| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Dec 2002 : Column 1000—continued
Sugar Beet Quota
11. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk): When she next expects to meet sugar beet growers to discuss quota arrangements for next year's harvest. [86775]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Ministers have regular meetings with the National Farmers Union, which represents sugar beet growers in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Bellingham : As a friend of beet growers in East Anglia, the Minister knows how vital sugar beet is to the rural economy of the region. It is about the only crop that is currently making a profit. Does he share my concern about Xeverything but arms" and the fact that Britain is not self-sufficient in sugar production? There is a real fear that our quota will be cut in the future. What hope can he give farmers in my constituency this Christmas that there is a future for sugar beet? What is he doing to encourage biocrops?
Mr. Meacher: I give the hon. Gentleman credit for the fact that he has been active on behalf of the significant number of sugar beet growers in his constituency. As he must certainly know, there has been a recent cut in the quota for the current year, which was enforced by the European Union to avoid breaching the World Trade Organisation ceilings on subsidised sugar exports. I appreciate the considerable problems that that causes for sugar beet growers. They are likely to have had some indication of the cut in advance, but the procedure for making quota cuts in year, after the beet has been planted, is one aspect of the UK sugar regime that we want reformed. That would be of considerable benefit to growers in this country.
As for biocrops, I am extremely keen to see the development of biodiesel and bioethanol. The Government have already cut biodiesel and bioethanol prices by 20p a litre. I am well aware of the industry's argument that a little further cut in duty is necessary to achieve a viable industry, and we are considering that.
Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley): While it is important to do what we can to encourage the use of biofuels because that is the direction to move in, is it not a fact that the sugar cane and sugar beet industry throughout the world is being destroyed because of the very low price that enables Brazil to dominate the entire world market?
Mr. Meacher: It is true that Brazil is the leading sugar beet grower, and that it dominates world markets. Of course, a case is currently being brought by Australia and Brazil under World Trade Organisation rules. In terms of any reform that does take place, it is certainly important to bear in mind the fact that the intervention price is three to four times the price of sugar on world
markets, so reform is inevitable. However, we must take great care to ensure that the benefit accrues not mainly to Brazil, but to the smaller African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Under the Xeverything but arms" agreement, which some wag described as the Xeverything but farms" agreement, and according to the generalised system of preferences and the arrangements in the Cotonou partnership agreement, we have to make sure that the ACP countries—there are 77, some of which number among the poorest in the world—are the ones that gain. That is an objective of British negotiations.Household Rubbish (Recycling)
12. Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): What steps she is taking to increase the percentage of household rubbish which is recycled. [86777]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The statutory targets that we have set require local authorities to double their levels of recycling and composting by 2003–04, and to treble them by 2005–06, compared with 1998–99 levels. Alongside the targets, a number of funds are available to support local authorities. The national waste minimisation and recycling fund has just approved the distribution of #76 million to 142 successful authorities, and private finance initiative funding continues to provide the necessary resources to enable long-term dramatic increases in recycling.
Mrs. Campbell : I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to recycling, and in particular the waste minimisation scheme's grant to Cambridgeshire county council to assist in its efforts. However, I ask him to look carefully at some of the recycling schemes run by local councils, and particularly that of the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cambridge city council. Although it is spending #250,000 more through the use of a kerbside recycling scheme, it is actually recycling 1 per cent. less household rubbish than did the previous Labour administration in 1998–99.
Mr. Meacher: I note my hon. Friend's point, and considering that the Liberal Democrats pride themselves on their performance in this area, I hope that they take it very much to heart. The Government are providing substantial extra resources, but there has to be value for money, which must be measured against outcomes. I am absolutely determined that all local authorities will meet those statutory recycling targets. We will want regular reports from those that are not on track, and we will take the necessary action to ensure that they come back on track.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): The Minister is quite right to emphasise that the Government are giving huge encouragement to the recycling of domestic waste and refuse, and my own Macclesfield borough council has been recognised for its fantastic success and progress in this area. However, why has my council advised me that the assistance that the Government have indeed being giving to it—I am very grateful for that—is apparently being reduced or cut altogether? That will
prevent it from continuing with the project, and from continuing to achieve the success that the Government have recognised.
Mr. Meacher: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, as the main financial assistance to local authorities comes not from the #140 million waste minimisation and recycling fund, to which I have just referred, but from the environmental protection and cultural services category of the revenue support grant. From the baseline figure in spending review 2000, in the current year there has been an increase to #1.1 billion in the money given to local authorities. I am therefore puzzled as to why Macclesfield council should feel that there has been a reduction in the money that it gets, when in fact there has been a very substantial increase. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the money is not ring-fenced, and it is for the local authority to decide spending priorities. If, at the end of the year, it finds that there is less money available, I suspect that that will be because more of the money has been transferred for use on other purposes. The responsibility does not lie with the Government.
Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend): What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the value of school recycling schemes? In my constituency, a small company called Broughshire Ltd. has initiated schemes with many schools. The schools get income, pupils learn the value of recycling, and there is a small contribution to local employment. I hope that the scheme will be recognised by my right hon. Friend's Department. What does he think will be the impact of the pre-Budget statement on the whole recycling sector?
Mr. Meacher: The pre-Budget report made use of information in the Cabinet Office strategy unit report published just before it, and certainly provides extra resources for the recycling sector. A range of mechanisms exist that should help local authorities. I place great value on schools recycling. It has educative value for the younger generation, who often are rather better than their elders at understanding what needs to be done. Also, schools can play a significant role, as the statutory recycling targets will require all local authorities to engage in kerbside collection. Schools can play a leading part there, and I shall do everything that I can to encourage that.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Is the increase in landfill tax just another stealth tax, or will it be used to promote the environmental objective of local recycling? If the latter is the case, will the increase in tax be passed to beleaguered local authorities so that they can fund the 100 per cent. collection of separated waste, the promotion of local recycling and the expansion of clean and safe local energy-from-waste plants?
Mr. Meacher: The substantial increase in landfill tax—a near tripling from #13 to #35 per tonne—is essential if we are to achieve our landfill directive targets. I never cease reminding people of the facts: at the current rate, we will double our landfill every 20 to 25 years, yet our very tough target is to reduce that rate by two-thirds in the next 14 years. The increase in landfill tax is an essential mechanism if we are to achieve
that target, as is the Bill introducing landfill permits as a way of reducing the amount of landfilling done by each authority, organisation or company.The hon. Gentleman wants to know whether that money will go back to local authorities. A ministerial team is following up the pre-Budget report and will examine all the details. I fully understand the purpose behind the question, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I am quite sympathetic, but there has to be agreement across Government on what is a key issue.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): My right hon. Friend is known for his interest in recycling, on which he has done some good work. May I urge him to stand up against the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury? If it comes into effect as intended, the pre-Budget report will be a disaster for all recycling and environmental initiatives. The landfill tax credit, which puts category C waste into the public sector, will mean that the environmental innovations sector will face a loss of #400 million. Will my right hon. Friend fight his colleagues tooth and nail to ensure that that money remains available to recycling and environmental innovation?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend has already pressed his point with me very vigorously and I entirely understand it. He is aware that the environmental, social and community categories of the landfill tax credit scheme will be fully preserved, at #47 million. With regard to the rest, the problem remains that there have been allegations of dodginess. I am not sure whether that is a parliamentary term, so I shall say instead that there has been uncertainty about the legality of some of the allocations. I am not saying that they are correct but there is a widespread view that the way in which some of the money is distributed may not stand up to examination, as has been said in the media. More importantly, it is crucial that the money be primarily used for the Government's central aim of improving the weakest part of the system, that of local authority infrastructure and recycling—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister allow me to call Question 13?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |