If she will make a statement on the commercial planting of GM crops. [94156]

No GM crop currently has all the regulatory approvals needed for commercial growing in the United Kingdom.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I am looking to the future. May I refer her to the report recently published by the Health and Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which states that

"allowing GM crop trials to continue does contravenes the precautionary principle"?

Obviously, what happens in Wales and Scotland is an issue for the devolved Administrations and not just the United Kingdom Government. I am not entirely sure whether I am familiar with the specific report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it has always seemed to me, just as it did to my predecessors, that the right way of proceeding is to examine the evidence and conduct proper trials. That is what the Government are endeavouring to do.

Further to those points, is my right hon. Friend aware of the position of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly in saying that the field trial results should be available before the public consultation on which she is embarking is carried out? The steering group of the GM public debate board has said that it finds it extremely difficult to envisage effective consultation without common timing throughout the UK. Will she take those points into consideration and understand that we, the public, feel very strongly that the results of the trials should be available to inform that public debate?

Of course, I always take seriously the views and concerns of the steering group, but it is not entirely clear to me that the public feel quite so passionately about the precise timing and conduct of the debate. As we are beginning to embark on the inquiry process, what I most want to know is what questions the public wish to have answered. I want to know what information the public want, as opposed—I say this with great respect to all those who are engaged in the dialogue—to what everybody is telling us that they want. I want to hear from the public themselves what they want to know, so that we can do as much as we can to give them the information that they seek in order to allow them to form their own views and judgments.

May I encourage the Secretary of State to be far more robust and proactive and to put far more time and resources into the public debate about GM crops and genetic modification in general? Will she ensure that the argument is not allowed to rest solely in the hands of the self-serving scaremongers who apparently represent a lot of views in this country? The vast majority of my constituents are hungry for knowledge, keen to make sensible judgments and, where progress can be made and benefits from GM shown to exist, they are ready to embrace them.

The hon. Gentleman clearly expresses one of the many strands of dialogue and debate on this matter. I note yet another plea for more expenditure from the Conservative Benches, but I fear that the £300,000 or thereabouts that we are prepared to put in seems a large sum. We are certainly very anxious to encourage informed dialogue on the issues.

If the Government really want to reconnect with farmers, as is stated in their farming strategy, which was published last month, why are some elements of the Government so keen to push GM technology on farmers when consumers are at best showing no interest and at worst advancing good arguments as to why farmers should remain GM-free? Whose interests would be served by pushing GM crops on farmers? The Prime Minister seems keen on the issue and Lord Haskins is also keen to lock farmers into contracts, but if the farmers want to reconnect with consumers, they would be best advised to leave well alone.

I am not aware that anybody is trying to push GM crops on farmers. Certainly, no one in the Government is doing so. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a perfectly proper legal process is under way whereby an application was made to conduct a process of assessing the possibility of commercially growing some of the crops in this country. It was decided by my predecessors that a proper trial should be conducted of the effects of growing such crops on the immediate environment. It is being conducted and that seems an entirely sensible way of behaving.

In introducing crop trials into this country, has the Secretary of State taken note of the experience in America, where the Organic Soil Association reports that in one Canadian province the whole organic rape sector was lost owing to the carrying out of such trials? Will she carefully consider the experience in America before introducing trials of any great magnitude in this country?

I am aware of the report that the hon. Gentleman cites. He will be aware that there are a plethora of such reports, which do not all say quite the same thing. The question focuses on crops that are being trialled in this country, which are not necessarily comparable. For example, one of the problems identified in the Canadian studies was that of gene stacking. That can occur only with crops that can cross-pollinate each other, which is not the case with those that are being trialled in this country.

If she will make a statement on the 20-day standstill rule for livestock. [94157]

We announced in a written statement on 23 January that, subject to satisfactory further consultation with the livestock industry, we intend to reduce the standstill for cattle, sheep and goats to six days with effect from 4 March 2003.A supporting document explaining that decision has been placed in the Library and published on the Department's website.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that many in the agricultural industry will welcome those changes, because the previous arrangement was having a serious impact, especially on smaller farmers. As the restrictions are intended to combat the spread of serious contagious diseases, which could be catastrophic, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that she will take action against any farmers, landholders, dealers or others who seek to break or circumvent the rules?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know, and other hon. Members will recall, that the Government were strongly advised by the Royal Society inquiry and the Anderson inquiry to maintain restrictions until an assessment could be carried out. I assure my hon. Friend that one of my reasons for mentioning the consultation with the livestock industry is that the changes are subject to the industry's commitment to a package of measures to improve the level of biosecurity and disease surveillance. In everything we do, we must be sure that we do what we can to minimise the risk of disease entering the country, while, much more importantly, minimising the risk of the spread of disease. We shall certainly keep that well in mind.

I, too, welcome the reduction of the standstill rule to six days, as will Northumbrian farmers. However, does the Secretary of State recognise that some of the other proposals that are out for consultation are causing real concern? I want to highlight in particular the movement restriction that limits the movement of sheep sold through livestock marts to 150 km, or 90 miles. That means that Northumbrian farmers will be unable to move sheep to the abattoirs that are used by all the major supermarket companies, and will be able to sell sheep into that market only by selling directly to the supermarkets, whose prices, as we know, will not be generous.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming our proposals. Of course I understand that there will be concern about some issues. The point of the consultation is to enable us to consider them all, and we shall certainly do so.

On the evening of 16 January, I spent an interesting three hours with 18 sheep farmers from the north York moors, who will be very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's confirmation of the reduction in the standstill rule from 20 days to six days. They asked me to press not only the Secretary of State but her noble Friend Lord Whitty to consider how soon they would be able to switch the six-day rule on to an emergency basis, so that in the event of a future outbreak the regulations could be introduced at that time of difficulty in the industry. Will my right hon. Friend address that issue?

It depends a little on what my hon. Friend was being urged to advocate. If people are anxious that we might need to increase the six-day period in a more difficult situation because of the implications of a disease, I assure him that the Government would review the matter at an appropriate time. However, if some people in the industry advocate a return to the days of no movement restrictions, I find that hard to contemplate. No Government would be keen to risk that, not least because of the huge consequences of the recent outbreak for the industry and a range of other economic interests in rural areas.

It would be churlish not to welcome the Government's late conversion on livestock movements—[Interruption.] I say "late" because the industry and Conservative Members told the Government weeks, even months ago to change the 20-day rule because of the damage that it was inflicting. Hon. Members of all parties highlighted that. Does the Secretary of State understand that the Pauline conversion will be useless if the changes to the operating procedures cripple our essential livestock markets, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) suggested? The threat to those markets is profound and it has been well highlighted in Farmers Weekly, as the Secretary of State knows. Will she guarantee that changes to procedures on keeping animals overnight, washing and disinfecting vehicles and the distances that animals travel will be genuinely practical and cost neutral to the industry? As she is so worried about the import and spread of disease—

Order. The hon. Gentleman gets one question.

I have not forgotten that one of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues—I do not believe that it was him—could not understand the reason for maintaining the 20-day standstill. That was an extraordinarily foolish comment given that the Government had been strongly advised by two independent inquiries, and continued to be advised by the chief veterinary officer and our chief scientific adviser to maintain such restrictions.

What action she intends to take in relation to the operations of the animal rendering plant at Nightingale Hall farm, Lancaster. [94158]

The responsibility for regulating air pollution, including odours from animal by-product rendering plants, lies with the local authority, in this case Lancaster City council, subject to appeal to the Secretary of State.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the revolting stink at the fats and proteins plant at Nightingale Hall farm in Lancaster has blighted the lives of thousands of people in the city for decades? Will he accept my congratulations on being close to achieving the effective regulation, which eluded us in 18 years of Tory Government and the blighted 27 years of my Conservative predecessor? Will he comprehensively resist any weakening of the odour boundary condition that he has suggested that he is minded to impose to protect my constituents, and thus ensure that he enjoys the honour and approbation of the fine, historic city of Lancaster?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner of his further inquiry. Smells from rendering are known to be especially offensive and I appreciate that there has been a long-standing problem in his constituency.

What steps her Department has taken to encourage corporate environmental reporting; and if she will make a statement. [94159]

We have pursued action in several different ways. Most importantly, the Government have set out proposals for strengthening the statutory regime for company reporting in our White Paper "Modernising Company Law".

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recall that in October 2000, the Prime Minister set a challenge to the top 350 companies to bring in environmental reporting by the end of December 2001, and yet a year later, only approximately a quarter are doing so? What is the Minister going to do to make that happen faster?

I am very keen that that should happen faster, and I certainly have sympathy with the hon. Lady's point. However, between 60 and 70 per cent. of companies in the top FTSE 100 now provide environmental reporting, and some of them at considerable length. About 30 per cent. of the top FTSE 350 report on their activities, with another 40 per cent. making some form of public statement about their environmental engagement. Matters are progressing, and as I said, the White Paper "Modernising Company Law" requires that about 1,000 of the most economically significant companies in the country include information on environmental, social and community issues in a new operating and financial review—which they will be asked to produce—where those matters are material to, or relevant to, the understanding of the business. After five years of exhorting industry, that is now the right way forward.

I welcome what the Minister said in his initial response, but will the Government's commitment to greater corporate responsibility and the public reporting of corporate environmental standards, which they made last year at the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development, result in the implementation of the intergovernmental agreements through national regulations in this country?

I have already explained what we propose to do about environmental reporting. The wider issue of corporate social responsibility was on the agenda, and a decision was reached within the text of the WSSD. We are certainly keen to follow that up, and discussions are taking place within the Government as a basis for further, wider international discussions on how proper measures on corporate social responsibility can be implemented.

Is it not time for the Government to set more of an example to the private sector in terms of corporate environmental reporting? Can the Minister confirm that every Government Department is obliged to prepare a sustainable development report to show how its policies and expenditure plans help to deliver the Government's environmental objectives? These reports are currently kept secret, and rather than lecturing the private sector about its responsibilities, will the Minister commit himself today to making those Government reports public, and thereby start to practise what he is so keen to preach?

The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The Government Green Ministers Committee, which I chair, has published three annual reports that give detailed information on a whole range of indicators on the performance of all Government Departments. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I suggest that he look at those reports. I am extremely keen that there be full transparency and publicising of the performance of Government Departments—both where we do well, as we generally do, and where we do not do so well. I should also point out that the Government's framework for sustainable development on the Government estate requires Departments to report publicly on environmental performance in respect of environmental management systems, travel arrangements for staff and their environmental impact, and water usage. We are considering taking those measures further.

What steps she plans to take to ensure that safe and effective pig farrowing systems are implemented. [94162]

We are funding research into the welfare of the sow and her piglets from farrowing to weaning. We are not yet able to recommend alternatives, because of the adverse effect on piglets.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Animal welfare groups take the view that farrowing crates are unnecessarily cruel, and look to the experience of other countries that look after farrowing pigs in different ways. Has my hon. Friend discussed with the industry ways of creating commercial incentives to look into more animal-friendly ways of looking after farrowing pigs, and to examine not only crates but other issues such as hard flooring and supervision at birth so as to improve both the care of pigs and the survival of piglets?

My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Of course we want to improve the welfare of farrowing sows, but I am sure that she will understand that farrowing crates are used because of the risk of sows rolling on piglets, and piglet mortality. We have been funding a range of research that has considered the points that she has mentioned. Unfortunately, although some of the prototype farrowing crates performed quite well in research conditions, in commercial conditions the mortality rate was nearly double the normal rate. We are funding research into the management of sow and litter in a free-farrowing environment, which includes early life programming, stress responses in the farrowing sow, and an epidemiological study of risk factors associated with pre-weaning mortality on commercial pig farms. All those studies are examining better ways of improving welfare, while recognising the commercial nature of the operation.

I hope that the Minister will take account of any new animal welfare measures in the pig industry in the context of the rest of the EU, and that we will not take any unilateral action. We are all concerned about animal welfare, but I hope that he will emulate the example set by the Conservative Government when I secured Europe-wide agreement on a timetable for the abolition of veal crates. It can be done—and if the Minister wants any tips I shall be happy to share some with him.

The hon. Lady will know that I too had some involvement in some of those campaigns at the time. She will also know that we have reached EU-wide agreement to phase out sow stalls and tethers across the EU, as has been done unilaterally in the UK—although we are disappointed that the phase-out date is 2013; we would have preferred a much earlier date. We have made it a priority to advance animal welfare issues on an EU-wide basis, and also to include them in World Trade Organisation talks.

I welcome the Government's general support for the new EU directive that requires the provision of straw and other natural products in pigs' enclosures to enhance their well-being. However, groups that campaign for animals are bitterly disappointed to hear that the Government are considering watering down the directive's requirements and substituting plastic footballs on chains for those natural products. Will my hon. Friend reconsider, and implement the whole EU directive without dilution?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we have no intention of watering down the directive. Some of the press reports that he may have read have been somewhat inaccurate; it is always a mistake to believe every thing that we see in the newspapers. I can assure my hon. Friend that "manipulable materials" are such things as peat, compost substitute or straw. which pigs can manipulate, and which improve their welfare and the quality of their environment; things such as chains and balls are also included, but pigs can soon get bored with those. The directive covers a range of measures that are part of current good practice in the pig industry. We are pleased to see those standards being established across the whole EU. I assure my hon. Friend that we will not see pigs queueing up to join our Sunday league football teams.

What research she has commissioned into the condition of private sewers. [94164]

Mr. Morley—[Laughter.] Sorry, I meant to say "Mr. Speaker". I have not quite got there yet.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, given the scale and long-standing nature of the problem, the research will be welcomed? When he is preparing the forthcoming water Bill, will he look closely at trying to address this issue?

I understand that this is an important matter in many hon. Members' constituencies, and my hon. Friend has been active in raising the problems of private sewers with the Government. The W.S. Atkins study is designed to ascertain the scale of the problem, and it will report in the spring. After consultation on the report, costed solutions will be prepared for consultation in the autumn. The water Bill will acknowledge some of the problems, and it will deal with sewer connections outside the curtilage. However, it is not designed to address in detail the problem that my hon. Friend has described.

I acknowledge that many unadopted private sewers are in very poor condition and would almost certainly benefit from substantial upgrading and investment, and that there is an argument for an industry-wide protocol. However, does the Minister accept that there is almost no problem known to human kind that would not be worsened by nationalisation?

It is not a matter of nationalisation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government have agreed a protocol with developers and builders to ensure that the standard of sewers is consistent. That helps in relation to adoption, but I accept that there are problems. Many of them are the result of the failure of private companies to install sewers properly. In some cases, they expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill. We must look at that carefully, because it is no consolation to the many people who are suffering as a result.

It is all too easy for private sewers to be out of sight and out of mind. It is important that the Atkins research is used to best effect. Will my hon. Friend undertake to make sure that the research's recommendations are included in the Ofwat review of water prices, with a view to adopting private sewers?

The review that is currently under way is looking at the regulator's role in matters such as sewer flooding. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), this is a big issue. I know that my hon. Friend has also been active in the matter, and that she has particular problems in her constituency. The W.S. Atkins study is the right way to proceed. We need to understand the scale of the problem, which may be quite large. We also need to understand the costs involved, the implications, and how best to address the problem.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the European water framework directive on UK industry. [94165]

The Government published an assessment in 2001 and we plan to publish an updated version later this year.

The initial consultation included an estimate that implementing the directive would cost agriculture between £0.6 billion and £2.9 billion. When will the final consultation begin? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that it will include the draft regulations?

The consultation is under way, and we have had two versions already. The hon. Gentleman will know that implementation of the water framework directive will last a considerable number of years—up to 2015. There is therefore plenty of time to look at the issues involved. However, we cannot escape the issue of diffuse pollution, to which agriculture is the biggest contributor, especially with nitrates and phosphates. We are addressing that problem by establishing nitrate-vulnerable zones. Much of the work included in the costings that have been made is already in place, and that is why the possible totals vary so widely. We are aware of the implications for agriculture, but we also accept that serious issues remain that must be addressed.

Will the Minister bear it in mind that European legislation has had an almost universally valuable effect on water in this country? Without that legislation, Britain's water would be in a much worse state. Does he agree that the directive is another measure that should be supported universally?

Yes, I do agree, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. The water quality of our rivers has consistently improved, as have drinking water standards. European directives have played a part in achieving those improvements.

Will the water framework directive not mean a lot more policing for the Environment Agency? How will it achieve that when it has said, for example, that it will take it at least 20 years to visit even those farms with a high risk of nitrate pollution? The agency is also reviewing only 1 per cent. a year of industrial discharges in the north-east, rather than 25 per cent. a year. Clearly, the agency needs more money. yet the chief executive told Members of Parliament yesterday that there will be a 12 per cent. cut in environmental protection money next year. Why is that happening?

The Environment Agency will receive more money next year. It wants to address a range of issues under its programmes and plans. It is taking a risk-based approach to enforcement, and I think that that is right. There are enforcement implications in that, but the water framework directive contains many common-sense measures that will address water quality and the ecology of our river systems. There will not necessarily be huge implications for enforcement, but I recognise that there will be some.

By the end of the year, the Government will have consulted three times on the water framework directive. How valuable are those consultations when up-to-date cost analysis figures have yet to be published? Have the Government's own consultants not said that the cost to farming will be around £287 million a year? Can the Minister guarantee that the directive's implementation will not be adversely affected by budget cuts at DEFRA? Why is there no reference to the water framework directive in the draft water Bill?

The water Bill is complementary to the water framework directive, which is designed to achieve different objectives, particularly on catchment plans and catchment management. We are addressing costs in the consultation, but, inevitably, in dealing with a measure that will cover the period to 2015, it will not be possible to have clear costings until we know exactly what the implications are. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a great many of the delivery mechanisms for implementing the water framework directive are currently being put in place. Those costs can, therefore, be taken into account, and they will not fall on farmers, industry or consumers.

If she will make a statement on the rural proofing of legislation. [94166]

Just over two years ago, the rural White Paper made the commitment that all relevant Government policy developments would be rural-proofed. Legislation is included within that definition. I am pleased to say that our colleagues across Government are increasingly working productively with us on the rural agenda.

The Minister will be aware that the Countryside Agency reported on 11 April 2002 that progress in the vital area of rural proofing had been very slow. He will also know that a further report prepared last October has not been published. Why is that so, and does the policy remain integral to Government thinking on rural policy?

Last year's report indicated that a lot of progress had been made, but that there was a great deal more to be done. I agreed with that judgment at the time. The report prepared halfway through the year was intended to help accelerate the process in Departments and was not meant to take the place of the annual report, which will come out this year. I hope that that will demonstrate the progress that has been made by Departments across Government. I work closely with the Government's rural-advocate, Ewen Cameron who chairs the Countryside Agency, and we have met colleagues across Government to accelerate the process.

When my right hon. Friend next does some rural proofing, will he rural-proof the roll-out of broadband? The rural parts of my constituency simply do not have access to broadband, which is crucial to developing the kind of new small businesses that are vital to regenerating the rural economy. For a long time, my constituency suffered poor transport infrastructure with narrow, winding roads. It seems now that the same is happening with the electronic roads—

Order. The Minister should not answer that question; it was far too wide.

Will the Minister give us some assistance as to what is happening at present on rural proofing for broadband?

May I answer both that question and the one put by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)? The Government have recognised the importance of broadband and the need to rural-proof the delivery of broadband in this country. I am pleased by the way in which colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry and in the rural development agencies—

Order. Is broadband the Minister's direct responsibility?

The rural proofing of it is, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister will know that it is not legislation.

When she expects to make recommendations about the disposal of radioactive waste. [94167]

Following consultation, we and the devolved administrations will set up a new independent body to review all long-term options for managing UK solid radioactive waste and to make recommendations to us. We shall establish it as soon as possible and we hope to receive its report and announce our decision on the UK's long-term strategy by 2006.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. She is right to want to come to the correct decision and to bring people along with her. However, it seems to me that a consensus has emerged among environmental groups and the industry that we should deposit that material underground in a way that makes it possible to recover it later if necessary, and that the only reasonable place for that is at Sellafield. As we shall reach that conclusion whether we take one year or four years to discuss the matter, should we not make the decision now and concentrate on making the process safe and determining how to compensate the local community for its involvement?

I agree with my hon. Friend that at present there seems to be a growing number of voices making some of the points that he has just made. However, experience of the subject suggests that as soon as anybody starts to think that there is a consensus and to coalesce around it, a lot of other voices are heard saying something wholly different. Select Committees in both Houses recommended that the course of action that we are pursuing is right. As it will probably take billions of pounds and about a hundred years to deal with the issue, it is probably still worth trying to put in the investment up-front to get it right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when Nirex considered Sellafield, it found that the geology of the area was not suitable?

Yes, I am aware of that. That is part of what I meant when I was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). He identified a number of elements and said that a lot of people think this or that and that a lot of people think that there should be retrievable underground storage. That is all true, but unfortunately as soon as one starts to get more concrete and to decide where the pattern of agreement might emerge, difficulties emerge with it. We have set in train a process to try to ensure that we build up an understanding of what really is the broad basis of acceptance and that is the right thing to do.

What arrangements she has made to discuss matters of sustainable development and climate change with the Government of Mozambique. [94168]

We do not have any immediate plans to discuss sustainable development or climate change with the Government of Mozambique.

Might it not be fruitful for the Government to engage in such discussions? The Government of Mozambique overcame tremendous problems caused by floods in that country about two years ago so, given our experience of flooding in this country, there might be a useful cross-fertilisation of ideas. For instance, the Speaker of the Mozambique Parliament organised a fund to assist people in Yorkshire, so we should be doing everything that we can to ensure that lessons are learned on both sides.

Of course, I entirely agree with that. Offhand, I do not know how much aid was provided by the Department for International Development at the time of the severe flooding in Mozambique in 1999 and 2000, as a result of the extreme climatic conditions, but I have no doubt that it was considerable. I should certainly welcome further collaboration between our countries. The key point, as to whether climate change is a significant factor in the increased magnitude and frequency of flooding throughout the world, is the importance of ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I am hopeful that that will be achieved in the first half of this year. Russia is the only country that still needs to ratify for the treaty to come into operation. President Putin has already given a commitment that he wishes that to happen and we are hopeful that the formalities will be achieved by the middle of the year. If they are, it will certainly be of considerable importance to Mozambique and many other sub-Saharan African countries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Mozambique made a most generous contribution to the people of the Vale of York following the severe flooding in parts of the area in November 2000? Would it not be appropriate, therefore, for the Department to seek an early meeting with the Mozambique Government with a view to undertaking joint research into the causes of climate change, which is leading to more flooding on flood plains such as the Vale of York?

Of course, substantial research is already being undertaken—the United Kingdom is a world leader in this—by the combined capabilities of the Hadley research centre, which is part of the Met Office, and the university of East Anglia. I am keen that there should be closer co-operation between our two countries. Mozambique made a remarkable and very welcome offer to the Vale of York and to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I am happy to discuss with the Department for International Development how we can deepen that co-operation to the benefit of both countries.

Given that my right hon. Friend's Department has a significant number of environmental and agricultural scientists, would it be appropriate for him to try to ensure that scientific expertise is made available more widely? In particular, will he channel some of that expertise through DFID to ensure that countries such as Mozambique may tap into it, as expertise is often precisely what they lack?

I very much support that proposal. There is no doubt that the way in which we can most help the developing countries is through more quickly and effectively building up capacity there, with more technological transfer and the spreading of scientific and technical expertise. Britain has a real offer to make. We already do such work. As hon. Members have mentioned Mozambique, I will certainly speak to my colleagues in DFID to find out how much further that work can be taken.

If she will make a statement on the latest proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy. [94169]

I welcome publication of the Commission's legislative proposals for reform of the CAP, which were discussed for the first time at the Agriculture Council earlier this week. They will form a good basis for what will he hard negotiations in which we shall be both positive and proactive in pushing for an early, substantial and balanced agreement that delivers a workable and fair deal for farmers.

While I acknowledge the need for CAP reform, does the Secretary of State share my concern about the present financial viability of cereal holdings throughout the United Kingdom? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the totality of prices available to cereal farmers plus the arable aid do not meet production costs? Later today, Scottish farm income predictions will show that the incomes of cereal producers in Scotland will suffer a further fall. Against that background, cereal producers are worried about the continuing proposals to cut intervention prices and to introduce further compulsory set-aside. Will she be careful to get enough flexibility from the review of the CAP to ensure that the viability of cereal holdings throughout the UK is guaranteed for the future?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are concerned about getting the right basic package as well as sufficient flexibility to reflect local problems. I confess that I am not immediately familiar with the sort of figures that he expects for the incomes of cereal farmers in Scotland. Certainly, there is a welcome increase in statistics on farm incomes. We expect those to be in the public domain in the near future. While I do not suggest for a second that that will resolve the considerable problems faced by people in the farming community, it is obviously beneficial.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Consumers Association's calculation that the average family in Britain pays a £16 farm tax every week and that 80 per cent. of that money goes to the richest 20 per cent. of farmers? If the CAP is to be reformed, is not it essential that the £1 million subsidies paid to huge farming businesses are changed so that those small farmers whose future is seriously threatened get a fair deal?

There is always argument about specific figures that come out in different studies, but I certainly accept, as most people do, that the CAP's present structure places considerable costs on consumers and taxpayers. Certainly, it must be one of the goals of reform to try to change that and produce a system that is fair, but we would like to see structures and proposals emerge from the reform package that are fair to all farmers.

Does the Secretary of State share my concern that French attitudes to CAP reform may undermine Europe's position in the context of the Doha declaration and the World Trade Organisation talks that are to come? Is she in any way building a coalition of support to counter French positions and to ensure that, under the modulation proposals, sufficient money is made available for rural redevelopment?

It must be a prime goal of the negotiations to ensure that enough money is available on the right terms, with the right flexibility and low level of bureaucracy, for rural development. I entirely agree with that point. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's initial remarks, I am anxious to ensure that all of us in the EU get the balance of our negotiating approach to the WTO meetings right. I am very conscious of the suggestion that, because Europe was not proactive at a sufficiently early stage in the Uruguay round, we ended up getting the sticky end of the negotiations. There is a strong area of discussion in the Council of Ministers about how we get that balance right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in years gone by, the CAP brought ruin and despair to many third-world agricultural economies because of the policy of dumping cheap food on those economies, with obvious consequences? Will she do her best to ensure that those policies are not repeated in future, so that cheap food is not dumped on the third world? Does she also agree that, despite the best efforts that were mentioned earlier, there is an increasing feeling that—perhaps partly because of the French position—the CAP is ultimately doomed, which would provide a sort of solution to the problems that many Labour Members would welcome?

It is many years since I first came to work full time in politics, and one of the first things that I had to do was write a pamphlet explaining the CAP—I have never quite got over it. So I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes about the difficulties that have been caused not only elsewhere in the world, but in Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) highlighted a few moments ago. Ever since I wrote that pamphlet, I have believed that CAP reform was an urgent necessity.

Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government share the Country Land and Business Association's analysis that, on the basis of the Commission's current proposals, British farmers, who receive about 13 per cent. of direct payments under the CAP, will be expected to shoulder 26 per cent. of the costs of CAP reform? Will she also say whether the Government consider that that would be a fair outcome for British agriculture and whether she will be campaigning for British farmers to bear a more proportionate share of the costs of reform?

Without entirely endorsing the precise figures—various people come up with different studies—I can certainly say that we have some concerns about the precise impact of the legal proposals that are on the table at present, and we have concerns about whether they are entirely fair to British farmers. I have made that point already, very forcefully, to Commissioner Fischler, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to make it in the negotiations.

What recent discussions she has had with colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry about the continued viability of rural village post offices. [94170]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had very productive discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the rural post office network last summer. Since then, I have been closely involved in discussions and decisions leading up to the DTI's announcement in December of a £450 million support package over three years for the rural network. That is a very significant and welcome announcement, and I will continue to work with that Department on this issue.

In the DEFRA public service agreement, which the Minister probably has on his bedside table, target 4 specifies that the Department must improve the accessibility of services to people in rural areas. How will the progress report on public service agreements, which is due to be published this spring, deal with the fact that 1,000 village post offices have closed since 2000?

The target is to improve accessibility to cash in rural areas. Post offices make an important contribution to achieving that target, and DTI officials have been fully involved in drawing up our plan for how we will achieve it, but that is not the only way of doing it. Increasingly, if we are to provide the service that people need in rural areas, we must recognise that sometimes people make choices that do not involve using local services. They might access services when they visit town or travel to work, reducing the call on local public and commercial services. We will therefore have to find new ways of making sure that we achieve such objectives. I assure my hon. Friend that the support to the post office network is an important part of making sure that we improve the accessibility of services for people in rural areas.

Will the Minister take an early opportunity to look at the forms and leaflets produced by the Post Office on how to apply to receive child benefit and pensions in cash rather than through a bank account? If he does so, he will discover that the Post Office seems to be directing people intentionally towards the bank account option, making it extraordinarily difficult for them to get benefits in cash. A particular point of concern is that the forms will only be produced on 24 March to be ready for 1 April. Does he agree that if people get their benefits through bank accounts rather than in cash, that will spell doom for hundreds of rural and urban sub-post offices?

I have discussed that issue with colleagues and the Post Office. What the Government are seeking to do is to make sure that choice is available to people, not to push them in one direction or another. People in rural areas should be able to exercise choice, as should people living in urban areas. The hon. Gentleman should not trivialise the very difficult issue of making sure that services are available to people in rural areas. I am sure that his comments about forms will be considered by those who design them. It is a question not just of forms, but of availability of services.

Obviously, we welcome the discussions that are taking place. Can further discussions take place to support rural post offices, and what role can my right hon. Friend's Department play in that? Will he also ensure that there is a continuation of next-day delivery, and that discussions take place with Postcomm as soon as possible to ensure that that happens?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Although I do not intend to stray into areas that are the responsibility of other Departments, we are keen to work with them to make sure that a high quality of service is provided to everyone. On the provision of post office services, several pilot projects up and down the country—I have referred to the Waters Upton initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will open in a few weeks' time—are bringing together a number of commercial and non-commercial services. As a result, more services will be viable in rural areas than would be the case if they stood alone. That is the way that we need to approach the provision of services in rural areas. I share my hon. Friend's concern about ensuring that there is equity of service for people in those areas.

What her Department's retirement age policy is. [94172]

The normal retirement age is 60. All staff below the senior civil service may elect to remain in service until the age of 65 subject to continued efficiency and organisational need.

The Minister will be aware that there is a wide range of retirement ages in the agencies and the Department for which he has responsibility. Will he comment on that? Is it the result of personal choice or departmental expediency? How will the forthcoming EU directive on equal treatment affect his Department's policy?

We seek to provide choice for people. We also want to ensure that people are in post who are able to provide the standard of service that the public expect. We have changed our recruitment policy to include those over the age of 60. However, everyone remains subject to the current maximum retirement age of 65. Flexibility and ensuring that we have the staff available to serve the public is the balanced approach that we take.