What steps her Department is taking to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis in Cheshire.

In view of the relatively low incidence of TB in Cheshire, not just herds neighbouring TB incidents but all herds within a 1 km radius of any incidents are tested, with a further extension of testing to a 2 km radius if the case is confirmed by post-mortem examination or laboratory culture. Cheshire is also included in the gamma interferon policy pilot. We will announce new proposals to help tackle TB soon.

My local farmers, and many others, feel that the Department has done too little, too late. I understand that it is publishing a draft strategy next week. Will the strategy include proposals to require pretesting of cattle moving from highly infected to less infected areas such as Cheshire, so that such areas can remain relatively disease free and there is a source for restocking in future?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to pre-empt what we might say next week. I think it is right for Parliament to know what the proposals are first, in full. His argument in favour of pre-movement testing is persuasive, but I do not think that what he says about the general policy on TB is fair. There are no quick fixes when it comes to animal diseases. For many years, cattle herds suffered from brucellosis. It affected a far bigger proportion of the herds than TB does now, and it took decades to eradicate. We are doing what we can, and I think that the strategy we will launch next week will show the way forward.

I look forward to the release of the strategy, but given the deluge of written questions to my hon. Friend from Conservative Members, would it not be useful for Members to be briefed properly on the science behind TB so that we can really understand all the difficulties? Will my hon. Friend treat that as a matter of urgency? We need to have a proper discussion.

That is a good point. It had not escaped my notice that I had been deluged with written questions on the issue. I have offered my opposite number a technical briefing along the lines described by my hon. Friend, but so far he has not taken up the offer.

On 8 January the Minister said in an Adjournment debate:

"It may be a good idea to allow lay testing for the simple procedure of the skin test."—[Official Report, 8 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 504.]

In principle, we still believe that there is a strong argument in favour of lay testing, not least to help us deal with the backlog, but also to relieve practices that are under pressure. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the future of rural practices. Lay testing would not be forced on anyone; it would only be done if practices themselves chose to do it. We will make an announcement in due course.

Stopping the spread of TB in Cheshire and every other part of the United Kingdom is important to all of us. Has the Minister or his Department seen recently published claims that selenium and iodine used on farms have prevented TB from occurring on some farms?

I do not know of those findings, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has just pointed out from a sedentary position that he has been making that point for some time in regard to trace elements. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the findings.

I thank the Minister and his officials for the way in which they have, so far, replied to the questions about TB that I have tabled. The Minister kindly invited me to go and see him. There is a big difference between questions being answered on the record and an informal chat. I may take up his offer at a later date, but I will continue to question him.

The gamma interferon test could not be taken in isolation; it would accompany the current test. Although we have some sympathy with the ISG's wish to increase the science return, what it proposes would not only add to the logistical difficulties involved in the pilot, but raise ethical and legal issues. It would mean identifying disease but not acting on the information or informing herd owners.

If she will make a statement on the proposals to implement the revised common agricultural policy.

I hope to make an announcement on the model for allocating entitlements under the new single payment scheme in England in the near future.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer, but she will realise that since 26 June—when she announced to the House the outcome of the Agriculture Council, detailing the largest single change to the CAP since it was envisaged—Parliament has remained silent on this issue. Can she explain why no debate has been afforded to this House, in Government time, to inform her thinking on this matter? As an announcement from her is imminent, could she draw to the House's attention her reaction to the letter that she received from Herr Fischler? It clearly indicated his wish that member states use the historical basis to determine the allocation of single payments, which goes against the line floated by Lord Whitty at the Oxford farming conference on 6 January.

First, the right hon. Gentleman correctly points out that the reform deal was agreed in June, and I am glad that he has at least recognised that it constitutes a very substantial reform. Of course, we then initiated a consultation process, and responses were received until—if I remember correctly—October or November. The responses were varied, a range of different views was expressed, and analysis of those views is being undertaken. I believe that I have reported that to the House on occasions such as this, and I know that I have made clear in exchanges across the Floor of the House the two biggest decisions: the full decoupling of subsidy from production; and the introduction of that change at the earliest possible date, in 2005.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could assist in ensuring that the wealthiest of farmers, such as the Duke of Westminster, do not benefit from CAP reform, and that support continues to be given to low-income farms and to tenant farmers, who struggle to make a living?

As I said a moment ago, the Commission has advised against seeking redistribution for its own sake; on the other hand, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of low-income farmers and those who are currently beset by difficulties. The impact of potential change on the various participants in the world of farming, particularly the most vulnerable, is precisely one of the factors that we are seeking to weigh very carefully.

But is it not the case that even a reformed common agricultural policy will perpetuate grotesquely high food prices for consumers in the United Kingdom and maintain the distortion of international trade, which consciously, by means of protectionism and subsidies, ensures the impoverishment of primary agricultural producer countries in Latin America and elsewhere?

The hon. Gentleman is certainly right to suggest that the reform deal will not have a major impact on food prices. However, he is doubtless conscious of the fact that if the British Government are able to achieve the reforms that we are seeking through the World Trade Organisation—to be fair, the rest of the European Union is also seeking them—that could have an impact on food prices in the longer term. But I accept part of the point that he makes, in that the impact on consumers will not be as great as some had hoped.

My right hon. Friend's earlier answer to the substantive question will be welcomed in my part of the world. However, has her Department thought through the communications strategy, so that farmers, particularly those in the more remote areas such as the North York Moors national park, can fully understand the implications for their incomes, bearing in mind their particular status within the subsidy regime?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My Department is giving careful consideration to how we can best communicate the implications of any proposals for farmers and farming communities. He and other hon. Members will know that we are slightly handicapped at the moment because some of the detailed regulations have not yet been produced. We are talking to the Commission and pressing it to come forward, which may help to shape the outcome.

While it is clearly important to have widespread consultation on the matter, does the Secretary of State accept that the delay in announcing the decision is causing widespread uncertainty across the whole industry, and that it is also giving the Rural Payments Agency very little time to prepare for such an enormous change? Will she recognise that the vast majority of farmers have supported the case for decoupling, but on the basis of a historically based method of allocation? Whatever model is finally chosen, the one thing that we must avoid is substituting one bureaucratic, complicated and costly system with another.

I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's last remarks: we do want to avoid replacing one complicated and costly system with another, but we all recognise that there will be transitional issues. I am mindful of the impact on the Rural Payments Agency of the timing of any decisions, and we are constantly in touch with it. I accept that if the issue continued to drag on, it could become a cause of uncertainty, but farmers know the two most important points—that we intend to abandon the link between production and subsidy, and that we wish to do so as early as possible—and all our economic analysis suggests that that is what will have the greatest impact on our economy and the decisions that farmers take. Other factors are important, but less so in the scale of things. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we in no sense wish to delay the decision for any longer than is needed to assess all the implications of the decisions that we have to take for the farming community as a whole.

If she will make a statement on her review of the scientific evidence on GM crops.

We warmly welcome the final report of the GM science review and advice on the results of the farm-scale evaluations. We are now considering all the evidence and will set out our conclusions shortly.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her response. I put it to her that the public are still sceptical about the value of GM crops, and that such scepticism is based on the view that it is not unscientific to hold to the proposition that the contamination of conventional or organic crops from GM plantings would have a long-term impact, which might be irretrievable and cause permanent damage to our economy and agricultural system. Will she take those views into account and ensure that she lays out the scientific evidence clearly if she wants to convince the doubting public that there is some benefit in GM crop plantings?

I assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing I would like more than to feel that the scientific evidence is fully in the public domain and for people to weigh it. I entirely accept his point that the public are sceptical about the value of some GM crops at the present time. Indeed, he will recall that the economic study carried out by the Prime Minister's strategy unit made the point that the present generation of crops that are available have only limited relevance, worth or impact in UK circumstances. It might perhaps be different in other parts of the world. Of course we take those concerns seriously, but my hon. Friend would accept, since we are talking about scientific evidence, that in a world where GM is extensively grown and extensively available, we have to deal with the reality of its existence and not hope that somehow it can be totally wished away.

