§ 11 am
§ Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the serious issue of the threat facing the beekeeping industry. It is fair to say that the issue fits into the general pattern of crisis in the countryside, with the decline in agricultural incomes and the threat to the British rural way of life.
Until a few weeks ago, I was not fully aware of the extent of the crisis facing the beekeeping industry, but it was drawn to my attention by my constituents. I, like many of my colleagues, thought that beekeeping was primarily concerned with honey production and that, as long as there was honey on the supermarket shelves, all must be well. I am reminded of a conversation that I had with a senior colleague in which I mentioned my intention to raise the question of beekeeping; he replied that he was all in favour of beef eating. When I said that it was not beef eating but bee farming which I had in mind, he said, "Yes, BSE is a very serious issue." When I said, "No—what I have in mind is the winged sort," he said he had not realised that the problem was getting quite that serious.
The issue is serious, not only because bee farming is worth while in its own right, but because of the central role it plays in British agriculture and the ecological system. There are reflections of the BSE crisis in the problems affecting beekeeping because of the spread of the varroa mite. The varroa mite has been evident in the United Kingdom since 1992 and has spread progressively throughout the country. From looking at the experience overseas, we know the effects of the varroa mite, yet we have taken almost no action to tackle the problem. Today, I shall outline the nature of the beekeeping industry and the threat facing it and our great concern about the passivity and demonstrable inertia displayed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its failure to act.
I shall start by describing the beekeeping industry as a whole. Beekeeping is as old as the pyramids—in fact, when the tomb of one of the pharaohs was recently opened, a jar of honey was found. It is part of the traditional way of life in Britain and has been so for many thousands of years. Today, there are believed to be 20,000 beekeepers in Britain and approximately 100,000 hives, although we cannot be certain, because there is no systematic recording and no national register.
The industry is almost entirely unsubsidised: bee farming is a cottage industry—the sort of industry where, if sheep, cattle or hill farming were involved, the farmers would be the recipients of large sums of Government money—but it is a worthwhile industry because of the combined efforts of professional beekeepers and the many small hobbyists who supplement a rural income by keeping bees and so preserving countryside traditions. This country used to produce 4,000 to 5,000 tonnes of honey, whereas 21,500 tonnes is imported, so the domestic industry is useful in terms of the balance of payments. Most British honey is of premium quality and is sold through small shops or farmers markets. The industry is one to be treasured and supported in its own right.
More important, bee farming is vital to the agricultural chain, because it is crucial to the future of top fruit and flowering and seeding crops. According to MAFF's own 753 estimates, honey-bees pollinate about £7 billion-worth of crops in the United Kingdom; if the number of honey-bees decreases—in some parts of the country, the honey-bee faces extinction—that yield will decline, to the detriment of agriculture as a whole. The importance of the honey-bee is that it is by far the most efficient pollinator: it is the one species of pollinator that confines its efforts to one species of plant; it is not promiscuous, unlike the bumble-bee, which will move from, say, an apple tree to a pear tree and so cause sterility, not pollination. It has been demonstrated that, if honey-bees are present, many crops yield 40 per cent. more than would be achieved by wind pollination or other insects.
More than that, the honey-bee is vital for the ecology of the British countryside. The National Farmers Union reckons that 80 per cent. of all flowers and trees depend on the honey-bee for pollination; therefore, as the number of honey-bees declines, so too will the number of flowers and trees. That is where we see the importance of small hobbyist beekeepers—a group much derided by MAFF in the correspondence that I have seen. We need hives covering the entire country; on average, bees cover a three-mile radius around the hive, so without having many small beekeepers, some patches of the country will be sterile because of the lack of a honey-bee population. Small hobbyist beekeepers need support. They are dependent on the advice, research and support of the beekeepers federations and MAFF. If we allow this crisis to continue and lose the honey-bee population, there will be no pollination in large parts of the country, with fewer seeds, fewer flowers and, as a result, fewer birds. The garden of England will start to fade.
The threat from the varroa mite to beekeeping is potentially terminal. We estimate that the number of beekeepers has declined from 35,000 to 22,000 over the past few years. We know that in Kent—a top fruit-producing county—that number has declined from 1,000 to 400 in only five years and the number of hives has probably halved. According to MAFF estimates, honey production has fallen from 4,000 tonnes to 2,500 tonnes. The industry is now experiencing a rapid decline of crisis proportions. That decline affects many individual beekeepers, both professional and hobbyist.
I shall describe the experience of a constituent of mine in Tunbridge Wells. Peter Hutton bought 150 colonies in 1995 and planned to increase that number to between 300 and 500 colonies. Since 1995, he has lost no fewer than 165 colonies to the varroa mite and he now has only 50 colonies. The cost to him has been £26,500—a sum few farmers or entrepreneurs can afford.
§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)I know that my hon. Friend has of late been energetic in taking up this issue with MAFF and other bodies responsible for beekeeping. Has he met with sympathetic concern about the problems which he describes, or has the response been less concerned than he would have liked?
§ Mr. NormanMy hon. Friend raises the central point, which is that beekeeping is a small cottage industry which, to some extent, relies for its survival in the face of crisis on Government support and co-ordinated action, but we have been faced with passivity and inertia. I shall cover that point and give specific examples later in my speech.
754 In the United States, where there has been far more experience of and research into the varroa mite than here, the US Department of Agriculture estimates that the cost to US agriculture in the form of lost crops as a result of the failure to halt the spread of the varroa mite is no less than $5.7 billion.
Richard Jones, director of the International Bee Research Association, says:
Support is needednow
for beekeepers fighting the mite and so possibly saving the honey-bee in the UK".In other words, unless we take action now, the honey-bee may well become partially extinct in the United Kingdom. It is, almost literally, a question of "to bee or not to be".Against that background, under the present and previous Administrations, the Department, instead of taking a proactive, interested and understanding approach to the problems of the British countryside and the rural way of life, has displayed a pattern of inaction, inertia and lack of interest and given rise to a catalogue of failure and bureaucratic disregard for the industry's needs.
I draw attention to just three examples of rank failure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. First, it has failed to help to find solutions and to license pesticides to treat the mite. Secondly, it has failed to provide proper funding for research and co-ordination to find solutions to the problem. Thirdly, it has completely failed to listen to the industry.
I shall cite specific examples, starting with the failure to find and license treatment. Treatment of the varroa mite depends on rotation of alternative chemicals or pesticides to tackle the problem. This is a classic example of a situation where, with a small cottage industry, pharmaceutical companies will not devote large amounts of research money to finding a solution. To find a solution we need international co-ordination; we need to learn from what has happened abroad; and the Government must adopt a proactive and supportive attitude.
Instead, on 11 August 1997, the Government passed Statutory Instrument 1729, which redefined bees as food-producing animals. The consequence of that seemingly innocuous measure was to outlaw for use in beekeeping some of the crucial pesticides that could help to tackle the problem—notably, a pesticide called Apistan. Apistan is the most widely used chemical for dealing with the varroa mite in southern Europe, Germany and the United States. We now depend almost wholly on a single pesticide, Bayvarol. That decision was taken after hardly any consultation with the beekeeping industry. It was peremptory, arbitrary and, to all appearances, unknowing and ignorant.
It is widely acknowledged that, if we continue to depend on a single chemical, pesticide resistance will develop in the varroa mite. Dr. Cowan, an expert in the field, says:
It is estimated that resistance"—to Bayvarol, the one chemical on which we depend—will be found in the UK in two or three years. It is therefore essential that alternative aracides are registered.To date, no action has been taken to do so.Ironically, while we were outlawing Apistan and depending on Bayvarol, in Germany Bayvarol was outlawed as unsafe for use in food production—a classic example of complete failure to co-ordinate within the European Union on a crucial food production issue.
755 I believe that, for five years, a company called Vita (Europe) has been attempting to obtain a licence to use Apistan in food production. It has been dogged at every turn by simple bureaucratic delay, and we still do not have a licence to use it. A very large proportion of the honey that we import and consume in the UK is produced in Europe or the United States using Apistan, so our measure to abolish the use of Apistan in the UK can have had no conceivable impact on the safety of honey for human consumption in the UK.
Two further products, Apiguard and Apitol, have been developed and are coming on to the market. Their use would help to tackle the problem and create a rotation in the treatment of the varroa mite. Must we wait for another five years of bureaucratic delay before those products can be licensed?
The second failure is the complete failure to fund research.
§ Mr. GrayIs my hon. Friend aware that it costs about £10,000 to get a medicine approved by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, so, unsurprisingly, many producers are unwilling to do so?
§ Mr. NormanI thank my hon. Friend for that important point. The problem is one of cost, and the fact that we have a widely dispersed, small cottage industry. It is not an attractive market for the major companies, yet, because of the economic and ecological benefits to the country of beekeeping, we need from the Government a proactive and supportive attitude to developing solutions and a willingness to work with, not fob off, the industry.
The Government's failure to fund any research contrasts starkly with the attitude of other EU Governments. In France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Germany—as in the United States—a much more proactive approach has been adopted to research, to helping beekeepers through the problem and to ensuring that good husbandry and good practice are adopted throughout the industry.
By contrast, in this country, we have not materially increased the funds available to the industry. Last year, we applied for an EU grant, which was available to help with the beekeeping industry and, much to our evident surprise, we received that grant—in fact, we received more than we had expected to receive. That money, instead of being used to fund research and action to support beekeepers, was trousered by the Treasury and used to reduce public expenditure—a clear example of abuse of the EU subsidy system.
To support that point, I quote from one of many letters that I have received. Ministers do not see fit to reply to letters from the Bee Farmers Association of the United Kingdom themselves, so the task is passed down to an official—incidentally, in the horticulture and potatoes division of MAFF—Mr. Ron Scrutton. Evidently, he is a very important official, because he does not see fit to sign his letters himself, but has them "pp'd" by his secretary. Not only do we not have a letter from a Minister, but we have a letter from Mr. Ron Scrutton's secretary, in which he says:
As you rightly point out, the UK is now likely to receive much more than we had anticipated via this EU scheme. Nevertheless our policy remains as before. Our programme has been based on existing work and EU receipts will be used to offset the cost of that work. I regret that it will not be possible to increase the expenditure in other areas as a result of this unexpected increase.756 In other words, the money has gone to the Treasury.We have had minimal extra support. No action has been taken. The position is redolent of what happened with BSE. We have watched this problem develop for years and we know that it will be damaging. We know that the cost to agriculture and in agriculture subsidies will be tremendous if nothing is done, yet there has been no attempt to address the problem.
The whole episode is redolent of unwillingness to understand what is going on in the rural community and failure to listen to the industry. Not only has expenditure not increased and no action been taken, but the tone of the correspondence—of which I have many examples—is that of fobbing off beekeepers and farmers and seeking any reason to ignore the problem and hope that it goes away.
That is true not only of the correspondence with the unfortunate Mr. Scrutton. The latest insult is the issue by MAFF of a consultation document—an interesting consultation document, which seems to have been hurried out very late, just in time for the debate.
§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)Until my hon. Friend spoke today for the beekeepers, they had no big guns in their support, so MAFF did not take the issue seriously. MAFF has millions of pounds to spend every year on research, and it requires merely a gesture from the Minister—a flick of the finger—to divert research funds from other projects into research on the varroa mite. However, the Ministry does not do so because it does not regard the countryside, and the small people who take part in beekeeping, as important or as relevant to the affairs of the bigger agriculture industry with which they are obsessed.
§ Mr. NormanMy hon. Friend makes the vital point that the beekeepers have been ignored because it has been easy to ignore them. The amount that should be spent on research, and for which we are asking this morning, is small change compared to the enormous volume of research funds and subsidy that goes into other parts of agriculture.
The latest insult, to which I referred earlier, is the consultation document that has been produced in anticipation of applying again for EU funding. It has been rushed out, apparently in an effort to show that MAFF is consulting the industry after all, which has been given a grand total of nine working days to respond to the document. Interestingly, I note that the document is already dated May 1998, so the intention is clearly to issue it unamended regardless of the responses that are received. The document is also riddled with typographical errors—but we will not go into that now. It is a rehash of old work and old proposals and betrays MAFF's clear intention to make no changes and to take no action.
§ Mr. GrayIs my hon. Friend aware that the consultation document does not cover the essential areas of pollination, honey production or the breeding of mite-resistant bees? It does not mention the restocking of collapsed colonies. The consultation paper does not begin to address the problems faced by the beekeeping industry.
§ Mr. NormanMy hon. Friend makes a very good point. The consultation document is remarkably similar to 757 documents that were released last year. One is tempted to think that it comes from the same MAFF word processor belonging to the unfortunate Mr. Ron Scrutton.
I am sure that the Minister has been briefed for the debate on the reasons why nothing has been done. Therefore, I hope that he will not patronise us today by giving a long recital of excuses. This problem affects hon. Members on both sides of the House and it is of general interest to the rural community and to towns across Britain. Town gardens will also be adversely affected by the disappearance of the honey-bee.
We are not here today to examine the entrails of past failures to act: we are here to get some action now to save the beekeeping industry in Britain. I ask the Minister to address some specific points. First, may we please have a meeting with Ministers at which my colleagues and I, together with leaders of the beekeeping industry, can discuss the problem and find joint and satisfactory solutions? Such a meeting has hitherto been denied by the noble Lord Donoughue. He has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) explaining that he considers such a meeting unnecessary. That betrays an uncaring and uninterested attitude, which is, to say the least, complacent. May we please have an early meeting to discuss joint solutions to the problem?
Secondly, will the Minister assure us that EU funds this year will be used to finance incremental spending on research and the spread of good housekeeping practices in the beekeeping industry? The funds must not be trousered by the Treasury, as has occurred in the past. Thirdly, will the Minister provide an assurance that an approach to facilitate the use of pesticides will be adopted as soon as possible—one that is constructive rather than bureaucratic and which helps to find suitable solutions, paying due regard to food safety?
Fourthly, will the Minister assure us that he will support and help to finance the British Bee-Keepers Association's proposal for a national beekeeping register so that we can at least monitor the extent of the problem and understand how much the bee population is declining? We are operating in the dark at present, with no reliable data. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be a change of attitude in his Ministry? Will he give a commitment that Ministers will answer letters personally and take the issue seriously?
§ Mr. SoamesWill my hon. Friend add one more point to his list? We must insist that MAFF withdraws this infantile and puerile consultation document. It should be redone in a manner that befits the gravity of the situation and returned to those who need to be consulted with the imperative that they do not have only nine days in which to consider it and respond to the Department. The consultation exercise must be genuine and not the farce that is contemplated.
§ Mr. NormanMy hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It might be necessary to submit an application to the EU to replenish our funding for the coming year. If we are late in responding to that deadline, that is the responsibility of MAFF officials. Any consultation must be conducted properly; it should not be a pretend exercise designed to make it look as though MAFF officials are taking an interest in this matter at a late date in anticipation of a debate in the House.
758 We have raised a very serious issue affecting not only beekeeping but British agriculture, the rural way of life and British ecology. If no action is taken, the result will be the loss of agricultural income and the loss of flora and fauna across the countryside. It will be a tragedy if we look back at this debate in five years and realise that we had a chance to take action and address a problem that has grown progressively—the onslaught of which is entirely predictable and could result in the terminal decline of beekeeping and the honey—bee-but failed to take action and, as a consequence, the British countryside has been changed for ever.
§ Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing this extremely important debate. If I were the chairman of a supermarket chain, I would be concerned about what the diary columnists will make of this debate in the next two or three days—with references to shafts of light floating through the window, the bees buzzing and the chairman of Asda expatiating at length on the subject of honey. In such circumstances, diary journalists and others who might make fun of the debate would be demonstrating no understanding of the importance of beekeeping and the honey industry to the countryside and the nation as a whole.
My hon. Friend mentioned the essential nature of honey-bees and their pollinating activities. I think that I am correct in saying that 84 per cent. of all pollination in the United Kingdom is carried out by insects, of which honey-bees constitute a large proportion. Honey-bees are the only insects that stick with a particular plant or tree until they have finished pollination. They play a vital role from the point of view of British agriculture and of leisure. I am particularly keen to participate in this debate as there is a large leisure beekeeping industry in North Wiltshire and my constituents have asked me to raise some specific concerns. If the Minister listens carefully to the debate, takes note of our comments and responds in a similar tone, it is important that he should receive a jar of Wiltshire honey. I shall be happy to let him have one.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)Bribery.
§ Mr. SoamesMy hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) spoke eloquently about the importance of beekeeping to agriculture and the life of the countryside. Does my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) agree that towns are equally important? Many people who live in towns keep bees and others love gardening—most of our fellow citizens rightly take great pleasure in that activity. Without bees, it would not be possible to have beautiful gardens.
§ Mr. GrayMy hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is also true for those who are lucky enough to have allotments in the inner cities. I serve on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee, which is currently considering the great value of allotments to people in our inner cities, many of whom keep bees.
759 The importance of the bee industry cannot be gainsaid. I suspect that the Minister will respond by telling us how important the bee industry is. However, it is regrettable that his officials have not gone to the same lengths to emphasise the importance of the industry in the correspondence to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells referred. The quiet and successful beekeeping industry is severely threatened by the varroa mite. My hon. Friend did not explain in as much detail as he might exactly what that blood-sucking mite is. I am told by my constituents who keep bees that the mites are spreading throughout the United Kingdom and that, if nothing is done to check their spread, it will signal the end of bee colonies in the United Kingdom. It is the most appalling parasite, which can be dealt with in various ways. Beekeepers throughout the United Kingdom seem to agree that it is important to deal with the varroa mite not by one means, but by applying several different means to different colonies or even to the same colony. Mechanical methods can be used—trapping the parasite in the brood comb is one perfectly good way of sorting out the varroa mite. There are the chemicals that my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned, Bayvarol being the primary one used in this country at present.
There are also home-made old fashioned recipes that work remarkably well. Talc is one, and caster sugar is another. A sprinkling of either in the hive clogs the feet of the parasite, which falls to the floor of the hive and can easily be swept away. Talc and icing sugar are the solutions most commonly used by British beekeepers.
Very sensible, one might think—a down-to-earth solution. Why not make use of a DIY solution to a difficult problem? One might well think that, and one would have been right until a sunny afternoon recently when a European Union official with not much else to do thought, "Let us redefine what honey-bees are. They are no longer insects. Let us redefine them as food-producing animals, thereby putting them in the same category as sheep, pigs, goats and so on." That is an extraordinary redefinition. EU officials are fixated on redefining everything and making everything harmonious and the same across Europe. Why they should have wasted their time redefining the status of the honey-bee, I cannot imagine, but that is their job and perhaps we should not attack them for it.
One unfortunate consequence of redefining bees as food-producing animals is that they become subject to EU statutory instrument 1729. That document may not have made the headlines in recent years, and, for all I am aware, it may not even have been discussed in the House, but it has had an extraordinary effect on the harmless, peaceful beekeeping industry in the United Kingdom.
EU statutory instrument 1729 directs that anything used to make bees better if they are ill must be approved by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—the body set up to ensure that cows, sheep and pigs are not fed medical substances that they should not be fed. It costs at least £5,000 to £10,000 to have a substance approved by the VMD. Beekeepers are concerned that although they have used talc successfully for years in many colonies, it will now need to be approved by the VMD.
The Minister may say that that is wrong, and that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate needs to approve only medicines that may have some deleterious effect on human health if they are left in the honey. Who is to prove 760 that talc or the other home-grown products that have historically been used by beekeepers do not have some deleterious effect on human health? Is it necessary for the beekeepers to go through some process to demonstrate that talc is harmless? Do the Government intend to go through the process to prove that it is harmless? Perhaps the drug producers would want to go through some process to prove that an alternative substance to the current monopolistic position that Bayer enjoys with Bayvarol is not harmful to human health. Perhaps we must wait until some human becomes ill as a result of the use of one of those products, before a study is undertaken by the Government.
Surely it is time that the Government said, "We know that talc, icing sugar and one or two other products"—folic acid, I think—"are harmless to health. We will demonstrate that. We will license them in the same way as we have licensed other medicines, thereby removing that worry from the mind of the beekeeper."
Another problem for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is that the cost of licensing a medicine through it means that only one producer so far—Bayer—has got round to doing so. That medicine is Bayvarol which, as we have heard, is losing its effectiveness and, particularly in France and Belgium, it is said that bees are entirely immune to it. Even if that were not the case, it is wrong that the British Government through one of their agencies should allow Bayer to have a monopoly on the only medicine that may be sold in this country to deal with the varroa mite. Should not the VMD move forward and encourage other manufacturers to have their products licensed?
§ Mr. NormanIs my hon. Friend aware that licence applications have been in existence for several years, but the VMD and other Government Departments have made it difficult for companies to obtain licences—for example, for Apistan, which I mentioned?
§ Mr. GrayMy hon. Friend is right. The VMD seems to go out of its way to make it difficult for medicines to be licensed, and have not made it clear whether home-grown products that have traditionally been used are appropriate.
The Government are aware of the paucity of solutions to the problem. The Minister of State wrote to me recently:
The VMD is aware that there is a lack of authorised veterinary products available for use in the beekeeping industry and this has meant for many years that beekeepers have used substances which have been developed for other, often industrial, purposes which they have found, probably accidentally, to have particular curative properties.Indeed. Why does not the VMD move forward and allow such substances to be licensed in a cost-effective way?
§ Mr. NormanIs my hon. Friend aware that although there are other solutions such as talc or caster sugar, they are extremely time-consuming and labour-intensive to use, and therefore not practical for many beekeepers, who face a declining income anyway and do not have the time—because for them time is money—to devote to the laborious process of constantly administering the treatment, sweeping out the hive and so on?
§ Mr. GrayMy hon. Friend is correct to a degree, although he may be speaking more from the point of view 761 of the commercial beekeeper, for whom speed is all and who has a large number of bees to look after, whereas I am speaking more from the point of view of the private, leisure beekeeper, for whom time spent around the hives is part of the pleasure.
The private beekeeper is concerned about the cost. Bayvarol costs about £5 per application to each hive and must be applied twice a season, so that is £10 per hive. There are about 200,000 hives in the UK, so if they were all treated equally with Bayvarol, the total cost per annum would be £2 million. The total income from honey in the UK is £13 million. About one fifth of the total income from honey would therefore be spent not on buying the bees or producing the hives, but on purchasing Bayvarol from the monopolistic supplier, Bayer. The Minister should take steps to encourage other producers to enter the market and sell products that would be useful to private beekeepers in my case, and to my hon. Friend's professionals.
The Government should research what lies behind the varroa mite and what can usefully and sensibly be done to overcome it. Like my hon. Friend, I am disappointed that the Government received extra cash from the European Union and have apparently pocketed it. A research programme costs £113,000 a year—not a huge sum in Government terms. It is extraordinary that such a small research budget should not be increased, when the Government are receiving the money from the EU. That is a mean-minded and unnecessary restraint on research into an important matter.
I call on the Government, as did my hon. Friend, to correct the pocketing—the trousering, as he correctly called it—of the EU funding that should be used to support the beekeeping industry, which is under threat. The consequence of not doing so is too horrible to contemplate.
The beekeeper, and the farmers who depend on him, are under threat from three pernicious enemies—first, the varroa mite; secondly, the European Union official who seemed not to have too much else to do with his time and who has interfered in a particularly unfortunate way; and thirdly, the officials of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and of MAFF, who have chosen not to step back from an over-zealous European official. Officials, as is so often the case, and especially those at the Ministry, have chosen to go the final mile and to put in place everything to the last line that is set out in the regulations laid down by their European counterparts.
It is important that the officials concerned should correct their approach. It is important that they should consider redefining the honey-bee, and not as a food-producing animal, so that it is not subject to European directive 1729, or whatever else it may be.
British beekeepers have kept bees for generations. They have produced honey and, as far as I am aware, no one has come to any harm through eating honey produced by British bees, which are untainted by being observed by EU and MAFF officials. Beekeeping has been an entirely unregulated industry for many centuries. I am not able to point to one case of so much as an upset tummy that has come about as a result of lack of regulation.
The rash of interference in the beekeeping industry is only one example of the excessive care that the Government and officials are tending to show on behalf 762 of consumers. It was interesting to read in the newspapers this morning that the only salesman of beef on the bone was found not guilty yesterday at the conclusion of a court case on the borders. The judge went to some lengths to say that he thought that the legislation under which the case had been brought was badly drafted and had not been thought through. As a result, he dismissed the case. Two or three other such cases are pending. I do not want to second guess what the judges will do in those cases, but they may well come to conclusions similar to those which were reached yesterday in the borders case.
We have another example of officials sitting around with not much else to do but think up yet more regulations to control what perfectly reasonable industries do, in this case the beekeeping and bee farming industries. They put regulations in place, bring people to court, fine them or send them to prison. They interfere entirely unnecessarily with people's everyday way of life.
The ban on beef on the bone is unnecessary. The ban on feeding bees with traditional medication is entirely unnecessary. I was struck by an article that I read in a newspaper last week, which stated that more people had died through catching fish bones in their throat than through Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. I hope that the Minister will urgently consider banning the use of fish on the bone, which obviously is entirely detrimental to human health.
§ Mr. MorleyThe hon. Gentleman is making a good speech on an important issue, but, as for CJD and fish bones, he must understand that there is a great deal that we do not know about CJD. In particular, there is much that we do not know about incubation periods. I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make a light-hearted point, and, in doing so, is dismissing a serious issue of public health. It is an issue which we take seriously and we intend to be protective.
§ Mr. GrayI am grateful for the Minister's intervention. He is wrong in saying that I am making a light-hearted point. Indeed, I am making an extremely serious point. I believe that one person in 1 billion may be at risk through eating beef on the bone. By banning beef on the bone, the Government are taking an unnecessary step to safeguard the consumer. The step has been taken because the Labour party wrongly believed that the consumer was on its side and would value the protection that it offered. It is—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Order. We have taken flight from the honey-bee and we must come back to it.
§ Mr. GrayYou are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The honey-bee has buzzed off and I must return to the drone. I hope that my speech was not a drone. I am grateful to the Minister for his flattering remarks about the excellence of my contribution. That being so, drone is not the right expression. The expression that comes to mind is worker-bee.
There are a number of things that the Government need to do if they are to put right an appalling situation. First, they must find ways of encouraging more people to register sensible medicines. If that involves cutting the cost of making applications through the VMD, so be it.
Earlier, in a seated interjection, the Minister indicated that he thought that it cost about £10,000 to register medicines because we, the Conservatives, had introduced 763 the directorate when we were in government. I am happy to accept that criticism. If we were still in government and I was speaking from the Back Benches to a Conservative Minister who was responsible for introducing such charges, I would happily attack him, and just as readily as I have attacked the Minister for continuing with such charges. I am asking the Minister to find a way of reducing VMD charges so that more medicines can be registered through it.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to find a way of reassuring traditional bee farmers who use traditional methods such as talc and icing sugar that they will not be in any danger of prosecution in future. A short while ago, the Minister made the point that there has not been enough research into the consequences of CJD. That applies just as much in this instance as it does in others.
§ Mr. MorleyWe do not know.
§ Mr. GrayThe Minister says from a sedentary position that we do not know. Beekeepers are saying precisely that. They do not know that talc and icing sugar are entirely safe. They would like to know from the Government that talc and icing sugar are entirely safe. They do not want words such as those used in the letter that we have received from the Government, to the effect that talc and icing sugar are entirely safe unless it can be proved otherwise. We would like the Government to undertake the necessary research and to reassure bee farmers that if they use traditional methods of dealing with the mite they will be allowed to continue to do so.
European statutory instrument 1729 goes one step too far. It is an SI to which we would do well to pay no attention whatsoever. Energetic UK civil servants with double firsts from Oxbridge should be spending their time using their excellent brains to consider ways in which they can look after traditional industries that have looked after themselves so well throughout the centuries. They should not be thinking how better to apply European directives such as SI 1729.
Beekeeping is nothing to do with Europe. Indeed, it has precious little to do with this place. For centuries, beekeeping has been an entirely self-regulated industry. Let it stay that way. Leave our beekeepers in peace.
§ Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)First, I inform the House that I have the privilege of being honorary vice-president of the Cambridgeshire Beekeepers Association, in which capacity I have already raised with Ministers a number of the issues that we have been discussing this morning. Secondly, the Chivers Hartley factory is in my constituency. That company is the largest producer of jam in the United Kingdom and a major blender of honey. I have a range of personal and constituency interests, which make beekeeping an important subject to me from that perspective and also from a wider perspective.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing a debate on the subject of beekeeping. I have not checked when the issue was last raised in the Chamber, but it is clearly it is an important subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend, too, on the way in which he dealt with it, explaining the 764 importance of it not only to beekeepers and consumers of honey but to the wider population. My hon. Friend outlined the threats that the industry faces.
My hon. Friend rightly reminded us that the Government's general approach has been wholly inadequate. Perhaps that is no better exemplified than by asking the Minister who is responsible within the Government for bees, beekeeping and related issues. As my hon. Friend said, his correspondence has been with Lord Donoughue, who is believed to be the Minister responsible for horticulture. Most representatives of horticulture find that difficult to understand, given his apparent inability to keep appointments with them.
My correspondence, along with the parliamentary questions that I have tabled on this subject, have been answered by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will reply to the debate. Three separate Ministers apparently have a finger in the hive in supposedly trying to deal with the problems of bees and beekeeping.
I was astonished to find that there are about 20,000 species belonging to the super family apoidea and the order hymenoptera, which are all classified as bees. About 500 of those separate species are social bees, including the one that is so familiar to the British countryside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells rightly reminded us of the valuable role of bees in agricultural productivity. He did not mention the role of the integrated agricultural crops research establishment at Rothamsted. It has calculated that 80 per cent. of pollination in Britain is carried out by insects, and that 80 per cent. of that is carried out by the honey-bee. Its importance to all types of crop production, whether on the allotment, in the field or in the garden, is critical and cannot be overemphasised. Even in crops where wind pollination is common, such as oil seed rape, the yield improvement due to bees can be considerable and is estimated to be at least 14 per cent.
The output of bees is estimated at about £12 million worth of honey, but, in terms of the pollination value to crop production, it is about £6.9 billion at farm gate prices. That is about 10 per cent. of UK consumption. It is also estimated that some 80 per cent. of our hives are owned by amateurs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, the Government's references to amateurs and to hobby beekeepers in the document that was released last week show their disdain for people who produce honey and keep bees as a leisure or hobby activity or to supplement other income.
The importance of bees to society cannot be overestimated. In my former life as a practical farmer, I recall beekeepers putting hives in the fields to assist in pollination, particularly of field beans. Hives are part of the English countryside and their location in orchards, especially in Kent, is part of the English country scene. A few years ago, agriculture posed a threat to bees. The early insecticides that were used to control aphids and other insect pests were indiscriminate and caused severe damage to the bee population. Farmers had to use avoidance measures, such as using products at different times of day, to minimise the impact on bees. Just this week, the Country Landowners Association reminded farmers of the importance of following the Government's 765 code of spray safety to protect foraging bees. It reminded farmers that a breach of the code carries a maximum fine of £2,000.
Current agrochemicals are much more specific, and the honey-bee is largely protected from that threat. As we have heard, the current threat is varroa. In 1992, the first infections in Britain were found in Devon, and the previous Government delineated statutory infected areas which have expanded to include the whole of England and parts of Scotland. However, the march of the mite continues. It is clear that such controls are inadequate. Bayvarol, which is the only licensed product, is the only one that beekeepers can use to combat varroa. That stems from the European Court of Justice case of Bruyère v. Belgium which extended the scope of directive 81/851 to prohibit the import of veterinary medicinal products that were not authorised in a member state.
Until that time, although Apistan could not be purchased in this country, beekeepers could buy it abroad and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate took the view that, as it was imported, it did not contravene the legislation. The European Court case ruled that that view was wrong, and it is now impossible to obtain Apistan for use in this country. That leaves just Bayvarol. That has come about without consultation with the industry and it again demonstrates the Government's arrogance in taking decisions without thought and concern for the affected industry.
§ Mr. MorleyIt was not a Government decision.
§ Mr. PaiceThe Minister says that it was not a Government decision, but I am sure that they introduced a statutory instrument to which my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Tunbridge Wells referred. I shall return to that.
§ Mr. MorleyThe hon. Gentleman is speaking about European Union regulations, which the statutory instrument implements.
§ Mr. PaiceI appreciate the results of the European Court case to which I referred. As my hon. Friends have said, the regulations' impact on British beekeeping is catastrophic. Before introducing the regulation, the Government should have consulted the industry to try to minimise that impact. I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire because it is difficult to argue that a bee is not a food-producing animal. It could be argued that it is not an animal, but it definitely produces food. The important issue is not the definition itself but its impact on the industry. Until the consultation paper was published last week, the Government had made no attempt to consult beekeepers about addressing the impact of the European Court ruling.
§ Mr. NormanAlthough it is right to say that the problem is partly a consequence of the EU ruling, as I said earlier there have been applications over the past five years to license Apistan. I am advised that every application has experienced some sort of bureaucratic delay. For example, it was said that the data were not in the right format. The fact that Apistan cannot be used in 766 the context of food production is partly a consequence of Government action and is not due solely to the EU directive.
§ Mr. PaiceAs one would expect my hon. Friend has carried out his research admirably, and he is right.
§ Mr. MorleyHe is not.
§ Mr. PaiceThe Minister will shortly have a chance to respond. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is responsible for licensing the products that we are discussing. If my hon. Friend has been correctly informed, and I am sure he has, it seems that applications to license Apistan have constantly been sent back on the bureaucratic ground that information or data were inadequate. The Government and the VMD are under an obligation to go to the company that is seeking the licence to try to sort out the problems and get a product licence. That is not happening.
The Minister has said that the previous Government set the rules about the cost of licensing. He was right. The concept of full cost recovery was introduced by the previous Government to make sure that systems covered their costs. That is a sensible principle, but, like so many, if it is taken to an absurd extent it damages the concept and integrity of the principle.
Many small beekeepers do not have large resources. It is not a market from which pharmaceutical or chemical companies can expect huge returns, and, in the interests of bee health, the Government and the VMD should explore ways of minimising the impact of costs. We are debating a product for a small industry and not one that will be used on 20 million acres of cereals. The Minister would do well to heed that important fact. I shall be interested in his response.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire spoke about traditional remedies such as talc, which is also known as French chalk, and formic and lactic acid. Those products are not licensed because they are not patented and commercial organisations would not benefit from a licence. The VMD has said that under the pesticide regulations only non-medicinal curative substances would be banned if, when transmitted to honey, they would be harmful to human health. The VMD said:
The VMD is not aware of any health hazards that have arisen from the use by beekeepers over the past few years of the sort of substances various correspondents have mentioned in their letters, although there is considerable concern about something called 'Frow mixture', (apparently comprising of nitrobenzene, petrol, ligroin, methyl salicylate and safrol) about which we are seeking further information.It is understandable that that should be causing some concern, and I agree with the Minister on that.The important point is that the VMD has clearly stated that it is not aware of any health hazards from the other traditional remedies. It is a helpful statement and it is right that it should be recorded, but it is still far too vague. Given the structure of the beekeeping industry, which has been rightly described by my hon. Friends, I hope that the Minister will undertake to press the VMD for clear and specific guidelines about the use of traditional remedies so that beekeepers can be absolutely clear whether they can go on using them. As my hon. Friend the Member for 767 Tunbridge Wells rightly said, they are labour intensive, but, for many producers, they are a satisfactory alternative.
§ Mr. GrayI have just thought of a point that I omitted to mention in my speech. The offending statutory instrument No. 1729, clearly outlaws anything other than approved medicines. Paragraph 6(1) says that if any person uses
substances which are not mentioned in Annexes I, II or Ill of the Council Regulations he shall be guilty of an offence.Whatever the interpretation may be, the wording of the statutory instrument is plain and it makes it an offence to use anything other than medicines.
§ Mr. PaiceMy hon. Friend is right. That is what is said, but the interpretation is equally important. This is an ideal opportunity for the Government to make a clear statement of declaration about how they interpret that statutory instrument.
My hon. Friends have referred to the fact that only Bayvarol is licensed to be used as a chemical treatment in this country. As has been said, there is ample evidence that in northern France and Belgium, just across the channel, the varroa mite is becoming immune to Bayvarol. It is also believed in some parts of Europe that it is becoming immune to Apistan as well because the two chemicals are similar. There is no doubt that it will be only a short time before that immunity reaches this country.
Some months ago, I asked the Government what they were doing about that and the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
We are not aware of any incidence of varroa mite resistance in the UK.It is not a question of being aware now, but of foreseeing that it will undoubtedly come to this country and that we will need to do something about it.How can we continue to import honey into this country when other countries are using a product which is not permitted here and without mutual recognition? I asked the Government some months ago what they are doing to ensure that honey being imported into this country is safe. I was told quite clearly that inspections are carried out and that
Approximately 70 per cent. of the samples collected at random from retail outlets were imported.In a test for flumethrin, which is the chemical involved in Apistan,none of the samples was positive.Those results were for 1996. The 1997 figures were not available.We continue to have the problem of British producers not being able to use that chemical. The Government have a responsibility to answer the fundamental question about importing food products into this country which are produced using chemicals and techniques that are banned here. It does not make sense. If it is safe for producers abroad to use those chemicals or treatments, why is not it safe in this country? The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has shuffled off the responsibility to the pharmaceutical industry saying:
The question of any applications for authorisation of new veterinary medicines to control varroa mites is one for the pharmaceutical industry."—[Official Report, 12 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 717.]768 That is abdicating responsibility for an important industry in this country.There are other aspects that need to be considered. My hon. Friends both referred to research. Long-term studies being carried out at Rothamsted show considerable variation in the harm being attributed to the disease. It is believed that it may be due to the difference in the incidence of the honey-bee virus in infested colonies. There is no doubt that there is an issue that needs further investigation.
In the United States, which has been mentioned, Michigan state university has been looking at bee resistance to varroa. It has found some strains of honey-bee that are much more resistant than others. Those are examples of a desperate need for urgent further research so that perhaps one day the industry need not be reliant on chemical treatments.
My hon. Friends have also referred to the directive on the improvements for marketing and the production of honey. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told me in July last year that he welcomed the regulation. He said that he was
currently assessing how the United Kingdom might make the best use of the expenditure reimbursement provisions of the regulationPerhaps we should have taken more note of the phrase "expenditure reimbursement provisions". He went on to say that hewill consult the industry and others about it."—[Official Report, 22 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 552-53.]That consultation was a sham and demonstrated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, that the Government were seeking to get some money back for what they were already doing. It did not mean that there would be any more money to help a beleaguered industry.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)Will my hon. Friend confirm that under EC regulation 1221/97 the United Kingdom is set to receive more funds per hive than any other European Union member state for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey? Does my hon. Friend agree with me, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) and my bee farming constituent, Mr. Ged Marshall, that it is essential that those funds be ring fenced exclusively for the purpose for which they are intended and should not be confiscated by the Treasury or misused and misappropriated for other purposes by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
§ Mr. PaiceMy hon. Friend is entirely right. I have no way of knowing for certain that the comparison with other countries is completely correct, but I believe it to be so. What is undoubtedly true is that not one penny of the extra money coming to the bee industry in Europe is coming to British beekeepers or the British bee industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells in his inimitable fashion referred to the fact that the Treasury has trousered it. That is not a novel event. The Treasury regularly sees the European Community as a mulch cow for getting back some money.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has stated repeatedly in previous months on other agricultural issues that it has no money yet, when there is a little extra money coming from Europe, we see it rolling over to the Treasury, which takes the money back into its own hands.
769 About £1.7 million is being spent by MAFF—£1.5 million on the bee health programme and about £200,000 on research. I believe that it has applied for an extra £475,000 which, as I have said, is being used to fund existing activities with no extension of research.
I want to challenge the Minister about where we are going from here. I hope that he will answer the questions asked by my hon. Friends. I hope that he will deal with the issue regarding the future of the National Bee Unit. I wrote to the Government in December last year and received a reply in January from the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He said:
the work of the National Bee Unit is currently under review as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review which was announced on 29 July 1997.So the Government are not only confiscating the money that is coming from Europe, but are considering cutting what is being spent anyway. That is totally unacceptable. Will the Minister today rule out any reduction in current expenditure on the National Bee Unit, the bee health programme and indeed research? Better still, will he agree to find a little extra money—we are not talking vast sums here—to fund urgent research into alternative ways in which to control varroa, which is essential? Will he also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has asked, withdraw the document that was hurried out last week?Frankly, it is an embarrassment for any Government to hurry out a document that is riddled with inaccuracies and typographical errors and is clearly a result of the fact that this debate had appeared on the Order Paper. It is not acceptable for the Government to consult on an inadequate document that does not deal with the issues, and to give the industry just a few days to respond. Will the Minister today withdraw that document, redraft it, deal with all the issues and then set out on a real consultation, with the whole beekeeping industry and those who are affected by it?
The speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells and for North Wiltshire illustrated the serious disease that faces the UK bee population. It is of concern not just to beekeepers, but to everyone who is involved in agriculture and horticulture. There is an urgent need for more work—not less—so will the Minister fund more research? Will he show today that the Government actually understand the importance of this industry and undertake that they will not sit idly by, shuffling off responsibility to beekeepers and pharmaceutical industries, while the bee industry is destroyed by a mite that we know little about and which needs far more research? Will he show that, on this issue, if on nothing else to do with the countryside, the Government do actually care?
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing the debate and on choosing such an important and interesting subject. I also thank hon. Members who have made a serious and thoughtful contribution to the issue of beekeeping and the problem of varroa, although I reject any allegation that the 770 Government have failed to act on the issue. Some of the partisan points that were made related more to political campaigning than to dealing with a serious issue and, in particular, public health and consumer safety issues. I was disappointed with some of the comments, which bordered on the fatuous.
There is a need, of course, for research, and I intend to outline the steps that the Government are taking. I also intend to make an announcement that may be of interest to beekeepers and to hon. Members who have spoken, and hope to deal with all the points that have been raised.
Beekeeping is not often raised on the Floor of the House. That, perhaps, is a measure of the nature of the people who are involved in the craft. They prefer to get on with the business of keeping their bees rather than come to us to air their problems. This debate has presented an unusual opportunity for all of us to deal with some of those problems.
During examination of correspondence in preparation for the debate, I found no evidence whatever of hobbyist beekeepers being derided by the Government or Ministry officials—that has certainly not happened in this Administration. There are issues such as the use of pesticides and consumer safety. The point was raised about a national register of beekeepers. Some of the comments have been about bureaucracy. Setting up a national register would itself be a bureaucratic exercise and the cost of keeping it up to date would be considerable. There is the issue of the costs and benefits of such a scheme and, indeed, whether the beekeeping sector could run it.
There is no doubt whatever that beekeepers have many difficulties with which to contend. Bees are susceptible to a range of diseases and visitations. They can become affected by agricultural pesticides and they have to face the vagaries of this country's weather, which recently has seemed to be less and less predictable.
There has been full consultation with the beekeeping sector. I was surprised at some of the comments about consultation. In the first round of consultation on the European documents, there were meetings as well as consultation with representatives from beekeeping organisations. Because of the time scale in meeting the EU requirements, it is not really possible to withdraw the documents. I was also a bit surprised because that follows on from last year's consultation; it is within the timetable that has been laid down by the European Union. More to the point, as far as I am aware, there have been no complaints or representations from beekeeper organisations that the consultation has failed.
§ Mr. GrayIs the Minister aware that the Bee Farmers Association is plain that it was summoned to MAFF for the annual meeting in October last year—there is a meeting every year—and that, during the meeting, the BFA was informed that the use of Apistan had been banned on 11 August? Information of its banning had not been passed on to the BFA in any shape, size or form. It had not been consulted on its banning. MAFF did not 771 inform the BFA that Apistan had been banned until that annual meeting, which took place, I believe, in October or November last year in MAFF offices.
§ Mr. MorleyThat is the process of consultation: to invite the organisation to discuss these issues. If there are concerns and representations are made by organisations, of course, they will be examined sympathetically.
§ Mr. NormanI think that it is clear that the purpose of consultation is to listen to the representations from the beekeeping industry. The point that has been made to my colleagues is that those representations were made at the annual meeting in October and that they were in no way reflected in the consultation document that was subsequently put out, so, effectively, consultation has not been a listening process, but has been treated simply as a formality. The Minister may be aware that it is also fairly clear—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)Order. I know that this is a serious subject, but the hon. Gentleman cannot make another speech during an intervention.
§ Mr. MorleyThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall try to deal with the points on Apistan in a moment. I accept that beekeepers are concerned about three particular problems. The mite infestation, varroa, which was first discovered in 1992, is now endemic in England and Wales and there is only one authorised medical treatment to which, in time, the mites are likely to become resistant.
Secondly, the new EU-funded scheme to improve honey production and beekeeping should lead to the UK receiving much more assistance than previously expected—just under £0.5 million—but that is being used to replace existing Government funding work rather than to increase spending. That is the concern. Finally, beekeepers regularly wish to be reassured about the Government's commitment to them.
Those are serious points and they have been reflected in the speeches this morning. I shall try to respond to each of the three key issues.
§ Mr. MorleyForgive me. I have limited time and I want to try to get through those points, which may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. MorleyI shall deal with that in my speech.
In the wake of the discovery of varroa, our predecessors reorganised the MAFF bee health service. Laboratory and field staff were brought together under the same management for the first time. Regional inspectors were employed on a year-round basis and much more emphasis was given to training and advisory work.
One thing that all beekeepers appear to agree on is that that was a good move and that the quality of service has improved. In addition to free training and advice, 772 beekeepers have a free field inspection service for varroa and the two other notifiable diseases—European foul brood and American foul brood. They also receive a free laboratory diagnosis service.
I stress that responsibility for approving medicines such as Apistan lies with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. It was able quickly to authorise one treatment— Bayvarol—for the mite infestation. It is true that Bayvarol remains the only authorised treatment, which is a matter of some concern to beekeepers. That is especially true as legislation that was enacted last year to meet Community obligations effectively outlawed the personal importation and use of medicinal substances that are permitted in other member states. It was not a decision by this Government, which is one of the allegations that have been made.
There is nothing I can do about that, but I should clarify one thing; the matter was raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Provided that no residue that is harmful to human health is left in the honey, it is still possible to use what are termed non-medicinal curative substances. Those are substances for which no medical claims are made, but which beekeepers believe may serve a useful purpose. The example that was given was talcum powder, which may help to prevent the mites from attaching themselves to the bees.
The question was, who should decide that? Two main bodies oversee safety on additives—the VMD and the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Their advice is that the use of talc and other known substances is not considered to be harmful. If beekeepers want an absolutely definitive answer, there is nothing to stop them writing to the Ministry, a Minister or their Members of Parliament, asking them to put specific questions to the VMD about the substances that they are using. They will then receive specific answers. On the point about icing sugar, I am happy to give an assurance that there is no problem with using that treatment.
§ Mr. PaiceThe Minister has just pushed the onus back on to beekeepers and asked them to put questions to the VMD on whether the substances that they are currently using are acceptable. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to produce, through the VMD, some sort of guidance leaflet for the many thousands of small beekeepers, telling them whether the various traditional remedies are acceptable?
§ Mr. MorleyI have no objection to considering that suggestion. The problem is including in a leaflet everything that people may be using. That is why I said that if there were any doubt, it would be far better if people asked specific questions. However, I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's suggestion with my officials.
We are often asked why only one treatment is actually approved. The simple answer is that the VMD cannot approve anything unless and until an application has been made by a medicines manufacturer, with full supporting documentation. Although the process need not be expensive, depending on what information is already available and whether the medicine is already approved in another member state, we cannot force companies to make applications if they do not wish to do so.
It is surprising to hear Conservative advocates of free enterprise and the free market arguing for the Government to intervene and tell companies what they should or 773 should not do. We do not have that role; it is not how the system works. We have agreed exceptionally that the costs of the veterinary drug residue surveillance programme for honey will be paid for by the Ministry rather than the industry, which is the case for other sectors. It is because we recognise the nature of the beekeeping sector.
That leads me to the new European Union scheme, introduced last year principally to alleviate the burden on beekeepers of the varroa infestation. The UK allocation from what we might call the EU honeypot is much more than we originally anticipated, at just under £0.5 million. The funding must go towards work conducted by national Governments, and we have chosen—entirely within the letter and the spirit of the rules—to offset the costs of the existing considerable varroa programme, which I described earlier. We are already contributing, as a member state, to the increased budget for the cost to the bee sector. That means that our overall contribution to the bee sector and varroa monitoring has increased. It is not a matter of the Treasury trousering the money. It is a bit much for Conservative Members to criticise the Labour Government, when the previous Conservative Administration used the procedure in exactly the same way.
The issue of European funds comes up regularly, including in debates on agriculture. I must emphasise that there is no pot of free money in the EU. We cannot take money from the EU without that having an effect on, for example, rebate calculations. It is a complicated measure, but we inherited it. It was implemented by the previous Government. It means that money that we take from Europe has implications for the rebate that we receive and the overall public expenditure round. We must take that into account when calling for European funding. Despite that, the overall spending on the beekeeping sector has increased.
§ Mr. BercowWill the Minister give way?
§ Mr. MorleyI hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have only seven minutes left.
Incidentally, the net gain to the UK is only a little over £150,000.
Of course, there are calls from beekeepers for the money saved to be used to increase expenditure on bee health work, but there are clear constraints on the public purse, which have to be taken into account. Moreover, beekeepers should also keep it in mind that Government expenditure on the bee sector is not always easy to justify, given that many other sectors want the same treatment that the bee sector has had, such as the Government paying for residue monitoring.
Although our bee health service cannot be exempt from the comprehensive spending review, that does not mean that we do not care about beekeepers or the issue generally. Bees—and, therefore, beekeepers—are important. They produce honey and they pollinate farmed crops and wild flowers and plants.
However, it is fair to say that other insects pollinate, too. The impression was given that bees do everything. I do not want to underestimate the importance of bees, but they are not the only means of pollination.
774 The benefits are hard to quantify in economic terms, but few would argue about bees playing an important and effective role in the countryside. That is why we have continued to fund the bee health programme that I described earlier. In the UK, it costs about £1.5 million each year. The organisation delivering our bee health policies in England and Wales is relatively new, dating only from 1994. At the outset, it was planned to review its performance after a settling-in period. It was therefore right to include it in the comprehensive spending review. I shall not announce any conclusions about that today, as that would be premature.
In addition to a bee health programme involving field and laboratory staff, we have a commitment to a substantial bee health research and development programme. That programme has already significantly increased our understanding of the relationship between varroa mites, their associated viruses and bee health. A mite population growth model has been developed and chemical control methods compared.
Another MAFF-funded project, which examined diagnostic and monitoring methods for varroa mites in honey-bee colonies, is about to come to fruition. I am happy to pay tribute to the British Bee-Keeping Association, which made a significant financial contribution to that work. As a result, we have been able to produce a varroa mite model calculator to assist beekeepers to assess the level of infestation in their colonies and therefore to plan treatment more effectively. A new advisory leaflet will accompany the calculator. That deals with some of the points made earlier. The leaflet will be launched formally in a few days' time, and the calculator will follow shortly afterwards.
In addition to all that, I can announce today that we have just approved the funding of a new research project to examine potential biological control agents for the varroa mite, which might offer an effective and sustainable alternative to chemical control. Selected strains of fungi and bacteria thought to be active against varroa mites are to be evaluated for their ability to control the mites and to persist and spread within the hive environment. Their effect on harmless insects will also be considered. Such an approach could have considerable economic and environmental benefits. The work is to be carried out as a joint project between the Institute for Arable Crops Research at Rothamsted and Horticulture Research International. It is a four-year project, at a total cost of more than £400,000. It is the latest example of this Government's commitment to beekeeping and is new expenditure.
I have noted the concern expressed by hon. Members. Beekeeping is an important part of the countryside. However, it needs to be stressed that it is important to all areas—gardening, horticulture, allotments and so on. Many people are involved in the sector, although the commercial side is relatively small—but no less important for that. Many people view it as a cottage industry, with much of the honey going to family and friends. Indeed, I visit and talk to many farmers who keep hives, and it is nice to leave with a pot of locally produced honey. I have a few pots, although not so many that I would have to declare them or even hand them over to the Ministry.
775 I was a little disappointed by some of the comments made by Opposition Members. Beekeeping and its relation to biodiversity and the countryside is important, and many hon. Members have made representations about it. Today, I have stressed that the Government take the issue seriously. We are devoting considerable public funds to the new programme, which I hope will be warmly welcomed by the beekeeping sector.