Proceeding contribution from Lord Whitehead (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 16 October 2014. It occurred during Backbench debate on National Pollinator Strategy.
National Pollinator Strategy
I agree that the research commissioned by companies that have an interest in the outcome, particularly in field trials, can cause considerable mistrust. The research does not need to be done entirely independently, but the process does need to be clear and transparent. The companies should put their hands on the table and follow standards and protocols that can be supervised by external bodies. There is also a question
mark in my mind as to whether the Department itself is awaiting a perfect piece of research, as it were, to inform its future findings. The Committee has concluded that there is no such thing as a perfect piece of research in “natural conditions,” because they have already been compromised. We should apply a probability principle to work that has already been done and then add properly peer-reviewed and supervised additional research to it. That might be much better than adopting the tentative but alarming position—which I think still pervades this debate—of simply considering how the research might inform us for the future.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 586 c534
- Session
- 2014-15
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Crops Conservation Biodiversity Pest control Neonicotinoids Pollinators
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2022-08-30 18:25:49 +0100
- URI
- http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-10-16/14101687000125
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-10-16/14101687000125
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-10-16/14101687000125