In a written answer to me on 17 December, the Minister for the Environment confirmed that the relevant Government Departments had agreed to authorise the use of Bt11 GM maize, even though surveys show that less than 2 per cent. of the public support the use of GM in all circumstances. Does the Secretary of State understand that there is widespread unease about that, and about the other incremental steps that are being taken towards a momentous and irreversible decision on GM crops? Will she confirm that the Government will bring forward a clear policy on the matter before any other decisions are made, and that time will be made available for a debate on the Floor of the House, on a substantive motion?

We are not trying to pre-empt the outcome of the debate or to make major decisions before the appropriate policy statement can be laid before the public or the House. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman—as I have told the House in the past— that ongoing procedures for handling these matters exist in the EU. I am sure that he will recall that, not so long ago, the Government were being pressed by groups outside the House to make no response at all to requests for input or information about matters put before the EU as a whole by other member states. My advice to hon. Members was that, if we made no input, the assumption would be that we approved and that we had no queries or questions to raise. We have always continued to raise queries and concerns, where we felt that that was necessary. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no one is trying to pre-empt anything by stealth.

The Secretary of State and her Ministers have assured the House constantly that the UK would not support GM crop plantings that were separate from a liabilities regime, irrespective of approval decisions made in this place or in Europe as a whole. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the question of liability for contamination will be cleared up before any plantings are approved or allowed in this country?

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is correct about what Ministers have said in the past, but he will know that we received the independent advisory committee report on contamination and co-existence under the liability only very recently. We are considering it at the moment. We are of course anxious to weigh these difficult and major issues properly, and I hope that we will be able to comment on them in the not too distant future. However. I assure him that we are mindful of the interaction of these issues, both in the minds of the public and in reality.

The Secretary of State talks about dealing with the reality of GM crops, but I draw her attention to a report published this week by the University of Glamorgan, which found that a large amount of supermarket-bought organic food contained traces of GM. The traces were large enough to be detected, but below the 0.9 per cent. level at which labelling for GM is required. Does that not imply that, before there are any further developments in the UK in connection with GM, we need a proper regime for labelling GM crops? Should not that regime also provide for the labelling of organic foods, and the preservation of the organic sector? Does she agree that procedures for liability and compensation must be in place before any further steps are taken?

I was not aware of the study to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I look forward with interest to hearing about it, assuming that it has been peer reviewed and is considered to be valid. He will know, I am sure, that a strong regime already exists in EU and British law for traceability and labelling. As he appreciates, that regime has a threshold trigger of 0.9 per cent. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman meant to, but in a sense he has emphasized—in spades—the point that I made some moments ago. If the results that he reports are correct, GM presence in the UK is an issue, even though no GM crops are being grown here at present. That confirms my view that we cannot simply wish away this technology.

Does my right hon. Friend worry that many people's objections to GM crops contain an element of Luddism, and that some people deliberately hype up the fears about GM? Does she feel that, in addition to ensuring that there is a good labelling regime, the best way forward is to make sure that people understand fully the scientific benefits, as well as the economic ones, that GM crops could bring to the UK and to many developing countries? Will she go out and preach the message a little bit more?

My hon. Friend expresses his views with his customary vigour. All the reports from the Prime Minister's strategy unit on the economics of the issues and from the science review indicate that there are concerns and potential problems, which must be addressed by strong and sound scientifically based legislation. In the longer term, however, there may be potential benefits not only in this country but elsewhere across the world. My reading of the response to the public dialogue is that people are conscious of that potential, although their concerns remain and must be addressed.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that one reason for the public disquiet is that only one of the three trialled crops was cleared? Cross-pollination is a particular problem that has not been tackled, and it will affect the highly regarded and lucrative niche market in organics. Will she support the draft Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), which comes before the House on 26 March?

I have not studied the draft Bill, but I will do so as a matter of great urgency. The public's unease is not a result of one of the crops in our trials showing different results from the other three; it was there before the trials were set up, and we must take it seriously and understand it. Although the hon. Lady states that one of the crops in the trials was cleared, the immediate response from some who commented was that none of them should be cleared, so there is clearly resistance in some quarters.

How many people are employed by (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for which her Department is responsible.

DEFRA employs around 7,000 people and a further 6,430 are employed in its agencies. 14,450 people are employed by DEFRA's 19 executive non-departmental public bodies and 2,100 people are employed by our two public corporations.

DEFRA has 12 in-house delivery agents, 15 inspectorates, six executive agencies, 19 executive non-departmental public bodies, 29 non-executive non-departmental bodies, two public corporations and representatives in eight of the nine Government offices for the regions. One of those representatives recently told farmers in my constituency that her role was not to deliver programmes but

"to provide strategic input into a multiplicity of strategies"—

The hon. Gentleman should know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated her acceptance of the thrust of Lord Haskins's report immediately after its publication and said that we would work very hard on its implementation, which we are doing. The list that he has just reeled off indicates DEFRA's wide range of responsibilities across the environment, farming, food and general rural affairs. We first had representatives in the Government offices for the regions when DEFRA was set up, and the delivery of specific programmes lies with specific organisations such as the Rural Payments Agency and the Rural Development Service.

Will my right hon. Friend consider reducing the number of people employed in the Countryside Agency, or encouraging the agency to do so and use of some of the money saved to make grants available so that we can make the legislation on access to the countryside a practicality in the summer? If those grants were available to provide stiles and other access to land, it would make a great difference.

My hon. Friend points to an element that was considered carefully by Lord Haskins and on which we are working. He will be aware that the proposals involved the creation of a single integrated agency for issues such as land management, biodiversity and so on. That would have an impact on the Countryside Agency, and we also intend to move towards greater regional and local delivery of services. The points that he makes are valid and we will consider them as we work through the programme of reform to which the Haskins report has given rise.

One of the most important agencies of DEFRA is the state veterinary service, which is the greatly overstretched front line for biosecurity in this country. Will the Minister consider the staffing levels of the service and see what can be done to arrest the decline that occurred year on year under the previous Government? I should remind the House that my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon, although in private practice.

We keep the numbers in the state veterinary service under review. The figure at the moment is 1,399, which is considerably lower than the numbers at the time of foot and mouth disease, when staffing levels were greatly expanded. As the hon. Gentleman reminds us, there was a reduction under the previous Government. We certainly keep the numbers under review.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that staff in the Department and its agencies will be affected in one way or another by Lord Haskins's review? As my right hon. Friend said, an initial announcement has been made, but is there not a danger from a lack of strategic planning—a sort of planning blight—unless final decisions are made fairly quickly? Will he confirm that the full implementation of the Haskins recommendations would require primary legislation, of which there is little early chance?

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State initially responded to the Haskins report, she rightly said that primary legislation would be required to change the legal status of agencies or to create a new agency with independent status, but much can be done through co-ordination and co-working. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with leading people in the Countryside Agency, English Nature and other affected organizations—including the Rural Development Service, which is part of DEFRA at the moment. Lord Haskins recommended that the RDS, as a delivery arm, should be linked to English Nature and the new integrated agency. The Organisations are working well together and I am impressed by the high quality and motivation of staff in DEFRA and its agencies, and by the way in which they seek to improve the quality of the service that they give to their customers and the public. After all, that is what we were trying to achieve through the review by Lord Haskins, which should be set in a renewal of rural strategy, to which my right hon. Friend has said she will return in the course of this year.

It is now nearly three months since Lord Haskins published his report reviewing the work of all the agencies included in the structure of DEFRA. Within a day of it being published, Lord Haskins summarised the findings of his 172-page report in six simple words, when he described DEFRA as a

"dog's dinner of the highest order".

That is a real dog's dinner of a question. The hon. Lady might well have said that it is only three months since Lord Haskins reported and considered the complexity of issues involved in dealing properly with staff and maintaining services to customers and the public. The Countryside Agency employs about 665 people, some of whom will be working in areas that Lord Haskins recommended should go into the integrated agency. The Environment Agency employs more than 10,000 staff, dealing with a wide range of issues—environmental protection, fisheries, navigation and so on. The hon. Lady should consider some of the complexities that we, as a Department, have to address.

What precautions are in place to prevent the infection of the national flock of chickens with bird influenza virus; and if she will make a statement.

The Government have banned imports from all the affected countries of all live birds, unprocessed poultry meat, and other bird products capable of transmitting the avian flu virus.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Of course, he gave a fuller answer when he answered the urgent question last Wednesday. Thankfully, answering that question, he said that

"the risk of the disease being transmitted to the UK poultry flock is low",

"asking ports to be extra vigilant and to prohibit the importation of consignments that do not fully comply with the rules."—[Official Report, 28 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 313.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too long.

Not only long, Mr. Speaker, but repetitive. As I have told the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) several times, that is a matter for Customs and Excise, which is doing an excellent job; it is hugely increasing the amount it spends on checking at airports and trebling the number of sniffer dogs. In the next financial year, Customs will hugely increase the amount of money it spends on those things.

Pursuant to my question to the Minister on his statement last Wednesday, has he had any joy from Professor Ian Maudlin and the Roslin Institute or, indeed, any other leading research department in Britain, in order to help those countries that have a heck of a problem?

Yes, indeed. Immediately after the urgent question last week, I asked my officials to make contact with the institute to which my hon. Friend referred. Those contacts have been made, and I am sure that such help and expertise will help not only us but the whole international community in addressing this serious problem.

Until the threat of this foreign virus is removed, will the Minister give a commitment to contact personally the chairmen of Tesco, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury and all our major supermarket chains—indeed, he could even write to Colonel Sanders of KFC—to ask that those chains stock only good, healthy, fresh British chickens?

I think it would be very wrong if the House were left with the impression that it is unsafe to eat the chicken products on the shelves of our supermarkets. That is not the case. The Food Standards Agency has made it absolutely clear that there is no risk at all of catching avian flu from consuming chicken products. The products that I outlined have been banned for import anyway. However, I always advise, as I did last week in answer to the urgent question, that consumers should buy British.

My hon. Friend will be aware that avian influenza can be devastating to susceptible birds. In my constituency, there are a number of small poultry farms. Is my hon. Friend sure that the DEFRA information pack has reached those small farmers so that they are aware of what to look out for?

I very much hope so, but after Question Time I shall check that it has. My hon. Friend is right but, as I said last week, it is also the case that the threat to our flocks from avian flu was much more serious last year when there was an outbreak across the channel in the Netherlands. It is highly unlikely that there will be any infection in our flocks as a result of an outbreak in south-east Asia, but we are taking all the necessary precautions available to us. However, my hon. Friend is right—any outbreak would be extremely serious.

When GM maize will be licensed for commercial growing in the UK.

Decisions on applications to release particular GM crops for commercial cultivation in the European Union, including the UK, are subject to collective EU agreement under the procedures and timetable set down in EC directive 2001/18 and are made on a case-by-case basis. EU-wide licences for three types of GM maize were granted in 1997–98. However, none can yet be grown commercially in the UK because no variety of those three types of GM maize has been added to either the UK national list of seeds or the EU common catalogue.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As she indicates, there is a step—listing on the UK national seeds list. Can she tell the House when the meeting will take place; what discussions she has already had with her counterparts in the devolved Assembly and Parliament; and when indeed she expects pesticide approval to be granted? I understand that those would be the only remaining steps necessary for GM maize to be granted approval by this country—even though, as she says, there is an EU dimension.

I cannot tell my hon. Friend that. All I can say is that she correctly identifies some of the steps that have to be taken. We have had discussions—I anticipate that we will have further discussions—with the devolved bodies about those issues, which, as she says, concern all of us, but I merely remind her that, as I said in my answer, the licensing of those crops was undertaken in 1997–98.

If scientific evidence shows that organic farms become contaminated by GM maize or other GMOs, thereby losing their price premium, who will compensate those organic farmers?

That is the nub of the issues that people are discussing and on which we have some advice already from the independent agricultural advisory committee. I simply tell the hon. Gentleman that, of course, we have to take account of what are the possibilities of what is described as the contamination of conventional food or organic food by GM crops. Of course procedures are in place to try to protect the purity of organic crops against conventional crops, so we are considering the mechanisms that already exist and what should happen if problems arise.

If she will make a statement on protection of the Ridgeway.

Over the past year, I have held several meetings—most recently on 28 January—with local MPs, including the hon. Gentleman, Members of the House of Lords and the local highway authorities to address the problems of damage to the surface of the trail by vehicular traffic. The Ridgeway management group, which consists of the Countryside Agency and local highway authorities, has produced an action plan that includes measures to repair and protect the surface of the trail, such as the use of traffic regulation orders by local highway authorities. For example, Wiltshire county council is introducing such an order for Smeathe's ridge.

I thank the Minister very much for the sterling work that he is doing to try to protect the Ridgeway—I think that all the MPs concerned would agree with that—but may I ask him what is the comparative cost of introducing one TRO for the entire Ridgeway compared with each local authority having to introduce its own TRO?

That issue was raised at the meeting last week, and I have asked officials to look at it, but one of the problems is that the controls of activities can succeed only if they are appropriate to the different paths and conditions at various points along the Ridgeway. In some places, the existence of mechanised vehicles on the Ridgeway causes immense problems; in others, it does not. Local support, as well as the support of all the local authorities, is required if any arrangement is to work. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would encourage them, as I have done, to work together locally.

The Minister knows that Wiltshire county council has spent a great deal of time and money on the Ridgeway on behalf of our communities, but that the Ridgeway is only one example among many thousands of the extremely delicate heritage routes across our country. Does he agree that we must grasp the problem in a far more determined manner? It is not just about repairing damaged tracks and so on; it is about telling the people who use those tracks that they are as much a part of our heritage as a great building and that it is not appropriate to plough them up with motor vehicles, when we should be looking after them as though they were indeed national monuments.

I warmly welcome what the hon. Gentleman says and encourage him and any of his constituents who care about the issues as he does to make their views known in response to the consultation that I recently launched on the use of motorised vehicles. I am receiving a lot of correspondence from Members of the House, but some correspondents suggest that there is no need to tackle the issue. The hon. Gentleman has illustrated why the consultation was necessary. Of course we need to examine carefully every opinion and piece of evidence that comes in, and I strongly encourage people to respond because I agree with him about the importance of the matter.

The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the consultation period has already closed, so it might be too late for people to respond. None the less, does he agree that under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, there is a real risk that thousands of miles of RUPPS—roads used as public paths—are being reclassified as byways open to all traffic, which means that they will become permanently available for those scourges of the quiet enjoyment of the countryside: four-wheel-drive vehicles and motor cycles? Will he take steps to reclassify all byways open to all traffic as restricted byways throughout England, thereby preserving the peace and quiet of our rural lanes for all time?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the issue, and I hope that we will have his assistance and that of Opposition Members when we take forward the outcome of the consultation. Representations are still coming in and will be considered within the consultation—it is important that everyone has the opportunity to contribute. Given that there is something like a month to go on the consultation, I am pleased that the matter has been highlighted in the House today so that everyone, whatever their interest, will know about the consultation and contribute to it.

What assessment she has made of the conclusions of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group regarding the funding provided for the warm front programme.

We are grateful to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group for its report and recommendations. Funding for the next financial year will be of the order of £150 million. Funding requirements beyond that will be decided as part of the 2004 spending round, taking into account representations by the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group and also the comments of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

The Government have a statutory target to eradicate fuel poverty from vulnerable households by 2010, and the 2003 annual report of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, which is published today, recognises that significant progress has been made toward that target. However, it says that expenditure on programmes such as that to which my question refers needs to be upped by 50 per cent. in the coming years, especially to help the integration of Government Departments' activities, to focus on the private rented sector, to supply gas when possible and to give more measurable targets in the spending round. Is the Secretary of State hopeful that that will happen—

Order. Enough.

I think my hon. Friend's complaint was that it is not enough, Mr. Speaker.

When considering this rather peculiar concept of fuel poverty, will the Secretary of State tell us how much consideration is given to the individual lifestyles and spending priorities of those who claim to be in fuel poverty? Does it not seem rather odd that we have a concept of so-called fuel poverty, but that we do not have one of food poverty or any other specific kind of poverty? How on earth can the scheme be made to work in isolation from individuals taking responsibility for their own spending priorities in their own households?

I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is some 20 or 30 years since people were first able to identify the specific concept of fuel poverty, which is related not only to people's spending priorities but to the condition of their housing and the natural tendency, in a sense, for people who are especially vulnerable, such as the elderly and frail, to be those who live in poor, run-down housing. I assure him not only that a great deal of work has been done to identify the problem of fuel poverty, but that the Government have done much to address it and intend to do more.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that although many elderly people in my constituency and many other parts of the country have benefited from the programme, some of those most in need fear pressure from doorstep salesmen, because they do not distinguish one thing from another and are afraid that they might be conned into getting into debt, whereas the scheme is designed to help them?

My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, he is right that over 700,000 households have received assistance from the warm front scheme. Secondly, he is right to identify the concerns felt particularly by some elderly people. I shall take his remarks into account when we consider the design and communication of any new scheme.

If she will compensate previously licensed swill feeders.

No.

Given that feeding scraps to pigs is perfectly safe, environmentally friendly and has been going on ever since man domesticated animals; given that the 62 licensed swill feeders were encouraged by DEFRA to invest thousands of pounds in new equipment before the ban; and given that since the ban an extra 1.7 million tonnes of biodegradable stuff is being sent to landfill or washed down the sewers, is it not the Minister's duty, in all logic, to compensate those 62 licensed swill feeders or to lift that ridiculous and hysterical ban?

No. Such an act would be grossly irresponsible, as the cause of the £8 billion foot and mouth epidemic in this country related to exactly the practice that the hon. Gentleman is so keen to support.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that the problem was caused by one pig farmer, not all of them? As the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) rightly said, the vast majority of those farmers were operating on the advice of the Department and in a fit and proper manner, have never had any compensation and are being unfairly treated, compared to others. If the current investigation by the ombudsman finds that they have been unfairly treated, will he consider compensating them?

I do not intend to pre-empt what the parliamentary ombudsman may or may not say in response to my hon. Friend's doughty campaign on behalf the pig-swillers in his constituency, but it is not right to say that they have been treated unfairly. There is an enormous risk involved in the practice, which is why it has been banned not just in this country but across the whole of the European Union. It may have been the fault of only one irresponsible owner, but our strong scientific advice is that there is no need for the practice, and that the risk that we would be incurring by continuing with it, given the devastation caused by the foot and mouth outbreak, does not warrant a continuation of the practice.

How does the Minister account for the fact that the plethora of new food regulations is outpaced only by the number of popular foods that we are almost weekly told it is unsafe for us to eat? Has thought been given to the possibility that the dangers of food poisoning, which are undoubtedly real, derive less from the farm-level producers, such as licensed swill dealers, than from the activities of international big business, such as the great pharmaceutical companies and, to take a recent example, the development of mass production of farmed salmon?

No.

If she will make a statement on progress in developing a biofuels industry.

Following the reduction in the duty rate for biodiesel introduced in July 2002, around 2 million litres of biodiesel are currently sold each month in the UK. Half of that comes from U K-sourced recycled vegetable oil. The remainder comes from finished product imported from elsewhere in Europe. The construction of the Argent plant near Motherwell will add a further 50 million litres annually to UK production.

I thank the Minister for his response. In view of the fact that the duty cut on bioethanol that comes into force next January will not give rise to any domestic production of bioethanol, will he support the amendment to the Energy Bill tabled in the House of Lords, as it would introduce a clear road transport fuel obligation?

A number of companies are actively considering the production of biodiesel from, for example, UK-grown oilseed rape, and the Department for Transport will shortly consult on the UK's targets for the use of biofuels under the EU biofuels directive.

What progress is being made in preventing the spread of sudden oak death.

We are continuing to survey and take eradication action against phytophthora ramorum, the cause of sudden oak death. Spending by DEFRA and the Forestry Commission has increased by approximately 50 per cent. on eradication, import control and research into this very worrying disease.

Notwithstanding that increase in expenditure, the tenor of representations that I have received from nurserymen from the National Farmers Union and the New Forest Committee is that given the catastrophic effects of the disease, the Government's response has been complacent, at least in respect of imports. What can the Minister say to counter that criticism?

I reject it entirely. This Government, as I learned this week on a visit to California, the part of the world most severely affected by the disease, have acted more swiftly than any other Government, not just across the Atlantic but also in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the seriousness of the disease, and we very much appreciate the co-operation we have had from the nursery industry. We are in discussion with it, and have been throughout. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has drawn the disease to the attention of the House, because it is not an exaggeration to say that it has the potential to be at least as devastating to our landscape as Dutch elm disease a generation ago.

But it is not only oak trees that are under threat. The national orchard—the nation's supply of fruit trees— has declined by a staggering 25 per cent. since 1997. Bearing in mind the fact that those trees are good for the environment and that the people who farm them are unsubsidised and produce food that is good for the nation's diet, what steps is the Minister taking to encourage people to plant more fruit trees?

That has nothing to do with sudden oak death. There is no evidence, either here or in the United States, that fruit trees are susceptible to the disease.

What steps are being taken to tackle the effects of pollution from landfill sites.

There are strict controls on landfill sites aimed at preventing or reducing any negative impact on the environment. In the spring, we will publish a review of the environmental and health effects of waste management, which brings together existing literature and evidence on the health and environmental effects of waste management, and will provide a valuable side-by-side comparison of different waste management options.

I thank the Minister for his response. Will he consider keeping a register of all sites containing materials harmful to human health, and make it a criminal offence to withhold information, whatever the source, about the tipping of such materials, either now or in the past?

I am not sure what examples the hon. Lady is pointing to that are not already covered by controls on tipping. As she will understand, we are doing our best both to get a proper fix on the health impact and reduce the UK's reliance on landfill. If she has specific examples that she would like to draw to my attention one of my ministerial colleagues or I would be happy to respond.

The Minister said that there are strict controls on landfill, but is he aware that in 2002 there were 285 major landfill pollution incidents? Only one in 200 incidents resulted in a fine for the operator, averaging just £6,000, which is a pittance to landfill operators. Is not the message from the Government that the polluter does not pay, and what is the Minister going to do about it?

I have just suggested that we want a better informed understanding of the environmental effects of waste management and a reduction in the UK's reliance on landfill. The figures that the hon. Gentleman referred to are a matter of concern, and I can assure him that they are kept under review both by DEFRA and the Environment Agency.

If she will make a statement on her Department's involvement in Operation Gangmaster.

DEFRA staff are involved when required in Operation Gangmaster activities, on which the Department for Work and Pensions takes the lead.

The Minister will know that there is concern that Operation Gangmaster is not an effective mechanism to deal with the activities of rogue gangmasters. Could he tell the House whether the Government intend to support the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill, which is due for its Second Reading on Friday 27 February, or do they prefer more effective enforcement of the current regulatory regime? If it is the latter, they must put more effort into doing so.

Results are coming out of the work. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions identified 235 overpayments and 1,023 adjustments to benefit worth £405.000, securing 138 sanctions and prosecutions. Figures show that the Inland Revenue's success in relation to unpaid tax and national insurance is worth £4.3 million. Steps are being taken that are producing results. However, I recognise hon. Members' interest in taking further measures to deal with gangmasters, and we are carefully considering, with colleagues in other Departments, the private Member's Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred.