What assessment her Department has made of the likely impact of her proposals for single farm payments on (a)tenant farmers and (b) livestock farmers in Northumberland. [160276]

My Department will publish shortly an analysis of the economic impact on the English farming industry of the decoupling of common agricultural policy direct payments and the decision to allocate entitlement on the basis set out in my statement to the House on 12 February.

Did the Secretary of State have that analysis before her when she made the original decisions about payments? Did it take account of the position of hard-pressed tenant farmers, for whom quota is the only capital asset for retirement, or the position of farmers in severely disadvantaged areas—SDAs—where the choice of the SDA line rather than the moorland line means that livestock farmers will be hard hit while the main benefit goes to grouse moor owners, and while their neighbours and competitors in Scotland do not face a similar loss of income?

Of course extensive economic analysis was available to us, but we continue to develop that as time goes on. We are aware of the concerns about the SDA-moorland split and we are carefully considering the different representations that we have received. I cannot honestly say whether we can make any change, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take the concerns that are being expressed very seriously.

Will my right hon. Friend hold urgent discussions with the Tenant Farmers Association? The issues raised in the question are linked to tenancy reform, and there is an ideal opportunity to give some guidance and leadership to tenants who are considering their future. There is no better way of doing that than by talking to members of the TFA.

We are always happy to talk to the TFA. Indeed, I understand and share my hon. Friend's anxieties, especially about the position of tenant farmers. We shall continue to discuss with them what problems arise in particular and what we can do to assist.

When the noble Lord Whitty gave evidence to the Select Committee's inquiry on milk pricing, it became evident that no formal research had been carried out on the impact of the proposals for single farm payments on the SDAs. Will milk producers be included in the work that the Secretary of State is undertaking? A report on "Farming Today", which contrasted two 200-acre farms with 300-odd cows, suggested that the SDA farm would receive £23,000 less in income than a similar farm further down the hill. Will she assure me that she will consider the matter?

As I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), we are continuing to develop the analysis further and we are considering all those issues. We shall do what we can to assess them carefully and take them into account. Of course, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) will be mindful, as I am, of the potential for major changes for individuals through the different system. That is one of the main reasons for phasing it in over some eight years.

On the impact of Government decisions on livestock farmers in Northumberland, will the Secretary of State confirm that Mr. Jim Dring, a Government vet, would, on his admission, have prevented the devastating foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 had his inspection of Burnside farm in Northumberland been more rigorous? Does she accept that that vital evidence was withheld from Dr. Anderson's inquiry into the lessons learned from the outbreak? Does she agree that that narrow but crucial matter should be properly investigated—it is the only reasonable thing to do—through an independent inquiry?

No, I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. Nor, indeed, is it the case that the issues that lay behind the memorandum—the note that Mr. Dring made for himself was withheld from the Anderson inquiry—were withheld from the inquiry.

I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's allegations and it would be wholly wrong, and very unfair to Mr. Dring, to suggest that in some way—and this is the implication—he was responsible. It was the person who employed certain standards that helped to foster such an outbreak who was responsible. Mr. Dring has done no more than any one of us might do in musing about the matter, examining his conscience and asking, "Oh dear—is there more that I could have done?" It is what any reasonable human being should do. The idea that he should be held guilty for doing that is very unfair.

Is the Secretary of State saying that, when making decisions on single farm payments, she was unaware that that would lead to up to 5,000 farms in SDAs, such as those in Northumberland, experiencing cuts in support payments of up to 75 per cent.? Does she accept that the loss of those farms will be a disaster not only for the farmers but for the environment? Although I welcome her willingness to examine the matter, does she accept that changes have to be made to the system to avert a potential catastrophe?

No, I am not saying that I was unaware that there would be an impact. There will inevitably be winners and losers when there is such a change. However, overall we think that about 13 per cent. of present entitlement will be redistributed over eight years. With any change, there are shifts and some individual businesses are particularly affected—however, every business should be able to benefit from the economic opportunities of decoupling. I repeat what I have said before, namely, that one of the chief reasons why we have agreed to phase in the changes over eight years is precisely to allow affected businesses to adapt.

If she will visit Staveley in Derbyshire to meet local residents to discuss environmental concerns arising from the escape of chlorine at Rhodia Eco Services on 3 November 2003. [160279]

I was concerned to discover that the investigation into the escape of chlorine at Rhodia by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency has not yet been completed, although the incident occurred on 3 November and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) met inspectors on site on 7 November. I have today asked the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency to complete their investigations urgently and to meet me next week.

It would be fruitful if I, as the local Member of Parliament, could be involved in next week's meeting, and I hope that that can be arranged. There were similar incidents in 1998 at SARP in Killamarsh in my constituency, where there were escapes of acid gas. At that time, the then Minister for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), visited councillors and residents, which greatly helped to resolve the situation. Could the same thing happen at Staveley in connection with this COMAH—control of major accident hazards—incident? The town council is holding a public meeting about the matter on 2 April at 7 pm in the Speedwell rooms. That would be a useful occasion for a visit by a Minister, including a visit to the site.

I have read my hon. Friend's account of events at Rhodia in Hansard, and I understand his concern about the history of the event, although I cannot make a promise about specific dates. I am told that the investigation is complex and technical, which is why it is taking some time, but that it is being pursued as a matter of urgency. I should be very happy to invite him to attend the meeting to which I have referred.

If she will make a statement on the work on public health conducted jointly by her Department and the Department of Health. [160280]

My Department works with the Department of Health on a range of key issues connected with public health, including fuel poverty, poor environment quality, animal health, services in rural areas, food and exercise. It will play its part in "Choosing Health", which is the consultation on action to improve people's health that was launched last week.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Can she tell us what assessment has been made of how to manage the surplus of fat that results from dairy processing to produce low-fat butter and milk, and what discussions have taken place with the Department of Health at ministerial and official level on that? Given the obesity epidemic that is sweeping our nation, would it not be sensible to bank the health dividend and ensure that that fat does not find its way back into the food chain?

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. As I have said, my Department is engaged in much work and discussion, including workshops and seminars, and I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's observations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to promote public health would be for food companies that encourage unhealthy diets in children to stop doing that? Is she trying to persuade her Cabinet colleagues to support recommendations to address the imbalance in television advertising, so that healthier eating, rather than unhealthy eating, is promoted?

I know that those issues are being considered not only by other Departments but by the Food Standards Agency. People are looking at the concerns that have been expressed on those issues and trying to get the balance right.

There is growing concern that low-level ground vibration from wind farms has the potential to have an adverse effect on public health. Has my right hon. Friend asked the Department of Health or an independent body to examine low-level vibration from wind turbines and its possible effects, or does she intend to do so?

I have not, but I will.

If she will visit the Royal Bath and West show 2004 to discuss the state of agriculture in the west country. [160281]

All members of the ministerial team attend numerous rural events, including agricultural shows. It is hoped that one member of DEFRA's ministerial team will be able to attend the Royal Bath and West show this year.

I should hope so. There was a time when the Minister for Agriculture would always be at the Royal Bath and West, engaging in a big conversation—probably a loud conversation—with the many dairy farmers I represent, who are facing extremely difficult trading conditions because the farm-gate price of milk is 0not sufficiently high to sustain their businesses. It is clear from the recent report produced by the Office of Fair Trading that the OFT does not understand that point. Is there any evidence that DEFRA understands that farmers need a fair price for milk? Is the Minister prepared to do something about the retailers who are not giving it to them?

First, DEFRA is not the Ministry of Agriculture. It has a much wider range of responsibilities, and quite right too. Secondly, attendance at an agricultural show is not the only way to understand the problems of the dairy industry. My noble Friend Lord Whitty meets regularly with the forum that deals with dairy issues, and there is considerable engagement from the Department on those matters.

When the Secretary of State stood before us and told us how the single farm payment would make Exmoor a winner, did she understand that there were problems involved, such as those raised in the earlier question? Why was Exmoor—which forms part of Somerset and Devon—put forward as a winner when it is actually going to be a loser under the current system as it evolves towards 2013?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has properly understood the impact of the proposals on his area. As the Secretary of State said, we certainly understand the problems facing various sectors of the industry, and we are looking very carefully at them as we consider the responses to the announcement that she made a short time ago.

I strongly urge Ministers to go to the Royal Bath and West show, where they will find, as I have on my recent visits to the west country, that livestock farmers have grave doubts about the Government's commitment to the long-term stability of the livestock industry. Those views are obviously driven by the Government's handling of the tuberculosis issue. Their latest document suggests that they are proposing to spend £2 billion over the next 10 years on not curing TB, while a 20 per cent. increase in the disease will surely be incompatible with a viable cattle industry.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to urge us to attend all agricultural shows; that would keep the ministerial team extremely busy. We try to strike a balance. Attending agricultural shows is one of the ways in which we interface with the agricultural and rural community, but it is not the only one.

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have any alternative proposals on TB. He does not seem to have thought about what he would put in place of the sensible and coherent proposals that have been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

If she will make a statement on the future of Nirex. [160282]

The Government have stated their intent to make Nirex independent of industry and under greater Government control to allow effective contribution to the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. We are working to ensure that Nirex continues to discharge its functions for the benefit of the public as well as its shareholders. When we are ready and able to do so, we shall make an announcement.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We all appreciate the hard work that she and her Department are doing on this issue. Does she agree that the reasons for Nirex's independence—transparency, public acceptability and a focus on the long term—are as valid today as they were when the announcement on this issue was made last year? Does she also agree that there are workable models for that independence on the table, which do not involve the inclusion of Nirex in the nuclear decommissioning agency, and that, with persistence from her Department, we might be able to achieve independence for Nirex sooner rather than later?

Certainly, I agree with my hon. Friend that the concerns that led us to suggest independence for Nirex remain valid. I share his view that they can continue to play a valuable role. We are examining all the options—which is why the process is taking a little longer than we might otherwise have wished—and I can assure him that we shall continue to seek the best option for the public good.

Given that the Secretary of State announced on 16 July last year that Nirex was to become independent, and notwithstanding the comments that she has just made, will she explain why so little has happened since then? Can she, in particular, confirm the story in The Observer of 29 February, which suggested that the reason for that was that the Department of Trade and Industry had, as usual, been lobbied by the nuclear industry and was resisting her sensible proposals? Will she give a guarantee that Nirex will indeed be made properly and fully independent? Will she give a time scale for that, and undertake that DEFRA will, for once, see off the DTI?

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to our proposals as sensible—he is right—but I cannot give him a time scale at the moment. We are setting up a new nuclear decommissioning authority and a new committee on radioactive waste management. These are genuinely difficult and complex issues, but we continue to hold the view that it is important to handle them well and to get the right pattern for the long term. As for my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, we have an extremely productive and cooperative relationship.

If she will make a statement on the composition of the Peak District National Park Authority. [160283]

As the hon. Gentleman will know from last week's Adjournment debate, I have concluded that a membership of 30 is an appropriate size for the Peak District National Park Authority. I now intend to consult on that proposal.

I thank the Minister for responding to the request that I and other Members representing the Peak park made by striking the right balance in terms of future membership of the authority. Is he aware, however, of the growing concern among Peak district farmers, in the light of the Secretary of State's announcement on 12 February, about the future viability of long-term farming in the Peak district, which is essential to that area? Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has just said and her statement of 12 February, when can we expect the final announcements to be made, so that farmers can know whether they have a secure future?

Given that the hon. Gentleman moved on very rapidly from the national park authority to other issues, it is clear that I have satisfied him on that front. Detailed regulations and other work needs to be done before these matters can be finalised. As he will know from earlier exchanges, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully understands the challenges that certain parts of the farming industry face, and it is clear that some of those fall within national park authority areas.

Will my right hon. Friend make sure that in composing the national park board, outside users, particularly those in Sheffield and Manchester, are fairly represented on it, especially given that many of them use the park as walkers, rock-climbers and tourists?

I am happy to underline the fact that national parks are a national asset. It is obviously right that there should be local representation, and engagement with local representatives and local authorities that are directly affected. That is why the final figure for the Peak district was rather higher than that for other authorities. Of course, some of those representatives represent urban areas as well as park areas. We will shortly renew and refresh the remit for national parks, as recommended in the recent review, and in doing so we will underline the existing range of interests, including those of the users to whom my hon. Friend refers.

As the Minister knows, part of my constituency lies within the Peak park. Following up the highly relevant question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), are livestock farmers being properly represented within the Peak park authority, and will the Minister take seriously the issues raised by my farmers in the Peak park in the light of the recent Government announcement? In their view—a view shared by their representatives and by me—farming in the severely disadvantaged marginal and hill areas will come to an end. That would be a disaster for farming and for our economy.

We have a template for considering, through the Secretary of State's appointees, representation on the national park authorities. That template takes into account farming and landowning interests, as well as those of users. In addition, all national park authorities provide representation—through parish councils, for example—for those with a direct farming interest. In every case, the interests of farmers within the landscape of the national parks are important. The Peak park involves a particularly complex set of relationships, and we do understand the connection between support for farmers and farming's impact on the landscape

If she will make a statement on the prospects for further reform of the common agricultural policy. [160284]

Following the historic reform of the common agricultural policy last June, the European Commission has proposed reforms of the cotton, olive oil, tobacco and hops regimes. We hope that Agriculture Ministers will agree them on 22 March or thereabouts. We are looking at options for reform on sugar, and hope to see proposals this summer.

As we reach the end of Fairtrade fortnight, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that there is no chance of our achieving global justice in trade unless the rich world reduces the absolute level of its agriculture subsidies? She has made great progress in shifting emphasis to non-trade-distorting subsidies, but to secure a deal at the World Trade Organisation meeting the European Union will need to table further proposals for reducing the overall burden of subsidies.

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but dealing with trade-distorting subsidies is the key to achieving fair trade. There are separate issues. As my hon. Friend knows, we are addressing the issue of what support is given to the farming community, and on what basis, by pursuing reforms that have been agreed. I do not consider it helpful for those who want a successful outcome, and a trade deal that will benefit developing countries in particular, to continue to focus on what is happening to non-trade-distorting subsidies. Let us keep our eye on the ball and try to secure as good a deal as we can for developing countries. We can indulge in philosophical speculation on ideal worlds at a later stage.

Farmers will be sceptical about further reform of the common agricultural policy unless the Secretary of State and the Government get the current rerforms right. The Secretary of State's answer to valid questions about the impact of her payments for severely disadvantaged areas was very disappointing. My hon. Friends the Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) have written to her asking whether they can bring a delegation of hill farmers to meet her. Will she now give a commitment to meet that delegation, and also a commitment to review the payments for severely disadvantaged areas, with a view to changing them to ensure that the 5,000 farms that are expecting to go out of business as a result of those payments will not do so?

I note that yet again Conservative spokespeople are calling for more funds to be invested—

No, she is not.

If the hon. Lady is not asking for more funds, she must be asking for funds to be taken from someone else.

When resources are redistributed—although in this instance the total is about 13 per cent. and it will happen over eight years—there is bound to be disappointment and concern, and people will want to make sure that the full impact on their own circumstances has been taken into account. As I have said, we are giving careful attention to the concerns that are being expressed. I cannot give the hon. Lady the undertaking that she seeks—I can only say that we will continue to keep these issues under review. We believe—and I think most people in agriculture believe—that the steps we are proposing are taking farming in the right direction. We are trying to employ a manageable time scale so that people can make decisions that are right for their own businesses.

I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not willing to agree to meet that delegation of hill farmers and hear directly from them about the problems that her proposals will cause. Farmers need to have confidence in the system that the Government are introducing. The Rural Payments Agency has only about nine months in which to establish a radically different system. Given the Department's track record—the cattle passport scheme lost 100,000 cattle, and the fallen stock scheme has been delayed yet again—what confidence can farmers have they will receive their single farm payments at all, let alone receive the right amount, on time?

The hon. Lady referred to correspondence that I have yet to receive. When I receive it I will of course give it consideration, as the hon. Lady and the House would expect.

It was sent on Monday.

In my experience, people frequently claim to have sent letters that have not actually been dispatched yet. I say to the hon. Lady that it would be quite wrong to give the impression—I am sure that she is not under such an illusion—that hill farmers as a group are all bound to lose. That is not the case. Indeed, some may well benefit considerably.

The hon. Lady referred to the track record of my Department. I freely confess that the information technology systems available required considerable investment, and that no parts of the IT systems in the new Department could talk one to another. As I said, a huge amount of investment is going in and much work is being done. When she says that the scheme that the Rural Payments Agency has to administer will be radically different, that may be true to a certain extent. but let us not forget that in the first year there will be only a 10 per cent. shift in payments, so the great bulk of the payments in that first year—not until 2005—will be made on the same basis as those today.

First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her recent statement on CAP reform? It was welcome and took a significant step forward. It came as something of a surprise that, on this occasion, the French agreed to the reforms. I wonder whether that might be a good augury for the future, and that more rapid progress might be made towards the eventual dissolution of the CAP and the return of agriculture policy to member state level, which would be a great step forward.

With great respect, I fear that one of the things that would not help us achieve further reform of the CAP is creating the impression that we were about to move to its dissolution. I also tell my hon. Friend that it would be more accurate to say that my colleague the French Agriculture Minister accepted the reform rather than agreed to it. I accept, however, my hon. Friend's basic assertion that there is a great need for reform of the CAP. We accept that and I believe that everyone in the British Parliament accepts it. Most people recognise that the steps we have taken will take us further in the right direction. To be fair, successive British Governments have sought to follow that direction, but the present Government are delivering.

But does the Secretary of State accept that the reforms have neither reduced the costs of the CAP nor helped to reduce protectionism in Europe? If the Government are serious about promoting international development and helping consumers in this country, should not the Secretary of State accept that the CAP is now well past its sell-by date and that it is time to get out of it?

It has been a long-standing aim of successive British Governments to curtail expenditure in this area, but the hon. Gentleman will know that under the agreement there is now a ceiling, which will not be exceeded. If expenditure tends to drift above that ceiling, it will be brought back. One aspect that is now completely different—many people believed that we would not be able to secure it—is that resources will be made available to secure what the public want, such as landscape protection, improvements to the environment and so forth, rather than merely to subsidise an industry.

What assessment has been made of the possibility of growing GM maize in England; and if she will make a statement. [160285]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an oral statement in the House on Tuesday. The statement covered the issue of commercial growing of a type of GM maize.

Given the doubts of the Environmental Audit Committee about the robustness, validity and relevance of the farm-scale evaluation results and the view of the British Medical Association that insufficient research into the impact on human health of GM foodstuffs has been conducted, does the Minister agree that few, if any, conventional or organic farmers will be able wholly to escape the impact of GM contamination of their crops, and that the GM industry should conclude a legal liability regime not only with farmers but with the ultimate consumers of the food they produce?

My hon. Friend has raised a number of points. First, let me deal with the British Medical Association report. In fact, the report made it clear that the BMA supported the Government's approach of considering each application on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the BMA conceded and recognised—again effectively supporting the Government—the thoroughness of the detailed work on GM herbicide-tolerant maize. On the issue of liabilities, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that this summer we will consult on the shape of a liability scheme and the consultation will include any potential consequences in relation to GM crops.

As for growing the crops, consultation will also be held on a coexistence regime to ensure that GM crops and conventional and organic crops are cultivated separately. These are important matters, and the Government take careful note of Select Committee reports. Much of what was in the EAC report was not new, and a report published in Nature on the same day—of which the Committee was not aware—addressed many of the points that the EAC raised.

Tuesday's statement authorising the planting of GM maize in this country was an historic occasion, as it brought to an end this country's GM-free status. Does the Minister accept that to make such a decision before the House had had a chance to debate the outcome of the trials was to put the cart before the horse, and that it served only to aggravate the public's widespread concern?

The hon. Lady talks about this country's GM-free status, but may I remind her that the first authorisation for GM products and crops was given by the previous Conservative Government, before 1997? This Government negotiated a commercial moratorium while we carried out the largest and most detailed field-scale evaluation of its type ever held. No country has been as thorough in its examination of GM, which has been the subject of much discussion and debate in this House. I assure the hon. Lady that there will be a debate in Government time on the outcome of the FSEs, and on the Government's approach to the matter.

May I declare an interest in that, being a vegetarian, I have probably eaten more GM food than many other hon. Members? As far as I am aware, I have not yet shown any ill effects. [Interruption]

But my hon. Friend has a green beard.

Yes, I have.

I hope that the Government can give a more positive response on the question of health effects on humans. A report that emerged only last week from the Philippines detailed the possible very bad effect on villagers living adjacent to a GM maize crop. Should we not take that very seriously, and listen to the BMA's concerns—albeit on a case-by-case basis?

I accept the points that my hon. Friend raises. It is important that we should not be complacent about any report. The BMA report was helpful: it said that there had been years of evaluation of the consumption of GM foods, especially in the US, and that no discernible ill effects had been found. As for the research in the Philippines, the scientist involved has conceded that he has offered his interpretation, and that more work needs to be done. Also, the findings have not been published yet, nor subject to independent peer review. When that happens, we will look at them very carefully.

What steps she is taking to support the dairy industry. [160287]

In line with our strategy for sustainable farming and food, we are facilitating industry action, most notably through the dairy supply chain forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty. The forum seeks to improve efficiency and increase innovation, and to help the industry adapt to the new environment created by the reformed common agricultural policy.

The milk price report that DEFRA published yesterday showed that, even before this year's spring flush, milk prices have fallen over the past six months. In light of that, may I commend to the Minister the idea embodied in my private Member's Bill, which proposes the establishment of an independent milk ombudsman? That ombudsman would be a watchdog rather than a regulator, able to monitor the industry and report on its state, and to keep an eye on what the supermarkets are doing. In that way, the ombudsman would be able to determine whether a fair price was being paid to dairy farmers, in west Wales and throughout the UK. If the Minister is not in favour of that idea, what steps will he take to bring more transparency to the industry?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will get far with that idea, especially given the Opposition's promise of a bonfire of the tsars. However, I point out that farm-gate milk prices have been rising since last June. The average price for deliveries in December was 19.54p per litre—1.81p above the price in December 2002. We must be careful not to treat a single month as having massive significance.

Secondly, we are working closely with the industry. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the causes of low farm-gate prices are identified in the KPMG report, which examines the matter in detail, and are mainly for the industry to address. We seek to assist the industry in addressing those issues.

The real problem is that the industry is fragmented—relationships are often antagonistic and the operation of the supply chain is not transparent. Is not the Government's important role to bring all the parties together so that they can find a solution to the problems that they undoubtedly face?

My hon. Friend is right, and that is the purpose of the forum chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty to which I referred. There are a number of explanations for low farm-gate prices—for instance, the low value of the product mix, the low level of product innovation within the UK compared with some other European states as well as the structure of the UK industry to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) referred. The forum is addressing all those points.

As the Minister knows, a proposal to reclassify yoghurt is going through Europe. Yeo Valley Organic yoghurt is based in my constituency, and dairy farmers throughout Somerset and the west are concerned that if the proposal goes through not only will they be unable to sell organic milk because yoghurt will be reclassified, but the dairy industry will have trouble selling milk into other yoghurt producing companies because of the reclassification in Europe. Will the Minister guarantee that the British Government will stand up to the proposal and not allow Europe to reclassify yoghurt?

The hon. Gentleman may be referring to accounts of ongoing discussions rather than a conclusion, and I am happy to write to him on the detail of the position. I congratulate him on representing not only his constituents but a very fine product in Yeo Valley Organic yoghurt.

If he will make a statement on steps towards the implementation of the Dee cockle regulation order. [160289]

We will get on with the job of making a regulating order for the Dee estuary once the prospective grantee, the Environment Agency Wales, has submitted a formal application for an order.

Does my hon. Friend agree that regulation is needed to control the numbers of people involved, to license individuals and to control the times at which cockles may be exploited and the number of cockles that may be exploited? Does he agree that that would allow us better to monitor and control the beds and to protect the environment and the individuals concerned? Given that my hon. Friends and I have literally been raising the matter for years, is it not time for some urgency to be injected into the process?

Yes. I share my hon. Friend's frustration at the rate of progress. As he will understand, however, getting a regulating order off the ground is a complex matter. In particular, there is the need to consult so many different parties. There are still problems with one or two of the landowners concerned, including a couple of his local authorities, which he may like to encourage to speed up the process.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the progress that was made last year by strengthening the data protection legislation surrounding applications for permits to exploit cockles on the Dee estuary commercially. That significant change enabled the Environment Agency to transfer data to the Department for Work and Pensions and others to cut out some of the attempted frauds. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that principle is carried forward into the regulating order when it is introduced?

I will certainly examine whether that is practicable. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on the role he played in helping to sort out the problem with the Data Protection Act 1998, which has helped to speed up the process.

What steps she is taking to reduce the amount of waste generated by (a) households and (b) businesses. [160290]

Current action to encourage waste reduction includes the waste and resources action programme on waste minimisation, funding for local authorities for waste minimisation through DEFRA's waste minimisation and recycling fund and the envirowise programme, jointly funded by DEFRA and the Department of Trade and Industry, which aims to reduce the environmental impacts, including waste, of businesses and industry.

The Minister mentions minimisation several times, and I hope that he agrees that that is an important part of the strategy, but the issue is a double whammy. Some years ago, the Women's Environmental Network highlighted the fact that a large percentage of packaging, particularly in supermarkets, is unnecessary. Some supermarkets have made great strides forward by introducing crates instead of generating cardboard waste, but what will the Minister do to put more emphasis on that? Would he support a repeat of the "wrapping is a rip-off- campaign, in which people were encouraged to leave excess waste at the checkout?

It is useful to raise awareness of the unnecessary use of wrapping and packaging; the Women's Environmental Network has done an excellent job on that and I meet its representatives regularly. The Government published a waste hierarchy in our strategy, and waste minimisation is at the top. The waste packaging directive applies to supermarkets and manufacturers and it is having an impact. However, I accept that there is more to be done, and we are addressing the issue.

Can the Minister get into a bit more of a campaigning mood on this issue? There is an almost impossible quantity of packaging from Sainsbury's, Tesco and—most importantly—the Co-op, and it is difficult for pensioners, many of whom do not have the manual dexterity of a younger person, to get into some of it. The worst example is CD packaging.

I accept that some packaging, especially bubble-wrap packages, are hard to get into, and it must be difficult for elderly people. The priority must be to minimise waste, and that means a change of culture in the way that products are packaged and offered to the public. Some big retailers have made genuine progress, and the Co-op is a case in point. We need to do more, including raising awareness and tackling the issue at every level—individual, company, retailer and manufacturer. I shall look seriously at what more we can do to support awareness-raising programmes.

Given that the ban on swill feeding is imposing extra costs on hotels of up to £1,000—not least in south Oxfordshire—and given that that necessitates the employment of a new council tax-funded waste inspector and that landfill sites have room for only another three years of waste, can the Minister say what steps he is taking now to reduce the baleful effects of that ill-thought-out, vexatious and bossy piece of legislation?

I was not aware that the pigswill industry was so important in Henley, but I will bear it in mind. However, whether we like it or not, there are major risks associated with the pigswill sector. I acknowledge that some people in that sector have acted responsibly and professionally, but the risk is considerable. On the issue of compensation, I have sympathy with the industry, whose representatives are talking to the Department at present, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a former Conservative Government who did not compensate the cattle head deboners for the ban that was applied to their work.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while we need to continue to address the issue of packaging, one of the big growths in waste is the generation of paper by e-mails? Often, only one page is wanted but a whole mass is produced and tipped into waste bins.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. E-mail has the potential to enable us to make progress towards paperless offices. That is an issue for all of us, especially in how we deal with constituency cases. We all have a responsibility, as individuals—not just companies and organisations—to think of what we can do to minimise waste, and utilising new technology is one way to do so.

What steps are being taken to reduce the number of abandoned cars. [160291]

The Government have introduced comprehensive measures to tackle vehicle abandonment—including tightening and stepping up enforcement of the vehicle licensing system and ensuring swifter removal of abandoned vehicles. From January 2007, owners of end-of-life vehicles will be able to hand them over to authorised treatment facilities free of charge.

Why does this country insist on the end of-life owner disposing of a vehicle, even free of charge, when often the vehicle, was taken over when it had little value, now has no value and the owner might be quite poor? Why not do as other European Union countries do—place a duty upon manufacturers to meet the cost of disposal?

It is our intention to put that arrangement in place in 2007. At present, there is a responsibility on the final owner of an end-of-life vehicle to deal with it responsibly. The irresponsible abandonment of vehicles has posed problems for some local authorities, but we are applying a range of measures—including the introduction of continuous registration from January 2005.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of abandoned vehicles is a major problem and may worsen until 2007? It is easy to get rid of a vehicle's scrap metal at the end of its life but cars have some nasty components, with no sensible answers to their recycling or reuse.

My hon. Friend is right that there is an issue around the de-polluting of vehicles, which involves skills and facilities that vehicle dismantlers are increasingly able to offer. That is being tightened up in the regulations. We are by no means complacent about the period between now and 2007. Other issues, such as the price of scrap, influence the volume of abandoned vehicles; recent scrap prices mean that vehicle dismantlers are interested in taking vehicles free of charge.

Many of my constituents must have a car to get to work, and they tend to be old cars owned by poorly paid people. Are not the Government terribly complacent in not insisting that manufacturers pay the cost of vehicle disposal much earlier, which the Government could have done under the current regulations, instead of leaving it until 2007 or beyond.

The new measure, which we much support, is a big change to manufacturers' responsibilities—but the necessary facilities must be put in place to ensure a network of dismantlers. We have negotiated with the car industry the issue of marque responsibility and there is also the matter of how to deal with orphan vehicles whose manufacturers no longer exist. A range of complexities is involved, which will take time to resolve. I share the right hon. Gentleman's desire to see the scheme up and running as soon and effectively as possible, disposing of end-of-life vehicles in an environmentally sensible and sound way.

What the latest estimate is of the proportion of the retail price of dairy products sold in supermarkets that is received by farmers. [160292]

Given the range of products that contain milk, it is not practicable to estimate the proportion of supermarket prices that farmers receive for all dairy products. However, their share of the value of supermarket sales of fresh liquid whole milk is currently estimated at around 40 per cent.

I am grateful for that estimate, but does the Minister accept that farmers in my constituency and elsewhere are angered when they compare supermarket prices of their dairy products with the money that they received? Consumers would be angry, too, if they understood how little money goes to farmers. Will the Minister place an obligation upon stores above a certain size to display next to the dairy cabinet the percentage of the price of the milk that has gone to the farmer? Would that not name and shame?

The hon. Gentleman might wish to encourage the industry in that direction but I would be surprised if the prospect of greater regulation won much support. Price negotiations between producers and processors or between processors and supermarkets are a commercial matter, in which the Government cannot get involved as long as competition rules are respected. The profit margins on milk for supermarkets and middle-ground retailers have increased currently between 25 to 30 per cent. I referred earlier to research— the Competition Commission report in 2000 indicated that supermarket profit margins on dairy products were in line with overall grocery margins. As I indicated in an earlier response, it is a complex issue and there is no magic wand that will suddenly produce an end to the profit margin problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Can my right hon. Friend appreciate the concerns of my constituent, Mr. Brian Parry, who is the largest milk producer in Monmouthshire and who says that he cannot make a living from producing 5,000 litres of milk a day at 18p per litre? What efforts are being made to strengthen the code of practice for the supermarkets, and are other options being considered?

As I said earlier, we recognise the difficulties caused by low farm-gate prices for milk over the past few years and the challenges that the sector will face with the reform of the common agricultural policy. On the other hand, we have seen an increase in farm-gate prices, and I have already referred to the work under way with the industry in the forum chaired by Lord Whitty. We believe that there is a viable future for the industry but it requires action by the industry, as the KPMG report showed.

Does the Minister agree that one way in which dairy and other farmers can capture a larger share of the value of their produce is through farmers' markets and farm shops? However, does he agree that there are still problems for those taking part in farmers' markets, and especially for those opening farm shops, in terms of the regulatory burdens? I am thinking in particular of Foxbury farm shop, near Brize Norton, in my constituency. When a farm shop starts to stock any other kind of produce, it can be hit by a very substantial rates bill. What will the Minister and his Department do specifically to ensure that farm shops and farmers' markets can continue to thrive, as they do in many parts of the country such as west Oxfordshire?

I accept that there are regulatory requirements for farmers and, indeed, for retail outlets, but many farmers are extremely successful in ensuring—exactly as the hon. Gentleman said—that there is a greater return for the primary producer. Farmers can do a range of things; marketing is part of that, with direct sales and the use of farmers' markets. I have also seen some good examples of farmers working together, getting their local produce into local hypermarkets and outselling national brands. There is much that the industry can do, and we are seeking to encourage those things.

What her most recent assessment is of the role that vaccination may play in a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [160293]

Emergency vaccination would be considered as an additional tool to the culling of susceptible animals on infected premises, and those animals that were epidemiologically linked.

Only "considered", when to protect an export market of only £500 million the taxpayer spent £9 billion slaughtering 7 million animals, many of them unnecessarily? We now know that vaccinated animals are perfectly acceptable in the marketplace. Should we not have a firm policy—not merely consider it—that we shall never again slaughter millions of animals without good reason? If there is another outbreak of foot and mouth, the great danger is that we shall be subject to the waste, futility and cruelty of mad cull disease.

It was not without good reason. Indeed, if that action had not been undertaken, the epidemic would have lasted much longer and would have been much more serious.

It would probably still be going on.

Yes. There are eventualities—for example, if a new strain of foot and mouth were to hit us, for which no vaccine was available—when it might not be practicable in a short space of time to use vaccination.

Given the important role undertaken by the veterinary profession during the last outbreak and the shortages in that profession, what strategic discussions or reviews have been conducted by the Department with vets to ensure that we have enough vets in the right places, able to respond to the outbreaks that none of us wants to see?

All those things were considered in the Government's response to the Anderson inquiry. As my hon. Friend may know, we intend to hold a contingency exercise this summer—in case of a future foot and mouth outbreak—in which vets will play a central role.

If she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's progress towards the introduction of home-based waste separation for recycling. [160298]

Waste management is a devolved matter. In 2001–02,58 per cent. of households in England received a kerbside collection of recyclable materials separate from the residual waste. The Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 requires all waste collection authorities in England to collect at least two recyclable materials separate from the residual waste by the end of 2010.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What is he doing to encourage local authorities to sort out waste management, and, in particular, to deal with the large number of refrigerators stored in various places? Nothing is being done to recycle them.

New measures have been brought in to encourage local authorities to develop more kerbside collection. They include additional funds through the challenge fund and the waste minimisation fund. With regard to the separation of dry recyclates, there has been enormous progress in the past couple of years by local authorities, for which they deserve great credit. I very much hope that those local authorities that have not made as much progress will recognise the standards of the best and bring their standards up to them.

When a country neglects one of its most important weapons for economic development— transport—it gets into considerable difficulty. For well over 20 years, this country has ignored the fact that its aviation industry is vital to our development. It is not only a multinational industry, but one that brings in large numbers of people, their money and their interests. It also provides for the British an essential means of developing their industries and their relationships with other countries of the world.

The estimate that we are debating today is one of the most important, and the Government are to be congratulated on having produced a White Paper after so many years of drift and indecision on the part of successive Governments. It is therefore disappointing that their response to the Select Committee's report on aviation was mildly grudging. There are many aspects of aviation policy that need to be debated in considerable depth, but this afternoon I would like to concentrate almost entirely on the gap that the Select Committee has identified in the thinking of Her Majesty's Government.

Let me make it clear that I sympathise with a Government who are seeking to undo 20 years of neglect across the transport system. They are continually being asked to come up with new ideas and new investment on a large scale for the whole industry across the United Kingdom. The reality, however, is that aviation now needs some pretty clear decisions and, above all, some very clear leadership at Government level, not least because we have reached the point at which what we do now—or, even worse, what we do not do—will dominate our economy for the next 10 to 20 years.

I turn first to the development of airports. Whether we like it or not, people are going to continue to move around, and they are going to continue to use aeroplanes to do so. The development of the airports in the south-east of the United Kingdom is directly relevant to our economy. Without an efficient means of moving industrialists, those working in industries and those contributing to our tourist industry, we are going to suffer economically.

The Government seem still not to have faced up to a number of awkward political decisions. We have to decide which of the airports in the south-east are going to be developed, and who is going to develop them. We also have to decide—when I say "we", I mean all of us—who is going to pay for that development. We have to accept that, if we run away from those decisions, a state of happy neglect will not deal with the chaos that will ensue, and the whole of the United Kingdom's economy will pay a very high price.

I want to address one or two simple points. The first is the ownership of the major airports in the south-east. My Committee has considered, in a number of reports, the complex situation that now exists in relation to the remains of what were state-controlled agencies. The Government are in an odd situation, because BAA—formerly the British Airports Authority—which controls the major airports in the south-east is a private company with a need to respond to the interests of its shareholders. Its decisions will be taken on the basis of its relationship with its shareholders, yet it is required to advise the Government on how we should develop our airports and which developments we should push to the top of the queue.

That represents a basic conflict of interest, as my Committee has highlighted, not least because if BAA is not prepared, for its own internal economic reasons, to make clear how it is going to fund the development of airports in the south-east, it will almost inevitably be taking decisions, by default, that will affect the United Kingdom at every level. If, on the other hand, it bases its decisions son where it wants to see development purely on its own economic interests and on the charges that it can level on the airline industry, it will almost inevitably not be capable of handling the advice that it gives to the Government impartially or independently. That is inevitable; it is built into the system.

My Committee suggested that we should consider the existing ownership of BAA and whether the need to produce results for its shareholders had influenced its decisions on where future development should take place. We also suggested that we should consider whether the taxpayer is best served by allowing BAA monopoly control of all the major airport machinery in the south-east. Whether we like it or not, those of us who are concerned about the future of regional airports know that if anything goes wrong with the slots at the major south-eastern airports, the first people to suffer will be those who are flying from the regions of Britain. BAA has a responsibility to maximise the profits that it receives from its airports in the south-east, but it also makes decisions about slot control, about how particular runways should be developed and about whether that would restrict access for regional air traffic. Inevitably, its interests will not be the same as those of the people outside the south-east.

Before the hon. Lady moves on from the reasons why BAA might or might not want to take particular decisions, does she accept that there is another consideration that BAA must take into account—namely, the interests of the people who work for it? More than 25 per cent. of my constituents who are in jobs depend on Heathrow. Surely it is not selfish of BAA to say that it is vital to protect the jobs not only of our employees but of all those who use Heathrow.

I accept that totally, but the reality is that there is no problem with protecting jobs at Heathrow. Many of us would say that it is a viable and developing economic asset to the country, and that it ought to be protected simply because of the amount of business that it generates, alone and unaided.

Does my hon. Friend also recall the evidence that the Committee took from the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart)? He made it plain that, unless there was a continuation of the route served by jet from Inverness to either Gatwick or Heathrow, many of the businesses in the highlands would be badly affected and would relocate as a consequence of not having that direct route.

Indeed. We were told time and again that in taking a business decision about where a new factory should be built or where a new business should be expanded, transport—almost inevitably—was one of the first priorities of any of the managements concerned. We took evidence that showed that in some instances, the ability of foreign managements to get to a regional destination not just by changing planes—even though that might be a convenient system—but by flying direct, would influence their decision about where their developments should go. We were constantly told of Japanese managements who, when faced with the alternatives of a site that could be reached easily and a site that could be reached only after experiencing certain difficulties, inevitably chose the site that had mainline connections and offered easy ways of flying in and out of the region. So it is terribly important that we understand the absolutely direct link between access to airports in the south-east for those in the regions, and the decisions that are taken about where developments will be located in future.

I do not want to take too long as I know that many Members want to speak, but I want to consider the hazards that will arise if the Government appear to be influenced by some of the decisions being taken by the European institutions. At the request of the European Commission's transport commission, a study was undertaken of the feasibility and impact of adopting market mechanisms to allocate slots at congestion category 1 airports. Even though most people are not interested in the minutiae of airport administration, they understand that there is no use in having the best and most comfortable plane in the world if it cannot actually be landed at the airport of one's choice at the time when one wants to arrive.

So the allocation of slots at airports, particularly in the south-east, is not only a very fraught matter but an absolutely vital one for airline passengers. The European Union—for reasons that are fairly acceptable in theory, but which will cause enormous difficulty in practice—seems to be moving towards a system through which the only way of deciding whether airline passengers can land at a congested airport will be the price that the airline in question is prepared to pay for the slot, or pairs of slots, on offer.

There are those in this House who believe very strongly that capitalism red in tooth and claw is the only way to plan our transport system. Having looked at the results of some years of that total lack of overall guidance, I beg leave to differ very strongly. But more than that, in a congested island the decisions that are taken about airline slots become even more vital. My Committee has produced a detailed report on the effect on the regions, but we should think about the report produced by National Economic Research Associates, in conjunction with Leiden university and Consultair Associates. That report appears to conclude that, although planned investments may ease the situation, there will be more and more congestion in the next five years, and that the only way to deal with it is to open up the slots to market forces. That is not only very dangerous; it will have an immediate knock-on effect on all regional passengers who want to get to the south-east.

It is extraordinary that I should have to ask Parliament not to accept a policy that will make it virtually impossible for people who live outside the south-east to travel easily and efficiently to their capital city, yet that is what we are talking about. We are not talking simply about ways of expanding the profits of a private company called BAA, but about the right of people who do not live in the privileged south-east to access the city in which most decisions—whether we like it or not—are still taken. Be they decisions in government, law or commerce, such decisions are almost inevitably determined by what goes on in the capital city of the United Kingdom.

We seem to be saying that it is not necessary to plan to ensure a sensible allocation of resources for regional airports; instead, we can just leave it to the market. But the market has already demonstrated that the control of slots at Heathrow, for example, is an absolutely stunning money-maker. We are talking about not £1 million or £2 million, but £ £5 million and even £10 million. We are talking gold bars. To those who seriously think that we can say to regional airports, "Don't worry about it. Your local authorities will have the right, if they so choose, to subsidise transport that will get you to even the most congested south-east airports", I can only say that that is the most unlikely scenario that I have heard, even in this Chamber.

The reality is that the Government are being advised on airport development by a private company that is committed to making an enormous profit. As far as I can see, such decisions will be governed not by the political, economic and demographic interests of the UK regions, but by a series of political decisions that are all about making money and applying the simple measurement of money to a vital asset.

I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Lady's Committee was unable to address the issue of business aviation, which has a contribution to make in relieving prime slot times at our major hub airports. Here, I am making a small plea of behalf of Farnborough aerodrome. It is Government policy, as the Minister has reiterated, that Farnborough should be the business airport serving the south-east. There has been huge investment in Farnborough, and such business airports have a serious contribution to make in relieving congestion at the major hubs.