Memorandum submitted by the Transport
& General Workers Union (Newark) (O19)
REASONS BEHIND
MY INTEREST
ON SUGAR
REFORM
My name is Floyd Major and I am the Branch Secretary
of the Transport & General Workers Union, Branch 8/10-465,
Newark area. This Branch is a composite Branch which means we
cover more than one industry, therefore we are made up of members
from Scottage Courage, Currys/Dixons, British Waterways etc, etc.
I also represent "British Sugar UK" and "British
Sugar Silver Spoon", there are also Branch members who work
for "Turners" who transport Sugar from British Sugar
Newark and members who are "farm workers", on farms
that grow Sugar Beet. It is with deep concern for these members
jobs that I am responding to this Select Committee Inquiry on
Sugar Reform
I would also bring to your attention that I
am a member of the TGWU Food Drink and Tobacco National Committee
and I am the Senior Shop Steward at British Sugar UK Newark Factory.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
When I responded to the Defra consultation on
reform of the European sugar sector there where three options
to respond to and it is with these options in mind that I respond
to this Select Committee. I therefore presume that the three options
are:
Option 1—some reduction in quotas and prices;
Option 2—price reductions;
Option 3—full liberalisation of the market.
It is with the above in mind that I wish to
submit that as Branch Secretary to the above members that Branch
8/10-465 supports option one, which means some reduction in quotas
and prices but it is better than the unplanned madness of the
world market.
I will clarify the reasons behind this response
in the next paragraph.
EUROPEAN/WORLD
FOOD MARKETS
It is reported that the sugar industry supports
over 20,000 jobs throughout the UK economy but with our links
with the IUF, the International Union of Foodworkers, I wish to
broaden our response and look at the sugar industry at European/World
levels. The big concern for the sugar industry in the EU is that
as a result of a full liberalization of the market, production
might be cut in close to 75%, while the European Beet Growers
Association (CIBE) have reported that job losses would be significant
among the estimated 500,000 jobs dependent on the current common
market organisation (CMO) sugar regime. At EU level at the moment
there are 275,000 beet farmers. In addition to the European sugar
companies, we have suppliers like the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific
(ACP) countries, and the least development countries (LDCs) benefiting
from the "Everything But Arms" initiative. Any discussions
must take the ACP and LDCs into account, and with discussions
that I have had with Trade Unionist from these countries they
would wish to see Option 1 supported
Our Branch does not support Options 2 and 3
(price reductions and full liberalisation of the market) for the
reason that I believe a price reduction will eventually lead to
a free market which would mean the end of the sugar industry in
the EU and the lost of thousands of jobs. Brazil would flood the
European market, The ACPs and LDCs producers cannot compete with
Brazil and so their sugar industry would be in danger. If we take
a closer look at the Brazilian sugar industry, a report by Reuters
of 23 October, last year, gives a brief account of investments
in infrastructure for transportation and shipping of sugar and
alcohol (ethanol). In the next 10 years, the report quotes Datagro,
a local analyst firm, Brazilian sugar exports are estimated to
grow from 15 million tonnes of sugar to 21 million tonnes per
year. In the early 1970s, Brazil exported slightly over 1 million
tonnes per year. But this investment is not passed down to the
workers, the minimum monthly wage for the cane rural workers in
the Brazilian Northeast is only 260 Brazilian reais (USD 90.90)
For examples on what could happen to the European
Sugar Industry in a full liberalization of the market, I wish
to look at the Coffee and Banana industries. Over-production has
pushed coffee prices down to an all-time low and many farmers
now earn less for their crop than it cost to grow. Twenty-five
million coffee growers face ruin and yet Kraft, Nestle, Sara Lee
and Procter & Gamble' continue to rake in the profits. It
is the same in the banana industry, For every pound in Britain
spent on conventional bananas, the retailer receives up to 40
pence, according to a article in the Observer, Tesco makes £1
million profit a week on bananas alone. In order to meet the demand
for cheap bananas, banana companies are pursuing a "race
to the bottom" relocating their production and sourcing to
countries with the lowest labour and environmental standards.
Wages and working conditions on plantations across Latin America
and West Africa are being eroded and small farmers in the Caribbean
are struggling to stay in business. The full liberalisation of
the market or free market does not benefit workers, it only puts
more profit in the pockets of big business whose policy is not
to help the poor workers of the world but to exploit them. If
the full liberalisation or free market was the answer to improve
the lives of millions of workers in poor countries why hasn't
it happened by now. The problem we are faced with is global capitalism
that puts profit before people.
UK FOOD MARKET
To summarise, Branch 8/10-465 calls upon this
Select Committee to support Option 1, a reduction in quotas and
price for the above reasons. We would also point out that the
UK sugar industry does not export sugar onto the world market,
the UK market is balanced between supply and demand and in fact
British Sugar only supplies half of the UK sugar, the other 50%
is imported from ACPs countries Any price reductions in sugar
will only benefit large companies and their profits, not the consumer.
Environmental, health and safety and food safety standards are
extremely high at British Sugar, for example insecticides on the
beet crop have been reduced by more than 95% and there is a good
relationship between management and the trade unions.
24 March 2004
|
