House of Commons
Thursday 17 July 2003
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
Double Taxation Relief
The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 2003, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order 2003 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House on 18 June 2003.
I will comply with your request.
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked—
Common Agricultural Policy
1. Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend): What assessment she has made of the prospects for reform of the common agricultural policy (a) sugar and (b) rice regimes. [126277]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): Following the very successful outcome of last month's CAP reform negotiations in Luxembourg, which included agreement on a new rice regime, we are awaiting the promised Commission review of the sugar regime.
Mr. Brown : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Andy Lebrecht and the agricultural specialists in my right hon. Friend's Department deserve our congratulations on their achievements in the latest CAP reform round. Congratulations are also due to Commissioner Fischler and his team of officials, who held out for a fair and rational approach to reform. However, as my right hon. Friend will know, more remains to be done, especially on the sugar and rice regimes. The current sugar regime, which is a
protectionist regime that relies on exports and refunds, and passes the cost of the regime on to the consumer, is indefensible. May I urge my right hon. Friend not to give up on the United Kingdom's endeavour to have that iniquitous regime reformed?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will pass on his remarks to our officials. I share his view that this is a major achievement for Commissioner Fischler, without whose determination the scale of reform would not have been achieved.
Our capacity to get agreement and to negotiate in the Agriculture Council is much assisted by the respect and affection that my right hon. Friend engendered and the relationships that he built, on which foundation we were able to build. He is right to say that reform of the sugar regime remains an important priority. We anticipate that Commissioner Fischler will come forward with further proposals, perhaps in September. I share my right hon. Friend's view, as, I hope, does the whole House, that that regime is in great need of reform. I would go so far as to say that although it will not be an easy process, and it is one beset by complications and difficulties, the question should be when the sugar regime is reformed, and not if.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): Does the Secretary of State agree that what is distinctive about the sugar regime is not merely its importance for developing country exporters but that the resistance to reform does not come only from the usual suspects in France but from powerful grower and processor interests in the United Kingdom? What assurances can the right hon. Lady give us that she is willing to take on those domestic vested interests in order to open markets?
Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough): My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the progress that has been made in CAP reform. We know full well about the difficulties that arise in such negotiations, but is she aware of the desire that the new sugar regime should be brought in as quickly as possible? For those of us who have an interest in the developing world, every day of delay is a disaster for individual farmers and their families. Can she assure the House that she will pursue the matter as quickly as possible? As I have said, every day that passes is a disaster for individuals throughout the world.
Margaret Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these issues. He is entirely right that the present regime is very damaging. The present European Union price is about three to four times that at world level. He is also right that the regime itself distorts international trade. As the European Union has reached the everything but arms agreement, the end to this issue is bound to come. It is a matter of how we best and most speedily manage the transition. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are strong advocates of reform in that cause.
Waste Management (Essex)
2. Bob Russell (Colchester): If she will make representations to Essex county council to encourage it to exclude incineration as an option in the county waste management plan. [126278]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): County waste management plans are a matter for the relevant county. It is for it to decide, following consultation, what options to include in line with the waste hierarchy and the best practicable environmental option as set out in Waste Strategy 2000.
Bob Russell : The Minister will not be surprised to be told that that is the usual answer that we are given. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), for being the best friend that the environmental lobby had—some would say the only friend—in this Government. He was of the view that there is no legal requirement on Essex county council to include incineration in its waste plan. Unfortunately, the Conservative-controlled county council claims that there is. Given the confusion, would the Minister come to county hall, Chelmsford and explain exactly why the scheme is necessary, as his predecessor accepted a similar invitation to do just that?
Mr. Morley: I must say that I did not notice that in the diary, but of course I will look at that invitation and treat it with respect. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the green lobby is not friendless in the Government. As for whether there is a legal requirement to include incineration in the waste plan, the answer is that there is not. It is something for the waste authorities to look at in relation to the disposal hierarchy, at the top of which is waste minimisation. In some circumstances, there may be a case for some form of incineration or thermal treatment—incineration is not the only option. However, the choice of the most appropriate disposal and the most appropriate technology for dealing with waste is a local one.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): May I tell the Minister that if he is going to Chelmsford, he will not get there without going through Thurrock, where we can show him the wholly unacceptable effects of decades of landfill? All those wretched barges that go past the House are heading to Thurrock with London's waste. The message that I want to give the Minister is that waste must be disposed of in the place where it is produced, not in my backyard or that of my constituents. While I am sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), anything is better than landfill—the polluter must always pay.
Mr. Morley: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend who makes a persuasive case for going to Thurrock as well.
In the hierarchy of disposal, landfill is at the very bottom, and should be the last resort. We strongly support the proximity principle of dealing with waste as near as possible to the place where it is generated. However, the key is that there must be a clear policy across the country, and local authorities need to play
their part in reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. Central Government will play their part through the implementation of waste programmes, including the waste resources action programme. However, this is about meeting those targets, minimising waste and reducing the amount going to landfill.
Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster): Thank you Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the rest of my family—I feel very welcome.
I have just spoken to Essex county council, and the Minister will be interested to know that it neither promotes nor excludes incineration. I can understand why incineration is such a contentious subject in Essex—nobody wants an incinerator in their backyard. Thanks to the fallen stock directive, there will 200,000 tonnes of fallen stock to incinerate, including 1.3 million adult animals, 2.6 million immature ones, and 36 million poultry. Should not the Minister insist on energy recovery from incineration, which might have a better and more important impact on our environment than the fallen stock directive?
Mr. Morley: First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role on the Opposition Front Bench? I certainly look forward to his contributions in future.
Incineration is not the only option for dealing with fallen stock, as rendering is another important method. On the serious point that the hon. Gentleman made about incineration, I should say that, occasionally, there may well be a role for it. The UK's incineration capacity may be the lowest in Europe in relation to waste structures, but if incineration or other forms of thermal treatment such as gasification are to be used, I agree that, wherever possible, they should be designed so as to recover heat and energy from waste, particularly in combined cycle processes. That option can certainly be considered. I accept that Essex has not ruled incineration in or out, but the priority is finding the most appropriate way of minimising the amount of waste going to landfill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |