Commons Sense

House of Commons · Westminster Hall

Bees: Neonicotinoids

02 February 2022 · 20 other contributors · 14,539 words

Opened by Luke Pollard Labour (Co-op) Plymouth Sutton and Devonport

Responding minister: Victoria Prentis

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Luke Pollard raised concerns about bees: neonicotinoids in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.

Key points

  • The hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport expressed concern over the decline in UK bee populations, citing research indicating one third of bee species have disappeared in the last decade.
  • The hon. Member criticised the Government for lifting the ban on Cruiser SB, a neonicotinoid pesticide harmful to bees, despite expert advice against it.
  • The hon. Member requested that future authorisations of bee-harming pesticides should require parliamentary approval to ensure thorough scrutiny and support from MPs.

Key requests to Government

The hon. Member requests that future authorisations of bee-killing pesticides should be subject to a parliamentary vote to ensure proper scrutiny and support from MPs. He asks the Minister to restore the ban on neonicotinoids and provide more robust scientific research on their impact, along with better protections against their use.

How the debate unfolded

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

Opened the debate

Luke Pollard Labour (Co-op) Plymouth Sutton and Devonport

The hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport is worried about the decline in bee populations, with research suggesting a third of UK bee species have vanished in the last decade. He criticises the Government's decision to temporarily lift the ban on Cruiser SB, a neonicotinoid pesticide that is harmful to bees, despite expert advice against it. He also highlights the importance of bees to nature and food production, stating they are essential for crop pollination.

Other contributors (20)
  • Caroline Johnson Con Sleaford and North Hykeham

    The importance of sugar production for UK jobs, the impact of virus yellows on crops, and the risks associated with importing sugar from overseas were highlighted. The speaker argued against a blanket ban on neonics due to their specific use as seed treatments rather than sprayed onto flowering plants, providing protection without harming bees. Asked the Minister if she would give way to speak.

  • Caroline Lucas Green Brighton, Pavilion

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that legal requirements in the Environment Act 2021 to halt species loss by 2030 will not be worth the paper they are written on if, at the first hurdle, the Government fail and give a licence to something their own scientific advisers advise against? I am concerned about the Government's emergency authorisation of Cruiser SB containing thiamethoxam for 2022 to tackle yellow virus. This decision contradicts the Environment Act requirement to halt species loss by 2030 and disregards scientific evidence on neonicotinoids' harmful effects. I urge the Minister to commit to considering long-term impacts on pollinators, invest in non-chemical alternatives, and support farmers to transition away from neonics.

  • Daniel Zeichner Lab Cambridge

    Mr. Zeichner expressed concern over the emergency authorisation decision, stating that farming and environmental issues must not be in conflict and urged for a balanced approach to protect pollinator health while addressing farmer concerns. He highlighted the economic impact on sugar beet production but emphasized the importance of integrated pest management as an alternative solution. Inquired about how the government judges the risk of neonicotinoids as sufficiently low.

  • Fleur Anderson Lab Putney

    Concerned about the decision to lift the ban on neonicotinoids, Fleur Anderson highlighted the importance of following expert advice and adhering to the precautionary principle. She expressed worries over the financial impact on farmers but also noted the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoids, including damage to bees and aquatic life from run-off.

  • Questioned whether the balance of science supported the Government's position regarding neonicotinoids, referencing concerns raised by other MPs about scientific backing for the current stance.

  • James Wild Con North West Norfolk

    He highlighted the issues faced by sugar beet growers in his constituency due to virus yellows, which caused a yield loss of up to 80% and cost £65 million. He supported the emergency authorisation for neonics but noted that it would only be used as an insurance policy if necessary.

  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    He emphasised the importance of protecting bees and restricting the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, noting that without pollinators, food security would be at risk. He also raised concerns about the Northern Ireland protocol's impact on regulations for pesticides in his constituency.

  • John Hayes Con South Holland and The Deepings

    Supporting the need to balance nature protection with crop production, especially for sugar beet growers who care about bees and environmental diversity. We should not create a paradox between those who farm and grow crops and those who protect wildlife.

  • Kerry McCarthy Lab Bristol East

    The Government are not following the science and ignoring expert committees on pesticides. Labour Members tried to amend the Environment Act to give Parliament power to scrutinise these decisions, but it was voted down by the Government. The use of neonicotinoids harms bees' immune systems, navigation abilities, and can cause paralysis and death in high doses. There has been a drastic decline in pollinators since 1985, with some species nearly wiped out by pesticide use. Organisations promoting alternatives to pesticides argue that agroecology approaches would increase crop yields.

  • Lilian Greenwood Lab Nottingham South

    Bees are under threat and half of Britain's bee, butterfly and moth species have declined in the last half-century; three bumblebee species have become extinct in the last 30 years. Bees ensure the diversity of our wild plants, support natural habitats and pollinate crops worth millions each year. The UK previously banned neonicotinoids but now authorises their use again despite scientific evidence proving harmful effects.

  • Liz Twist Lab Blaydon and Consett

    Does the hon. Friend agree that constituents are concerned about protecting bees, including addressing issues related to neonicotinoids?

  • Margaret Greenwood Lab Wirral West

    Would my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Flourish at Ford Way community gardening project, which does fantastic work through bee-friendly gardening? My constituents are concerned about research by Professor David Goulson who warns that just a single teaspoon of neonicotinoid chemicals is enough to kill 1.25 billion honeybees. Concerned about the Government's authorisation of Cruiser SB pesticide, which contains thiamethoxam. The Health and Safety Executive concluded that emergency authorisation requirements were not met and it would harm river life. Margaret noted constituents' views on the importance of bees in maintaining a healthy environment and questioned why the Government approved harmful pesticides despite scientific evidence against them. She also highlighted that the Wildlife Trusts say the authorisation undermines efforts to meet legal requirements for halting and reversing nature decline by 2030.

  • Matthew Offord Con Hendon

    Mr. Offord raised concerns about the impact of neonicotinoids on moths, butterflies, and pollinator nervous systems, citing studies that show environmental contamination and availability of non-chemical alternatives to neonics. He highlighted a 2013 Environmental Audit Committee report suggesting economic considerations should not influence environmental risk management decisions.

  • Mike Amesbury Lab Chesterfield

    My hon. Friend must be positively buzzing about securing this debate on protecting bees and nature.

  • Marie Rimmer Lab Stretford and Urmston

    The hon. Member supports the lead MP's concerns about bee health and urges the Government to take meaningful action rather than hiding behind decisions made in other European countries.

  • Olivia Blake Lab Sheffield Hallam

    Ms. Blake intervened, supporting Mr. Offord's points and criticising the Government for being reckless in dismissing expert panel views on neonicotinoids.

  • Robert Goodwill Con Helmshore

    Mr Goodwill declared his interest as a farmer and expressed the importance of neonicotinoids in protecting sugar beet crops from viruses spread by aphids, stating that without seed dressing, yields could decline up to 30%. He acknowledged the toxicity of neonicotinoids to bees but argued for a derogation similar to those granted by ten EU countries, citing scientific evidence and the need to maintain crop diversity.

  • Tracey Crouch Con Chatham and Aylesford

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities across the country have put together plans, such as Kent's Plan Bee, to protect and enhance bee populations and do what they can to protect the natural environment?

  • In support of Anderson's points, Virginia Crosbie emphasized the importance of protecting bee populations in her constituency, noting local honey producers and beekeeping communities. She stressed the need for correct use of chemicals like neonicotinoids to safeguard bees.

  • Wera Hobhouse Lib Dem Bath

    Many in the farming community support nature recovery and need Government support to work towards it. The use of neonicotinoids on crops was banned by the EU, but the Government have allowed their use again despite no new evidence. The expert committee on pesticides has warned about damaging effects, but the Government are ignoring them. The Government's careless attitude will be felt in food supplies and the long-term security of our environment.

Government Response

Victoria Prentis

Sir Roger, it is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport secured this debate. We all eat sugar, much of which comes from UK-grown sugar beet; aphids spread virus yellows that can reduce both quantity and quality of crops. Neonics were banned outside due to academic evidence suggesting harm to bees and pollinators in 2018. Twelve EU countries have granted emergency authorisations for neonics since then, with less stringent conditions applied. The UK experienced significant damage from aphid predation in 2020, leading to imports needed to honour contracts, and a smaller crop planted the next year due to risk reluctance. Taking scientific evidence and economic analysis into account, exceptional temporary use of Cruiser was granted this year, with restrictions including reduced application rates and prohibitions on flowering crops for 32 months post-treatment. A threshold for usage is set at 19% predicted virus level; the amount of neonics used would be only 6% of previous pre-2018 use. The decision was informed by HSE, UK expert committee on pesticides and DEFRA's chief scientific adviser, who advised on mitigation measures to reduce residual risk. The decision is transparent with information available online. There are concerns about risks to bees from flowering plants near the field in subsequent years; however, the 32-month ban helps mitigate these risks significantly. Regarding suggestions for parliamentary votes on such decisions, there would be at least 10-15 applications annually for emergency authorisations, not practical or efficient. Future work involves industry developing alternative sustainable approaches to protect sugar beet from viruses through new seed varieties and modern breeding techniques. Ultimately, food security relies on a healthy environment and thriving pollinators. In the agricultural transition, farmers are incentivised to do the right thing by transitioning away from pesticide use.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy