---

Waste Management

7. Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): How many landfill sites are licensed to accept hazardous waste. [192826]

The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Currently, 34 landfills in England and Wales are licensed to take hazardous waste. In addition, applications for 29 new facilities are under consideration.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Minister for that response, but in his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) he protested that
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1009
 
there is no hazardous waste mountain. When he considers that in every shed in every garden in the country, and in every cupboard under the stairs in every home in the country, there will be several tins of half-used household paint, which is now categorised as hazardous, is he not being a tad complacent?

Mr. Morley: Only if there were 4 million tonnes under somebody's stairs—I would be a bit worried about that; it would be a cause for concern. The fact is that paint has been classed as hazardous for some time—that is not particularly new. On my frequent travels round the country to landfill sites and rubbish tips, in which I take a great interest, I am pleased to see that most local authorities have provided good facilities for the safe disposal of items such as household paint.

Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire) (Lab): My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent Environment Agency report showing from research that within a radius of 2 km from a hazardous waste site, recorded birth defects are 7 per cent. higher than in the rest of the population. I have some personal interest in that question, as I live within 1 km of such a site. What is the Department doing to research that and to find out what the direct link is, and what joint work is being done by his Department and the Department of Health to ensure that people are protected?

Mr. Morley: That is an interesting point. I declare an interest, in that I, too, live within 1 km of a landfill site.

The findings are well known. For the first time, the Government have pulled together all the known scientific studies of the health effects of all forms of waste disposal. As my hon. Friend says, one study reveals a higher incidence of birth defects around not just hazardous landfill sites but landfill sites in general. There is, however, no scientific evidence linking that directly with the sites; a number of other factors may be involved—socio-economic factors, for example.

The study found that the overall risks of waste disposal were small in comparison with the everyday risks of life. All forms of waste disposal involve risk, and landfill, which is sometimes seen as a fairly benign form of disposal, nevertheless has risks associated with it.

Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): I congratulate the Minister on the comfort zone that he has built around himself in stating that the arrangements are going well, but we hear from the waste industry that unusual things are happening. For instance, there seem to have been no changes in what happens to liquid hazardous waste. No one knows where it is going.

People in the village of Jacob's Well in my constituency would very much like arrangements to deal with asbestos, which is an absolute plague.

Mr. Morley: Liquid hazardous waste generally, although not exclusively, goes to in-house disposal sites, which are still available and cater for a great deal of specialist hazardous waste.

It is strange that, having been accused of responsibility for fridge mountains and the like in the past, the Government should now be accused because there is no hazardous waste mountain—as if I were
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1010
 
hiding one in my garage at home. Although I would not dispute the fact that my garage contains all sorts of waste, I assure the House that it is not hazardous.

The issues are being taken seriously. The Environment Agency has upped its enforcement and checks. Yesterday I received a letter from the agency saying that there has been no recorded increase in the dumping of hazardous waste. It does happen, however, and any dumping of such waste—which tends to consist of building materials and asbestos—is unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Government have taken firm measures to deal with the problem.

Sugar Regime

8. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): When she last met European Union colleagues to discuss the sugar regime. [192827]

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): At the Agriculture Council meeting on 19 July, Commissioner Fischler presented his latest communication setting out his preferred approach to reform of the EU sugar regime. EU Ministers will be resuming discussions at the November Agriculture Council meeting.

Paddy Tipping: In those discussions, will the Secretary of State argue strongly against equal quota cuts in all member states and in favour of taking out inefficient producers such as those in Greece and Finland, so that countries such as the United Kingdom, factories such as British Sugar's factory in Newark, and Nottinghamshire farmers can continue to prosper?

Margaret Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point, and assure him that in our discussions I will, as ever, endeavour to safeguard and protect the competitive position of British farmers. I know he will understand, though, when I say that using the arguments he suggests may not work entirely to our advantage, certainly during a transitional period. Although qualified majority voting will apply, any proposals must carry a majority in the Council. However, I accept his underlying point: the present sugar regime is enormously distorting, and cannot be sustained.

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): One of the main users of the British sugar industry is of course our food industry. It has received a significant boost over the past three years from the success of the British food fortnight, which is estimated to have earned an extra £10 million for the regional food and drink sector. Is the Secretary of State disturbed by reports that next year's event is threatened by a lack of Government funding? Will she investigate? Does she agree with the organiser, Alexia Robinson—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is far too wide of the question.

Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab): Given the importance of the production of sugar beet in North Yorkshire, which feeds the refinery in York, what hope can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents
 
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1011
 
who are involved in sugar beet production in regard to their options for diversifying into other crops, particularly crops that might be utilised for energy production?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and we are certainly encouraging that. There has been much discussion about the options open to those who presently grow sugar beet for the kind of factory that he describes. For some farmers, diversification into other crops will be the best answer; for others, it will be a question of exploring what use they can make of the kind of crops that they grow now. I welcome the constructive, sensible debate that is taking place on this issue. Most people recognise that change is bound to come and are considering how the change can be most beneficial. The report that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee recently produced made a very positive contribution to that debate, which will certainly continue for some months yet.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): The Secretary of State will be aware that half the country's beet is grown in Norfolk. Contrary to popular myth, many of the growers are smallholders who depend on sugar beet and they have had a very difficult time following a wretched harvest. Will she bear in mind the interests of the small grower?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, I certainly will. It is not always recognised that there is a mixture of growers and that they do not always have identical interests. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op): In her discussions with other EU Ministers, has my right hon. Friend been able to discuss the compensation arrangements for the African, Caribbean and Pacific—ACP—countries that have traditionally benefited from guaranteed prices? When she does so, will she ensure that the cane sugar growers will benefit as well as the mill refiners? Does she also agree that, in this respect, an opportunity is emerging for fair trade sugar products?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is general recognition and acceptance of the considerable problems that the much-needed reform in the sugar regime would bring to the ACP countries and some others, and there is a wish to address those issues. The UK attaches particular importance to the need for transitional measures. I take her point about the fair trade implications, but even at existing prices—which are now around three times world levels—the ACP producers and, indeed, some others are already in difficulty. So it is not simply a matter of there being difficulties if reforms took place; there are difficulties now. This is something that we have to take into account as we pursue reform, as I hope that we will.

---