← Back to Westminster Hall Debates

Neonicotinoids and other Pesticides — [Gordon Henderson in the Chair]

05 March 2024

Lead MP

Samantha Dixon
Chester North and Neston
Lab

Responding Minister

Mark Spencer

Tags

Foreign AffairsAgriculture & Rural AffairsStandards & Ethics
Word Count: 10044
Other Contributors: 7

At a Glance

Samantha Dixon raised concerns about neonicotinoids and other pesticides — [gordon henderson in the chair] in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.

Key Requests to Government:

Ms Dixon asks the Minister to comment on the assessment of the impact of their emergency authorisation over the last four years. She also questions why they have ignored expert advice that puts vital pollinators at risk and seeks a commitment for future decisions on this issue to be put to parliamentary vote. Lastly, she inquires about the timeline for publishing the long-awaited strategy on sustainable pesticide use.

How the Debate Unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:

Lead Contributor

Chester North and Neston
Opened the debate
Ms Dixon is concerned about the Government's decision to approve emergency authorisation for neonicotinoid use on sugar beet for the fourth consecutive year, which goes against expert advice and international obligations. She notes that these decisions are being made despite evidence of harm to bees and other pollinators, with one teaspoon of neonicotinoids capable of killing 1.25 billion honeybees. The emergency authorisation allows seed coating with neonics, leading to only 5% reaching the crop while the rest accumulates in soil and waterways, posing significant risks to wildlife.

Government Response

Mark Spencer
Government Response
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests as a farmer, although we do not and have never produced sugar beet at home. We agree on more than we disagree on, including the necessity to find a way forward. Decisions to allow or not to allow the use of pesticides are based on careful scientific assessment of the risks. The aim is to achieve a high level of protection for people, animals and the environment while improving agricultural production. The emergency authorisation was issued with a strict threshold for use: virus incidence rate of 65% or more over the summer months forecast by Rothamsted Research model. Use of Cruiser SB on sugar beet in England will be allowed this year as the predicted virus incidence has been met. Members will be aware of the strict conditions of use set, including restrictions to mitigate risks to the environment and pollinators. Full details are published online. We remain committed to existing restrictions on neonicotinoids; emergency authorisations are approved only where special circumstances exist, with limited and controlled use necessary due to danger uncontainable by other means. The decision was informed by scientific advice from DEFRA's chief scientific adviser, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. HSE concluded that risks to bees were not of concern under proposed conditions of use. Looking to the future, we do not wish to see temporary use of neonicotinoids continue longer than strictly required; development of alternative sustainable approaches is paramount. The Government have provided £660,000 towards a precision breeding project to develop resistance to virus yellows in sugar beet, helping expedite transition away from neonics. We are closely monitoring progress and urging British Sugar and others to drive forward plans for implementation at pace. Encouraging lower-risk and alternative approaches to pest management will be a prominent feature of the national action plan on sustainable use of pesticides to be published shortly.
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy

About Westminster Hall Debates

Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.