| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
29 Apr 2009 : Column 261WH—continued
9.55 am
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on raising this issue once again. It is important to follow through on achievements and to comment on some of the things that we would like to see happen. He speaks as only a beekeeper can, with knowledge of the organism itself. That is important.
This has been one of the most delightful campaigns in which I have been involved since joining the House. It has been an amazing success that started from rock bottom. I remember a Minister once telling us—I will not use the exact language—not to bother, as there was no money in the kitty. Well, £10 million is not bad, and it could be the start of much more funding.
The campaign has been successful, and congratulations must go to the British Beekeepers Association and its past presidents: Tim Lovett, Ivor Davies, David Aston and Norman Carrick, who has been a sterling adviser
to the association. Tim Lovett was once a student of mine, and on Friday he will be awarded an honorary fellowship from the new vice-chancellor of the university of East Anglia. I promised that I will re-mark his final papers if they are still in existence on a database somewhere, as I do not think that he got the credit due to him. He has been a real success—it is nice to have a student who makes it, as many have not—but I congratulate all those individuals on what they have done.
I also thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. My right hon. Friend took this issue seriously when he was approached about it, and has been a sterling supporter throughout the campaign, which has been picked up by the media and the public. In many walks of life, we talk about public understanding of this, that and the other, and how that interacts with the media, but there can be no better example than the campaign on bees, which has been handled well. Indeed, there was even a march to Downing street of beekeepers with puffers and white suits, which received a lot of media publicity, and people such as Martha Kearney have made programmes and so on. That puffing display in Whitehall happened on the day that President Obama got elected, so we did not do too badly in getting some media interest at that time.
We must congratulate the campaigners on their cool, quiet approach. The campaign has been effective, not only in this place but elsewhere. It has involved beekeepers right from the beginning, and I am sure that they are pleased to see their hard work recognised. To achieve recognition that this is not only about different types of honey bee, but about the fact that they pollinate crops and are essential to many industries in this country, was put forward as the big plan. I look forward to other campaigns.
I see an old foe of mine, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), sitting on the other side of the Chamber. We are going to have a real battle over open access for journals, and about bringing this matter into the public sphere so that people can see what is published and what is not published. I hope that he does not rise to the bait—there will be other occasions when we can enjoy that kind of campaigning.
David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend extend his remarks to note that the campaign has received not only national but international recognition? Some of the things that the UK does at the Food and Environment Research Agency in York, such as the creation of BeeBase, provide probably the best and most credible source of information for good beekeeping advice in Europe. Other countries are sitting up and taking notice, as this is an international issue, not something based only in the UK.
Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend. It is true—the problems have been much the same across the planet. The value of bees in development and other aspects of agriculture has been recognised in other places. Britain is taking a major lead in trying to find out the causes of the collapse, and that will help other countries to develop their programmes. I know that there is plenty of contact.
The public campaign was not bad. Petitions with 140,000 signatures were presented to Downing street—suddenly, from nowhere, bees were everywhere. When campaigners hear bees mentioned on “The Archers”
they should know that they have arrived. It is the only time that I would listen to “The Archers”. I had better not say what I think about the programme because we are talking about Radio 4. None the less, many people listen to it and say, “We did not know that there was a problem with bees until we listened to ‘The Archers’.” After that, the whole campaign took off. The Minister was not the only person to help the campaign. Lurking in the background was a man called Prince Charles, whose science I have argued with for many years. Although his understanding of nanotechnology is nil and of genetic modification is minus 10, he was correct on this issue, which shows that we should not condemn somebody for everything that they think.
In the past month or so there has been a new funding initiative, which is something that many scientists and medics would die for. The National Scientific and Technical Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Scottish Government—my goodness—and the Wellcome Trust have come together to put money into that hybrid fund. It is how the money is used that I want to discuss, because we have a once in a lifetime chance to ensure that we do something with it of which we can be proud.
The five funding bodies have different interests, which will make reaching a decision very difficult. It is bad enough when one funding body has to make a decision, but when five of them come together in the same room with different agendas, real skill is required to address the needs of the bee community. The right direction must be chosen; the area of study must be neither too broad nor too narrow. The aim is not to win Nobel prizes in this field, but to resolve a practical problem. The Wellcome Trust itself has an ambition to research pollinators rather than just honey bees, which has already been mentioned. That will have to be addressed in the joint meetings.
The inclination on the side of the funders to be too ambitious has been fanned by the media interest. We must rein back a little and be cool and hard-headed about the decisions we make. Sometimes, scientists get carried away and go down crazy avenues without thinking about the real purpose and effectiveness of a campaign.
As I have mentioned, there are limitations on the £10 million because we want the funding to continue. Understanding bees will be a continuing problem. What we learn from this research will be important in other areas of research as well. We must work out the problem carefully. If public understanding and involving people who know something about the subject are to mean anything, it is essential that research councils stop being hoity-toity and thinking that they know it all just because they have a few greybeards from the science community and fellows of the Royal Society attached. The research councils do not know it all. It is essential that the beekeepers are present, because they have lived with the problem.
Engaging with the beekeepers will be a real challenge, but once councils learn how to do that they will be able to apply the skill to the many young people in this country who study high-flying science but never get involved in funding decisions. Such decisions are made by a few men—I say men because only the odd woman is involved, but the Equality Bill should sort that out. There should be a real change in the way in which research councils operate and engage with people. I am
talking about not just getting the money and making decisions, but involving the people who tell them about the problems and how the money can be effectively used.
We are not talking about Nobel prize-winning stuff, although it feels that way because the topic is in the limelight. When an issue gets in the press, some people tend to get carried away and think, “This must all be about molecular biology with a bit of DNA and protein involved. All we need are a few high-fangled pieces of research and that will be all right.” That is not what the bee campaign is about. We will not see much cutting-edge technology because it is risky in this case.
I was very impressed by Professor Ratnieks at Sussex university. He is the first professor of apiculture—bee culture. Taking on such a subject is a real initiative by the university and it should be complimented. Ratnieks has a five-year study in which he wants to look at honey bee research. Four of his projects, which cost £250,000 each, should be supported. He wants to breed disease-resistant “hygienic” honey bees, which remove dead or infected larvae and pupae from their cells, thereby reducing the spread of diseases within a colony and disrupting the breeding cycle of varroa mites, which carry the viruses and activate viruses when they bite. “Hygiene” is a natural genetic trait among bees, meaning that it can be bred from normal and low-cost breeding methods. Once a stock of “hygienic” bees has been bred, they can then be provided to beekeepers and introduced into hives. Such a project will produce practical results that can easily be passed on to beekeepers, and it employs a breeding method that has been tried and tested by Professor Ratnieks. Another project takes advantage of successful research developed in other countries on the control of varroa mites and adapts it to the British climate. Such research has been carried out and was successful in the initial experiments and is a low-cost enterprise.
We are in a unique position. We must think practically and logically rather than ambitiously to prevent the decline of the honey bees. We do not need much more media attention—one can have too much of that, as I keep telling the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), whose economics I have engaged with. His economics are not as sound as the press often think. He is rather miserable; I call him “el miserablo” because of the gloom and doom he spreads in this country when he could be talking about some of the good stories in industry.
The reason I became interested in this issue was not because a student of mine was involved, but because I could see that if we did not look after these creatures, on which we depend for more than just honey on toast, we would lose control over food production and the wild environment. Even this morning, I realised that the almonds and the croissants in Portcullis House depend on bees. It cannot be better than that. The establishment of the research fund is very good news so, let us take the opportunity and ensure that it is used wisely and for practical purposes that benefit agriculture and industry and ensure the survival of the honey bee colonies.
10.8 am
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): I congratulate the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on bringing this important subject to the Chamber. I will try to be brief so that other hon. Members can participate.
The demise of the honey bee and its catastrophic impact have been well covered this morning, particularly in the contribution of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I will set out a case study, which is focused on my constituency.
In the southern part of Essex, the number of beekeepers is very low. Some 35 years ago, there were more beehives than dogs in walking distance of Castle Point council, but now it is quite different. The only bees belong to Doug Beard, who keeps two dozen hives, but not many in Castle Point because we have built on our green belt and bees need trees and so on for foraging. A superb local lady, Margaret Thomas, runs a beginners class in Essex with an amazing 28 pupils and struggles to find bees for them. Margaret is a rarity; she is probably one of the UK’s best and most professional teachers of beekeeping.
After world war two, every county had its own agricultural college—in Essex, it was Writtle college. Embedded within each college was a county beekeeping lecturer. In Essex, it was Ted Hooper, who eventually got a well deserved MBE. In the 1980s, all the CBLs were made redundant because they were deemed to be unprofitable. Looking back, we could question the foresight of that. Many of today’s problems might have been exacerbated by the fact that we no longer have professional, properly qualified teachers.
Beekeeping is now taught mostly by volunteers. They are wonderful, superb and enthusiastic volunteers, but they might not always impart the professional knowledge that is needed to keep hives healthy. The Government need to fund qualified beekeeping teachers. The national diploma in beekeeping is a degree-level qualification that is recognised worldwide. I hope that the Minister will address the problem. I know that she is interested in animal welfare—I thought it was just greyhounds, but I am delighted that she is also interested in bees.
The NBU employs seasonal, regional bee inspectors, who should inspect all hives for disease once every three years, but we have not seen one for at least 10 years in Castle Point. The inspectors now spend more time searching for beekeepers than inspecting hives. I am now going to upset a few hon. Members by saying that compulsory registration might not be such a bad idea if it enables those inspectors to do their job more effectively. I realise that others disagree with that view.
It seems that every problem must have a ready solution and that it must not be the fault of the individual beekeepers or even Government policy, so varroa is very convenient: if we all hang our hats on it, we need not do anything. Of course it is a major problem, but it is not the only problem, and it does not mean that we can ignore everything else. That is particularly true in Britain, as opposed to the USA on one extreme and Australia on the other. In Britain, we have two products—Apistan and Bayvarol—to control the mites. When honey bees began to become immune to those treatments, Apiguard was produced and improved bee husbandry methods were introduced. In the past two years, some keepers have applied oxalic acid.
In 2007, Doug Beard had 16 colonies and lost none; last year, he had 24 colonies and lost none. Losses are not inevitable to those who practise good husbandry and have understanding. Typically, beekeepers lose about
10 per cent. of their hives during the winter months and that percentage can be much higher, as everyone knows, but the explanation is not rocket science. As was mentioned, pesticides can be a problem. Combined, cold and wet conditions kill bees, so good keepers ensure that water cannot get into their hives. They ensure—using decent mouth guards, of course—that there is good air circulation and that there is no condensation in the hives.
Lack of teaching must be a major factor in the demise of honey bees in this country. Many of today’s problems are exacerbated by poor bee husbandry, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare explained. We need research so that we understand better the connection between varroa and viruses, particularly deformed wing virus and acute paralysis virus.
Government funding is very welcome, but what about some finance from the beekeeping industry? The Minister will have heard that. A search of the Charity Commission’s website reveals many beekeeping associations with cash in the bank. The International Bee Research Association has £300,000; Surrey Beekeepers Association has £100,000; the associations in Cheshire, Essex and Yorkshire have money; the BBKA has £200,000; and the association in Kent has £100,000—as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) once said, I have a little list. Actually, my list is quite long, and those are only the registered charities: the C. B. Dennis British Beekeepers Research Trust has the best part of £1 million in the bank.
Perhaps the Minister will find the suggestion of funding from the industry the most helpful one that I make today, even if the beekeeping community does not. Perhaps Government money should be match funded from the beekeeping side. The latter could at least make some effort. Ministers are used to MPs asking for them to provide money—it happens all the time—so I shall end my speech on that note and leave the Minister with a smile on her face.
10.14 am
Willie Rennie (Dunfermline and West Fife) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on his entertaining and knowledgeable speech. I am disappointed, however, that the BBKA will not get rich from what has been said in the debate so far. Perhaps hon. Members will now make awful puns, so that the association makes a fortune. However, so far, the hon. Gentleman’s warning has had a significant effect. I congratulate him on that and on how he presented his case.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was right to preach caution. There has been great enthusiasm and excitement about Government funding, but we need to be cautious about what we can achieve with it. It is a long haul and a lot of ingenuity and energy will be required to achieve success. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) was brave in suggesting that the beekeeping associations should contribute. I am not sure how many beekeepers are in his constituency, but they may well be writing to him with their views from now on.
I have every reason to detest bees—I spent most of my childhood being stung by bees owned by my father and grandfather in my back garden. I spent many hours travelling from Strathmiglo so the bees could get the
benefit of the late summer heather up in the moors of Glenturret. I can reveal that after 30 miles in the back of a van, bees are not very happy. One has to learn to run extremely fast when one opens the hive. Perhaps that early training is why I enjoy running half marathons and hill races.
Despite those early experiences, I have great admiration for bees: for their military discipline and incredible hard work, and for their generosity with their produce. If the Liberal Democrats had half of bees’ military-style organisation, we might be sitting on the Government Benches. However, I am pleased that the Government have recognised—some say belatedly—the importance of the honey bee. That a significant sum of money has been forthcoming is great and I hope that more will be provided if it is required. It is important to recognise that the Government have made progress and that they have given the matter the necessary priority.
That progress is partly owing to the success of organisations such as the BBKA and its branches. The West Fife association in my constituency is a thriving organisation. I recently went to a meeting where there were about 40 beekeepers, half of whom were new. It was encouraging that, despite the news and the gloom about the future of bees, lots of people were coming forward. Perhaps their interest is partly because of new organic lifestyles, which is good, but I hope that it is also partly because we have great confidence in the future of bees.
I want to ensure that research funding recognises the special circumstances in Scotland. We heard how the special British weather has an effect on bees, but I am advised that the weather in Scotland is even more special, which influences the effectiveness of the available treatments. We do not know for sure whether there are special circumstances in Scotland, but we want to ensure that the matter is investigated. If they do exist, we hope that they are recognised in the research funding. I am glad that the Scottish Executive have given some money. I am sure that they are arguing their case to ensure that there is a special Scottish angle, but I wanted to reinforce the point.
Speedy access to new medicines has not been mentioned. I understand that there are some blockages. There are always complaints from patient organisations about speedy access to new medicines and it is the same in beekeeping. Has the Minister made progress in ensuring that any new medicines that come on to the market are made available as soon as possible in the UK?
On the qualifications to treat, most vets, perhaps until recently, would have laughed at the thought of treating bees. They have lots of other animals to treat, such as cats, cows and dogs, and they would never have thought about treating bees. It is important to send vets the message that they have an important role in treating bees. There are not enough vets who can do the job. We need to ensure a sufficient number of qualified people. Perhaps we could have a separate qualification of bee expert that entitled people to treat bees. The fact that registered medicines are involved might be an issue, but I would like the matter to be explored, so that we can get lots of people out there to meet the challenge. It is a big challenge, and we need lots of experts to ensure that it is properly treated.
On BeeBase, it is a great thing that we have a voluntary scheme. It would be a distraction to make it compulsory. In future we might find it necessary to do so, but just
now the main effort should be focused on dealing with the main problem. I do not think that a compulsory scheme would be advisable.
To summarise, there are four key points. The first is priority—it is great that it has been recognised that bees are important. The second is the special circumstances in Scotland. The third is ensuring speedy access to new medicines, and the fourth is ensuring that there is a sufficient range and number of people who can treat bees in order to meet this great challenge.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |