---

Fallen Stock

4. Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): What assessment she has made of the impact of the delay in the introduction of the national fallen stock collection scheme. [192822]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): None. My officials and the board of the National Fallen Stock Company have concentrated their time and resources on getting the scheme right and getting it started. I am pleased to announce to the House today that the scheme will begin on 22 November.

Nick Harvey: I welcome that announcement and hope that the scheme will actually happen this time. The National Fallen Stock Company has given biosecurity advice to both collectors and farmers. What is the legal status of that advice to farmers, how will it be enforced and how will remote areas in which cover is inadequate be regulated?

Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman must wait for the announcement of the details of the fallen stock scheme before he gets a full answer, and I shall write to him about it. The rules must be enforced, because biosecurity is important and is high on the list of farmers' concerns. The National Fallen Stock Company is confident that the national network of collectors will cover even remote parts of the country, which should not pose too much of a biosecurity problem.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): I congratulate the Minister on the time, effort and ingenuity that he and his officials have put into the scheme. Rather than listening to the continual carping from Opposition parties who claim to speak for farmers, let us listen to the National Farmers Union. Does the Minister agree with NFU vice-president, Meurig Raymond, who said:

"There is a real opportunity to make this scheme work for farmers . . . The scheme should provide farmers with a cost effective mechanism for complying with EU regulations, which will form part of the . . . rules for the new single farm payment scheme starting next year"?

Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is right. We sometimes lose sight of the fact that the Government are putting in £20 million of taxpayers' money to subsidise the scheme, which is supported by the NFU and run by the industry with an NFU representative as the chairman of the board.

Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): Arrangements for fallen stock collection are, of course, part of the Government's efforts to deal with biosecurity. This morning, I saw a distressing video from Northumberland trading standards, filmed four days after the foot and mouth outbreak began in 2001, of Bobby Waugh's Burnside farm. Has the Minister seen that video—I know that his Department has it—and if so, does he agree that it provides ample justification for reopening Dr. Iain Anderson's inquiry into the causes and lessons of the foot and mouth outbreak?

Mr. Bradshaw: I have not seen the video and do not agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1006
 
question. I understand that the video contains nothing new and have been told that all the details in it were given to the Anderson inquiry. Dr. Anderson himself has said that his decisions and recommendations would have been exactly the same, and the video formed part of Bobby Waugh's trial.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Does the Minister recall Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 22 July, when he claimed that the NFU supported his view that hunt kennels play what he described as a "small role" in the collection of fallen stock? Has he seen this letter from the NFU, which states:

"I was not entirely surprised to hear the minister's remarks yesterday as he has form on this! He misrepresented the views of Michael Seals, the chairman of the fallen stock collection scheme, on the same subject at Defra PQs on May 20.

Let me assure you that at no point has the NFU said that the part played by the hunt kennels in stock disposal is 'small' or 'insignificant'. On the contrary . . . I suspect the politics of this is that as a fully paid-up hunt banner the minister does not want to be seen"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? Front Benchers are privileged and are sometimes called before Back Benchers; do not abuse the privilege. If the Minister can answer, fine; if not, we will move on.

Mr. Bradshaw: I cannot comment on the letter, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. Gentleman did not have the courtesy to include it when he wrote to me about the issue.

Energy Crops

5. Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): What plans she has to support the development of energy crops. [192824]

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): A new biomass study team will work with stakeholders to identify barriers to developing bioenergy and ways in which to overcome them. Other studies will consider economic issues and renewable heat. Aid is available to plant energy crops and to develop supply chains and end users for heat and power generation.

Dr. Whitehead: I am encouraged by the progress that has been made on research and the beginning of funding for increased production of such crops.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are multiple benefits to agriculture, industry and the environment in the effective deployment of energy crops in fuel and in biomass power generation? Does she recognise that there remains a considerable problem of "Who goes first?" between the development of biomass-based power stations and the obtaining of long-term secure energy crops to fuel them? Will her Department work closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to facilitate the resolution of that problem?

Margaret Beckett: I accept and understand what my hon. Friend says about the mixture of advantages and the concern that we are not yet getting the balance right.
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1007
 
That is why we set up the taskforce, which should be able to identify the remaining barriers and give sound advice on how to remove them.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): The Secretary of State will be aware that sugar beet producers are worried about their future in the light of the proposed reforms to the EU sugar beet regime. One way of dealing with that would be to have a UK bioethanol industry. Will she therefore think about expanding the remit of the group that is considering biomass under the chairmanship of Sir Ben Gill to allow it to consider the barriers to a bioethanol and a biodiesel industry in this country? That is particularly relevant at a time when fuel security is uppermost in our minds.

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I take entirely. There is widespread understanding of the potential benefits of bioethanol and biodiesel. His suggestion might overly widen the scope of the study headed by Sir Ben Gill; if so, I undertake to consider whether there are other ways in which we might pursue it.

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): My right hon. Friend's Department has generously grant-aided a consortium of farmers and other business people in Stafford to produce energy crops, such that by next year more than 1,000 hectares of land in Staffordshire will be planted with miscanthus. The technology to do the conversion is in place, as is the first end user, but the project is in doubt because of an inability to secure a contract for the supply of renewable energy for a length of time and at a price that will be guaranteed to make the contract viable. Does she agree that until this industry is well established there is a role for Government in helping to ensure a guaranteed minimum length of time and price for the renewable energy that is produced?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind support for what the Government are already doing. I certainly accept that from time to time there are steps that we can take. We continually look at ways in which we can overcome some of these problems. He will know that a variety of grants and scheme proposals are available to deal with problems to do with the supply chain and so on. I cannot undertake that the Government will step in to deal with every one of these issues, because we are all trying to stimulate an effective market for such produce. However, I undertake to continue to consider the points that my hon. Friend raises and to consider further what we can do to assist and support.

Mr. Michael Weir (Angus) (SNP): As well as help with the production end of fuel, will the Secretary of State consider help at the other end? For example, wood could be an important biofuel, particularly in Scotland. Perth and Kinross council, which looked into including biofuel as an option in a new school project, found that the cost of such boilers is four times greater than that of other boilers. It would be a great help if grants were available to local authorities considering such projects to enable them to include biofuel as an option. Will she examine that with the devolved Administrations?

Margaret Beckett: Of course, we are always willing to consider ideas and proposals that emerge, particularly
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1008
 
from hon. Members. Various grants and schemes are already available that may be able to assist the hon. Gentleman's local authority. Certainly, I undertake to consult the Scottish Executive about that in the way that he asks.

Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney) (Lab): On my right hon. Friend's visits to East Anglia, she will have noticed the vast fields of rapeseed there. Those fields could be the new environmentally friendly oilfields of the country if we could convert rapeseed oil into biodiesel. Despite the cut in duty by the Treasury, that is still not economically viable. Can she tell us where we need to go with this issue if we are not to waste this valuable sustainable resource, which has the potential to provide valuable income for farmers?

Margaret Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely, and I know, as he says, that the potential of UK-grown oilseed rape is being considered. He will know that the balance of duty is currently examined in terms of the environmental benefit that could be gained from such a duty cut. That relationship is established. I know that my Treasury colleagues are as ever willing to consider the issue, but they are anxious to ensure that we get the right outcome in terms of stimulating UK development rather than merely sucking in imports.

Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con): On that last point, while recognising that the current biofuel duty reductions are helpful, does the Secretary of State accept that if biofuels are to make a real contribution to cutting carbon dioxide emissions and be a significant alternative crop for farmers, further duty cuts are needed? If she has difficulty in persuading the Treasury about that, she might like to point out that this is one area in which lower duty is likely to lead to higher revenue.

Margaret Beckett: I am always grateful for suggestions as to how to put a better case to the Treasury. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. We continue to keep under review what the level of duty currently is or should be. Of course, whether further duty cuts would assist is not the only issue—there are other options, such as capital grants, enhanced capital allowances and a biofuels obligation, and in the not-too-distant future, we will be required to set targets under the EU biofuels directive. However, I welcome the recognition on both sides of the House that this is an important area.

---