Badger Culls (Assessment)

Martin Caton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

Order. At least six Members are on my list as wishing to speak. I want to start the wind-ups at 3.40 pm, so if they are all to have a chance of speaking, hon. Members should all keep their speeches to around six minutes.

Pollinators and Pesticides

Martin Caton Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who is a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and I join him in paying tribute to the leadership of our Committee Chair, not only on this vital inquiry, but on all our inquiries.

I strongly support all the conclusions and recommendations in our report, but my interest in what is happening to our pollinating insects goes back quite a bit further than last November, when we started taking evidence. In fact, it probably dates back more than 40 years to when I was at agricultural school and undertook a course in apiculture. The certificate I secured at the end remains a treasured possession. More recently, about three years ago, that interest was further spurred by a 2009 report produced by the organisation Buglife, which our Chair has already mentioned, and the Soil Association. It was a review of the scientific literature on a group of systemic pesticides called neonicotinoids on non-target insect species.

Although the combined evidence in the report was not conclusive, even at that time it rang serious alarm bells that should have received an urgent response from the Government. I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, which a surprising number of Members from across the House attended to express their shared concern about the potential threat posed by these pesticides to a vital group of invertebrates—pollinating insects. Since that debate, thanks to intelligence supplied by Buglife and other environmental organisations, I have tried to keep track of further research and, when significant, have drawn it to the House’s attention through early-day motions and other parliamentary means.

As our Chair said, last autumn, the Committee decided to conduct what has turned out to be a major inquiry taking evidence from the organisations she mentioned. The first thing the Committee had to recognise was that many of our pollinating species appeared to have been in decline for some time. Of course, when we look at pollinators—especially any threats to them—the first focus is usually honey bees. That has been particularly the case in Europe and the USA in recent years, with alarming reports of what is sometimes called colony collapse on an international basis.

As a result of their economic significance, honey bees attract far more scientific attention than any other pollinator. Their decline has been ascribed to a range of causes—pests and diseases, such as the varroa mite, which has been mentioned, along with weather conditions, poor nutrition, poor husbandry, urbanisation, agricultural intensification, habitat degradation and the use and misuse of pesticides. However, honey bees are not the main pollinators in the UK—far from it. Ninety per cent of insect pollination is done by the thousands of other, wild pollinators—other bees, hoverflies, butterflies, carrion flies, beetles, midges, moths, and so on. These other pollinators are not monitored or studied like honey bees, so we do not know exactly what is happening to them. However, we received disquieting evidence from some witnesses of how, as the Chair has said, two thirds of wild pollinator species are declining, including moths, butterflies, hoverflies and bumble bees. We were told that of the 25 UK bumble bee species, two or three—no one is sure because the research has not been done—have already become extinct, while probably 10 others have suffered large range decline.

We were advised that DEFRA has a bee unit that does a good job of monitoring honey bees. There are 70 Government scientists dedicated to researching honey bees, but just part of one scientist looking at the health of wild bees. That has to change. We cannot afford to remain ignorant about our wild pollinators. That is why we call in the report for DEFRA to introduce a national monitoring programme to generate and monitor population data on a broad range of wild insect pollinator species. If we do not really know what is going on, we cannot make the right policy decisions to halt decline.

Most people looking at pollinator decline would come to the conclusion that, at least in most cases, multiple factors are at play—those that I have listed for honey bees and perhaps others. Most of our witnesses who addressed the wider picture accepted that there were probably a range of causes. However, the representatives of mainstream farming and especially the agrichemical industry were absolutely adamant that the decline had nothing to do with pesticide use and especially not the use of neonics. Our Chair has described how neonicotinoids work, which I will not repeat, but I will add that they are systemic, which means that they get into every part of the plants that are treated with them. Pollinating insects absorb them and carry them back to their nests or hives, even though they are not the target species.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

My hon. Friend is making some interesting points. Does he think, as I do, that the Government perhaps need to rewrite their national pesticides action plan? There are methods other than the use of chemicals. They ought to be encouraged so that farmers and horticulturalists do whatever they can to reduce the chemical pressure on the environment and the pollinators.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Agricultural Wages Board

Martin Caton Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

My apologies for being late. I call Mr Jamie Reed to speak.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Caton, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time. I am very grateful to have been granted a debate on this important issue, the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that that point is not about the statement, and therefore it is not a point of order. I call Jamie Reed.

[Mr Reed]

Such excitement so early on. I think that it can only be the new working hours unsettling us all. However, there will be ample time to discuss all the issues that Members wish to raise.

The Agricultural Wages Board, in one form or another, has provided good wages, good working conditions and good lives to farm workers since 1924. Before I continue, I must thank the Minister for providing early sight of the written ministerial statement today, before we began proceedings. I appreciate that courtesy.

I want to touch on three issues in my speech today. First, the AWB allows farmers to focus on farming. They do not have to be employment specialists and they have no need to negotiate with their work force over pay and conditions. Secondly, the AWB is the most effective way of ensuring that regional part-time, young and even full-time employees in the farming industry are not exploited. Without the protection of the board, they will be vulnerable to lower pay and worse conditions. Thirdly and finally, the AWB is so much more than a body for setting wages and conditions. On one level, it ensures that a shepherd has the funds to look after their most valuable asset, which of course is sheepdogs; that tenant farmers have secure homes to live in; that farm workers have good overtime and night work rates, fair stand-by allowances and sick pay; and that agricultural workers of all types are provided with suitable bereavement leave and holiday entitlements.

The Government’s planned abolition of the AWB puts all of that at risk. I welcome the appointment of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) to his new post of farming Minister. I hope that he can bring an appreciation of the farming industry and its workers to this Government. In my view, that appreciation has been significantly lacking for too long.

This is not the first time that the Tories have attempted to abolish the AWB. Baroness Thatcher attempted to abolish it, but she changed her mind when she realised that it was a vital organisation for farmers and farm workers. Sadly and in some ways inexplicably, when I look at the Minister, this Government are proposing to abolish an organisation that even Margaret did not want to abolish.

Rio+20 Summit

Martin Caton Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)]

As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee under the committed leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I shall pick up on some of the issues that she raised and ask how we can help to make the Earth Summit in Brazil in June a meaningful driver of sustainable development. I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), a colleague on the Committee. I am not convinced that I want to look through his shale gas window, but I agree with many of the other points he made.

Twenty years after the original Rio summit, which adopted the Brundtland commission concept and established the three-pillar approach to sustainable development, which ties social and environment goals together, it is right to look back at how far we have come, or indeed to admit how far we have not come, since ’92. To paraphrase the UN Secretary-General, the trends on the three pillars of sustainable development are at best mixed. There has been significant economic growth overall, but the benefits have not been universally felt. He pointed out that income poverty remains an enormous problem in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia; large disparities between regions remain on other millennium development goals, including school enrolment, and maternal and child health; and 1 billion people are still under-nourished. Yet only half the countries with data on their millennium development goals are on track to meet their targets.

The environmental protection pillar has probably shown the least progress. The Secretary-General said that pressure on ecosystems continued to increase, as did the loss of forests and biodiversity. Sadly, the world has failed to respond to the dangers that it recognised 20 years ago, which is enormously disappointing, because in that time the scientific evidence on the consequences of failing to tackle climate change has become stronger. We have also learned a lot more about what is happening to ecosystems, biodiversity, the nitrogen cycle and the other processes that the Stockholm Resilience Centre identifies as the planetary boundaries within which humanity can operate safely.

Our Committee took evidence from a range of organisations, and the picture painted of progress was pretty well uniformly gloomy. The International Institute for Environment and Development said that

“we are currently losing the battle for sustainable development”;

Oxfam stated that progress since 1992 has been “weak”; and the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development identified

“signs of erosion in the overall global political commitment to sustainable development”.

Why then has the world failed to respond anything like as robustly as it should to the threats the planet faces? There is probably a multitude of answers, but the underlying one is that most people in the world have not been convinced of the severity and urgency of the challenge, and even if they have, they are far from sure that action at any level will be effective. A “business as usual”, or a “business more or less as usual”, scenario therefore wins by default. We need to use the run-up to Rio as an opportunity to combat that inertia and make the case for action, so that the summit can enable a renewal and more concerted response to the threats, but also the opportunities, that we face.

One option that has arisen out of discussions in the run-up to Rio has been the establishment of new international goals. Colombia submitted a proposal for the introduction of UN sustainable development goals. That seems to have been reasonably well received, albeit with two not unreasonable caveats: first, there is no time before June to draw up and agree a detailed set of such goals, and secondly, the new goals must complement, not undermine, the existing millennium development goals. Indeed, the Committee considered the establishment of sustainable development and consumption goals at Rio—even if at first in broad-brush terms—as a way of shifting effort contributions from the developing to the developed world.

The two main themes for Rio, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, are to build a green economy in the context of sustainable development, and poverty eradication. The UN Secretary-General envisages that involving a multi-track approach encompassing taxation, public procurement, public investment in sustainable infrastructure, public sector support for research and development, and reconciling social goals with economic policies. In my view, taxation has a vital role to play in incentivising more sustainable behaviour. It helps to make environmentally damaging activity less economically attractive and encourages environmental goods. One problem in this country, however, is that the Government do not have a definition of an environmental tax. They have abandoned the previous Government’s definition, which reflected the international norm—basically, if a tax has an environmentally beneficial effect, it is an environmental tax—and the Treasury is now considering a new definition. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the UK delegation will have a new definition to take to Rio to inform its negotiating position in this policy area.

The green economy debate also focuses on the valuation of ecosystems services, the role of regulation, the need to measure sustainable economic performance by a yardstick that goes beyond gross domestic product so that human well-being becomes central, and the need to ensure that the green economy is a fair economy—fair across the planet, and within regions and countries. There is every prospect of those themes being adopted at Rio as essential requirements of a green economy, and I hope that the Government will press the case.

The EAC report on carbon budgets called for the introduction of mandatory emissions reporting by business to help to tackle climate change. Various organisations and bodies have called for Rio+20 to agree a mandatory regime for sustainability reporting, and we agree with them. That sort of transparency will help the private sector to move more quickly to play its part in creating that green economy.

The other main theme for Rio is the institutional framework for sustainable development. The UK is not in as strong a position on governance issues as it was a few years ago. The Government have badly weakened the capacity for the objective assessment of their own environmental performance, with the abolition of the royal commission on environmental pollution, the withdrawal of funding from the Sustainable Development Commission and the removal of the watchdog role of Natural England and the Environment Agency. On the other hand, the UK devolved Administrations have a role in promoting sustainable development. I represent a Welsh constituency and believe that the Welsh Assembly Government have a valuable contribution to make on the governance question. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House how the Government intend to facilitate input from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales before and during Rio. Furthermore, the Select Committee heard evidence in support of an international court for the environment. Although it must be recognised that that would not be universally welcomed, the idea has real merit and should be pursued.

A real danger in the run-up to Rio is that ambitions will be diminished by the global economic crisis, that we will return to the old, sterile, economy versus environment agenda, and that in practice Governments will choose to define a green economy as “full steam ahead but with a bit of environmental window dressing.” That will not do. Across the globe, it is clear that environmental protection and enhancement are too often being forced into second place by the economic imperative.

The message from our own Government and the lead party in the coalition is mixed. Good things have been done and said. I broadly welcome the green investment bank, the natural environment White Paper, the establishment of the natural capital committee and the national ecosystem assessment. I thought the Secretary of State’s speech on this very subject to environmental non-governmental organisations and industry representatives in the Guildhall on 9 February, despite a few gaps in detail, took us in exactly the right direction—the direction we need to head in if anything meaningful is to come out of Rio.

On the other hand, a rather different message is coming from parts of the Government—that environmental protection is a barrier to economic growth. We see all environmental regulations being reviewed as potential red tape, the EU habitats directive described by the Chancellor as gold-plated without any supporting evidence, the mishandling of the solar feed-in tariff issue, and strong resistance to the use of wind energy by large numbers of Government Back Benchers, resulting in the industry reconsidering major investment in renewables in the UK.

Let us be clear that uncertainty about any country’s absolute commitment to the strongest possible outcomes at Rio will help to make such beneficial outcomes less likely. One way to overcome such uncertainty is for the Prime Minister to commit himself to attending the summit with the determination to secure substantial progress in the international commitment to sustainable development.

Neonicotinoid Pesticides

Martin Caton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)]

Over recent years, there has been an alarming worldwide reduction in bee numbers. In the UK, similar declines have occurred in wild pollinators such as bumblebees, moths, hoverflies and butterflies. The causes of those losses have been much debated.

When I wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month, Lord Henley replied to say that, in Britain at least, the combined factors included poor spring and summer weather, the varroa mite and other husbandry issues. My letter to the Department had been about the possibility that a group of systemic pesticides called neonicotinoids, and similar products, were contributing to the demise of bees and other pollinating insects. In response, Lord Henley said:

“In the UK, neo-nicotinoid insecticides are used primarily in commercial agriculture and horticulture production. Only a very small proportion is used in home garden products so the potential risk to bees, if any, from this type of product is negligible”.

He also assured me that the UK pesticide approval regime was robust and adequate.

I sought the debate today to urge the Government to be prepared to take a step back from that position and to look again at what is happening to the small creatures that contribute so much to our environment and food production. In particular, I ask them to examine, first, the growing weight of science that shows how neonicotinoid use and invertebrate losses are likely to be linked and, secondly, the evidence that the pesticide assessment regimes in Europe and the United States, as applied to systemics and the potential for environmental damage, are inadequate in identifying what is really going on.

In 2009 the British charity Buglife—The Invertebrate Conservation Trust conducted a review of all the available scientific literature about the effects of neonicotinoids and the Bayer product Imidacloprid in particular on non-target insect species. The report referred to 100 scientific studies and papers, and highlighted some real concerns that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and other pollinating insects. It also identified a particular problem of insects ingesting tiny doses on repeated visits to treated plants. The testing methodology of the Imidacloprid draft assessment report under EU regulations was not sufficiently sensitive to detect that.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate. He brings terrific expertise to the subject. Does he agree that, if there is any doubt about the adequacy of the regulatory regimes in Europe and the United States—and this is a classic instance—the precautionary principle should be applied? Given the crucial importance of bees and other insects in the ecosystem, it is a risk that we cannot afford to take.

[Martin Caton]

I go a long way with my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that the precautionary principle should be applied regardless of the degree of doubt; I shall come on to that a little later. However, if there is substantial doubt and good scientific evidence to give rise to doubt, the precautionary principle certainly should kick in.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for obtaining the debate, because like him I believe that the issue of bees and pollination is extremely important, particularly in the west country where we have had problems with colony collapse. Does he agree that the evidence, circumstantial though it may be, to some degree, from France, Germany and Italy, where the substances have been banned, with a subsequent increase in the bee population, seems to point to a significant problem?

[Martin Caton]

I do agree. The evidence of increases is largely anecdotal, but I shall quote the president of the Italian Association of Beekeepers, because in the Po valley a ban was introduced. He said:

“On behalf of bee-farmers working in a countryside dominated by maize crops, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to confirm the great news, for once: thanks to the suspension of the bee-killing seed coating, the hives in the Po Valley are flourishing again.”

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in European countries the initial licensing for such controversial pesticides is done by way of a draft assessment report organised by the manufacturer? Shockingly, the DAR for the commonest neonicotinoid used in Europe was put together by Bayer, who, surprise, surprise, did not find a problem with it. Does he agree that there is a problem with metholodogy?

[Martin Caton]

The hon. Lady has taken me to a point in my speech where I was intending to say the same thing; I may not have to say it now, thanks to her.

On the basis of its findings, Buglife called on the Government to reconsider the position of neonicotinoids, and to suspend existing outdoor approvals for the products pending the findings of a review. It also called for the development of international methodologies for assessing the effects of systemic pesticides and sub-lethal impacts on invertebrates.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

There are a large number of beekeepers in my constituency, many of whom have contacted me about the issue, so I am pleased that the debate is happening, and grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing it. It is important that the chemicals regulation directorate is encouraged to think about these issues and, if necessary, to research the health of bees in general. I certainly encourage the Minister to respond to that.

[Martin Caton]

That is a fair point. It is useful that the president of the British Beekeepers’ Association issued a statement just a couple of days ago. Traditionally, that organisation has not been at the forefront of trying to get action taken, but it is now realising how serious the situation is and it is calling for an urgent review. We are all beginning to sing from the same hymn sheet.

The Government asked the chemicals regulation directorate to look at the Buglife report. In a letter to Buglife and the Soil Association, Lord Henley said that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides had conducted a further review. However, earlier this month, someone contacted the ACP to ask for a copy of the report and she was told that the ACP had not conducted a review of the Buglife report and that only the CRD had conducted the review. That same person then asked the CRD for a copy of the review and she was told that it was not quite finished, as the directorate still needed to look at some data.

Even though the review was clearly not completed, Lord Henley felt able to tell Buglife that its report had highlighted a need in the risk assessment process for data on the impact of these pesticides on over-wintering bees and that the matter was being addressed. That was clearly a welcome step. However, he did not respond to the main thrust of that report on environmental damage, nor did he answer the main recommendations that I have just outlined. Buglife and the Soil Association have asked the Minister to supply a copy of the full report from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, but that could be difficult because the report simply does not exist.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting case. Given that the problems of colony collapse and bee decline did not happen at the last general election and that the previous Government agreed welcome investment that went into research into the causes of colony collapse, has his research identified any evidence provided by DEFRA through the work that it has undertaken in examining the causes of colony collapse in the UK?

[Martin Caton]

Most of the research that I have looked at for this debate has been new research done by academic institutions that leads to further worries about the use of this particular group of systemics. I will come on to that in a moment.

Without a completed review of the report, DEFRA decided not to accept Buglife’s interpretation of the current science and continues to maintain that

“We have a robust system for assessing risks from pesticides in the UK”

that is based on evidence. DEFRA goes on to state:

“current evidence shows that…there is not an unacceptable risk to bee health”

from these products. That statement was made as recently as last month. But how robust is a risk assessment regime that takes 16 months to deal with a report? That worries me because things have moved on considerably since the production of the Buglife report. Further scientific evidence has been produced over the past 15 months that strengthens the case. Four significant pieces of published research have emerged during that time. The first is a paper in Ecotoxicology by Nils Dittbrenner. It demonstrates a damaging impact on earthworm growth and activity at field level use of Imidacloprid. Secondly, work by the toxicologist, Dr Henk Tennekes, shows that low-level exposure to neonicotinoids by arthropods over a long time is likely to be as damaging as high exposure over a short time and hence more harmful than had been thought. Thirdly, work done by James Cresswell of Exeter university published in Ecotoxicology makes the case, from various pieces of lab work done by others, that a 6% to 20% reduction in honey bee performance is associated with the use of neonicotinoids. However, none of the field studies used to assess the impact of systemic pesticides would be able to detect a change in performance at that level.

Fourthly, a paper by Cedric Alaux of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research published in Environmental Microbiology demonstrates a clear link between neonicotinoid exposure and increased susceptibility to fatal nosema infections that could threaten pollinators. In addition, there is unpublished work that adds to the picture. One piece of work from the Netherlands shows widespread contamination of water bodies in that country and raises concerns about the impacts on the health of freshwater invertebrate populations. The other, from the USA, was the subject of the lead story in The Independent last Thursday under the headline, “Poisoned Spring”.

In an exclusive, Michael McCarthy, the environment editor of The Independent, revealed work from the US Department of Agriculture’s bee research lab, showing that neonicotinoid pesticides make honey bees far more susceptible to disease—even at tiny doses. Therefore, they have to be in the frame when we consider the causes of the colony collapse disorder that is having a devastating effect on bees around the world.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Everyone in this Chamber, I think, agrees that bee health is a very important issue for the whole environment and for the environmental cycle. He has mentioned a number of factors that affect bee health and he has talked about pests and diseases. Does he not think that we should look at bee health as an overall issue and the impacts that are riding on that, rather than just focus on specific issues?

[Martin Caton]

That is exactly my case. The evidence against the neonicotinoids now is that they make bees and other pollinating insects more susceptible to diseases, so it is not just one factor. We cannot rule out the effect of these systemic pesticides. That is the mistake that has been made so far.

Dr Jeffrey Pettis and his team at the US Department found that increased disease infection happened even when the levels of the insecticides were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed with it. Those findings are completely in line with some of the other research that I have already mentioned. That research evidence from the other side of the Atlantic follows hard on the heels of the “leaked memo” from the US Environmental Protection Agency, which is about a newer neonicotinoid called Clothianidin. It is highly critical of the risk assessment process used in the US. It states:

“Information from standard tests and field studies, as well as incident reports involving other neonicotinoid insecticides, suggest the potential for long term toxic risk to honey bees and other beneficial insects.”

Alarm bells should be ringing by now. Neonicotinoids are a group of relatively new compounds that mimic the insect-killing properties of nicotine. They are neurotoxins, attacking the central nervous system of the invertebrates. They are systemic, which means that they get taken into every part of the plant, including the pollen and nectar. In turn, that means that bees and other pollinating insects can absorb them and carry them back to their nests or hives.

In 2008, total neonicotinoid use in Britain involved more than 2.5 million acres—some quarter of the arable cropland in this country—and they are big earners for the chemical companies that produce them. According to the article in The Independent, the German company Bayer earned more than £500 million from the sale of its top-selling insecticide, Imidacloprid, in 2009, which fits in with the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). As she said, there is no independent monitoring of the process of gathering and assessing results by the manufacturer. When that is the foundation of the approval system, is it any surprise that we find disparities between the findings of subsequent independent research on this systemic pesticide and the research in its own 2005 draft assessment report?

We need to look again at the approval mechanism for crop protection. In doing so, we should be employing the precautionary principle.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that DEFRA seems over-complacent about the issue of the ill health of bees? In 2005, I asked the European Commission to comment on cuts that were being made that would halve the number of seasonal bee inspectors. Given that it has been estimated that beekeeping contributes £165 million a year to the UK economy in direct costs and unquantifiable value to the health of our ecological systems, one would have thought that keeping a high number of seasonable bee inspectors would have been a good precautionary measure.

[Martin Caton]

I would not disagree with that. That leads me on to my next point. We are not just talking about honey bees. I am sure that all our hearts go out to beekeepers in these very difficult times, but only 8% of insect pollination is from honey bees; other pollinators contribute enormously to our food security and to the quality of our ecosystem.

As I have given way so many times, I will not be able quite to complete my speech, but I would like to make some points for the Minister to respond to. If he cannot do what I would really like him to do, which is to suspend the use of all new neonicotinoids from tomorrow, I request that he commit today, or in writing as soon as he can, to reviewing the new research that I have referred to, and to reconsidering the licences that have been granted. I request that he withdraw the licences that allow neonicotinoids to be used on plants that produce nectar and pollen until the evidence is clear that they have no impact on the environment, and that he establish a national monitoring system for pollinators and pollinating rates. I ask him to produce a formal response to the scientific papers to which I have just drawn attention, stating what concentrations of neonicotinoids are found in UK water bodies and whether the levels are routinely monitored. I also request that he ask the Environment Agency to work with other agencies to undertake a review of those levels, commissioning research that would be scientifically robust enough to clarify any link between the pesticides and UK populations of wild pollinators.

A Government who aim to be the greenest ever cannot ignore a hugely significant threat to arguably the most important tier of animal life on this planet. They need to act; now is the time to wake up and smell the coffee.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) on securing the debate. I say that seriously, despite the fact that I am in the position of having to reply.

None of us, as MPs, is unaware of the widespread concern, which has existed for a number of years, about our bee population. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, colony collapse disorder is not something new. Soon after the Labour Government were elected in 1997, I took part, in my earlier incarnation as Opposition spokesman challenging the Government, in a debate about bee health, on the specific issue of varroa. Unfortunately, the Government took no notice at all, and the varroa mite is now widespread—some would argue endemic—with the real long-term impact unknown.

The issue to which the hon. Gentleman has specifically drawn our attention—neonicotinoids—has recently returned to the headlines, and he is absolutely right to raise it. I certainly do not want to portray any suggestion of complacency on the matter. I will not go over the points, which we all fully understand, about the importance of honey bees and other non-vertebrate pollinators to our agricultural crop and horticultural industries. We must not be complacent; we must take things very seriously.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was running short of time, but he concluded his speech by rushing off a long list of questions, which I am afraid I did not have time to write down. I will happily undertake to respond to them when I read them in Hansard, but forgive me if I do not reply to them all now. One thing that is probably blatantly obvious, but which underlines all this, is that all pesticides are toxic. Even the naturally occurring ones that are approved in organic farming are toxic at some level. The question is about the level of usage, the accumulation and the other factors that determine whether that toxicity is a threat. Of course we accept that neonicotinoids, as much as any other pesticide, are toxic at certain levels and in certain doses.

[Martin Caton]

The fundamental point is that we have very strong evidence that even in tiny doses those particular systemic pesticides contribute to the demise of invertebrate populations. That has to be of great concern, and it often cannot be picked up in field trials, on which, understandably, most of our assessment is based.

[Mr Paice]

I have taken the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. I understand it and will try to deal with it as best I can, because I certainly do not want in any way to imply that I am ignoring it or, to use his words, that the Government are being complacent about it. As he and others have said, the Government take pesticide regulation very seriously. All pesticides are rigorously assessed before they are approved for use, although I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that much of that information comes from the industry that developed them. However, the matter is open to public scrutiny after that by the advisory committee and the regulators, so if there were any implication that somehow those trial results were distorted intentionally, it would quickly come to light.

The conditions of use of a pesticide are set so that pesticides do not pose an unacceptable risk to people or to the wildlife in the countryside, which, of course, includes bees and other pollinators. I emphasise that there is a statutory code of practice about guidance to people who use pesticides on minimising the exposure of bees, including notifying local beekeepers 48 hours before their use.

We continue to fund research on pesticides and pollinators and in relation to monitoring the real-world impact of pesticides on bees. It is being considered as part of the wildlife incident investigation scheme, and we are adding those neonicotinoids that are not already covered to the programme of residues monitoring for honey.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly and understandably referred to the 2009 Buglife report. As he has said, Buglife basically took all the information that was available and reviewed it before publishing the report. The then Government fully reviewed that report and took advice from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, and all the key research references were scrutinised and the implications considered. That involved drawing on the regulatory data set and any other publicly available information. The conclusion drawn at that time was that the Buglife report did not raise new issues—it would have been surprising if it had, given that it was simply going over all the information already held—and that it did not require changes to pesticide approvals.

[Martin Caton]

Is the Minister not concerned that we have discovered this month that the chemicals regulation directorate of the Health and Safety Executive, which was given the job, on behalf of the Government, of assessing the Buglife report, has still not completed its report and has not even completed collating the data? If we are really serious about dealing with this problem urgently, that is an appalling record. I do not blame the current Government alone—it is a failure of government.

[Mr Paice]

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the detail. His assertion is news to me, and I shall have to take it away with me. As he obviously appreciates, this is not my normal portfolio; I am covering for my noble Friend Lord Henley, who normally deals with bees.

What the Buglife report did do—there is no question about this—was indicate a gap in our knowledge on the effects of neonicotinoids on over-wintering bees. The point about that was right. We have supported the addition of studies on that issue to the European data requirements for pesticide regulation.

We continue to work with other regulators and to consider all the new evidence that emerges. We have discussed with James Cresswell of Exeter university his work on sub-lethal pesticide doses and bees, especially in relation to over-wintering. That is of interest, but as he himself fully acknowledges, questions remain about the environmental relevance of predominantly laboratory-based results. That is particularly relevant to the work to which the hon. Gentleman has referred by Henk Tennekes.

We are also, of course, aware of the work by Jeff Pettis in the United States, which is the origin of the article in The Independent to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, we have to recognise that Dr Pettis himself has challenged The Independent publicly about some of the assertions that it made. He has published the points on a website on that newspaper’s own blog. Forgive me, Mr Williams, but I think that I need to read out some aspects of that. Dr Pettis has stated:

“I noticed in your article that there is an implication that my research findings are perhaps being suppressed by the chemical industry. As the author of this study, I can tell you that the truth is that the review process on the paper has simply been lengthy, as is often the case, due to various factors, but that no outside forces are attempting to suppress this scientific information. The findings of an interaction between low level pesticide exposure and an increase in the gut pathogen Nosema were not unexpected; many such interactions are likely within the complex life of a honey bee colony. It is not possible to make a direct comparison with a lab study and what might occur in the field. Lab studies can give us insights into what may be occurring with beehives but we have yet to make this link. Honey bee health is complex and our findings support this. They do not provide a direct link to CCD colony losses but these results do provide leads for further study.”

I say that not to reject what has been claimed, but to put it into proportion. Even the work’s author rejects some aspects of the article that has caused so much understandable public concern recently.