| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Question agreed to.
11 Oct 2004 : Column 122
MENTAL CAPACITY BILL [CARRY-OVER]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [29 October 2002],
That if at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Mental Capacity Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—[Joan Ryan.]
Question agreed to.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 9317/04, Green Paper on the approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the European Union; notes that this forms part of the wider Justice and Home Affairs agenda; and supports the Government's position that the Green Paper is a preliminary document which will need considerable further discussion.—[Joan Ryan.]
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Ordered,
That Mr David Cameron be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr Damian Green be added.
That Mr Andrew Lansley be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Miss Julie Kirkbride be added.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PETITION
10.27 pm
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab): I bring to the House a petition from 325 residents of Gloucester who declare their concern about the violence and threats to and abuse of shop workers, and their support for the Freedom from Fear campaign that is being promoted nationally by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to work with the police, retail employers and shop workers to ensure that they are doing all that they can to tackle retail crime.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
11 Oct 2004 : Column 121
11 Oct 2004 : Column 123
Sugar Beet (Norfolk)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
10.27 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk): I am delighted to have the chance to raise yet again the question of the future of sugar beet. Indeed, the Minister will be aware that this is far from the first time that I have done so. I make no apology for reminding the House that sugar beet ensures the employment of no fewer than 10,000 people in Norfolk and Suffolk.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that this is also an important subject for my constituency. Indeed, there is a British Sugar factory at Cantley that employs some 200 people. Any immediate decline in the production of sugar beet would have a significant impact not only on the farming community but on many other areas of employment in my constituency.
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will be aware that although the factory is in his constituency, many of its employees live in Great Yarmouth, which is a town singled out by the Government for special help in relation to deprivation, and it is interesting to wonder what might happen to those programmes if the numbers of unemployed are swelled by those who previously worked at Cantley.
Norfolk produces one third of the whole UK sugar beet crop, and the crop accounts for £100 million of farm income annually. In my constituency, there is the British Sugar factory at Wissington, which provides some 200 jobs locally, and is a rare example of manufacturing industry still intact after the losses suffered by that sector under this Government since 1997—a sector that is in the news this very day.
The Minister will be aware that I make those points in the context of the European Commission's communication, "Accomplishing a sustainable agricultural model for Europe through the reformed CAP—sugar sector reform", which was published on 14 July 2004. He will be aware that the communication proposes to replace the current intervention system for beet with a reference price system and a restructuring of quota arrangements. A compensation system for producers will be introduced over a period of three years, incorporated into the single payment scheme.
The Minister will also know that currently, among producers and processors, confusion and uncertainty surrounds the Government's response to that communication. My purpose in calling the debate is to enable the Minister to put an end tonight to the deep anxiety running right through the industry by giving some straight answers to the questions that I put to him.
There is another context to the debate, however, which I want to draw to the Minister's attention: the state to which farming has been reduced under his Government. This year's annual survey produced by the well-reputed accountancy firm of Larking Gowen, based in Norwich, on the state of farming in Norfolk has been entitled "Back to Square One". It says on page 2:
"Over the last eight years East Anglian farmers have increasingly felt a sense of growing frustration. Harvest 2003 gave a brief respite but 2004 is emerging as another poor year with weather problems coupled with very low commodity prices."
"In 2004 we have seen prices of cereals returning to . . . below £60 per tonne and coupled with low yields, poor quality and high drying costs we anticipate a harvest which will be difficult and costly. Some farmers may even find that their cereals may . . . be worth less than the cost of production."
On that issue, the Minister may know that I sought to bring a deputation to the Department from my constituency, and from Norfolk, to ask for an advance of the November payments. I wrote to make that request at the end of August and so far I have had no definitive reply. Therefore I must assume that the problems of the harvest this year, up and down the country, do not matter too much to Ministers. But to those of us who represent rural areas—a number of my hon. Friends and Labour Members are in the Chamber this evening—the continuing erosion of the agriculture industry is of enormous concern. It affects not only the economy but broader environmental considerations and the biodiversity of our country. Given agriculture's already parlous state, small wonder that so much despair surrounds the future prospects for sugar beet, especially in areas such as Norfolk, where so many jobs depend on its presence.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): My right hon. Friend will be aware that following the closure of the King's Lynn beet factory, all the sugar beet grown in my constituency goes to Wissington to be processed, which leads to a large number of jobs in the haulage and contracting sector. Does she agree that those extra jobs, as well as those on farms, are vital?
Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the 10,000 jobs in Norfolk and Suffolk that depend on sugar beet include not only those of producers and processors but all those involved in the process, in which hauliers are extremely important.
The United Kingdom is the European Union's third most efficient sugar beet producer. In the past, even in the most difficult years for agriculture, it is interesting and heartening to note that sugar beet has been a staple, and a reliable crop. In some years, it is difficult to get it out of the ground, which is sometimes too hard or too soft. However, this year has been good for getting the crop in. It is different from cereals—weather conditions can destroy a whole cereal crop. Sugar beet has been a staple; it has also been a reliable and bankable crop and a steady source of employment.
Eighty per cent. of our sugar beet crop is produced on small family farms, which are the basis of our rural economy, with an average size of some 20 hectares. The crop is important for biodiversity, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has pointed out, and for soil quality because of its role in rotation. Any uncertainty surrounding its future must thus have far-reaching effects on the industry and beyond.
In preparing for the debate, I met representatives of the National Farmers Union, Norfolk beet growers, British Sugar and, most interesting, distinguished scientists at the John Innes research institute in Norwich. I want to ask the Minister about the Government's strategy for the future of agriculture. Not to put too fine a point on it, people at the John Innes institute have difficulty in discerning one, but we will, of course, allow the Minister to make his points on that matter and disabuse us all.
11 Oct 2004 : Column 125
Growers and processors agree that reform of the common agricultural policy sugar regime is necessary to enable the continuation of a sustainable European industry and to encourage further sustainable development of sugar production in least favoured parts of the world. The first main element of the Commission's proposals is a reduction in beet price over a three-year period to achieve a 37 per cent. cut in year three. It is the unanimous view of growers and processors that such prices would threaten beet supplies—indeed, the whole industry—even in the most productive areas of the United Kingdom.
It would be helpful if the Minister told hon. Members whether the end date for the process is to be 2006, as was first proposed, or 2005, as was recently suggested. I am sure that he knows at what period of the year sugar beet is drilled and, by deduction, when decisions about the drilling must be made: namely, now. If the date is to be 2005, perhaps the Minister could explain the Government's thinking on the proposed timetable and how the industry should prepare for it. Although he may not have time to do so, it would be good if he could explain the reference price mechanism. The exact way in which it will work does not seem clear to the industry, although I accept that he may currently be working on it.
Great confusion surrounds EU and Government intentions for the second tranche of the proposals, namely quotas. The communication's objective is to take 16 per cent. of the crop out of production. The mechanism for doing that is not clear, or even visible at this stage. Will there be quota transfer between countries? If so, who will own the quota? In France, we assume that it will be the beet co-operatives, but there is a monopoly processor in this country. Will British Sugar own the quota? Will the quota be transferable between growers? How would that be achieved? How would quotas be allocated? Would allocation depend on proximity to processing plants? That worries my growers a good deal because it would put a lot of people out of business. I hope that the Minister can answer those questions this evening.
The EC communication proposes compensation for growers. Doubtless the Minister will want to make something of that in his reply. Will he first answer the question whether the compensation will be specific to beet or form part of the single payment mechanism? In other words, will it be shared between all farmers, even if they do not produce beet? There may be no such intention, but I am sure that the Minister's reply to that question and the reasoning behind it will be examined with great interest in the industry.
The Minister will rightly say that the communication stems from the need to ensure that cane sugar from the least developed countries and the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of countries should not have to compete against heavily subsidised beet sugar produced in the EU. Growers and processors agree, although the means by which a proper balance should be achieved seems to be questioned in a response to the communication dated 13 September, with which he will be familiar, from the LDC group. It says that the effect of the proposals would be to ensure that sugar produced in the west Balkans would continue to be two and a half times that proposed for the LDC. That may not be the
11 Oct 2004 : Column 126
case. It may be rooted in a misunderstanding but it would be good to have some clarification from the Minister.
"The rapid decline in price as proposed by the Commission will benefit neither the primary producer nor the ultimate consumer within the timeframe for the proposed changes, nor possibly for some time afterwards. The beneficiaries will continue to be EU industrialists . . . LDC sugar producers are being sacrificed for the benefit of profitable EU enterprise."
Does that reaction indicate that the Government's approach is a success?
The Minister may want to tell the House how many responses the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs received during its consultation on the future of sugar beet, and which solution was overwhelmingly supported by the industry. He will know from that consultation that all are agreed that change must come, but he must accept the implications of the decisions that his Government are to take. Like all Ministers, he will be aware of the law of unintended consequences.
Does the Minister accept that price and quota cuts of the size proposed will mean the loss of thousands of jobs in the countryside, and is that all right with him? Is he happy that the same cuts will mean yet more manufacturing losses to add to those already achieved by his Government?
One grower who farms 800 acres told me that he is currently growing peas, rape, sugar beet and wheat on very productive land in north Norfolk. He is not one of my constituents, but he is concerned about biodiversity, the environmental effects of planting decisions and so on. He is also concerned about soil quality and the useful role that sugar beet plays in that respect. If it is not going to be worth his while to grow sugar beet on those 800 acres, he will get rid of the whole rotation and produce only wheat and oil seed rape. I am sure that the Minister understands what that would do to biodiversity, soil quality and the appearance of the countryside, but I also wonder what it may do to asthma sufferers—an interesting point to ponder. Of course, that kind of farm-planning decision will be replicated throughout the country if some certainty cannot be put into the future of sugar beet.
I wonder whether the Minister is concerned about the fact that the deal under discussion, far from helping the ACP and the least developed countries most, will help sugar production in Brazil most. In that country, according to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, increased sugar production of the kind expected will completely degrade sensitive areas such as the Cerrado. Worse—the Minister will be surprised that I have used this as a source of information—the World Socialist website says that unions in Brazil claim that sugar production is being increased with the help of slave labour.
I do not think that that is too far-fetched. Those of us who represent seats in East Anglia will know about the exploitation of workers from Portugal and other migrant workers in our own areas, with all of us looking on. The Minister played a big part in helping to stamp out some of the worst of that exploitation with the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. But it will be ironic
11 Oct 2004 : Column 127
if the end result of what appears to be being planned in the EU increases slave labour in a country where there is even more vulnerability.
Will the Government examine the implications of the proposed changes and produce some strategic thinking on the future of farming, sustainability and this country's expertise in plant breeding? Such expertise is most notable at the John Innes centre, in Norwich, which plays a national and international role. Can the Government think about how such expertise might devise a way forward for sugar beet and for the entire agriculture industry? We wait to hear from the Minister, and he may indeed put all these fears to rest, but I should point out that, with a bit of common sense, the Government could combine concern for the rural economy, for the environment and for our sustainable future, and, indeed, for the third world.
Third-world countries need the help that the communication is designed to give them, but are we sure that the proposals will really help them, rather than disproportionately helping one very large country? In addition, are we certain that the knock-on effects of the communication's proposals will not cause irreversible damage and problems to our own farming? The Government could begin by tackling the future of sugar beet. They could draw on the world-class expertise of plant breeders at institutions such as the John Innes centre. In conjunction with them, with scientists and with the industry, they could, for example, devise alternative uses for this vital crop.
The Minister has heard me speak many times—too many for his taste, I am sure—about the opportunities that biofuels provide in terms of alternative markets for agricultural products. But the scientists at the John Innes centre have a whole range of other possibilities for the uses of sugar beet, many of which would help to reduce the CO 2 emissions that are in the news again today. This communication, the work surrounding it and the consultation give the Minister and his Government such an opportunity. Are they going to take it?
10.47 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |