If she will make a statement on the progress her Department is making towards implementing the Haskins report. [174399]

I intend to publish a refreshed rural strategy for England later in the spring. The strategy will include a full response to the recommendations coming out of Lord Haskins's rural delivery review. Good progress is being made with stakeholders to develop this response.

I thank the Secretary of State for the positive tone of her reply. How does she propose to reconcile the approach of Lord Haskins, which is to deal with inefficiency and overstaffing in DEFRA through decentralisation, with the approach set out in the Chancellor's Gershon process, which is to deal with overstaffing and inefficiency by centralising decision making?

With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the impact of the Chancellor's proposals. There is no difference of view between us that the decentralisation of delivery processes would be highly desirable, and that is entirely consistent with reducing perhaps unnecessarily full core activities at the centre.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although Haskins has made many good recommendations, the true test is what is happening in rural areas? We must ensure that some of the good programmes that have been put in place by the Countryside Agency and others are allowed to continue. Does she agree that we need to ensure that that happens?

I entirely agree that there are at least two important aspects to Lord Haskins's proposals, one of which is that we should have more effective organisation of the agencies and organisations that relate to DEFRA. The second, which is much more germane to the ordinary citizen in rural areas, is what happens to the plethora of rural funding streams; I believe that Lord Haskins identified between 70 and 100 of them. I have asked the Department to examine, as its first priority, how we can simplify this area to give better delivery of services to customers in rural areas.

The Secretary of State talks about her rural strategy, and she will be aware that there is a plethora of organisations involved in the provision of flexible labour in agriculture and horticulture, particularly related to the work of gangmasters. What steps will she take, in the light of the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to ensure that the Government at last appoint a Minister with the power to rationalise and make policy in this area effective?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Select Committee report, which was published only yesterday, deals with a good number of the Committee's thoughts on that matter. I have not had a chance to study it, although I shall of course do so. The Government are conscious that this is an extremely difficult problem, with which successive Governments have grappled without success. We hope to be more successful.

The Secretary of State will know that, as resources are moved from the Countryside Agency to local authorities and regional development agencies, concerns remain in rural areas that the money intended for improvements to the countryside might be swallowed by other budgets and that, instead of the delivery of projects, there might be delay or even destruction in some circumstances. What assurance can she give the House that that is unlikely to happen?

Of course I understand that anxiety, and I seem to recall that great concern was expressed when the regional development agencies were first set up. However, it will be within my hon. Friend's memory—as it is within that of most of us—that, during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the RDAs were very helpful and supportive. Many of those anxieties have therefore not been realised. I can assure him that we shall monitor the situation carefully to ensure that the right support goes to rural areas. That will also be part of the remit of the new, slimmed-down Countryside Agency, which I am sure will be robust in its observations.

When she expects to introduce a national collection scheme to assist livestock farmers in disposing of fallen stock. [174400]

It is expected that an industry-led scheme backed by Government funding will be introduced in the autumn of this year.

Obviously, the scheme should have been introduced before the regulation was introduced last July. We were promised then that it would be introduced by the new year. Is it not deeply depressing that we still have no definite date for the scheme—merely "the autumn of this year"? Will the Minister guarantee that any farmer who does not have an abattoir within easy reach of his or her farm will not be prosecuted if they do their best to dispose safely of their fallen stock on their own farm premises?

Farmers are expected to comply with the regulation, although local authorities, which are responsible for enforcement, have been told to implement it with a light touch before the scheme is up and running. I share the hon. Gentleman's regrets about the length of time that it has taken, but this is quite a complex matter. It involves trying to get agreement across all the livestock and other sectors involved. We have now achieved that. It is an industry-run scheme, it has buy-in from the industry and those who run it are confident that it will be launched this autumn.

Does the Minister recognise that any future ban on hunting with hounds would reduce the options available to farmers? Will he acknowledge that in 2003, 143 hunt kennels processed 500,000 carcases, free to local farmers? There will be further problems if that is not recognised and if there is a ban. Will he also tell the House whether the EU—

Order.

If the hon. Lady checks, she will find that the vast majority of hunt kennels charge for the service—they do not provide a free service. We acknowledge that hunt kennels play a role, but it is small in terms of the amount of stock they collect and dispose of, and it is sensible for them to develop this service as an alternative source of income. Those on the board who administer the scheme, and representatives of the collection and disposal industry, assure me that a hunting ban would have absolutely no effect on their ability to dispose of fallen stock. There is plenty of capacity available within the industry.

The Minister says glibly that any ban on hunting would have no effect whatever on the fallen stock company that was set up this week. Why, then, did he announce that 146 of the registered collection centres will be hunt kennels, and that about 80 per cent. of the countryside of England will not be serviced by anybody apart from hunt kennels? Will he not pay some tribute to the valuable service that they have given to the countryside over many years? Will he acknowledge that whether or not hunts charge for collection—most of them do not— they collected 600,000 carcases last year, at a cost of £3.5 million? What would he do if hunting were to be banned?

The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my answer. I quoted the chairman of the board of the National Fallen Stock Company, who assured me that a ban on hunting would have no impact whatever on the industry's capacity to dispose of fallen stock.

Will the Minister reassure the House that farmers in remoter rural areas will not be disadvantaged by excessive charges for the collection of their fallen stock compared with those in areas closer to collection centres? Given the Government's evidently maňana attitude to a regulation that should have been acted on more than a year ago, do they believe that it is an effective and worthwhile scheme that is making a significant impact on the biosecurity of livestock farms?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we gold-plate all EU regulations, although perhaps that is the new Liberal Democrat approach to these matters. I take on board his concern about livestock farmers in remoter rural areas. I am aware, for example, of the concerns of the sheep industry in the remoter parts of Wales, although the National Sheep Association supports this scheme. One of the advantages of the new scheme is that it is a pay-as-you-go scheme, so it is likely to drive down prices. We already know that at least one collector in Wales has said that he will reduce his prices once the scheme is up and running.

What discussions she has had on her proposals for single farm payments in respect of farmers in severely disadvantaged areas. [174401]

I have had discussions with, and received representations from, a wide range of interests on this subject. As a result, I made a parliamentary written statement to the House on 22 April.

As the Secretary of State knows, part of my Macclesfield constituency lies within the Peak District national park. Will she take seriously the views of my farmers, who are deeply concerned about the proposed single farm payments? Up to 200,000 cows are estimated to be on the 5,000 farms in severely disadvantaged areas, and the National Farmers Union believes that those farms will no longer be profitable and will go out of business in respect of livestock farming. Would not that be a disaster for farming, the upland environment and our rural economy?

Of course I am aware of the concerns that exist. It is because of them that the Government have agreed to phase in the move to area payment over some eight years. That gives farmers in every part of the United Kingdom plenty of opportunity to assess the position of their own businesses and make their own business decisions. Other payments are available, such as the hill farm allowance, which is paid under the rural development regulation. It will continue until the present period ends in 2006.

Many of my constituents in areas such as the North York moors will be affected by the proposals. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a seminar for all Members representing such severely disadvantaged areas, so that we can talk to officials and perhaps, if necessary, bring along some of our staff? I am sure that we shall need to give a great deal of information to constituents facing the new arrangements. It would be helpful if that information were as good, as up to date and as factual as possible, so that we could cut through some of the confusion that currently exists.

That is a wise suggestion, which echoes one made a while ago by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who chairs the Select Committee. We certainly have it in mind to offer special briefing to all interested colleagues, not least those representing moorland areas. We are well aware that although the moorland line has been fairly well established for a long time, when it was established there was no process of appeal, as there was in the case of the boundaries for special areas.

The Secretary of State is familiar with my constituency in the Peak district. Although the change she has had to make since her original announcement has been welcomed, many farmers are asking why they are being treated differently from those farming perhaps only half a mile away but outside the area. Would it not be better to have only one distinction, between moorland and non-moorland farms?

We thought about that carefully. One of the factors that led us to refine our decision—not reverse it, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, although he may not really have meant that—was the scale and unanimity of representations from a wide range of farming organisations. We believe that this is an improvement, because it mitigates the effects of the redistribution that would otherwise have occurred.

What progress has been made towards a ban on hunting with dogs. [174402]

A clear commitment has been given to the House that the issue of hunting with dogs will be dealt with during the life of this Parliament.

The Minister is of course aware that three quarters of the British public think hunting with dogs should be banned. Over the past seven years, the House has repeatedly shown the same determination. Will the Government introduce a Bill to ban hunting with dogs in time for it to become law during this Session? I will accept a one-word answer—yes or no.

My hon. Friend knows that I am not going to give her a one-word answer. She also knows from the reaction of Opposition Members that there is a knee-jerk reaction in some quarters when the issue of hunting is mentioned. I have made it clear that a commitment has been given to the House by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and me that the issue will be dealt with during the life of this Parliament.

What possible case is there for criminalising a large section of the most law-abiding members of the rural community?

In view of the hon. Gentleman's long experience in the House, I should have thought that he would know that the House of Commons—the Houses of Parliament—frequently passes new laws, as a result of which certain actions become illegal. It is not a question of criminalising people; those who offend against laws passed by Parliament are offenders. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should put his question in a rather more neutral manner.

I know that my right hon. Friend gave his answer in good faith, and I am sure that he intends to deliver on it, but does he accept that many people who are currently writing to many MPs believe that this House has overwhelmingly voted in favour of the banning of hunting on many occasions and that it is wrong for the other House to block that? They want to see that ban as soon as possible.

I understand the strength of view that is shared by a large number of right hon. and hon. Members. I should say gently to my hon. Friend that much concern is often expressed before things happen, and then silence when the Government deliver on what they have promised, as they have on so many issues.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that such a Bill would be widely regarded as an unwarranted attack on the civil liberties of minorities, and would tend to bring parliamentary government into widespread disrepute?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman voices an opinion that is shared by a narrow group of people. It is only fair to say that opinion on this issue is divided passionately among rural people, just as it is divided among urban dwellers. It is one of those issues on which there is a deep divide between those who hold strong and opposing views. I have tried to encourage people on both sides of that divide to listen to those on the other side, and I would encourage the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take that approach.

Does the Minister recall that in the course of the past two or three weeks the Tories have laid claim to the notion that when we have introduced some decent legislation, they thought of it first? This is something that they have not thought of first. If the Minister wants to wipe that oily grin off the Tory party leader's face, this is the one thing that he should do—and do in this Session of Parliament.

My hon. Friend makes his points in his usual, vigorous manner. I am not sure whether many of those claims to have thought of things first are justified, but I recall some of the things that the current leader of the Opposition thought of first when he was Home Secretary. I do not recall that he was very effective then in bearing down on crime and disorder in the way that this Government have been, but I hear what my hon. Friend says.

In order to demonstrate that this is not a piece of malignant legislation left over from the old Labour class-war politics, will the Minister inform the House what the scientific basis is for introducing such a Bill? What scientific research has he seen that informs him that hunting with dogs has a greater adverse effect on the welfare of the fox than shooting, trapping, snaring or poisoning foxes, which will remain perfectly legal under his proposals?

The hon. Gentleman always gives the impression that he has wandered in from some sort of parallel universe. I would urge him to do what both sides in the debate urged us to do: to start with the Burns report. That interesting, revealing report was produced with independence and great engagement from all sides. He should also carefully consider the hearings that took place in Portcullis House in September 2002. They were very interesting, because we looked at the facts and the science and gave everyone the opportunity to question those who gave evidence. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman stay in our universe for a few minutes, and do some reading and some homework.

What plans the Government have to allow fishery owners and angling clubs to protect inland waterways from the effects of cormorant predation. [174403]

Following representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), I am actively considering extra measures that could help fishery owners and angling clubs to deal with the increasing problem of predation by cormorants.

I thank the Minister for his reply, which will be welcomed by the 3.5 million anglers in this country. He is well aware of the serious environmental damage being caused to many inland fisheries in Britain as a result of the massive increase in cormorant numbers in the past 10 years. He is also aware that many European countries are relaxing their rules and granting themselves derogation from the EU birds directive. Is it not about time that Britain followed suit?

I am not sure that we would be prepared to go that far. If my hon. Friend studies the experience of France, which has granted such derogation and has killed many cormorants, he will see that the evidence of a beneficial effect is at best patchy. I accept the concern that he expresses on anglers' behalf that serious localised problems exist, particularly in some of our inland fisheries, and I will re-examine this issue to see whether more can be done.

The Government have a declared policy of equal rights, yet the hon. Gentleman's Department is here defending and promoting the interests of those who like dragging fish around in the water and pulling them out by sharp hooks before putting them back, while at the same time wishing to ban hunting with dogs. What are the Government and his Department doing to stamp out hypocrisy on these issues, both inside and outside this House?

I am not sure what that has to do with cormorants, but the right hon. Gentleman is right: any Government have to strike a balance between the rights of fish and the rights of cormorants, and we are indeed trying to strike that balance.

Why has there been such a large increase in the cormorant population?

As with many of these very interesting questions, there is no conclusive scientific evidence, but one reason might well be that because our streams and rivers are cleaner than they have been for generations— thanks to the environmental improvements undertaken by this Government—fish populations in inland waterways are much higher, and cormorants that used not to live inland have migrated there in recent years.

If she will make a statement on the future of the state veterinary service.—[174404]

The Government believe that the state veterinary service should become an Executive agency from 1 April 2005. A consultation exercise will be launched soon.

I thank the Minister for that reply. The announcement was made last October, and it seems that the Minister has already made his mind up, given that the advertisement for the post of chief executive of the next steps executive agency has already appeared. Surely the Minister should have consulted first. Has he consulted the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union or—in particular, so far as I am concerned—the National Assembly for Wales?

We have had discussions with those bodies. Indeed, the former president of the British Veterinary Association said on the wireless this morning—on the "Farming Today" programme—that in his view the separation of delivery and policy was a good idea. However, we have not made up our minds. This is a genuine consultation process, and if the results are overwhelmingly hostile we will think again. The advertisement had to be placed then in view of the need to stick to the deadline and of the time it will take to appoint somebody. No firm decisions have been taken, which is why full consultation will take place.

Is the state veterinary service sufficiently organised to cope with the annual 20 per cent. increase in bovine tuberculosis predicted by the Government?

Yes. it is, and the hon. Gentleman might be interested in the following figures. Currently, there are the equivalent of 1,445 full-time members of staff in the state veterinary service, compared with only 1,100 in 1995—a 31 per cent. increase since the Conservatives were in government. Moreover, the amount spent on the state veterinary service increased in the same period by 60 per cent.

If she will make a statement on how she intends to implement the large combustion plant directive. [174408]

We have yet to make a final decision on the mode of implementation of the revised large combustion plant directive. We will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Will the Minister confirm and publish the Mott MacDonald study commissioned by his Department, and will he confirm that his noble and ministerial Friend Lord Whitty visited one of the midlands pits only a few days ago? In the light of both those events, is it not true that if a national plan approach were taken half the coal collieries in this country would close within the next five to six years?

It is true that if the national plan approach were implemented in is currently discussed format, it would have an impact on the coal sector. There are no two ways about that. Similarly, if the alternative approach on emission limits were put in place, that would also have an impact on manufacturing. It is a complicated issue, as my hon. Friend knows. We want to put as much information as possible in the public domain. Our objective is to meet desirable environmental standards, but to do so with the minimal impact on the relevant sectors. That is what we are currently trying to do.

As the Minister rightly says, this is a complicated issue. He would accept that existing plants are in danger of breaking all the Government's emission targets. When will the Government make an announcement to confirm that existing plants will be included as part of the national plan, and what will be the costs to the industry of meeting the regulatory impact goals?

On the latter point, some figures have been made available on the costs of the regulatory impact, but we need to be aware that there are also health benefits to wider society from lower emissions. That reduces costs on the NHS, for example, so there are positives and negatives to the approach. I repeat that we want implementation to produce environmental gain with the minimum impact on the sectors concerned. That could mean some delay as we assess the various models and talk to the different sectors about implementation. I believe that it is better to have some delay in order to get it right and minimise the impact.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) in appealing to the Minister to have regard to the impact of the national plan on the electricity generating industry and the coal industry. I accept that the aluminium industry, with its single unit, has to be taken into account. Will the Minister impress on the European Commission the need for some variation in the application of the plan, which is what the French are doing in their submission to the EEC by seeking to variate in order to protect their businesses and industries?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we examining the French proposals, but he will be aware that there are complexities surrounding legal interpretation. I repeat my general point. In respect of the Commission, there should be elements of flexibility in the regulations that are designed to bring about the desirable environmental outcomes. We want those outcomes to be achieved in a way that recognises the impacts on industry and does not have a disproportionate effect. We want the outcomes, but with the minimal effect in respect of the economic impact.

When she next expects to meet sugar beet growers to discuss reforms of the EU sugar beet regime. [174409]

Ministers frequently meet the National Farmers Union and other farming organisations to discuss a range of topical subjects, including sugar reform.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, but is she aware of the vital importance of sugar beet to Norfolk's rural economy? In fact, Norfolk grows about half of the beet grown in this country. Has she had a chance to reflect on the recent remarks of the noble Lord Whitty given in evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? He seemed to say that he favours full liberalisation, but is that the Secretary of State's view. Does she agree that, if the Government are to opt for full—or, indeed, any— liberalization, it is vital to put in place a well thought out bioethanol programme? That alone can offer hope to Norfolk's beet growers.

First, I do know about some of the remarks of my noble Friend. His point was that he did not believe that any of the options currently on the table—including the status quo—were fully viable. He was speculating about what might finally emerge from the balance of potential options. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about bioethanol and the possibilities for the future, but I was under the impression that the Conservative party was in favour of liberalisation. I believe that it was on 1 March that the Leader of the Opposition said:

"Rich countries should act in accordance with what they know to be true: free trade spreads prosperity, protectionism does not."

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the common agricultural policy damages the third world most of all through what it does to the sugar trade? Does that not make a powerful case for the eventual abolition of the CAP? Should not sugar policy be repatriated to member states so that they can choose what they do with their sugar producers? Should we not aim to create a world in which we do not damage third-world producers?

I certainly agree that it is important to try to make sure that we do not damage third-world producers, and any proposals that are made ultimately will have to be judged in part against that criterion. However, I am afraid that I do not share my hon. Friend's view that there should not be a common policy on agriculture. The Opposition took us into the European Community and passed the Single European Act, and one requirement of a single market is that there is some sort of co-operative marketing structure.

Does the Secretary of State accept that, unlike other European producers, the UK produces only half of what it consumes, with the rest being imported from third-world countries? Does she agree, therefore, that any reform should take account of that fact, and that the EU might do well to look at the British model—that is, opening up its market to third-world countries while at the same time preserving a domestic sugar industry? Does she also agree that, as part of reform, the Government must help sugar growers to find new markets, of which the bioethanol market is certainly one?

Certainly, any implications of new proposals would have to be examined carefully. However, although sugar producers, refiners and so on can make a very strong case, the sugar regime has remained basically unchanged for something like 35 years while every other regime has been reformed around it. It seems to me that a regime that demands a price for sugar that is twice the world price is not sustainable in the long term.

What discussions she has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on the environmental impact of wind turbines. [174410]

What discussions she has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on the environmental impact of wind turbines. [174411]

Lead responsibility for wind energy lies with the DTI, although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is also a regulator for offshore wind farms. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss matters of mutual interest.

The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services at the DTI is a well-known wind enthusiast. Indeed, I think that he has said that 80 per cent. of renewable energy should come from wind. Will the Minister say where the thousands of wind turbines needed to achieve that target will be located? What account has he or his Department taken of the effect on birds, aircraft and local communities? Has he discussed that with the DTI? How on earth is the Minister's wind going to provide reliable energy?

We must put the matter into perspective. The objective is to get 10 per cent.—rising to 15 per cent.—of our energy from renewables, of which wind is but one part. We are encouraging and supporting other technologies, and it is likely that the sector will develop in due course. However, there is no getting away from the fact that wind is a cheap and reliable option in the renewables sector. It is important that we increase the amount of energy taken from renewable sources in this country, but the impact on the environment and landscape cannot be ignored.

The hon. Gentleman is generally an excellent Minister, but he is a little unsound on this subject. He will be aware that a wind farm is mooted for the Thames estuary that would have serious implications for navigation and the environment. In addition, some people say that the noise of such a farm would adversely affect surrounding residential areas. Before any steps are taken in respect of the Thames estuary wind farm, will he ensure that the people of Castle Point—and of Canvey island, in particular—are fully consulted, so that their interests can be taken into account?

I want to make it clear that many of these matters are for the DTI, while others, such as navigation, are for the Department for Transport. A co-ordinated approach is therefore required, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Department takes very seriously those aspects of the environmental impact of wind farms that are our responsibility. They tend to be offshore, as we have a role in offshore consents. I assure him that we insist on environmental impact assessments: for example, we support the research into offshore bird populations undertaken by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. We also insist on long-term monitoring of those effects. All those issues can be taken into account. If we are serious about tackling climate change, we must increase the amount of renewable energy used, and wind is an important part of that.

When my hon. Friend considers the environmental impact of wind turbines, will he include the gold-digging syndrome that is seen when one company comes into an area and does a study to see if it is suitable, and then many other companies come in on the back of that study? In no time, an area is bogged down with application after application for wind turbines. My hon. Friend will know, from his knowledge of my area, that in North Axholme and Goole Fields many companies are now considering applications. The people of Crowle are not anti-renewable energy and they can see that wind might have a role to play, but they are sick and tired of the scale of what is proposed. It is too much for one small part of the country.

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, and he arranged a meeting with the local action groups in his constituency, which I attended to listen to their views. I have great sympathy with many of the points that were made. People oppose wind farms for many reasons, not always because of their environmental impact. People have valid concerns and we take those into account in our environmental assessments. I know that the scale of the applications is taken into account by the DTI in its scoping studies, and I will certainly speak to my colleagues in that Department about my hon. Friend's concerns.

Has my hon. Friend the Minister seen the press reports this week about the first school in the UK to construct a wind turbine on its roof? Is not it the case that the new generation of compact wind turbines will enable every school, factory, hospital and even private house in the UK to generate its own electricity? When my hon. Friend next discusses the issues with his colleagues in the DTI, will he also involve my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in discussing the potential for more schools to generate their own electricity through wind turbines?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have been discussing issues such as sustainability with the Green Ministers group and I know that the DFES is very interested. The House should also recognise that this country is developing industries that are leaders in new energy technologies. The roof-based wind turbines are produced by a British company based in Scotland, and the export market for their products has enormous potential. The new technology will provide environmental benefits, as well as gains for our wider economy.

Has the Minister noticed that those who are keen to rubbish wind power are often the same people who advocate a new generation of nuclear power stations? Has he discussed with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the full lifecycle costs of wind power as against nuclear power, given the £48 billion decommissioning costs—£8,000 per person in this country—of the latter? Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State that it would therefore be wrong to set out on a new generation of nuclear power?

There are no proposals in the energy White Paper for new nuclear power stations. The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the choices that have to be made about energy generation. Renewables must be part of that balance, and we must increase the proportion they provide. People have various motivations for opposing applications for wind farms, including some members of the hon. Gentleman's party in their constituencies. I hope that he will speak to them about that.

The Minister and the DTI are swamping the country with wind farms in pursuit of his failing policy on climate change. Is he aware that CO₂ emissions went up last year? Instead of putting all his eggs into the wind farm basket, he should focus on wave and tidal power, solar energy, photovoltaics, biomass and hydrogen, and introduce a proper diversified renewables policy that might actually see CO₂ emissions going down, instead of up.

What blatant opportunism! It comes from the party that tabled a Prayer to try to block emissions trading in the European Union and that made no progress in addressing climate change when it had the opportunity to do so. The energy White Paper is universally recognised as a world leader in global strategies for dealing with climate change. It addresses all the issues, including tidal energy, solar power and gas. That is all part of the research and development that we have put in, but which the previous Conservative Government cut.

If she will make a statement on milk prices. [174412]

The most recent available figure shows that the average UK farm-gate price for milk delivered in March was 18.51p per litre, which is 1.14p per litre higher than last year. That is the highest figure for milk delivered in March since 1999.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Farmers in my constituency strive to get 10p a pint for milk, but the housewife in the supermarket has to pay 37p. How successful have the Government been in dealing with rip-off supermarkets and their oligopoly?

We welcome the Office of Fair Trading decision to undertake a compliance audit of the supermarket code of practice to establish evidence for any further action. Furthermore, the work that has been done demonstrates that changes in farm-gate prices and supermarket prices are reflected one on the other. There was thought to be dissonance between the two, but that does not appear to be the case.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that some milk processors are going out of business at present. The supermarkets' cartel is putting on pressure, so farmers struggle to find someone to buy their milk and are then forced into selling it at a reduced price against the premium that they always had in the past. That is a worry and we need to look into it. The matter is urgent for dairy farmers, especially as they have nowhere else to turn if they produce milk alone.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but we are trying to move to a situation where farmers produce what the market requires. In my initial reply, I referred to the work of the OFT, which is considering whether anything needs to be done to ensure that there is a level playing field. I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the available information, especially from the KPMG study on prices and profitability in the British dairy chain, which contains a number of lessons for us to learn in looking at the future of the dairy industry.

Is it not still the case that the entire dairy chain is distorted from beginning to end, so that primary producers and processors are constantly squeezed to the point that there are unsustainable milk prices, which mean that many of them are going out of business? Do we not need if not a stronger code of conduct, one that is properly implemented and properly enforced so that supermarkets do not simply make profits while our dairy industry is being exported?

I encourage the hon. Gentleman, too, to look at the detailed information about the industry. We have gone to some trouble to ensure that it is available—for example, on fluctuations, a 1p increase in the farm-gate price resulted in an increase of only 0.6p in the retail price of liquid milk, whereas a 1p decrease in farm-gate prices reduced the retail price by 0.7p. Clearly, there are fluctuations in the market and there are pressures, and supermarkets do things in order to try to keep their prices down. That is why the examination by the OFT, which is based on facts, not fears—although the fears are understandable—is the right way to approach the issue.

When she will be in a position to bring forward legislation to ban hunting with dogs. [174413]

I can only repeat the assurances, which the Government have given consistently and repeatedly, that the issue will be dealt with in the present Parliament.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer.

My hon. Friend is right to point to the revealing nature of the messages on some of the placards. I do not think that such messages did any favour to those who tried to make a case for hunting having a role in, for instance, the control of vermin and so on. I would only point him to the conclusions that I reached and brought before the House as a result of exhaustive inquiries and listening to all sides of the debate. The evidence deserves better attention than the sort of placard to which he refers.

The Minister again referred to the evidence during his answer to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), and the Minister often professes a great attachment to scientific objectivity and curiosity in matters that relate to hunting with dogs, although his body language and rhetoric sometimes suggest something rather different. I suspect that that criticism could be made of me, of course. The peer group review will be completed soon into the middle way group study into the welfare effects of shooting foxes. May I ask the Minister to pay very careful attention to that peer group review, whatever it says? It may or may not support our study, but may I ask him for an assurance that he will at least look at the peer group review before introducing any further legislation in the House?

As for body language, the hon. Gentleman is sometimes referred to as enthusiastic and perhaps as over-excited. I think that he will acknowledge that I have always looked at any evidence that he, the middle way group or, indeed, other organisations have produced, and I have tried to do so objectively and to listen with care where they have evidence that should be treated as a serious contribution to the debate. So, of course I will look at anything that he and his group produce.

Would it shock and surprise my right hon. Friend if I were to tell him that I no longer believe that this Government will ban hunting with dogs? May I remind him—this is why he is being pressed by Labour colleagues—that the Parliament Acts can be used only if a Bill is brought back in this Session? If a Bill is not brought back in this Session, we will not ban hunting with dogs. So why does he not forget about being so delphic and just give us a straight answer to a straight question?

Nothing that my hon. Friend contributes in the Chamber could shock or dismay me. I assure him that he lost all capacity to have that sort of impact a long time ago. I have given a straight answer to a straight question: the matter will be dealt with in this Parliament. If he wishes to extrapolate from that into the mechanics, I can assure him that I have looked at the implications of the procedures as well, and with great care.

What representations she has received in respect of the inspection regime to oversee statutory management requirements. [174415]

Officials continue to work closely with stakeholders and enforcement bodies to evaluate the current inspection regimes. Stakeholders have been engaged throughout by involvement in bilateral meetings, workshops and the current public consultation on cross-compliance.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but will she confirm whether the new regime, when it is introduced, will be made fully consistent with all the other inspection regimes that are already in place? Will there be full data sharing between them?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is exactly the kind of issue that we are discussing with stakeholders. We are conscious of the fact that, as he will appreciate, the statutory regimes are already the subject of current inspection, but we are anxious to simplify and streamline inspection processes as much as is practicable. We are certainly very mindful of the point that he makes about the need in the future for greater data sharing and greater efficiency. That is something that we are considering in general, with a view to all our regulation, but in particular, of course, in this new field.

What mechanisms exist in the Secretary of State's Department to ensure that that regime, or any other inspection regime or regulatory burden, does not weigh down harder on British business than similar regulatory regimes do in other EU member states?

Quite simply, there are Commission requirements, and they are binding on every member state and apply in particular to that section of the cross-compliance regime. We believe that the changes that we are making will make ours a more efficient and effective regime than perhaps those in some of the other member states.

If she will make a statement on her policy on fly-tipping and waste disposal. [174416]

The Government are determined to tackle fly-tipping. We issued a wide-ranging strategy for consultation in February. The consultation period closed on 14 May and responses are currently being collated. The Government's policy on waste disposal is set out in "Waste Strategy 2000". A number of actions are also being taken forward as a result of recommendations in the 2002 strategy unit report, "Waste Not, Want not".

Does the Minister recognise that there is a fundamental contradiction between his waste disposal policy and his anti-fly-tipping policy? In particular, should not small building or garden maintenance firms be allowed to take their waste to tidy tips? If we cannot differentiate between an ICI and a small business, we have got the policy wrong. In addition, will not limiting householders to a permit for one item per month significantly increase fly-tipping throughout the country?

I think that the hon. Gentleman's point relates to a decision by his local authority in respect of its disposal sites. It is entirely up to local authorities to decide what to do in respect of their own sites and how to apply such decisions. If local authorities feel that there is an issue of trade waste, it is not unreasonable to have a charge in that respect. The matters of strategy that the hon. Gentleman raises are for local councils to decide.

The ban on co-disposal of hazardous waste in landfill sites becomes operational this year. The industry says that few facilities will be available to deal with that waste. What will the Government do to prevent fly-tipping resulting from their inability to implement effective solutions in response to legislation that was in place in 1999?

Let me update the hon. Lady. There are about 30 applications for separate cells for the disposal of hazardous waste, and that number does not include in-house sites. We take fly-tipping seriously, which is why we have given local authorities new powers, for example, to stop, search and confiscate vehicles. We are also considering the way in which the legislation works and how to disseminate information. We are prepared to bring in further measures and to examine the level of fines, if there is a case for doing so. We are not complacent—we are dealing with these issues on a wide front, in relation to our overall waste strategies.

If she will make a statement on the animal welfare rules governing (a) domestic and (b) imported pig rearing. [174418]

The vast majority of imports of pork and pork products into the UK are from other member states. All member states have to implement and comply with minimum welfare standards for pigs, as agreed by the European Union.

The British Pig Executive estimates that 70 per cent. of the 767,000 tonnes of pigmeat imported into this country is produced to standards that would be unlawful in the UK. Given that 92 per cent. of consumers want imported meat to be produced to animal welfare standards equivalent to those in the UK, is it not time at least to have clear and unambiguous country of origin labelling, so that consumers can make an informed choice? To that end, will the Minister give his full support to the magnificent Bill of which I am the promoter, which is to receive its Second Reading on 16 July, and which would give effect to clear food labelling?

We are looking at the subject of labelling. I always urge all British consumers to buy British pork. One of the reasons for the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes is the unilateral ban on sow stalls and tethering that was passed by the Conservative Government—a move that we supported and implemented in 1999. It was the Labour Government who, in 2001, managed to extend the ban to the rest of the European Union, thus ensuring a level playing field for our pig producers.

How many waste incinerators have been built in (a) London and (b) Kent since 1997; and how many others have been approved in (i) London and (ii) Kent since 1997. [174419]

No waste incinerators have been built in London or Kent since 1997. At Allington, near Maidstone in Kent, an operating permit was granted in September 2003, and planning permission has been obtained for an incinerator. An application for a proposed incinerator at Bexley, south London, was granted a permit in September 2003.

I wonder whether the Minister will therefore kindly instruct local authorities in Kent and London to stop dumping their rubbish in Essex. If they want to incinerate their waste, why do those local authorities not build the incinerators in their area, instead of transporting the waste 60 miles into Essex?

That might well be something that authorities consider. There is a strong case for local authorities coming together to provide a strategic approach to waste disposal, which can require consideration of a range of options of which incineration is but one.

If she will make a statement on the termination of the Countryside Agency's vital villages grant scheme. [174420]

Vital villages was established in 2001 as a three-year programme, so it should come as no surprise that the Countryside Agency has announced that the scheme is closed to new applicants. All existing grant commitments will be met, and some £14.2 million will be spent in 2004–05 supporting action by and in rural communities.

I thank the Minister for his response. The vital villages scheme has provided funding for some valuable schemes in north Norfolk, including the revitalisation of village shops. Many people who have applied for grants are frustrated by the plethora of different routes that they have to take to get money, which often means that it is the most informed communities—the ones that know how to play the system—that get hold of the money. Is there not a case for rationalisation—making sure that money is available and goes to the communities that need it most?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an excellent point. He is absolutely right to be concerned about the plethora of funding streams, which is why my right hon. Friend established the inquiry that was undertaken by Lord Haskins and why some of the emphasis of her forthcoming statement on the refreshed rural strategy is about simplification of funding streams. Since DEFRA was set up, we have been keen to get better evidence about where disadvantage lies in rural communities rather than, as he suggested, merely allowing those who are best informed get to the source of finance first—I nearly said get to the trough first, but that was the previous question. The publication of work by the Rural Research Centre in January will be the start of our having the quality of information to help rural communities that we have been able to take for granted in urban regeneration for many years. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman clearly welcomes that.