What assessment she has made of the impact of global warming on the UK. [146366]

Scenarios of climate change published by my Department in 2002 suggest that average annual temperatures may increase by between 2° and 3.5° C by the end of the century. As a result, the United Kingdom is likely to experience warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers. Such changes will have far-reaching effects on the UK, putting pressure on water resources and wildlife and increasing the risks of flooding and damage to health.

Twenty years ago, a generation grew up in the shadow of the bomb and fear of nuclear explosions. Now colleagues in the House who go to local schools realise that schoolchildren fear environmental catastrophe in the shape of global warming. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what she is doing to tackle those concerns, so that young people in my constituency of Nottingham, North and elsewhere can be reassured that the Government are taking the problem seriously?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. As he suggests, awareness of the impact of environmental change is growing. Broadly speaking, the Government are pursuing two courses of action. On the one hand, in the shorter term, there is a whole range of measures to encourage people to adapt to the potential impact of climate change. This is something that we are encouraging in the private sector and in Government Departments partly through the climate impact programme—which encourages organisations to make an assessment of the impact—and partly through measures to tackle it.

The Secretary of State will have seen The Guardian and The Independent this morning and the numbing news that one in 10 species, including species found only in the UK, may be extinct by 2050. I am sure that she will agree that it is vital to take all possible action to avert that prospect so far as possible, but does she agree that, although her Department may be sound on the issue, that soundness is not mirrored by other Departments within government? In particular, will she recognise that the aviation White Paper projects a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, so that they will become 25 per cent. of total UK emissions? Will she also confirm or deny that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—

Order. May I suggest that we have a more compact question and not an extended statement?

Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny that the Trade Secretary wants to reduce the Government's target of 20 per cent. reductions in CO₂ emissions to 15 per cent. by 2010?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in what he says about the reports in this morning's news media about the potential extinction of many species. The study that has been published today indicates that between 15 per cent. and 37 per cent. of land species in the area that was studied could face extinction by 2050. However, it is important for the House to understand that the impact of the highest predictions of global warming would have an even more disastrous effect. So it is not an exaggerated report that assumes catastrophe; it refers to the expected impact of climate change.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, given the amount of money that President Bush has raised from the gas guzzlers for his re-election, it will be extremely difficult to get international talks back on track to limit CO₂ emissions? Is it not time that the British Government made as much effort on CO₂ emissions as we are doing on terrorism?

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the British Government continually engage in dialogue with our counterparts in the United States about these issues, their importance and their likely impact on the world. It has long seemed to me that one of the influences on security is, indeed, environmental degradation and the impact that it has on poverty, the movement of peoples and so on. The issues are linked, but he may have overlooked the fact that the United States continues to be involved in the climate change convention and to agree with and promote the aims of that convention in reducing emissions.

What assessment she has made of whether the UK will meet its recycling targets by 2005. [146369]

National targets for England are to recycle and compost 17 per cent. of household waste in 2003–04 and 25 per cent. in 2005–06. Our current assessment of local authority performance is that we expect to meet the 2003–04 target and that, although challenging, the 2005–06 target is achievable.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Challenging is one way of putting it, but given that the Environmental Audit Committee has stated that the UK will not come even close to meeting any of its recycling targets because of a lack of funding, will she stop making false promises and start outlining to the House the concrete action that the Government will take to improve their poor record on recycling, given that failure could result in large EU fines, and incinerators being forced on local communities?

I understand and recognise the concern that we must do as much as we can to meet the targets, but it is not the case that the Government are not on track to meet the targets for this year. I note that the hon. Gentleman called for more funds, so I hope he is aware that the Government have already substantially increased the funds available for the disposal and recycling of waste, both through the general grant that goes to local authorities and specific grants that we have given to deal with waste. I note yet again that although Conservative Members continually complain that the Government spend too much, they call for us to spend more on specific issues.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that we might achieve our recycling objectives better if the authorities responsible for the collection of waste were the same as those responsible for the disposal of that waste?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We are examining the way in which waste collection and waste disposal authorities work together. I hope that he knows that the Government recently put in place measures that mean that such authorities will have to draw up joint management plans. We have done that precisely because we understand that there can otherwise be different interests and incentives for one authority to leave to another the burden of dealing with these issues.

Will the right hon. Lady explain how she hopes to meet the 25 per cent. target given that local authorities have demonstrated only a 1 per cent. increase in recycling year on year under her Government? Will she also address the producer responsibility obligations regulations? Although the new scheme comes into effect on 31 January this year, the regulations have still not been published. How does she expect the companies that will comply with the proposed waste scheme to prepare for that when they do not know what they are being asked to do?

I do not recognise the figure that the hon. Lady cited—perhaps it is out of date or reflects a broad picture that is not relevant on the ground. She makes a point about the availability of regulations. I am mindful of the fact that the detail of regulations that are approved often does not become available until much later in the day and that that creates difficulties. That concerns the Department and we continually work to rectify the situation. However, the solution is not always in our hands. If we have to wait for legal texts, for example, it can be difficult to get regulations out as speedily as we should. However, we continue to work at that.

What support she will provide to the east coast fishing industry following the recent catch and catching time restrictions imposed under the common fisheries policy. [146370]

The settlement we achieved at the December Council provides good support to the east coast industry through increases in quotas and the roll-over of the fishing days for cod vessels in the North sea.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's concern but I wonder whether he is being a little overoptimistic. The financial situation of the Grimsby fishing industry and the east coast fishing industry in general is desperate. We suffer from the same restrictions on catches and days at sea as the Scots—the restrictions were imposed because of the disastrous failure of the common fisheries policy—but although the Scottish industry got a £10 million lifeline last year and hopes to get a lifeline of the same scale this year, the east coast industry got nothing. Surely it is important to keep a viable English industry going on the east coast so that we can inherit the better times that should lie ahead. What is he doing about that?

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the hard times faced by the industry in Grimsby in recent years, but I ask him to recognise the very real gains that we made at the December Council: a 55 per cent. increase in the haddock quota in the North sea and a 28 per cent. increase in the prawns quota. The chief executive of Grimsby fish market, Mr. Martin Boyers, said:

"It is as good an outcome as you could possibly get",

"encouraging …it means that the East coast fleet will be economically viable."

I do not know what world the Minister is living in. Does he not understand that the increase in the haddock quota has been totally wiped out by the ridiculous map that he and his officials accepted, which bears no relation whatever to the proposals of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation? Does he not understand that the major haddock fishing area has been put into a cod-restricted zone, which means that on one side of the line it will be impossible to fish the quota, and on the other the fishermen will be lucky if the catch lasts until June?

The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish. We achieved at the December Council much of what he has been calling for over the last six months: a massive increase in the haddock quota for the areas that he is talking about and a huge increase in the prawns quota. I shall quote the industry spokespeople in Scotland, rather than the hon. Gentleman. The head of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Alec Smith, said:

"The increase in haddock is good news",

"The deal overall must be welcomed."

My hon. Friend will know that it is not all bad news on fish stocks: there is an abundance of herring off the east coast, which shows that fish stocks can recover if not too many are taken out. Will he set up a small study group to see how we can derive value from that herring? The inshore fishermen of Lowestoft could make a living from it if they could get a price, but at the moment they cannot. How about a marketing initiative for herring?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely constructive suggestion, which I shall consider carefully. He is absolutely right; one of the sad things about the current state of the industry is that some of the species that are most plentiful, such as herring, do not have an enormous domestic market, although there is a market in other parts of the world, not least in Europe. We therefore have a successful, thriving export industry of herring and herring products. I recommend bloaters to anyone who has not yet tried one, and I think that the most delicious fisheries product is soft herring roe. I shall try to do everything that I can to encourage more people to eat herring and herring products.

If she will make a statement on the outcome of last month's EU Fisheries Council and its consequences for the North sea fleet. [146371]

If she will make a statement on the recent European Fisheries Council. [146374]

As I have already said, the outcome was a good one for the UK. We agreed a long-term recovery plan for cod, the stock levels of which remain worryingly low, and we managed to maximise opportunities to catch those species that are plentiful, such as haddock and prawns.

I particularly welcome the increase in the nephrops quota; it has certainly thrown a lifeline to the local boats that fish for prawns in my constituency. However, if the Commission is now persuaded of the important concepts of decoupling and spatial management, surely it should also accept that micro-management from Brussels does not make sense in the long term and is counterproductive for effective fishery management. If, as is rumoured in the press, the Downing street strategy unit will, in the next few weeks, come up with a recommendation radically and dramatically to improve the regional management powers available to committees in this country, will DEFRA Ministers, and the hon. Gentleman in particular, support such a concept?

Yes, of course. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's constructive response to the outcome of the December Council, in stark contrast to that of the spokesman for the Scottish nationalists. It was a good deal and, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) said, we managed to persuade the Commission to accept the idea of spatial management—a concept that came from the Scottish industry. We also managed to persuade the Commission to accept the concept of decoupling. I hope that we can build on that, and I hope that when the strategy unit reports, we will be able to make faster progress towards regional management of our fishing industry.

Does the Minister share the concern of fishermen in my constituency that an unintended consequence of the deal that was struck in Brussels is that they will be forced out of the haddock grounds where they have always caught the biggest, best and most mature haddock, as those grounds are now in the restricted zones, so they will be forced inshore, where younger, smaller fish are found? Does he agree that that is not in the interests of either fish conservationists or fishermen, and what can he do between now and the finalisation of the regulation to ensure that it does not happen?

I am happy to look at the technical matters raised by the hon. Gentleman. He may not be aware that the Commission's original map on spatial management around his constituency would have created severe difficulties, because it included inshore waters, meaning that the result would have been much worse. In return for the massive increase of 55 per cent. that we achieved in the haddock quota, we rightly took on board some of the industry's suggestions about spatial management, so that people will be able to catch that extra quota in geographical areas where there is not a lot of cod. The only way we could persuade the Commission to increase the haddock quota was to assure it that that would not mean catching a lot more cod.

I welcome the visit that the Minister will shortly make to my constituency, and I congratulate him on the fact that the cuts in the plaice quota for the Irish sea are not as drastic as feared. However, when he visits my constituency to talk to Fleetwood fishermen, will he take on board their serious concerns about cuts in the quota for plaice, a stock that is within safe biological limits, and of which they want to catch more to remain viable?

I look forward very much indeed to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency on Monday. I welcome her remarks on the fact that we managed to avoid a much more substantial cut in the plaice quota. She may not understand the so-called Hague preference—I do not want to go into detail about it now, but I will discuss it with her and the industry on Monday during my visit. I should like to point out that there were massive increases in the Irish sea quota for haddock, which was trebled. I hope that that will help to mitigate the cuts in the plaice quota that my hon. Friend's local industry is worried about.

When will Her Majesty's Government realise that the European Union's common fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster for the North sea fishing fleet and fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom? Instead of making these pathetic pilgrimages to Brussels to be told what to do by the European Fisheries Council, the Minister should visit Norway and Iceland, proud, independent maritime nations that manage their own fish stocks admirably.

I think it is fallacious to try to compare the United Kingdom fishery, a mixed fishery in close proximity to other EU nations, with Norway, Iceland or the Faroes, as many Opposition Members constantly do. We are, however, always keen to learn from the way in which other countries manage their fishing industries. Indeed, over the past 12 months, the Prime Minister's strategy unit has taken a close look at that, and has visited and spoken to those countries and their industries to see whether there are any lessons that we can learn.

There are serious concerns among people involved in the catching sector, as was articulated by my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and I accept that those fishermen feel that they need extra financial assistance. However, what assessment has the Minister made of the industry's land-based operations in the processing and selling sectors following his discussions in Europe and his recent visit with me to the Grimsby fish auction?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the UK fishing industry is more than just a catching industry. We have a highly successful fish processing industry, including operations in her constituency, which is going from strength to strength, creating wealth and providing employment. Many other sectors of the fishing industry are also forgotten, such as recreational angling, which, according to latest estimates, contributes about £3 million to the economy every year.

The Minister attached great importance to fishermen's comments when he described the outcome of the council meeting. However, the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations said that he was "bitterly disappointed" at that outcome. Alex Smith of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, whom the Minister cited, said that his "worst fears" had been realised and declared:

"We were sold down the river".

"If Ben Bradshaw thinks this is a 'negotiating triumph' he must be plain barking mad".

No. It is amazing that the spokesman for the official Opposition cannot recognise a good deal when it leaps up and bites him in the face. I am happy to carry on exchanging quotes from the industry, with whose members I had regular contacts all the way through the Council. They privately told me to my face that this was the best deal they had achieved for years, or ever under the Conservative Government. The president of the national federation, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, Mr. Sam Lambourn, said it was "a positive result".

The Commission having accepted in principle the spatial management approach of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, it is clear from the debates that took place in the Council that there will be additional enforcement measures. What progress has my hon. Friend made in that respect? Can he give us some details about how he intends to approach the matter?

We are taking extra enforcement measures all the time. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that if we are to continue to convince the Commission and other European Union countries that we can continue to catch at the present rate, given the science, the system must be properly enforced. As he may be aware, we are under threat of infraction proceedings from the European Commission because of our enforcement. We are looking carefully at what more we can do. One measure is the introduction of satellite monitoring equipment, which will be tamper-proof, in all over-15m vessels. At the request of the industry, we have agreed to fund that fully, rather than expecting the industry to fund it.

When she next expects to meet representatives of rural businesses to discuss the prompt payment of bills. [146372]

My colleagues and I frequently meet representatives of rural businesses and we discuss a range of issues. Any request to discuss the prompt payment of bills would be considered on its merits.

Is the Minister aware that according to the Forum of Private Business, 350 contractors who helped solve the foot and mouth crisis are still owed over £100 million? That is a staggering figure, and includes firms such as R. W. Pugh of Montgomeryshire, which is owed £500,000, and Luke Furse Earthmoving Ltd. of Devon, which did a superb job and is owed £1.2 million. Luke Furse is a family owned business that has spent £100,000 on legal fees and is being driven to despair. When will the Minister play fair? When will he try and rebuild his credibility with the rural community? When will he follow his own rules and guidelines on the payment of bills?

That is a slightly hysterical way of asking the question. Opposition Members would be very critical of the Government were we to pay bills in relation to which there were serious questions. It is right for the Government to have all claims carefully examined. It is a big job, but according to the estimates that I have been given, the process has saved the public purse—it is not the Government's money; it is the public's money, at the end of the day—about £800 million. It is right that the figures should be scrutinised.

When my right hon. Friend meets rural businesses, will he take up with them the question of how banks impact on rural areas? We were pleased that banks were so positive in relation to farming businesses during the foot and mouth outbreak, but they do not seem to be quite as helpful in dealing with rural manufacturers.

Manufacturing in rural areas is extremely important. More people are employed, per head, in manufacturing in rural areas than in urban areas, so issues relating to the services that they receive are important. As my hon. Friend suggests, we found a ready response from the banks to the problems facing organisations outside the farming industry as well as inside it, as a result of the impact of foot and mouth disease. If my hon. Friend has specific issues in mind, I shall be glad to discuss them with him.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), confirmed to me on 6 November in the Chamber that over £50 million was being withheld in respect of claims for foot and mouth compensation pending a potential fraud investigation. Following the acquittal this week of Mr. Pedrick of Sheepwash in Devon in respect of a claim for £17,000, which I am told has cost the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a six-figure sum to pursue legally, can the Minister say how many more cases have yet to be resolved, whether the £20 million estimate for legal bills will be exceeded, and to what extent and when farmers with a legitimate claim will have those claims properly resolved?

Where we know that a claim is legitimate, it is paid. Legal and other costs incurred as a result of queries on claims have to be set against the large sums of money that I am talking about. As we are talking about possible savings of about £800 million, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we are right to scrutinise claims carefully where they appear not to be substantiated, where they are not submitted in a timely manner or where there is a lack of invoices. It obviously would not be right for me to comment on an individual case such as that referred to, but ensuring that money is paid out in a timely way only where that is justified is surely the right approach.

Pre-1997 life as a freelance accountant for small businesses in the rural east midlands now seems rather distant, but what would have been true then is true now—that cash is king for many small businesses and lack of cash flow can tip them over the edge. Will the Minister acknowledge that, despite the huge achievements—50 days down to 40 days in average payment time is great—there remain other things that our Government can do? Will he approach, with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the chief executive of Companies House and get her to use existing Companies Act powers to require the publication of average invoice turnround times in annual reports? That would buttress Federation of Small Business league tables and help a great deal.

I am not sure about my hon. Friend's specific proposal, but I am happy to consider that. The Department's payment terms are the payment of valid invoices for goods, services and works within 30 days of receipt and agreement. In the last three years, which includes the year in which foot and mouth had an immense impact, we have met that requirement in respect of more than 90 per cent. of invoices. Anything that can be done to assist small businesses is important and we shall be happy to consider that.

The Minister says that in the last three years over 90 per cent. of payments have been made within 30 days. How then does he account for the letter, admittedly dated a year ago, from his noble Friend Lord Whitty, in which he says:

"The Department's target is to pay contractors within 30 days of receipt of invoice."—

"Unfortunately, given the large number of suppliers of goods and services which the Department has contracted … this target has proved difficult to meet in the case of 9 out of … 12 invoices".

"DEFRA put me through hell".

The hon. Gentleman should distinguish between claims that are genuine, clear and not in dispute, for which I have given the figures for compliance with payment requirements, and those where there are questions. It is not surprising if companies that have put in a claim, and say that they have not been paid, do not refer to any disputes or disagreements with regard to the scrutiny that is necessary and that it is appropriate that we should undertake. As I have said, scrutiny of these claims has led to savings of the order of some £800 million. That is not a small sum.

If she will make a statement on the withdrawal of six GM seed applications for UK national seed listing by Bayer CropScience. [146375]

Bayer CropScience withdrew the UK national list applications for five oilseed rape varieties in November 2003. This was published in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette in December 2003. In 2003, a total of 56 UK national list applications for oilseed rape varieties were withdrawn by the applicants. Withdrawal of national list applications is voluntary and entirely a matter for the applicants concerned.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the likely reason for the withdrawal is that the industry's claims for GM crops clearly cannot be sustained? Has he seen the latest American research, which has been publicised by the Soil Association and shows that, after initial reductions in the early years, there was a massive increase in the chemicals applied to the herbicide-resistant GM crops compared with the non-GM crops? In the case of maize, this amounted to a 29 per cent. increase. Maize is, of course, the only GM crop that achieved a slightly favourable result in the Government's farm-scale evaluations.

I have seen reports on the research to which my hon. Friend is referring. It is important that we analyse those reports in some detail, and I am sure that they will be scrutinised by our expert scientific committees in relation to our current evaluations and discussions on GM applications in this country. It is certainly the case that in the field-scale evaluations, the detrimental impact was linked to the chemical application regimes, not with the genetic modifications themselves, although they are linked to the chemical regimes. That is an important consideration. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment is currently making a detailed evaluation of the field-scale evaluations, and I am sure that it will take this research into account as well. We will receive its report in the near future.

Does the Minister agree that we must keep an open mind on GM foods, that our policy must be based on sound science, and that we would be doing a disservice to consumers, farmers and the environment if we were to base public policy on dodgy extrapolations from one or two examples or from one or two dodgy looking research papers?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we must base our decisions on sound science. Any research must be properly evaluated in detail, whether the conclusions are positive or negative, and we would expect to do that. No country has put in place such detailed examination and evaluation of GM as this country under this Government. That is entirely right and proper, because we must be guided by the facts and by sound scientific advice.

When she expects to publish the draft Bill on animal welfare. [146376]

We hope to publish a draft animal welfare Bill in the first half of this year.

I am pleased to hear that news, but may I tell my hon. Friend about an appalling story that appeared in my local paper just a few months ago? Two young children went into a pet shop and bought a hamster. They then tied the hamster to a firework and ignited the firework, killing the hamster. Does he not agree that it is now urgent that the age at which children can buy pets should be raised to 16, and will he consider including such a provision in the animal welfare Bill?

This is certainly one of the issues that will be included in the consideration of our animal welfare Bill. My hon. Friend might already know that this will be the first opportunity for 100 years to make major improvements to our animal welfare legislation. The distressing activity that she has described is covered by existing law, but I recognise that a number of areas need tightening up. I hope that she and other colleagues with an interest in these issues will help us to produce a good piece of legislation that will stand the test of time.

What recent discussions she has had with the Department for Transport with regard to the environmental impacts of transport. [146377]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other DEFRA Ministers have regular discussions with the ministerial team in the Department for Transport on many matters, including the environmental impacts of transport.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware of the deep concern resulting from DEFRA's failure to provide sufficient sites for hazardous waste when co-location ends in July this year? In a written answer to me on 6 January, there was no indication of any discussions being held with the Department for Transport about the environmental impact of lorries full of toxic waste having to travel many excess miles across the country. Will the Minister discuss this issue with his colleagues at the Department for Transport as a matter of urgency? Will he also apologise to the people who are going to have to put up with those lorries full of toxic waste going past their houses, and for DEFRA's failure in this respect?

It is premature to talk about failure when the issue has not yet been put in place. The Government have set up the hazardous waste forum, where there is a dialogue between the Government and the industry on how those issues are being tackled and resolved. I will be meeting industry representatives in the very near future to talk face to face about the practical issues, which we recognise, and the hon. Lady should understand that the regulations that prevent co-disposal in existing sites do not prevent the construction of a separate cell, where hazardous waste can continue to be put on site, but apart from domestic waste. I am surprised that that issue has not emerged in the discussion that is taking place. That is not, in itself, a difficult technical solution, and some potential consequences of these changes have been grossly exaggerated.

Is it not inconsistent for the Government to pursue demand management for road transport via motorway tolling and congestion charging only for the aviation White Paper to reject demand management in respect of air travel, where the climate change impacts are far greater? What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that air transport is urgently brought within the Kyoto protocol, that emission caps are allocated to airlines so that they can be progressively reduced via emissions trading over time and that enforceable limits on noise and air pollution are placed on individual airports so that local residents do not bear all the environmental costs?

On the latter point, I can assure my right hon. Friend that the White Paper addresses the issue of environmental impact on people who live adjacent to airports and, indeed, flight paths. I accept the main thrust of his argument in that the air transport industry cannot continue to expect to be exempt from regulations and controls relating to carbon dioxide and its impact on the environment. We are having discussions with the EU about applying carbon trading to EU flights. He will he aware, of course, that this is a global industry; a global solution is required. We should not rule out any approach when considering the growth in air transport. That growth is a reality—we cannot ignore that either—but we must accept that the industry globally must come within controls that recognise its environmental impact and also the matter of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The Minister says that he has regular discussions with the Department for Transport, but a clear gap in those discussions was identified by the Environmental Audit Committee, which criticised the Government for their failure to undertake a proper environmental impact assessment of their plans for airport expansion. That omission has been compounded by the White Paper, which has spread blight far wider than was necessary. The Department for Transport has said that airport operators will have to pay for the problem of generalised blight, but what assessment has his Department made of the impact on council tax payers where the airport is in local authority control?

On the latter point, there are a number of airports under local authority control, many of which were pressing the Government for expansion along the lines set out in the White Paper. Of course there will be costs, which we would expect the airport authorities to deal with. They understand that very well in relation to their expansion plans.

What estimate she has made of the cost of enforcing new legislation on horse passports; and if she will make a statement. [146378]

The horse passports regulations will be enforced in two ways. Local authority trading standards officers will be responsible for enforcing the requirement to have a passport. The Meat Hygiene Service will be responsible for enforcing the legislation at the slaughterhouse. Enforcement will be subsumed in existing responsibilities and resources.

What will the Department tell people when they see an army of snoopers paid for with council tax to inspect their stables; when they see a law that has been condemned as defective by a Committee of the House; and when they see a measure that excludes most wild ponies, which do occasionally—and regrettably—end up in the food chain, while including donkeys and other ponies, virtually none of which do? Why have the Government wasted so much time in introducing such a ridiculous piece of bureaucracy just so that the French can go on eating horsemeat?

The hon. Gentleman obviously knows very little about the legislation and the reasons for it. It will clearly surprise him to learn that it has strong support in the horse industry.

That was an amazing reply. The National Audit Office has confirmed that the British Cattle Movement Service has lost more than 100,000 cattle, at a cost to the British taxpayer of £15 million a year. Can the Minister name three clear lessons from that fiasco to prove to the House that this latest bureaucratic nightmare will not lose a similar number of horses?

It was an amazing reply because it was made in response to an amazing question from an Opposition Back Bencher, but the Front Benchers are even better: they do not seem to understand the difference between horses and cattle.

If she will make a statement on the impact of dredging on the rate of coastal erosion. [146379]

There is no evidence that licensed gravel extraction off the coast is having an effect on coastal erosion, but as a precaution each application must include a coastal impact assessment, which is carefully scrutinised.

Given that many experts—including the head of the erosion project—believe that dredging can have a significant effect on the rate of coastal erosion, given that the revenue from dredging off the Norfolk coast amounts to some 40 per cent. of national revenue from dredging in any one year, and given the extent of erosion off the Norfolk coast, is it not time for an urgent inquiry into the impact of dredging on the rate of coastal erosion?

Research has been and is being done on both the impact of dredging and the movement of sediments in the southern North sea. In the 1990s Southampton university conducted studies on the impact of offshore dredging and concluded that it had no real impact on sea bed patterns or erosion. More recently, in 2002, a study was undertaken of the movements of sea bed sediments in the southern North sea. Although it did not specifically examine the dredging itself, it too concluded that dredging was having no direct impact on coastal erosion.As far as I am aware, there is only one example of a proven impact on coastal erosion, and that dredging was immediately inshore.

If she will take steps to increase the farm-gate price of milk for UK dairy farmers. [146380]

The reasons for low farm-gate prices over the past few years are complex, and cannot be reduced to a single factor. Many of them are for the industry to address. However, the Government can and have taken action in line with their strategy for sustainable farming and food to facilitate such developments.

The Secretary of State will know of my long interest in the UK dairy industry. Does she admit that it is extremely important to many parts of the countryside throughout the UK? While there has indeed been a strengthening of support prices in recent times, for obvious reasons, the price increase is not percolating down to farm-gate prices. What meaningful action are the Government taking to ensure that the dairy industry supply chain operates correctly, thereby addressing the frustration of dairy farmers—not least in my constituency, where the industry is very important? They are justifiably concerned about farm-gate prices, and feel that producers should receive a bigger and fairer return for what they produce.

I do recognise both the hon. Gentleman's long-term interest in this issue and the importance of the industry to the country as a whole. I am grateful to him for recognising that there has been a recent strengthening in the price, and I understand his concern as to whether that is reflected at the farm gate. However, there have been recent signs that cheese prices have improved, which may lead to a further increase in prices, at least in the short term.

How many of the dairy farmers for whom more money is being sought were among those farmers and rural businesses who made false and exaggerated claims to the Government for compensation and repayment after the recent foot and mouth outbreak? Can my right hon. Friend tell us what steps she is taking to reduce the welfare dependency that is prevalent among so many of our farmers?

Although we of course deplore, as the whole House doubtless deplores, any steps that were taken to make false claims on taxpayers' resources during the foot and mouth outbreak, I do not believe that there is any indication that a particular sector is more responsible than another. However, my hon. Friend is right in that there is a widespread wish, including within farming itself, for a change in the way that we support British agriculture, making it more related to the actions of the market. Indeed, that process underpins the common agricultural policy reforms that we negotiated recently, and we are in continuing discussion about how we implement those reforms in the near future.

If she will make a statement on Government assistance to fruit farmers in Kent. [146381]

Fruit farmers in Kent, like fruit farmers in the rest of the country, receive benefits from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' substantial research and development programme, of which about £2.5 million is being spent in this financial year on relevant research at East Mailing, and on the national fruit collection at Brogdale. Producer organisations in the fruit sector receive about £3.5 million a year in assistance from the EU. In addition, growers are eligible for assistance under the England rural development programme and other Government schemes.

Bearing that reply in mind, can the Minister therefore explain to the House why the national orchard—the country's supply of fruit trees—has declined by a staggering 25 per cent. since this Government came to power?

The timing, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, may not be related to electoral decisions in the way that some matters are. It is the industry's role to produce and to market goods at a quality and price that are attractive to consumers. It operates in a very competitive market, and certain products are more difficult to produce in this country than in others: those factors have certainly had an impact. Because of our climate, the yield of some varieties is not as great as it can be elsewhere. It is worth pointing out that horticulture has never received the price support that has caused such economic distortion in other areas of agriculture.

What steps she is taking to prevent a further outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [146382]

The many steps that have been taken to prevent foot and mouth disease, including improving the detection of illegal imports of meat, banning swill feeding, subjecting animal movements to licensing and a standstill period, are all detailed in the Government's response to the foot and mouth inquiries. Contingency plans have also been strengthened to deal with the disease, should an outbreak occur.

I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning the illegal importation of meat, because he knows that the British Veterinary Association has identified that as one of the main causes of foot and mouth disease. If he visits the US, Australia, New Zealand—or indeed most other countries—he will find sniffer dogs waiting for him whose job is to detect the illegal importation of meat. The last time that I raised this matter with the Minister, he accidentally told me that the UK had more than two sniffer dogs available. I am grateful for the letter of apology that he sent to me, but will he say how many sniffer dogs we now have for the detection of the illegal importation of meat, and how many airline terminals and seaports have to be covered?

That was a very long question and I shall try to answer as much of it as I can, if Opposition Members stay quiet for a moment. I have travelled to New Zealand, where I was snapped by a sniffer dog for carrying a piece of fruit. The hon. Gentleman is therefore not correct when he says that America, Australia and New Zealand have sniffer dogs only for meat. Those countries have them for the detection of other food products as well, but they have a very different tradition from us. The hon. Gentleman knows that New Zealand is especially concerned about its particular biodiversity.

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of English Nature in protecting sites of special scientific interest. [146383]

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gave English Nature new powers to protect SSSIs from harm, and to concentrate funding on improving their condition through positive management. The Department is working with English Nature and others to increase the percentage of SSSI land in favourable condition. The first complete condition assessment of the 4,112 sites in England was published in full last month. I should add that 1 have seen the work of English Nature on my recent visits to national parks, and it is very impressive.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but cannot agree with this classification of the work of English Nature. If I had to give it a mark for its 'work in my constituency, I would give it nul points. It gives us very little help in protecting SSSIs. We recently fought an opencast sand and gravel application between Methley and Allerton Bywater. If I were to write to the Minister, would he give me a considered reply that would help to illustrate the weakness of the approach adopted by English Nature?

I should be happy to look at any specific issues that my hon. Friend wishes to raise. The Government's 95 per cent. target is a tough and challenging one, spread across a very large number of sites. However, I should be happy to look at specific examples, if my hon. Friend would like to write to me.

When she will make an announcement on the method of making agricultural support payments to farmers in 2005 following the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. [146384]

We hope to make an announcement on the model for allocating entitlements under the new single payment scheme in a matter of weeks.

The outcome of the mid-term review was a radical and progressive step. Will my right hon. Friend go further down that path and introduce proposals that do not rely only on historical claims, but which pay close attention to those voices that advocate a hybrid solution?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those observations. We have received some 800 responses to the consultation that we carried out following the reformed negotiations, and their variety was most interesting. Some responses supported historic allocation, while others supported area-based schemes and still others supported hybrid solutions. We are considering all those proposals with great care, and are paying particular and detailed attention to their impact on farm incomes and on the future and sustainability of UK farming.

What recent assessment her Department has made of the spread of bovine TB. [146386]

Our latest assessment shows that bovine TB restrictions affected approximately 5 per cent. of cattle herds in Great Britain between January and November 2003, compared with nearly 4 per cent. for the same period in 2002. There were 2,869 new TB incidents in the first 11 months of 2003—a slight reduction on 2002. The long-term trend is still upward, although this has been distorted by changes to the TB testing programme in the aftermath of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak.

May I tell the Minister that this is a very serious subject for the cattle industry in the United Kingdom, that bovine TB is almost endemic and that it is creeping into different areas of the country? We have had trials and reviews, but what action will the Government take?

I recognise the seriousness of the matter, not just for the cattle industry, but for the taxpayer. TB in cattle is costing the general public more than £70 million a year—not just in compensation paid to owners whose cattle are slaughtered, but on research programmes, which are an important part of the action. The hon. Lady will be aware of the randomised badger culling trials that are being undertaken to try to ascertain the true role played by badgers and whether badger culling operations should be a possible policy option in the future. We are also reviewing our whole TB strategy. If the hon. Lady would like to feed her views and comments into that review, I am sure that they would be extremely welcome.