| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Abandoned Cars
13. Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): What steps are being taken to reduce the number of abandoned cars. [160291]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government have introduced comprehensive measures to tackle vehicle abandonment—including tightening and stepping up enforcement of the vehicle licensing system and ensuring swifter removal of abandoned vehicles. From January 2007, owners of end-of-life vehicles will be able to hand them over to authorised treatment facilities free of charge.
Mr. Rendel: Why does this country insist on the end-of-life owner disposing of a vehicle, even free of charge, when often the vehicle was taken over when it had little value, now has no value and the owner might be quite poor? Why not do as other European Union countries do—place a duty upon manufacturers to meet the cost of disposal?
Mr. Morley: It is our intention to put that arrangement in place in 2007. At present, there is a responsibility on the final owner of an end-of-life vehicle to deal with it responsibly. The irresponsible abandonment of vehicles has posed problems for some local authorities, but we are applying a range of measures—including the introduction of continuous registration from January 2005.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of abandoned vehicles is a major problem and may worsen until 2007? It is easy to get rid of a vehicle's scrap metal at the end of its life but cars have some nasty components, with no sensible answers to their recycling or reuse.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right that there is an issue around the de-polluting of vehicles, which involves skills and facilities that vehicle dismantlers are increasingly able to offer. That is being tightened up in
the regulations. We are by no means complacent about the period between now and 2007. Other issues, such as the price of scrap, influence the volume of abandoned vehicles; recent scrap prices mean that vehicle dismantlers are interested in taking vehicles free of charge.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): Many of my constituents must have a car to get to work, and they tend to be old cars owned by poorly paid people. Are not the Government terribly complacent in not insisting that manufacturers pay the cost of vehicle disposal much earlier, which the Government could have done under the current regulations, instead of leaving it until 2007 or beyond.
Mr. Morley: The new measure, which we much support, is a big change to manufacturers' responsibilities—but the necessary facilities must be put in place to ensure a network of dismantlers. We have negotiated with the car industry the issue of marque responsibility and there is also the matter of how to deal with orphan vehicles whose manufacturers no longer exist. A range of complexities is involved, which will take time to resolve. I share the right hon. Gentleman's desire to see the scheme up and running as soon and effectively as possible, disposing of end-of-life vehicles in an environmentally sensible and sound way.
Dairy Industry
14. Steve Webb (Northavon) (LD): What the latest estimate is of the proportion of the retail price of dairy products sold in supermarkets that is received by farmers. [160292]
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Given the range of products that contain milk, it is not practicable to estimate the proportion of supermarket prices that farmers receive for all dairy products. However, their share of the value of supermarket sales of fresh liquid whole milk is currently estimated at around 40 per cent.
Mr. Webb: I am grateful for that estimate, but does the Minister accept that farmers in my constituency and elsewhere are angered when they compare supermarket prices of their dairy products with the money that they received? Consumers would be angry, too, if they understood how little money goes to farmers. Will the Minister place an obligation upon stores above a certain size to display next to the dairy cabinet the percentage of the price of the milk that has gone to the farmer? Would that not name and shame?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman might wish to encourage the industry in that direction but I would be surprised if the prospect of greater regulation won much support. Price negotiations between producers and processors or between processors and supermarkets are a commercial matter, in which the Government cannot get involved as long as competition rules are respected. The profit margins on milk for supermarkets and middle-ground retailers have increased currently between 25 to 30 per cent. I referred earlier to research—
the Competition Commission report in 2000 indicated that supermarket profit margins on dairy products were in line with overall grocery margins. As I indicated in an earlier response, it is a complex issue and there is no magic wand that will suddenly produce an end to the profit margin problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.
Mr. Huw Edwards (Monmouth) (Lab): Can my right hon. Friend appreciate the concerns of my constituent, Mr. Brian Parry, who is the largest milk producer in Monmouthshire and who says that he cannot make a living from producing 5,000 litres of milk a day at 18p per litre? What efforts are being made to strengthen the code of practice for the supermarkets, and are other options being considered?
Alun Michael: As I said earlier, we recognise the difficulties caused by low farm-gate prices for milk over the past few years and the challenges that the sector will face with the reform of the common agricultural policy. On the other hand, we have seen an increase in farm-gate prices, and I have already referred to the work under way with the industry in the forum chaired by Lord Whitty. We believe that there is a viable future for the industry but it requires action by the industry, as the KPMG report showed.
Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): Does the Minister agree that one way in which dairy and other farmers can capture a larger share of the value of their produce is through farmers' markets and farm shops? However, does he agree that there are still problems for those taking part in farmers' markets, and especially for those opening farm shops, in terms of the regulatory burdens? I am thinking in particular of Foxbury farm shop, near Brize Norton, in my constituency. When a farm shop starts to stock any other kind of produce, it can be hit by a very substantial rates bill. What will the Minister and his Department do specifically to ensure that farm shops and farmers' markets can continue to thrive, as they do in many parts of the country such as west Oxfordshire?
Alun Michael: I accept that there are regulatory requirements for farmers and, indeed, for retail outlets, but many farmers are extremely successful in ensuring—exactly as the hon. Gentleman said—that there is a greater return for the primary producer. Farmers can do a range of things; marketing is part of that, with direct sales and the use of farmers' markets. I have also seen some good examples of farmers working together, getting their local produce into local hypermarkets and outselling national brands. There is much that the industry can do, and we are seeking to encourage those things.
Foot and Mouth
15. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): What her most recent assessment is of the role that vaccination may play in a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [160293]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Emergency vaccination would be considered as an additional tool to the culling of susceptible animals on infected premises, and those animals that were epidemiologically linked.
Paul Flynn : Only "considered", when to protect an export market of only £500 million the taxpayer spent £9 billion slaughtering 7 million animals, many of them unnecessarily? We now know that vaccinated animals are perfectly acceptable in the marketplace. Should we not have a firm policy—not merely consider it—that we shall never again slaughter millions of animals without good reason? If there is another outbreak of foot and mouth, the great danger is that we shall be subject to the waste, futility and cruelty of mad cull disease.
Mr. Bradshaw: It was not without good reason. Indeed, if that action had not been undertaken, the epidemic would have lasted much longer and would have been much more serious.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): It would probably still be going on.
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. There are eventualities—for example, if a new strain of foot and mouth were to hit us, for which no vaccine was available—when it might not be practicable in a short space of time to use vaccination.
Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab): Given the important role undertaken by the veterinary profession during the last outbreak and the shortages in that profession, what strategic discussions or reviews
have been conducted by the Department with vets to ensure that we have enough vets in the right places, able to respond to the outbreaks that none of us wants to see?
Mr. Bradshaw: All those things were considered in the Government's response to the Anderson inquiry. As my hon. Friend may know, we intend to hold a contingency exercise this summer—in case of a future foot and mouth outbreak—in which vets will play a central role.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |