Memorandum submitted by S T Rimmer &
Son (O54)
1. A slightly modified option 1 is the only
way to meet all the requirements of the reform of the EU sugar
regime. This would involve simplification of the system but with
guaranteed prices and quotas albeit at slightly reduced levels.
This would be the only way to still give aid to the less developed
countries and still maintain a supply of good quality sugar to
the users in this country, any of the other options would not
benefit the consumer or tax payer and would, I believe, eventually
lead to price rises with poor quality and short supply as has
happened in the steel industry.
2. Being a small family business involving
farming and agricultural haulage contracting. The reduction of
sugar production in this country would have a grave effect on
our business with approximately 50% of our income coming from
the transportation of sugar beet and by-products ie lime X and
pulp nuts, if this came to an end we would have to scale down
our business accordingly. This would not only mean a loss of jobs
with all the related expenses to the Government but also a loss
of revenue from fuel duty of approximately £1.10p per tonne
of every tonne of sugar beet we move from Lancashire and the same
for all by-products we bring back on return loads. The average
distance of all sugar beet transportation in this country is approximately
28 miles, most without return loads, this equates to some 56 miles
with a duty of over 60p per tonne not an inconsiderable sum in
total.
3. If all the EU states had the same sugar
controls as Great Britain ie 50% home production and 50% imported
from the less developed countries etc, this reform would in my
considered opinion not need to take place. It is France and Germany
with their massive over production against consumption, which
is a drain on the EU budget.
4. On the growing side of sugar beet the
loss of sugar production in this country would have a wide and
long term effect on British agriculture, with the guaranteed returns
of this crop used by many growers as collateral for overdrafts
etc at the bank not to mention job losses in the agricultural
industry and suppliers of machinery etc, which would eventually
place a drain on the British tax payer.
5. Finally I would ask you to support British
agriculture who as stated in paragraph 3 are the only EU state
to have 50% import from less developed countries and Option 1
would help this to continue with no disruption to supply and quality
and aid long term development to continue.
31 March 2004
| 
