Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Debate between Joan Walley and Sarah Wollaston

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley]

Everyone is aware that the Environmental Audit Committee has now drawn up three reports on air quality. We came up with a series of recommendations, clearly showing that there is no one single solution to the problem of improving air quality and that we need a raft of measures. Cycling and walking are certainly part of that, and I am very pleased with the progress that has been made. It is imperative for the Minister to do exactly what he said he would do, and give further serious consideration to the amendments tabled, following the Environmental Audit Committee discussions, about how placing a legal duty on the new Highways Agency is critical if we are to deal with the public health issues.

I see the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who chairs the Health Select Committee, in her place. The whole House is aware that we have something in the order of 29,000 premature deaths a year. We know that air pollution is an invisible killer. It is vital that when the new agency comes to do its work, it does not just look at the environmental appraisal, but ensure that it has real teeth. We need real ways to plan roads and provide green walls to help reduce pollution, and to look at layout and public transport integration. The whole integrated approach to public transport needs to be taken on board. Without the legal commitment, which I hope will come forward in the other place, we cannot begin to tackle the problem of our being in breach of EU regulations. We must deal urgently with that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) for saying that he would support amendment 70. At this stage, it is incumbent on us to see what progress can be made by the Government in the other place.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the cycling and walking strategy. It is not just a cycling and walking strategy; it is a cycling and walking investment strategy. As the Minister knows, good cycling infrastructure does not happen without that vital investment. I am particularly pleased to see the words “certainty” and “stability” in new clause 13. That is what it is all about, and it is how Holland achieved its objectives. It makes it appropriate for the Minister to be the Member for South Holland and the Deepings. Holland achieved its goals by having £24 a head of stable, long-term investment. If we can get that level of investment—£10 to £20 a head has been called for in the all-party cycling group—we can do the same. I pay tribute to all my colleagues in the all-party cycling group for the work they did, and I commend the cycling report. I warmly welcome the opportunity of discussing the issue with the Minister responsible for cycling, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who is in his place.

I think that we can expect an increase in the number of cycling journeys from 2% in 2011 to 10% within a decade, which will have enormous benefits for health. I hope there will be investment in not just infrastructure but training, and that cycle to work schemes will, in some form, be extended to young people. I warmly thank the Secretary of State for tabling the new clause, and look forward to seeing the health and well-being of the nation improve as a result.

National Pollinator Strategy

Debate between Joan Walley and Sarah Wollaston

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley]

I would say this, wouldn’t I, but the work record of the worker bees on the Environmental Audit Committee is second to none. It is worthy, perhaps, of a detailed meeting with the Minister before he finalises and signs off the national pollinator strategy.

We still have concerns, some of which I think are echoed by the organisations that contributed. We welcome the work that has been done so far by the Government. The fact that we have further reservations, conditions and asks does not mean that we do not welcome what has been done, but there are various areas where further work is needed.

We do not want to see the European Commission’s neonicotinoid ban undermined. We are aware that an application came through in the past 12 months that was withdrawn before the Government finally considered it, but it is important that the ban stays. That prompts the question: what happens at the point when the ban is reviewed? What will happen next? As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) rightly set out, the important issue is the research that will be done and the research that is set out in the draft strategy. We have major concerns relating to transparency and the independence of those doing the research. When my hon. Friends and I met in Brussels, we were surprised to hear from the Commission that some of this important research was being financed not with European money, which we felt would have given it a semblance of independence, but by the agrochemical companies. For that reason, safeguards have to be put in place.

I hope the Minister will address the point about independence, if not now, then later, as it was not thoroughly addressed in the response to our report, which we have tagged to, and made available for, this debate. We need continual scrutiny of how close DEFRA is to the companies carrying out the research. It is one thing to have funding; it is another to contribute to the design. We need a referee—some kind of overall body—to ensure that the research is not designed only by those with vested interests.

[Dr Wollaston]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee for making an excellent speech. Are she and the Minister aware of the work of the AllTrials campaign by Sense about Science? In medical research, for example, one serious issue is around publication bias and whether we actually get to see all the research, not just that which gives favourable results.

Pollinators and Pesticides

Debate between Joan Walley and Sarah Wollaston

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.