What assessment she has made of the prospects for reform of the common agricultural policy (a) sugar and (b) rice regimes. [126277]

Following the very successful outcome of last month's CAP reform negotiations in Luxembourg, which included agreement on a new rice regime, we are awaiting the promised Commission review of the sugar regime.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Andy Lebrecht and the agricultural specialists in my right hon. Friend's Department deserve our congratulations on their achievements in the latest CAP reform round. Congratulations are also due to Commissioner Fischler and his team of officials, 'who held out for a fair and rational approach to reform. However, as my right hon. Friend will know, more remains to be done, especially on the sugar and rice regimes. The current sugar regime, which is a protectionist regime that relies on exports and refunds, and passes the cost of the regime on to the consumer, is indefensible. May I urge my right hon. Friend not to give up on the United Kingdom's endeavour to have that iniquitous regime reformed?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will pass on his remarks to our officials. I share his view that this is a major achievement for Commissioner Fischler, without whose determination the scale of reform would not have been achieved.

Does the Secretary of State agree that what is distinctive about the sugar regime is not merely its importance for developing country exporters but that the resistance to reform does not come only from the usual suspects in France but from powerful grower and processor interests in the United Kingdom? What assurances can the right hon. Lady give us that she is willing to take on those domestic vested interests in order to open markets?

Precedent.

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the progress that has been made in CAP reform. We know full well about the difficulties that arise in such negotiations, but is she aware of the desire that the new sugar regime should be brought in as quickly as possible? For those of us who have an interest in the developing world, every day of delay is a disaster for individual farmers and their families. Can she assure the House that she will pursue the matter as quickly as possible? As I have said, every day that passes is a disaster for individuals throughout the world.

I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these issues. He is entirely right that the present regime is very damaging. The present European Union price is about three to four times that at world level. He is also right that the regime itself distorts international trade. As the European Union has reached the everything but arms agreement, the end to this issue is bound to come. It is a matter of how we best and most speedily manage the transition. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are strong advocates of reform in that cause.

If she will make representations to Essex county council to encourage it to exclude incineration as an option in the county waste management plan. [126278]

County waste management plans are a matter for the relevant county. It is for it to decide, following consultation, what options to include in line with the waste hierarchy and the best practicable environmental option as set out in Waste Strategy 2000.

The Minister will not be surprised to be told that that is the usual answer that we are given. I pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), for being the best friend that the environmental lobby had—some would say the only friend—in this Government. He was of the view that there is no legal requirement on Essex county council to include incineration in its waste plan. Unfortunately, the Conservative-controlled county council claims that there is. Given the confusion, would the Minister come to county hall, Chelmsford and explain exactly why the scheme is necessary, as his predecessor accepted a similar invitation to do just that?

I must say that I did not notice that in the diary, but of course I will look at that invitation and treat it with respect. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the green lobby is not friendless in the Government. As for whether there is a legal requirement to include incineration in the waste plan, the answer is that there is not. It is something for the waste authorities to look at in relation to the disposal hierarchy, at the top of which is waste minimisation. In some circumstances, there may be a case for some form of incineration or thermal treatment—incineration is not the only option. However, the choice of the most appropriate disposal and the most appropriate technology for dealing with waste is a local one.

May I tell the Minister that if he is going to Chelmsford, he will not get there without going through Thurrock, where we can show him the wholly unacceptable effects of decades of landfill? All those wretched barges that go past the House are heading to Thurrock with London's waste. The message that I want to give the Minister is that waste must be disposed of in the place where it is produced, not in my backyard or that of my constituents. While I am sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), anything is better than landfill—the polluter must always pay.

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend who makes a persuasive case for going to Thurrock as well.

Jerry Wiggin.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the rest of my family—I feel very welcome.

First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role on the Opposition Front Bench? I certainly look forward to his contributions in future.

How many representations she has received in the past month about the operation of the common agricultural policy. [126279]

In the past month there have been 15 meetings and events that I, ministerial colleagues and officials from my Department have attended in which CAP reform has formed a major part of the discussions. Those meetings included individual farmers, farming unions, and environmental, consumer and landowner organisations, as well as Ministers from other countries. We have also received around 30 letters and a number of telephone calls from hon. Members and members of the public about CAP reform.

Following the CAP agreement in Luxemburg, what impact on third world agricultural imports and exports does my right hon. Friend seek from the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Mexico? Will the United States of America be influenced by the position adopted by the European Union and being pressed by the Government?

My hon. Friend will know that the European Union has already made an offer on the issues of market access and related matters, which lies on the table. The element of the negotiations on the world trade round that had not yet been dealt with was the issue of domestic subsidies, which was subject to the recent reform negotiations. I very much hope, and it will be the negotiating aim of the British Government, to improve the position and the access of developing countries, and to liberalise trade in general. With regard to the United States, I am strongly of the view that it will have been a surprise to all our negotiating partners that the EU has moved so far and made such major changes. We believe that that puts pressure now on others to take heed and similarly to consider what moves they should make to contribute to trade liberalisation, and there is some evidence that such rethinking is going on.

With such advances in the reform of CAP, does the Secretary of State have a vision for the endgame on reform? Could we perhaps look forward to wholesale repatriation of the policy, and, if so, on what time scale?

If by the wholesale repatriation of the policy the hon. Lady means that there should no longer be a common agricultural policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is no good Opposition Members saying hear, hear. It was not we who brought in the single European market, and it is not possible to have a single European market without having a common agricultural policy. What is important, though, is that the core of that common policy should be much more satisfactory than at present. That is what we have just secured.

Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from upland farmers, such as those who live and work in my constituency in the North York Moors national park? The reforms could have a considerable impact on those farmers who are on marginal incomes, working on marginal land in remote marginal areas. If she has not received such representations, will she consider coming up to the North York moors and meeting some of my constituents to hear what they think about the proposals?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents, as ever. I am mindful of the concerns that he and others raise. It was very much part of our approach to the reform negotiations that we should have the capacity to deal with some of the problems and issues that reform will throw up, and we were mindful, as were many other member states, of the impact on those who farm marginal land. My hon. Friend and his constituents will like to know that we are about to launch a consultation exercise in England on the options available to us under the reform agreement, and we expect to follow that up with a more detailed consultation later in the year, when the legal texts are in place and there is more detail on the implications. One of the reasons for seeking, successfully, to negotiate a national envelope was to give us room for manoeuvre to deal with the kind of issue that my hon. Friend raised.

Does the right hon. Lady agree on the importance to farm businesses and others of making sure that there is a smooth transition from the current arrangements to the new system of payments? Given that her Department's figures, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), show that the Rural Payments Agency is late this year in dealing with more than 230,000 claims worth more than £95 million, what action is she taking to guarantee that the RPA will be capable of introducing the new system efficiently and on time?

I entirely recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Although we were a little disappointed in some ways that the initial proposal date for reform in 2004 was postponed until the beginning of 2005, that will help us in securing a greater possibility of smooth transition. We are very mindful of exactly the point that he makes. The RPA has been suffering after the installation of new IT, which was much needed, but has certainly caused difficulties. The staff are working extraordinarily hard to overcome those difficulties, with a certain measure of success. I assure him that it is no wish of mine to see valuable reforms discredited because we cannot introduce them as effectively as we would wish.

Despite comments from Opposition Members, does the Secretary of State recognise that the significance of the mid-term review is that it gives the UK Government and other partner states more flexibility to meet national need? Will she begin a series of meetings with farmers and landowners, so that they can understand the nature of the reforms and plan their businesses appropriately?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right that we need to get out as much information as we can as speedily as we can through organisations such as the National Farmers Union and whatever other channels we can use. We shall certainly endeavour to do that. As I said, I have already identified a two-stage consultation process, but one of the potential advantages that we see in the reform proposals is that they will allow us to introduce greatly simplified schemes, so I hope that the issues will not be nearly so difficult to explain.

What representations she has received on the proposals for rural development policy under the mid-term review of common agricultural policy. [126280]

We received 117 responses to our consultation on the Commission's CAP reform proposals, most of which commented on the rural development aspects. Like ministerial colleagues and officials from the Department, I have had numerous meetings over the past six months with a wide range of stakeholders. CAP reform was a part of those discussions, which included the wider rural dimension.

Does the Minister agree that the new system will be overly bureaucratic and extremely expensive to apply? As the current Administration cannot cope with the present rural payments scheme, how will they cope with the new one, which has to be paid into a central pot from which we will get back only a certain percentage to spend in this country?

I should point out to the hon. Lady that, for rural development, the package will mean that more funds have been switched from pillar one to pillar two under EU compulsory modulation. The implementation date has been brought forward a year to 2005 and the UK will get a bigger share of those funds, at about 11 per cent. We are working very hard to try to reduce the amount of bureaucracy that is involved in the England rural development programme. One has to accept that it involves a lot of bureaucracy, but we are trying to do all we can to use the mid-term review as an opportunity to simplify systems.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that rural development policy should include support for the development of biofuels, not only to give us an environmentally friendly fuel, but to create much-needed new markets for farmers? Does he agree that the key to that support is a reduction in duty rates? Are there any environmental reasons why there is such a large differential in the duty rate reductions given for liquefied petroleum gas and biodiesel?

The complexity of my hon. Friend's question illustrates the mixture of issues that this matter involves. I agree that we want to see the promotion of biofuels and ministerial colleagues and I are looking at that issue. Of course, the mixture of technicalities, the question of bringing products to market and tax regimes are all part of the bigger equation.

The Minister will appreciate that, under the mid-term review proposals, some farms will be eligible for all their land to receive payment under the new decoupled arrangements, while others such as those that have mixed arable and horticultural crops will still have to pay for all their environmental responsibilities, but not with money related to their whole cultivable land area. What will be done to respond to the environmental demands of those who produce horticultural crops either on 100 per cent. of their land or part of their land under the new arrangements?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. Of course, the choices that farmers made on previous occasions have implications. It is also worth pointing out that the Commission has committed itself to making transitional arrangements for member states that are operating voluntary modulation; that should enable the UK to roll out the entry level agri-environment scheme, which is important for the industry as a whole.

If she will make a statement on her work with the European Commission to devise measures to protect the Darwin Mounds from damage caused by fishing trawl nets at deep water levels. [126281]

We wrote to the European Commission on 23 June pressing the case for it to introduce emergency measures to close the Darwin Mounds to damaging fishing activities.

Is fishery protection going to be afforded this summer and autumn; otherwise, it will be goodbye to the Darwin Mounds?

I share my hon. Friend's frustration with the length of time that it has taken for us to get movement on this. However, I remind him that this is the first time that any member state of the European Union has requested that the Commission use its new powers to protect the marine environment—powers, I might add, that we helped to negotiate in the course of the reform of the common fisheries policy. Following talks in Brussels yesterday involving the head of fisheries in our Department, we are confident that the Commission is taking our request seriously.

How many individuals have participated in the GM public debate. [126282]

More than 1,000 individuals participated in the six regional launch events. Many more people have taken part in local meetings or through the debate website. Although we do not have exact figures, more than 17,000 feedback forms have been received so far.

I thank the Minister for that reply. As I understand that only 14,000 feedback forms were published, that is a pretty good result. At least someone is contributing to the debate. What was the tenor of those replies? Did they run in favour of the commercial planting of GM crops?

On the latter point, labelling and traceability has to be the key. We are strongly in favour of that, and we welcome the proposals that have been made by the European Union.

Given that the Prime Minister's strategy unit reported last week that there is currently no economic case for GM in the UK; given that there are clear health and allergy risks as there have been virtually no health tests on human beings in relation to eating GM food; given that the environmental farm-scale evaluation trials are extremely narrow and limited; given that the Canadian experience shows clearly that GM will wipe out the organic sector—

Order. Supplementaries should be only one question.

rose—

Order.

I understand the views of my right hon. Friend; we have had the opportunity to discuss them on several occasions. The report that came out of the No. 10 strategy unit was fair, balanced, open and transparent. It made clear, with no illusions, the detailed situation in relation to the economic role of GM crops and public reaction to them.

My understanding of the situation is that the Government do not intend that the debate will be closed down on any particular day; that their purpose is to stimulate the widest possible public debate; and that the only people who are seeking to close down the debate are those whose minds are firmly made up and firmly closed. Can the Minister confirm that?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. As with all issues, some people take polarised positions and are not prepared to listen to the arguments. I do not believe that that applies to the majority of the public, who are interested in this issue and who want to see the arguments for and against. I can confirm that this is an ongoing debate. A whole range of issues must be decided, such as the evaluation of the field-scale trials and issues of co-existence and of environmental liability. There will be opportunities for public debate and discussion, and we will ensure that the public get those chances.

But who will speak for those in the poorest and hungriest countries who feel that, at best, genetic modification is a technological fix that tackles the symptoms of hunger but does nothing to tackle the causes? Is it not the case that the problem—corporate control of the food chain through patents and seed ownership—remains unaddressed?

There are a range of issues relating to developing countries, including the claim that GM technology may offer advantages to them. Such claims should be examined on their merits, and examined critically. I also accept that GM is only one of a number of issues in terms of dealing with the problems of developing countries, and we should take all of those seriously.

But what is the hurry? The public are at best suspicious, the science is not ready, the supermarkets say that they will not stock the stuff, and it would be a public relations disaster for farmers. Does the Minister agree that these decisions should be based on sound science, not quick, make-do or hasty science? Therefore, what reassurances can he give today that he is prepared to face down the GM and biotech lobby and the United States to ensure that we do not take a decision in haste that we repent at our leisure?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this discussion on GM has been going on for long time. I participated in the debate on introducing the moratorium in 1997–98, when I was a Minister in the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That moratorium has been in place, the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops has been set up, and we have had the field-scale evaluations. A lot of hurdles remain to cross before we will be able to consider commercialisation in the UK, so I do not believe that there is a great dash towards GM.

My hon. Friend will know that the science review is part of that public debate. Can he give a date for its publication? Does he agree that it must be seen to be objective and independent? Does he share my concern that the food safety section on GM is being written, so I am told, by a Monsanto employee, who clearly has a direct interest in the industry?

I can tell my hon. Friend that the projected date for publication is September—

Of the science review?

Sorry, that review is expected to be published between the end of July and the beginning of August. It is true that the science panel has two members who are connected with biotech industries, but I should point out that it consists of 26 people, and that two other members are from non-governmental organisations. The idea is that the scientific panel should offer a balance of views, so that there is a proper. balanced, open and transparent submission that people can consider on its merits.

It is difficult to have faith in the Government's policy on GM when the former Minister responsible—a man whom I admire, the whole House admires and the Chancellor, apparently, particularly admires—is so doubtful about it. That right hon. Gentleman has called for sound, independent and thorough research, which is surely a prerequisite of a valid debate and valid conclusions. Will the Minister therefore make all such research that the Government have received available to Members of the House, commission new research when it does not exist, and have a public debate based on that kind of research evidence? If the Government do not do so, people will ask, "What do they have to hide?".

The hon. Gentleman is getting prematurely paranoid on this issue. I can assure him that all scientific papers and reviews will be made available to the House and to the public at large. The whole idea of the scientific review is to pull together the research that is being done on GMs, and I have made it clear that there will be an ongoing public debate on this issue. People will be free to express their views, as will hon. Members on both sides of the House, according to the procedures of the House. We will take that seriously and, above all, we will make sure that everything that emerges from the research, from public concerns and concerns raised by hon. Members is taken into account in an open and transparent way.

If she will make a statement on prospects for the UK beef industry. [126283]

The prospects for UK beef are excellent. The recent recommendation by the Food Standards Agency to phase out the over-30-month rule is a demonstration of high confidence in UK beef. Producer returns are at their highest level since 1995, and CAP reform will simplify support systems and encourage beef farmers to produce what the consumer wants.

The Minister will be aware that the lifting of the over-30-month scheme will be welcomed by everyone in the UK beef industry, particularly in my constituency. However, the manner in which the scheme is to be removed poses a real threat to price stability in the industry, with the threat of a collapse in market price if change is effected too quickly. Some very fragile rural communities face uncertainty once more. Will the Minister commit his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to looking once again into phasing out the scheme over two, three or four years, to provide market stability while ensuring that consumer confidence is maintained?

The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues. It is clear that a large increase in supplies of beef could cause disruption to the market. We are discussing the implications of changes to the OTM rule with the European Commission, which has primary responsibility for managing the market in the EU. We have also set up a working group with the industry to explore the likely impact on the market of increased supplies of beef and how they can best be managed. So we are addressing the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Does the Minister accept that to get rid of the over-30-month scheme would be an enormous prize for the whole agricultural industry? We had to introduce it because there was an emergency in people's confidence in food and in animal health. That had the consequence of closing our export markets. It would be absurd if we put the cart before the horse and failed to recognise that getting rid of the scheme would be the greatest vote of confidence that we could possibly give our industry. Will the Minister ensure that, even if there are risks of market disruption, they are balanced against the prize to be seized from the scheme's removal?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The confidence that has been placed in the British beef industry is well merited. When one meets beef producers around the countryside, it is interesting to see that many are now taking the initiative to connect well with their market, not only by producing what consumers want but by getting across to them the quality of the product that they are offering. I agree with the right hon.. Gentleman: we should have confidence in the industry.

May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has said? It would also be reassuring to know that the Minister was keeping under review the need to continue testing over-30-month beef. In particular, will he also keep under review the costs of those tests?

Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right; we are absolutely committed to that course.

If she will extend the period of the Government-sponsored public debate on genetically modified organisms. [126284]

The public debate was announced last July, and we have already extended the timetable by three months at the request of the steering board. The public can, of course, continue to debate the issues surrounding GM after GM Nation has formally concluded.

We have heard in the House this morning that there is still a great deal of interest in this debate, as well as a great many unanswered questions. I simply do not understand why the Minister cannot extend into the autumn this clear channel for the public to focus their remarks, given that so much more research is being produced. The university of Manitoba has undertaken an evaluation for the Canadian wheat board of Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready wheat, which concluded:

"Under current conditions the release of Roundup Ready wheat in western Canada would be environmentally unsafe."

It is because this is a formal process. The independent GM public debate steering board under Professor Grant has done a good job in encouraging public participation. That is why so much has been written about the subject recently and there is much debate in Parliament. That has been the spin off from that debate. However, we cannot keep a formal structure going indefinitely. That does not mean that the opportunity will be closed off for people to comment and to raise issues, for those issues to be examined, and for answers to be given by our independent specialist bodies, but we do not need a rolling, formal public debate with no end.

The public want more time to make their views known. The Food Standards Agency's report yesterday stated:

"The potential impact of GM crops on the environment was the issue that gave rise to most concern"

There are EU agreements on environmental liability. We have also asked for advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on how we should structure a particular liability regime in this country. I suspect that existing law provides recourse in relation to liability, but that is a matter for legal opinion. Liability is but one issue that is not yet resolved. We cannot have commercialisation until we have examined a range of issues and established a proper framework to ensure that, as the bottom line, if people do not want to buy and eat GM produce, they do not have to. That consumer choice should be protected, which is our intention.

Has the Minister noted that it is possible to produce valuable new species without resorting to genetic modification? Is he aware that F. B. Parrish Farms in Chicksancls in Bedfordshire has produced a new species of onion called the "supasweet", which is tear free and a valuable addition to the healthy-eating salad market? Will his Department do all it can to promote that product?

I have heard about this new onion development, and I am very impressed. I do not know whether it also helps with breath odour after eating onions, which would be a particularly impressive breakthrough. There have been an awful lot of advances in conventional agriculture. Although, understandably, people focus on GM, the report from the strategy unit stressed that GM is but one approach, and that there are conventional ways of achieving advances in agricultural technology. The hon. Gentleman has given us a good example of that.

What recent discussions she has had with the Department for Transport on the environmental impacts of aviation. [126285]

My ministerial colleagues and I have regular discussions with the ministerial team in the Department for Transport on many issues, including the environmental impacts of aviation. DEFRA Ministers and officials are closely engaged with the Department for Transport in taking forward the aviation White Paper and seeking to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed.

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. She will be aware that the royal commission estimates that by 2020 aviation's contribution to greenhouse emissions will have risen sharply to 22 per cent. of the UK's total. What assessment has she made of that, and of the impact it will have on the Government's aspirational targets for reducing CO₂ ? Will she work with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry, supporters of an international aviation fuel tax, to raise the issue of such a tax in the international forums that she attends?

Yes, I am conscious of the royal commission's assessment. I have not made a separate assessment or calculation, although people keep this matter under continual review. Irrespective of whether the precise figures are correct—no doubt different scientists will have different views, because that always happens—emissions from aviation make a substantial contribution, and we are mindful of that. As for a fuel tax, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have always pressed the International Civil Aviation Organisation to examine these issues, because they are subject to international, not just domestic, agreement, as he rightly identified.

During the period preceding the finalisation of moves towards an international fuel tax, has my right hon. Friend considered proposals from the Carbon Trust and other organisations for voluntary "green" carbon restitution levies on air tickets, related to the amount of carbon that could be restituted from the flights involved?

I know of a number of initiatives from various organisations, of which that is one. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to suggestions that, where emissions continue, we should consider creative methods of restitution. I think that that is a valuable and worthwhile initiative, particularly because it publicises the issue; but, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be the first to agree, it is not as important as mitigating the environmental impacts in the first place.

As the right hon. Lady will know, the Sustainable Development Commission believes that, given current trends, carbon emissions from aviation will negate all the savings made under the Government's climate change programme. Does she agree with that assessment? If so, are the Government now seriously considering bringing aviation within the ambit of the European Union emissions trading system?

What comes within the ambit of that system is a matter for mutual negotiation, and these issues will obviously be raised during such negotiation.

Has the Department considered, specifically and in detail, the environmental impact of airport expansion in the south-east, and have comparisons been made? If so, and if it is decided that expanding Luton would cause the least environmental damage, will my right hon. Friend make that point to her colleagues?

That is very much part of the evaluation that my colleagues in the Department for Transport are undertaking. I am aware of Luton's inventive efforts to press its case, and interested to note that my hon. Friend supports them.

What assessment she has made of the implications of the proposals from the Convention on the Future of Europe on processes for reaching decisions in the EU on environmental policy. [126286]

The Convention's proposals would leave the main elements of that process largely unchanged. However, we do not support the proposal to create a single Legislative Council.

I am pleased that, in its final proposals, the Convention restored environmental protection as one of the EU's core objectives after its removal from the original draft. Will my hon. Friend assure us, however, that the Government will ensure, in the negotiations to follow, that it remains one of the core objectives? Given the exchange that has just taken place on air fuel, does he agree that there is a strong case for the EU to have a greater role in co-ordinating environmental protection on a Europe-wide basis?

We think that issues such as air travel and pollution should be dealt with in the Environment Council, but I assure my hon. Friend that the statement about environmental protection in the constitution is considered important and is fully supported by the UK. We shall want to ensure that it remains.

During its analysis of implications of the draft EU constitution, what conclusions has the Department reached on why the concentration of marine biological resources is to be an exclusive competence, while the common agricultural policy is not? The Leader of the House was unable to explain that to the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday; can the Minister explain it to the House today?

I can certainly give an explanation relating to the common fisheries policy, which has always been an exclusive competence of the Commission. The constitution states the position exactly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals in the draft constitution for the European Union, which include greater powers for the European Parliament, will make further reform of the common agricultural policy more likely?

I think that there is an argument to be had on that point on both sides. We want to ensure that we do not have a hugely bureaucratic, cumbersome and slow decision-making process in the European Union. We recognise that it is important to involve the European Parliament, and there is a very strong role for co-decision, but it has to be balanced against the need to take quick and efficient decisions without excessive bureaucracy.

What representations she has received from representatives of the meat trade about the costs involved in the implementation of the fallen stock directive. [126287]

There is no such thing as the fallen stock directive, but I have received a number of representations about the costs of implementing the ban on the burial of fallen stock under the EU animal by-products regulation.

I recognise that the policy thrust is right and I acknowledge that the Government have done a lot in this area to date, but will the Minister assure the House that he will talk urgently to his counterparts in the devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales to try to establish a common, UK-wide disposal scheme? But in doing so, will he pay particular attention to the very large oncosts that some small butchers are having to deal with in terms of meat and bone refuse and off-cuts? In the course of their work, they are having to pay far bigger charges than certainly I expected. Does he understand that this is becoming an awful problem for Britain's butchers?

Yes, we do recognise that this is a serious problem. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot provide subsidised collection for retailers because it is against EU state aid rules; we can subsidise national collection only from primary production. I shall take on board his request that I speak to my colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—indeed, I have done so already. We are continuing to work hard towards a successful national scheme.

Is the Minister aware that hunts provide a very considerable service in dealing with fallen stock, and that if the Government are determined to go ahead with banning hunting, a real animal welfare issue will arise? For example, it is very difficult to get animals with broken legs to a slaughterhouse; often, they have to be transported great distances and endure considerable suffering. Will the Minister consider that issue and see what can be done to ease the problem?

I am aware of the role that hunts play in the removal of fallen stock, but I do not think that it is quite as significant as the hon. Gentleman suggests. A small minority of livestock farmers are involved, and they, of course, are also free to join the national scheme.

If she will make a statement on funding of rural community transport. [126289]

Funding for rural community transport schemes is available from a wide range of sources. They include the Department for Transport's rural bus challenge, which provides start-up funding, and the Countryside Agency's rural transport partnership and parish transport fund programmes. Long-term funding is available through the bus service operators' grant, and local authorities can also use their revenue support grant, and capital resources provided through the local transport plan system, to support community transport schemes.

I thank the Minister for that response. I agree that the Countryside Agency has done a great deal to encourage and facilitate the development of community transport throughout the country, but is he aware of the very real concern that exists that, as the pump-priming money comes to an end, there is no sustainable funding to take its place? What is he doing to deal with this issue, and is he prepared to meet representatives of the Community Transport Association and other interested parties to discuss their concerns further?

I am happy to confirm the importance of community transport, and I have met several people involved in a number of schemes in the past year. It is also worth noting that community transport plays an increasingly important role in rural areas generally. In recognition of that and as part of the Government's public service agreement target for improving rural services, we aim to increase the percentage of settlements in England benefiting from community transport to more than 50 per cent. by 2006. Pump priming through the Countryside Agency is meant to be just that: pump priming to help kick-start the availability of those activities. I listed in my original answer the various places from which support for community transport schemes is available.

Does the Minister understand the difficulties that local authorities and council tax payers face when rural bus services are funded for three years only? In the fourth year, there is a big hit on the local authority, causing council tax bills to rise even higher. If the services are worth funding, surely they are worth funding indefinitely.

It is a little odd to suggest, on the one hand, that we should be helping to pump prime while, on the other, complaining when funds are taken away. Local authorities have a role in developing rural transport for their local communities. Through the local transport plans, they are required to produce bus strategies and to consider how to integrate conventional bus services with health and community transport as part of an integrated public transport network. We have tried to provide funding to enable people to realise that innovative schemes based in local communities are an important part of the solution to the problems in rural areas, in which the Government have made a large investment over recent years.

As the Minister says, that there are 5,000 community transport schemes, running about 60,000 buses across rural areas. People throughout the countryside are extremely concerned that an overspend in the countryside and rights of way right-to-roam mapping exercise has resulted in a drying-up of the pump-primed funding through the Countryside Agency. Bizarrely, visitors to the countryside—walkers—have been given priority for Government funding over those who live in the countryside. Will the Minister reconfirm the central importance of community transport, particularly to the 25 per cent. of rural people who do not own a car, many of whom live in remote areas and are socially excluded? Does he accept that we need not only pump-primed funding, but long-term sustainable revenue funding for those vital services?

That was a bizarre, ill-informed and muddled question. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that no cuts of the sort about which he talked have been made. The budget for the rural transport partnership has increased since last year by £2 million to meet demand. A hold was put on the "vital villages" expenditure by the Countryside Agency, which was grappling with the problems of success. It had so many applications that it decided, rightly, to prioritise to make sure that money went to the places where it was needed most. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is embarrassed when he looks back at the 18 years of Conservative government, during which his Government did nothing to help rural communities in the way that this Government have done.

What plans she has to bring forward legislative proposals relating to common land; and if she will make a statement. [126291]

We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. In July 2002, we published the common land policy statement, which set out a comprehensive package of proposals relating to the registration and protection of common land and village greens. A working group has developed proposals for agricultural management of common land, and we will consult on those before the end of September.

Common land is not only an important agricultural resource, but provides opportunities for wildlife conservation and recreation. Given that a report produced by stakeholders in the spring of this year was unanimous in its support for further legislation, and given that the mid-term review will give more opportunities for common land to be used in innovative ways, is it not time for the Government to bring this forward as a matter of priority?

I have just indicated the way in which we will bring it forward. We recently had the report of the working group that we established, and we intend to consult on that by the end of September. I have not read the detail of the report yet because we have only just received it. The hon. Gentleman, with his constituency interest, will know that although the problems of common land and the biodiversity reasons for treating it with great care are understood, it is an enormously complex area of the law. I should be happy to discuss the issues with him once we have published the document, as I know of his constituency interest and the complexities in his part of the world.

What assessment she has made of the threat of BSE infection in the national herd; and if she will make a statement. [126293]

The domestic BSE epidemic has fallen from a peak of over 37,000 cases in 1992 to around 1,000 cases last year. We must not be complacent, but that is significant progress towards eliminating the disease. Equally encouraging, red meat consumption is at its highest since 1985.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and it is good to know that the incidence of BSE has fallen. However, the Minister says that he wishes to be complacent, so does he accept that one of the real risks of re-infection is the importation of illegal meat into the United Kingdom? When I asked his colleague a similar question some months ago, it was revealed that only two sniffer dogs serve all the sea ports and airports in the whole of the United Kingdom. It was promised that something would be done about it, so how many dogs do we have now?

We do not get BSE by importing meat, but the hon. Gentleman is also absolutely wrong about the number of sniffer dogs. Since the responsibility for policing illegal food imports has been given to Customs and Excise, the number of seizures has more than trebled.

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act: