and how will Parliament, the place that should be at the centre of the debate, be involved in debating and agreeing follow-up measures in the years ahead? Will the model be that national and regional economies follow essential components, using environmental taxes and regulations effectively to promote low-carbon industry? Can we have greater transparency in reporting, so that economic decisions reflect the value of ecosystem services and impinging planetary boundaries? In that way we could measure development progress not by gross domestic product alone but by measures that capture well-being and the health of environmental capital.
A further issue to consider is the pivotal role of business and the private sector, and the need for companies to be transparent about the sustainability of their operations, including their resource efficiency. They also need to disclose the source of the raw materials that they use, the waste that they generate and the efficiency with which they use and reuse resources.
Many people are doing what they can to show leadership and demand action, and it is vital that the UK Government engage with parliamentarians and legislators, civil society, business and people the world over on these most pressing issues. I welcome this evening’s debate.
Richard Benyon
I am sorry; I cannot give way.
We know that UK businesses are world leaders in green growth. Marks and Spencer saved more than £70 million last year through a combination of efficiency savings and new business. That compares with £50 million the year before.
Richard Benyon
I have only a minute left, but I must give way to the hon. Lady.
Joan Walley
I hoped that, before our time ran out, the Minister would tell us whether the Prime Minister would be going to the summit, and when we could expect an announcement about that.
Fisheries
Joan Walley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Spencer
Of course, I was not at primary school with Sir Francis Drake, but I was at primary school when the European Union came up with the schemes that gave away our territorial rights to our waters. That was a great shame, but we need to consider it in the light of where we find ourselves today. We need to consider how we can take it back and find a system that is morally acceptable and better for our oceans.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
As a sponsor of the motion, I am grateful to have the opportunity to put on the record how important I think it is. Surely the important issue is the marine ecosystem and the duty and responsibility we all have to ensure that it can function in an ethically sustainable way. We must put the environment at the heart of all that we do so that we have a sustainable ecosystem for our marine waters.
Mr Spencer
I absolutely agree and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. We need to ensure that future generations have access to fish as part of their diet. Fish make up an important part of the diet. Omega 3 is important and people need it as part of a healthy diet. Unless we get this right at this moment, fish stocks will not be available for future generations. That will be a sad indictment of us as politicians and of the decisions that we make.
My final comments are to the general public. Consumers are powerful and retailers listen to consumers. I encourage members of the public to challenge their retailers—supermarkets and fishmongers—to tell them how their fish is caught and harvested and how many discards there are. Several retailers, including Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencer, have done some work on making good progress on this front. I hope that we can find a solution.
Oral Answers to Questions
Joan Walley Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Spelman
It is important that all DEFRA’s publications are laid before the House; we go to great lengths to keep the House informed of all our activities. The waste review is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a landmark publication, and we look forward to publishing it shortly. We will make it widely available to hon. Members.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In view of the forthcoming European Commission conference on the LIFE+ programme to protect biodiversity, will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that officials in the Environment Agency and Natural England will work right across the UK to make sure that we can get the maximum funding from that programme, particularly for the proposal that I am working on in Stoke-on-Trent to improve access to natural resources and to keep biodiversity?
Mrs Spelman
I share the hon. Lady’s passion for the protection of biodiversity and the enhancement of biodiversity where there has been biodiversity loss. I am sure that every sinew will be strained by every member of the DEFRA family to make sure that the United Kingdom does well out of any resources that are being made available through the European Union so that we can benefit by putting those resources where they will make a difference—with the protection of biodiversity.
Mr Streeter
My hon. Friend is right to raise the problems confronting those with literacy challenges. The Electoral Commission uses a number of media, including radio and TV, in its targeted campaigning to do its best to reach everyone. It also produces a range of information in an easy-read format, which can be found on its website, but following my hon. Friend’s interest in this important matter I will certainly speak to the Electoral Commission to see what more can be done.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Can I raise a matter very dear to your heart, Mr Speaker, about how we involve more people in the work of Parliament through electoral registration? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the ways in which some pilot funding could be secured to assist those in the parish and town councils of Kidsgrove in my constituency with setting up a youth parliament in order to make young people aware of how our parliamentary democracy and electoral system work?
Mr Streeter
The Electoral Commission is very keen to increase electoral registration and engagement in democracy. I will certainly take forward the hon. Lady’s very interesting suggestion to the commission, and we will write to her with what I hope will be a positive response.
Forestry (England)
Joan Walley Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Spelman
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The public forest estate accounts for 18% of woodland cover in this country, so the vast majority of forest and woodland is in private ownership, and part of the point of moving to a fresh approach with an independent panel and widening the range of questions under consideration is to look at forestry policy and woodland policy in general.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s climbdown on behalf of the constituents who have expressed anger and disbelief to me about what is happening, but given both that the Government have said this is meant to be the greenest Government ever and that they have got rid of the Sustainable Development Commission, is it not about time that what has happened to this policy does not happen in all the other areas of biodiversity? Is it not time that the Government set out how they are going to embed sustainable development in all future policy in both urban and rural areas?