What estimate she has made of the staff cost of the merger of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service as proposed by the rural delivery review; and if she will make a statement.[139828]

In my statement on 11 November, I announced my intention to create an integrated agency that would incorporate elements of the work of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service where those functions would most enable the agency to reflect its new remit. Plans for setting up the agency, including arrangements for transferring staff, are now being developed. I hope to give more details in the spring.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply, but has she received any extra moneys for the agency, given its new functions?

Sadly, no. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the functions are not new. We are considering ideas about a different method of organising the way in which we carry out the functions that the Department and its different agencies exercise.

Given the importance of the organisations in an area such as Somerset where we have a national park, areas of outstanding natural beauty and a coastline that is second to none, does the Secretary of State believe that amalgamating them into a bureaucratic machine of such size and complexity will maintain the parts of Britain that matter most? Will not a muddle of interference from Government and bureaucrats ensue?

We are anxious to ensure that we reduce the current bureaucracy and complexity. The House will appreciate that we have an arrangement of agencies and responsibilities that DEFRA inherited from the Departments from which it was created. It is our goal—I have made it the Department's top priority—to reduce, for example, the complexity of schemes, forms, bureaucracies and inspections to which Lord Haskins rightly drew attention in his report.

A couple of weeks ago, I visited Cressbrookdale in my constituency with officers from English Nature. It is an isolated valley that is home to a unique combination of flora as well as 250,000 visitors every year. I witnessed English Nature's work on the ground. It has a varied and wide function and I should like—I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees—all its functions in rural and urban areas to be maintained. May I put in a word for the maintenance of all its functions and for the leadership of English Nature to play a main role in future operations?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question, not least because it enables me to put on the record how highly the Department values the work and reputation of English Nature. He is right to urge his case, which falls on willing ears. We want to preserve all that is best and valued that has been built up in English Nature and ascertain how best that expertise and experience can be used to maintain a truly independent voice on behalf of those interests.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that English Nature is widely admired for its high quality and especially for its independent advice not only in the Department but many other quarters? Independence is a good thing, is it not?

It certainly is. We did not accept 100 per cent. of Lord Haskins's recommendations, which included the abolition of the Countryside Agency, because we believed that there was merit in preserving that independent voice on behalf of rural interests. We strongly value the independence of the bodies and wish to maintain it.

I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that. As she said, it is essential to maintain an independent voice on behalf of wildlife and the natural environment because both remain under intense pressure from road building, ports development, house building and chemical agriculture. Does she also accept that making environmental protection subordinate to farming and rural development is contrary to the Curry commission's recommendations, which the Government accepted, and to DEFRA's advocacy of sustainable agriculture?

Fortunately, there is no intention of doing any such thing. I emphasise to my right hon. Friend that we value the interests and concerns that he mentioned. I hope that he and others who have great experience and expertise will continue to scrutinise and comment and pass on the benefits of their experience as we develop the new agency. I am mindful that although there is great regard for English Nature, when it was set up after its predecessors were abolished there was great public anxiety, which it has managed to come through to establish a powerful reputation. There is no reason why we cannot build on that expertise, create bodies and a pattern of agencies that work with the Department and preserve the independence and value that exist in the current structures, but without some of the duplication and bureaucracy.

Tom Burke, a council member of English Nature and a former adviser to the Prime Minister, called Lord Haskins's proposals to subsume English Nature into a single huge rural agency "an act of barbarism" amounting to

"selling the biodiversity police to the agricultural mafia".

The hon. Lady should look more carefully at what I said when the Haskins report was published. I remind her that we intend to produce a much more detailed response than that preliminary, interim response to the arrival of the document in the public domain. We will do that in the spring.

What steps she is taking to reduce the time taken by the Rural Payments Agency to make payments. [139829]

The RPA is undertaking a change programme due to deliver in 2005–06. The programme is the cornerstone of DEFRA's strategy for achieving 95 per cent. electronic service delivery capability for common agricultural policy schemes. It will reduce the average time taken by a claimant to complete a CAP claim. All valid claims submitted electronically will be paid within two weeks of the start of the payment window, or three weeks from receipt where no payment window exists.

It is reassuring to hear about the change programme, and I wish the Minister well, but some claims are taking for ever to process. The Rural Payments Agency compensates food manufacturers for the difference between European Union and world sugar prices. That may be all very well for manufacturers making a million Mars bars a day, but for specialists making assorted biscuits, with a wide product range that is constantly changing, the complexities of the system are truly daunting. Is the Minister aware of the problem, and would he be willing to meet me along with representatives of the interests that are being crushed by this bureaucracy?

I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I am aware of the complexities of the programme, but it is worth mentioning that £750 million has been paid to farmers in the last month under livestock and arable schemes, at the opening of the relevant payment windows. We are significantly improving performance in a number of ways. I know that there were some teething problems when the RPA's new integrated system "Oregon Live" went live on 25 October, but I think that that too will help to improve the agency's record.

The Minister has not really answered his hon. Friend's question. He rightly encourages diversity in farming. The biscuit manufacturer mentioned by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is typical of those in many small industries: he used to be a farmer, and his biscuits are home-baked. He has a wide range of not only biscuits, but sweets and chocolates. The trouble is that a lot of forms must be filled in, one for each line. That may be easy enough when 10 million Mars bars are involved, as the hon. Gentleman said, but those who make products in small numbers must fill in a different form for each one. How can the Minister aggregate the system to encourage the diversity in farming that both he and Conservative Members want?

We are enthusiastic about simplifying everything that can be simplified, but we must meet the requirement under European legislation to account for public money going to those producers. We are always happy to look at industry's suggestions on ways in which things can be simplified, but we must meet those requirements.

IACS—integrated administration and control scheme—forms have to be submitted in April and May, but the RPA's customers sometimes find that there are serious payment problems many months later, after evidence may have been harvested. Can the Minister guarantee that all IACS forms will be validated by late summer so that farmers are not hit by unexpected cash-flow problems later in the year?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. As he knows, giving a guarantee is always unwise in this business, so I urge him to seek guarantees only when they can realistically be given.

When she last met Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss the future of the Scottish fishing industry. [139830]

I discussed the future of the Scottish fishing industry extensively with my Scottish Executive colleague, Ross Finnie, before, during and after a Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels earlier this week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is holding a video conference with Mr. Finnie later today.

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that haddock stocks are at their highest level for 30 years. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation has proposed seeking the decoupling of haddock and cod to preserve cod but allow the continued fishing of the more abundant stocks of other white fish species. Will the Minister take that point on board, reject any deal at the December Fisheries Council that includes cuts in haddock quotas and ensure that Scotland's fishermen can continue to catch Scotland's premier fish?

Yes, I have already taken that point on board, as have my officials, and we raised it with the Commission and its officials in the run-up to the December Council. The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about haddock, but other stocks are also in good shape. One has to be cautious about one single year of haddock, but he is right. I do not want any decisions at the December council on cod, which are necessary because of the state of cod stocks, to have a negative impact on the ability of Scottish fishermen or, indeed, fishermen in the rest of the UK, to catch fish of which there are healthy stocks.

May I wish my hon. Friend well in the arduous discussions that he is about to embark on? It is the first time that he has done this, and I hope that he finds time to buy his Christmas presents, because he may find that it is in short supply.

I spoke to my hon. Friend about that yesterday, and I am still awaiting an answer from the usual channels. I hope that the debate will be held in the normal way. As for his first question, the arguments are difficult, and are being made only now as a result of the dichotomy between the state of cod stocks and other fish caught in the mixed fishery. We have to carry on trying to persuade the Commission, and I appeal even at this stage for any more evidence of the ability through technical measures or special zonal measures to carry on fishing prawns and haddock without damaging cod stocks. We will continue to make that argument, and I hope that we will make it successfully when decisions are made at the December Council.

Does the Minister agree that those who claim that we can unilaterally withdraw from the common fisheries policy are engaged in creating an irresponsible diversion and perpetrating a cruel hoax on desperate fishing communities? Does he agree that although we can all agree that the common fisheries policy has failed our fishermen, fishing communities and fish stocks, the most recent reforms were monumentally timid, and that we cannot wait another 20 years before we tackle this again? Does he therefore agree that the UK should now take the lead, grab the issue by the scruff of the neck, go back to the drawing board, and acknowledge that the centralised basis of the common fisheries policy should be scrapped and replaced with a robust, devolved, proper regional management structure?

Yes. The hon. Gentleman is right and speaks with great expertise on such matters, representing as he does one of the major fishing areas in the south-west of England. He is right about the foolhardiness of the suggestion that we should leave the common fisheries policy. I am sorry that his view is not shared by all his Liberal Democrat colleagues or, indeed by the tartan Tories—the Scottish nationalists—or the real Conservatives. It would be disastrous not only for our fishing industry, but for the whole UK economy. I share his vision of the future that he mapped out for the fishing industry.

In his response to my recent Adjournment debate on the demise of the cod stocks in the British sector, the Minister stated:

"CFP measures represent the best and…only possible route to address the problems that we face."—[Official Report, 11 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 265.]

We are always keen to consider alternative management systems. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) suggested some constructive ones—it would help if the hon. Lady were occasionally to do the same. If she is repeating her call for our withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, that is a foolhardy suggestion, because she knows very well that that would mean our withdrawing from the European Union. If she thinks that she could renegotiate a better deal with all the countries that she had annoyed—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members should let the Minister answer.

I am afraid that if the hon. Lady and her colleagues seriously believe that they could tear up all the European Union treaties and renegotiate better deals with all those individual countries—and Iceland, the Faroes and Norway—they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

If she will make a statement on the impact of the development of a biofuels industry on the rural economy. [139831]

Our assessments indicate that if the UK met the reference target in the EU biofuels directive for the substitution of 5.75 per cent. of fossil fuels by biofuels by 2010, that could create or sustain up to 6,000 jobs in the agriculture sector. It would imply production from up to 1 million hectares of land, taking into account the contribution from waste cooking oil.

I am pleased that the Minister recognises the potential beneficial impact of the biofuels industry on the rural economy, as well as on the environment in meeting our Kyoto targets. Will he encourage the Chancellor to take the opportunity in his pre-Budget report to end the ludicrous situation whereby the duty reduction on liquefied petroleum gas—LPG—fossil fuel is double that on bioethanol and biodiesel? Surely, that must come to an end.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, he should bear in mind the 20p per litre reduction on biofuels. On top of that, there is an additional payment for farmers who grow biofuel crops, and they gain extra advantages from being able to grow biofuel crops on set-aside land. Switching to biofuel crops has a range of advantages that do not apply to LPG. The argument for the differential on LPG relates to the fitting of LPG equipment at garages and of conversion, which have considerable costs that do not apply to biodiesel and biofuel vehicles. Nevertheless, I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

The existing rate of duty derogation of 20p a litre has clearly been insufficient to stimulate domestic production. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, has described the Government's biofuel policy as muddled and unfocused. If that is true, will the Minister tell us how the muddle can be clarified and the impact sharpened in the near future?

That is not necessarily a fair description. We have taken note of what the Select Committee report has said, and we take it seriously, as we do all its reports. It has made a very helpful contribution to this debate. There is no doubt that the current duty cut has stimulated the use of biodiesel, in particular, from the use of waste oils. That has been quite beneficial, but we need to examine whether the amount of duty cut is appropriate. We also need to consider the whole ecological footprint of the industry, to see whether such cuts are, in the end, justified.

The Minister will be aware of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on biofuels, one of whose conclusions was that it was disappointed that there appeared to be no sole Department taking the lead on this issue. We know that there are various interests involved, but the fact that five major Departments or organisations are involved without having one lead Department obviously means that biofuels are not getting the attention that they deserve. Will the Minister tell us whether, as a consequence of the Select Committee report, one Department has now been nominated as the lead Department to deal with biofuels?

That is not the situation at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman rightly stated, a number of Departments and a wide range of issues, including energy, fuels and transport, are involved. Biofuels are a matter of major interest for DEFRA, and we spend a lot of time discussing the issue. We understand the reasoning behind the Select Committee's recommendations, and we are considering its report, of which we will take careful note.

There is considerable frustration among drivers of diesel cars about the slow pace of development of biodiesel. Why is it possible to drive down to Devon and buy from a private supplier a load of fuel made from waste cooking oil, but not to go to a normal fuel station and buy biodiesel? Is it not the case that there are costs involved in developing the infrastructure for the use of biofuels, and that that is why the question of duty needs to be revisited?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I was surprised by his comment that people cannot buy biodiesel in normal garages, because they can. The local garage in my village has a biofuel pump, and I make use of it myself. We want an extension of that availability and for the use of biofuels to be encouraged as an alternative to other fuels, particularly because of their contribution to climate change.

What representations she has received about the implications of the common agricultural policy reform proposals for farmers who have diversified into non-subsidised activities; and if she will make a statement. [139833]

We have received responses from a wide range of stakeholders to the public consultation on the options available to member states under the agreement on reforming the common agricultural policy. These have included farmers producing non-supported crops, many of whom support a scheme which redistributes subsidy, and other farmers, particularly in the livestock and dairy sectors, who support a scheme based on historic entitlements. An assessment has been made of the redistributive effects of a number of CAP direct aid payments, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. A decision on the model for the single farm payment will be made as soon as possible.

While I thank the Secretary of State for that response, she will know that I have written to Ministers about my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Hobbs, and many others in my constituency who have diversified out of subsidised agriculture while maintaining their land, as Governments of all parties have encouraged them to do over the years. What would the Secretary of State say to their concern that, because they might not be eligible for single farm payments, the value of their land could fall? How tempted is she by the option of making payments on an area basis, and will she give a guarantee that there will be a full and proper debate in the House on this matter before a final decision is made?

To pick up first the hon. Gentleman's final point, he will know that what happens with the business of the House is not a matter for me, although I heed what he says and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will also heed it. As the hon. Gentleman will have understood from my reply, we are receiving a range of responses to the consultation and people are highlighting, as he has on behalf of his constituents, a range of different concerns and interests. We shall look at all that very carefully, because we are anxious to get the maximum benefit for all in the community from this opportunity for reform.

At a recent meeting I held with local farmers, they put to me the view that the options for CAP reform are too restrictive. In fact, there is a strong case for a hybrid approach under which there may be regionalisation for arable farmers, but an historic view may be taken on livestock based on the fact that one involves land area and the other headage. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that she will consider that issue going forward on this important reform?

We are certainly getting a range of representations. I have to say to my hon. Friend that whether it is possible and practical to have a different regime for different methods of farming, particularly in this country where one may get mixed farming, is another matter, but it is a further interesting addition to the debate.

Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) probably right to say that if subsidies are paid on an historic basis, that will give the recipients of such subsidies an unfair competitive advantage if they subsequently compete with those who historically have produced in the unsubsidised sectors of agriculture?

Such an eventuality should not arise because it will not be possible to claim the single farm payment on land that has previously not attracted payment as it has been growing unsubsidised crops. I am sorry; I think I have got that the wrong way round, but I am saying to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should look again at the scheme and the proposals: it is not open to subsidised people simply to move in and compete on the same basis with those who have, as he rightly says, established farming that is unsubsidised. It is also the case in respect of those who are going for a totally area-based system that there may be different rules in that regard. That is one of the facets of the decision that we have to take that we shall have to look at most carefully.

My right hon. Friend will probably be aware that there are many fine examples of diversification schemes in the context of the most marginal areas of the country—for example, in the North York Moors national park. Often, not only the work of her Department, but that of the national parks themselves, helps those diversification projects to come forward. In the context of the review, what is she doing to ensure that that best practice is not lost in the larger national debate?

I assure my hon. Friend that the last thing any of us wants to see is established best practice, whereby people have diversified and looked for markets that they can satisfy, to be lost in this transition. I see no reason to suppose that that is likely to be the case; indeed, we anticipate that it will create greater opportunities rather than fewer.

Does the Secretary of State accept that farmers who have diversified into the unsubsidised activity of potato growing are deeply concerned about the outbreak of potato ring rot? Given that a further three farms are under investigation, will she say what progress is being made in containing the disease and give an assurance that the plant health and seeds inspectorate, which is investigating the outbreak of four different diseases, has all the resources necessary to do so?

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I also welcome the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I apologise for not welcoming her earlier; I intended to do so, but got sidetracked.

What her policy is regarding the removal of silt from watercourses in respect of the (a) European waste framework directive and (b) nitrate directive. [139834]

Neither the waste framework directive nor the nitrates directive applies to the removal of silt from watercourses. However, the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 control the application of dredged material to land and the Government have made use of their discretion under article 11 of the waste framework directive to provide licensing exemptions for dredgings from inland waters.

Flooding is a real concern to many of my constituents in their towns and villages. What advice would the Minister give to the Bedford group of drainage boards, among others, who wrote to me recently, as they believed that an increased risk of flooding would result from reduced dredging, which they think will happen when silt removed from watercourses cannot be sent to approved landfill sites after 2006?

In my experience, it is rare for a drainage board to send dredgings to landfill sites, so that should not have an effect. There has been some concern about whether traditional dredging methods, which leave spoil and vegetation along the side of dykes, will be restricted in some way. That will not be restricted. The regulations will prevent spoil from going to landfill, but the hon. Gentleman will find that that is a very unusual procedure in drainage. If there is a major problem, I shall be happy to speak to him and to look into it in further detail.

What advice is given to farmers about farming practice to avoid soil erosion, which causes rivers to silt up in the first place? Surely it is better to tackle the cause of silting, which leads to flooding, rather than to deal with the consequences afterwards.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. DEFRA produces codes of practice in relation to soil management. For the first time, as part of the changes to and reviews of our agri-environment programme, one aspect will be natural resource management, which will include soil management. In the changes to whole farm plans and audits, it is also possible that those examples of good agricultural practice can be looked at in further detail in terms of how we apply them and ensure that they are maintained.

Does the Minister agree that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) has identified a serious problem, namely the plethora of bodies involved in keeping watercourses clear? I have raised the matter with him on a number of occasions. There are the Environment Agency, British Waterways, the drainage boards, county councils, district councils, and, to a certain extent, parish councils, which are involved as wardens if there is flooding. Does he agree that this is a good opportunity to streamline the structure for keeping watercourses clear?

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position on the slimmed-down Opposition Front Bench. We have done precisely the same thing in streamlining the organisation and system of flood management. The funding review considered the issue of critical ordinary watercourses, which will now become the responsibility of the Environment Agency, instead of the responsibility being split between local councils, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency. The EA can contract back the management where appropriate to IDBs, but the approach will be much more streamlined. That includes streamlining and amalgamating regional flood defence committees and local flood defence committees. We are doing precisely what the hon. Lady is asking for.

If she will make a statement on the implementation of the large combustion plant directive. [139835]

We expect to make an announcement about our plans shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the national plan approach is taken, there will be serious consequences for the British coal industry, as generators will choose to import low-sulphur coal rather than to retrofit power stations? Will he listen to warnings from the coal industry that up to 15,000 jobs could be at risk, at a cost to the economy of £700 million?

We are well aware of the concerns of the coal industry, which my hon. Friend is right to point out. For that reason, Lord Whitty has been meeting representatives of all parts of the industry. The decision is not an easy one and must be based on a considered assessment of the costs and benefits to the whole of United Kingdom industry—including the interests to which my hon. Friend referred—of the two options between which we must decide.

Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), which I understand, is it not important that this significant environmental objective should not have large loopholes that undermine its very purpose? Will the Minister give an assurance that there will not be wide exemptions for older plants that operate below 40 per cent. load, which is quite common these days? Does he understand the importance of ensuring that there is proper inspection of those plants, now and after the directive's implementation? Will he give an assurance that the Environment Agency will have enough inspectors, as he will be aware of the downward trend in the number of inspections that the agency is carrying out?

The big question concerns the effectiveness of inspection, and the problem with the directive is that, when costs and environmental impact are considered, there is a fine balance between the two approaches. We need to come to a judgment on a number of competing factors, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking all those issues into account in reaching our decision.

I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) that the issue is jobs. As the Minister will be aware, the emission limit value means that there will be a focus on each individual power station, which will then have a stimulus to retrofit, whereas if we go for the national plan, there will be a different approach, and we will find that the generators import low-sulphur coal. The matter is enormously important. Will my right hon. Friend discuss the way forward with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, because it is important that we get this right; otherwise, the indigenous coal industry could be wiped out?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being looked at on a cross-government basis. The decision is one in which the different interests that he refers to are reflected. I assure him, too, that we are in touch with the UK coal industry and the electricity generating industry, to make sure that we fully understand the analysis that they have undertaken and the reasoning that underpins the fears that have been expressed. We will give full weight to those submissions in reaching a decision, but as he will appreciate, it would be wrong of me to anticipate that decision.

Will the Minister tell the House the percentage of UK coal used in generation in 1997 and the percentage used this year?

I cannot give those precise figures, but I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). The Minister will probably realise that Hatfield colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) is, as we speak, under threat of closure, and the Selby collieries have closed this year. If, in implementing the large combustion plant directive, we adopt the national plan, we will see the total eclipse of the British coal industry.

My hon. Friend refers to the analysis provided to us and the fears that have been expressed, and I repeat to him that the analysis is being fully considered as we reach a decision. We are aware of the difficulty of the decision, finely balanced as it is, and of the need to take into account both industry requirements and environmental considerations in reaching the right conclusion.

If she will make a statement on the progress her Department is making in implementing the rural white paper. [139836]

We have made considerable progress in delivering the commitments set out in the rural White Paper. The latest update on progress, which was provided on 31 August 2003, is published on DEFRA's website. A review of the rural White Paper is currently under way, and my aim is to publish it shortly.

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concluded, in its ninth report, that, on education, DEFRA

"has some way to go before it can be considered an effective department for rural affairs"?

Indeed. As I said, we are reviewing the rural White Paper and the policy information that it gives us. The hon. Gentleman may know that, in addition, we have commissioned and hope shortly to publish some economic analysis from Birkbeck college, and we intend to build on that work. One of the things that was a surprise and a source of some dismay to me when the Department undertook responsibility for these matters was the lack of hard evidence. That is now becoming available; it is highlighting where the greatest difficulties arise and will enable us, we hope, to focus resources and effort on tackling some of those difficulties.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that addiction is a major problem in rural areas? What is she doing to end the addiction to subsidy in so many of our farming communities? Does she agree that unless we reform the common agricultural policy to reduce fraud, corruption and incompetence, people in the countryside will never be able to stand on their own two feet?

As my hon. Friend knows, the direction of the reforms of the CAP that we recently secured will do a great deal to reconnect members of the farming community with the marketplace. That, we believe, is in their best interests and in the interests of the wider community.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the comment on rural policy in Lord Haskins' report, in which he quotes a senior official in her Department as saying:

"I have some difficulty working out what DEFRA thinks its rural agenda is"?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Chair of the Select Committee. We look forward to working with him. My noble Friend Lord Haskins is a specialist in interesting quotations and quotation-worthy observations. Perhaps there has been a slight misunderstanding. We are not proposing to produce a new White Paper, and the Haskins report is already in the public domain. We are publishing a review of the rural White Paper, which itself is only three years old, and of the economic work to which I referred. We then intend to publish some proposals in the spring, drawing on a refreshed rural strategy. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall take careful note of all the different strands of information and advice.

One of the key planks of the Government's rural policy is the regeneration of market towns. Gloucestershire has seven successful market and coastal town initiatives, four of them in the Forest of Dean. Is my right hon. Friend aware of how much work has been done in the first phase, which is the identification and prioritisation of what is needed in those market towns? Unfortunately, little progress can be made because of the lack of clarity from the RDAs and from DEFRA about where the funding is to come from to deliver the projects and programmes identified as necessary in those market towns.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I thought the market towns initiative and the recognition of the important role of market towns were among the most interesting and worthwhile things to come out of the rural White Paper. I accept that while much was done in the first phase, there is not as much progress as people had hoped in the second. We are pursuing the matter. It is my understanding that the responsibilities identified by my hon. Friend rest with the RDAs, but following the suggestions in Lord Haskins' report about different and more devolved responsibilities, and about working with RDAs and local government, we will all need to look carefully at how those responsibilities can best be exercised in order to ensure better delivery, not worse, for rural areas.

The Secretary of State claims considerable progress in achieving the targets in the rural White Paper. No doubt achieving EU beach standards is laudable, but such achievements butter few parsnips in the countryside. Aspects such as rural transport, rural policing, affordable housing, health services, and shops and post offices in village communities are all acknowledged to be getting worse, not better. Central Government spending is lower in the countryside than in towns and cities, and rural council tax is higher for worse services. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if the rural White Paper and the annual updates are to serve any purpose at all, they should demand analysis of the extent to which the Government are achieving what they set out to achieve? If those documents are merely a spin-doctor's menu of self-congratulatory platitudes, there is precious little purpose in having them.

The rural White Paper is being reviewed by officials in the light of what has been delivered. I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman's rant about how terrible everything is in the countryside. I do not know how he has the gall to talk about rural transport when, since my Department was launched, we have spent £25.7 million on rural transport with a further £20 million—[Interruption.] Opposition Members groan because they hate being reminded how much the Government have done for rural areas—including on policing, shops and post offices—and how little they did. Responsibility for the state of the countryside rests on them.

Is not a key part of implementing the rural White Paper the establishment of a biofuels industry based on crops, not just cooking oil? The Treasury says that a further duty rate reduction would simply suck in imports from countries with established biofuels industries, but as the industry is so important to the economies of rural areas, will the Secretary of State, with her counterpart in the Department of Trade and Industry, come forward with a specific plan to kick-start the biofuels industry, because there is a danger that if more is not done, we may not have one?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I know that he has been a long-standing and strong campaigner on the issue. I can assure him that we discuss with Ministers in other Departments what can be done to help to kick-start the industry. We remain aware of the concerns that he has identified, but he has also rightly identified some of the anxieties about undesirable side effects.

Does the Secretary of State recall that one of the White Paper's key conclusions concerns safer communities and rural policing, yet since its publication, crime in rural areas has risen? Will she undertake to discuss with her colleagues in the Home Office the fact that, despite the rural police fund, every time police budgets are under pressure, or every time there is a shortage of officers, as there is in my area of west Kent, it is rural policing that is cut, with the result that people in many rural communities still feel that they operate in a police-free zone?

I am slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and it is perhaps something that he should take up with his local authority. There are record numbers of police in Kent, as there are everywhere else: record numbers of police are available to police rural areas. I am not aware of any evidence that they have been removed from rural areas, although I am aware, of course, of the concern about crime.

What recent discussions she has held with EU Commissioners on enabling European regions to ban GM crops. [139839]

DEFRA Ministers have not had specific discussions on this matter with EU Commissioners.

Will the Minister therefore take the opportunity to have such discussions? He will know that the National Assembly for Wales and 10 other regions in the EU have declared themselves a network of GM-free regions, and they want European legislation to recognise their right to be GM-free, if that is a decision taken by their legislators. Will he make sure that that can happen, bearing in mind that David Byrne, the EU Health Commissioner said a couple of weeks ago that if it were proven that GM crops harmed the environment, that would be sufficient grounds to allow areas and regions within the EU to ban them? Surely the time is now right to ensure that that can happen in Wales and in other parts of the EU.

On the latter point, it is fair to point out that some of the Commissioner's comments were misinterpreted. It may well be possible for certain specific areas to be declared GM-free where there is evidence that GM crops could cause harm, but in reality they are likely to be small and to have specific reasons for that. There will have to be evidence that the GM crops will cause harm, and that is not likely to apply to a region as large as Wales. My understanding was that the Welsh Assembly had not specifically argued for Wales to be a GM-free zone, but for some very strict regulations in relation to GM, and I understand the arguments for that. As things stand, there is no provision in EU law for taking such action; again, evidence is needed. Of course, if there is voluntary agreement among farmers and landowners, they can declare their area a GM-free zone.

What discussions she has had with non-governmental organisations on the consultation paper on proposed amendments to legislation to reclassify roads used as public paths as restricted byways.[139840]

In deciding to issue the consultation paper, I took account of the views of Members of Parliament and their constituents, who have called for action to deal with the inappropriate use of traditional byways by mechanically propelled vehicles, and strong pleas for firm action. My hon. Friend has been at the forefront in making those pleas. In addition, I have provided an opportunity for the rights of way review committee to comment on the draft proposals. That committee consists of representatives of 20 non-governmental organisations and 15 other organisations that are consultees and which receive papers.

Increasingly, a new plague is engulfing the last vestige of tranquillity and sanity. Down our country lanes, dog walkers, horse riders and families merely seeking a Sunday morning breath of fresh air are being confronted by hordes of motor bikes. Is the Minister sympathetic to my view that where once a horse and cart ambled, an automatic upgrade for a motor bike to roar is neither logical nor acceptable?

I do share that view, which is why it is included in the consultation paper. We must look at the implications of the sort of change that my hon. Friend proposes, and we are considering the matter with care. We need to balance the interests of different people and ensure that there are no unintended consequences, but the consultation will give an opportunity to look at the way forward that he urges.

May I warmly commend to the Minister what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said? There is a famous path called the Berkshire Ridgeway, which is some 2,000 years old and which I have often walked myself. In recent years, it has been being utterly ruined by people who ride motor cycles along it. For God's sake, we have some of the busiest roads, and people can ride their motor bikes wherever they want, but do they have to ruin the last vestiges of rural England and paths that have remained unspoilt for maybe hundreds of years? It has got to stop.

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. Indeed, I have been to the Ridgeway to look at the impact. I have also had meetings with Members of Parliament and Members of another place, along with local authorities, because the Ridgeway is a complex path, as he knows, which runs through the areas of a number of authorities. We have a detailed plan that is rightly a matter for local management, but I, my officials and the Countryside Agency have been working with local authorities specifically to address the concerns of Members of this House, which the hon. Gentleman has articulated, and to try to ensure that we get the balance right and use the powers that are already available, as well as considering the sort of changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has urged on the House.

What her policy is on new approvals of GM foods in Europe.[139841]

Applications for approval to market GM foods are subject to collective EU decision making under the novel foods regulation. The independent Food Standards Agency leads the UK assessment of any application based on scientific evidence of risk to human health. Any food exceeding the EU threshold for GM ingredients must be labelled to provide consumers with information and choice.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the EU regulatory committee meeting on 10 November saw the UK Government indicate their willingness to give approval to GM sweetcorn Bt11? Can he tell me why he wants that product in our shops when neither the new labelling and traceability arrangements nor the new GMO approval regime, with its compulsory post-monitoring regime, are in place? What is the haste to end the EU moratorium on GMOs?

In the UK submission to the Commission, we made it clear that marketing should not go ahead until the traceability and labelling regulations had been resolved. That remains our position, and it is why the decision to address that specific point was deferred. On the other issues that my hon. Friend raised, the one criterion that we apply is whether such products are safe. That is subject to review by the Food Standards Agency, which is advised by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

GM foods are now at a commercial disadvantage. Is it not true that the Canadians, who have grown GM foods in great quantities for a number of years, are turning away from them for that reason and because there is international repugnance regarding their use? Should we not wait for scientific proof that such foods are harmless and insist that the biotech companies prove that themselves?

The basis of the applications is that there must be careful evaluation of whether there is risk to people and, indeed, the environment. We expect any application for GMs to go through that process. My hon. Friend might have a point about whether such crops are marketable at present—that was addressed by the strategy unit report—but whatever the future for GM, there must be clear traceability and labelling so that people may have the choice of whether to buy the foods.