If she will make a statement on progress in arresting climate change. [185741]

Deep cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. Our energy White Paper shows the way and the degree of ambition that industrialised countries need to show. The Kyoto protocol will provide the incentive for others to start down the same path.

I know that my right hon. Friend is far too busy to watch much television, but the other evening she might have caught Jeremy Clarkson's programme about air travel in which he mentioned that when air traffic movements were suspended for three days following the 9/11; disaster, the temperature in the atmosphere fell by 1°, and it went back up by 1° when air traffic resumed. Will she do everything she can to ensure that aircraft emissions become part of the trading arrangements that are being negotiated at European level, and thus tackle a difficult and long-term problem?

I sometimes watch Jeremy Clarkson's programmes, but I missed that one, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information. I assure him that although aviation emissions are not currently included in any of the responsibilities that countries undertake, because there has been no opportunity to discuss how they could be allocated fairly, there is considerable discussion about how we in Europe might put aviation emissions into the emissions trading scheme, say, from 2008. Not only the UK but many European Union member states take a keen interest in such a proposal.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with colleagues in the United States, India and China what they are doing to cut emissions that are greatly polluting the atmosphere?

I have had discussions with people in all those countries. The hon. Gentleman might know that a great many interesting proposals have been made by some of the states of the United States that are major emitters. Several of America's states are among the world's top 10 emitters as individual states and they are considering trading schemes, which they wish to make compatible with the EU's. Like many people in other parts of the world, they are also looking at standards for vehicle emissions and so on.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how to realise the huge potential of tidal power in an island nation such as ours? Especially, will they discuss the DTI providing some funding for an exciting pilot scheme that could take place in Swansea bay in the very near future?

Given the years of experience that we in this House share of proposals for Cardiff bay, I am a little nervous about suggestions for Swansea bay. However, I take my hon. Friend's point and assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I often discuss such issues. She shares my regret that the UK has not invested more in research into and exploitation of the potential of tidal power. The Government are looking closely at the matter.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has shown enthusiasm and commitment to a UK biofuels industry; sadly, however, the Treasury, the Department for Transport and the Department for Trade and Industry do not seem to share that enthusiasm and commitment. When will the Government get their act together, and when will we see the beginnings of a proper bioethanol and biodiesel industry in this country based on UK-produced crops?

The right hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to my Treasury and DTI colleagues: they take precisely the interest in biofuels and their potential that he wants them to. There has been a certain amount of dispute between the Treasury and the industry over how great an incentive is needed to stimulate UK production but not suck in imports. However, there is no dispute about the fact that the industry and the Treasury both want a domestic industry to be stimulated and to flourish and neither wants to suck in imports. The only dispute is about how, technically, to achieve that.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that she is to approach the European Commission for a hybrid solution to the implementation of the large combustion plants directive. On the question of carbon dioxide, will she say what she is doing, with the DTI, to press for more investment in clean coal technology? If we are to tackle CO₂ emissions, especially in China and India, we need to be able to transfer new clean coal technology to those countries so that we can effect a reduction in CO₂ emissions.

The Government's approach to the Commission about the potential for a hybrid approach to the large combustion plants directive has been a joint one. There have been joint discussions and joint decisions by the DTI and ourselves because we both share the view that there should be a degree of beneficial flexibility. Although I entirely understand and take the point that my hon. Friend makes about clean coal technology, and not least the potential for that technology in China and India, where there are large resources of coal and a considerable need for energy supply, that is more specifically a matter for the DTI. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services share my hon. Friend's interest and concern in and for this subject.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that when the last Conservative Government left office in 1997, carbon dioxide emissions in Britain were falling, and that after seven years of a Labour Government these emissions are rising? Against that background, how long will it be before the Government have to abandon their target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010?

First, there is no question of the Government abandoning our domestic target. Secondly, we have already not just met but exceeded our Kyoto target. Unfortunately, we have seen some fluctuations in CO₂ emissions, specifically over the past couple of years, as a result of continued economic growth as well as the implications of fluctuations in fuel prices. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is right that there were some successes under the Conservative Government. Those successes resulted in their flattening the economy.

I want to press my right hon. Friend, who has obviously been committed 100 per cent. to these issues for many years, on the issues facing countries such as India, Pakistan and China, to which she referred. Obviously, we want to see their economies grow, but it is essential that they do so in a way that is environmentally friendly and does not cancel out what we and other developed countries are doing. Will my right hon. Friend say more about how she sees progress in that direction?

Anyone who studies this subject is extremely conscious of how much needs to be done at a global level to reduce emissions to mitigate the most potentially damaging effects of climate change. Equally, however, I think that everyone who is close to the subject is conscious that, quite rightly, the approach that the international community has adopted is, to use the jargon phrase, one of common but differentiated responsibility. In other words, the developed countries that are most responsible at present for increased emissions have the greatest capacity to tackle the increase in emissions and should be the first to demonstrate that emissions can be reduced. One of the things that we are engaged in with our European colleagues is a determination to ensure that developed countries show the way forward. For example, our economy has grown by about 36 or 37 per cent. while our emissions have fallen by about 15 per cent. We have shown that emissions can be cut without sacrificing growth in the economy. We and others need to demonstrate that so that we can show to some of the poorest countries in the world that they can have increased prosperity for their peoples without ruining the planet.

Has the Secretary of State seen the official statistics that were released today after being suppressed in May showing that there has been a 47 per cent. increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector since 1990, although there has been a 10 per cent. decrease overall? This week, her colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, projected a further 10 per cent. increase in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector by 2010. Is she content with that record, and is it not pointless her Department saying the right things and making the odd cut here and there if the Department for Transport is out of control? When will she put the brakes on that Department?

I have not seen that report nor, indeed, am I aware of any report being suppressed.

It is on the website.

If that is the case, it is not a very good way to suppress something.

To get the historical facts right, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the late 1980s and '90s the all-party group on coalfield communities considered the question of emissions and called for clean fuel technology. A pilot project was set up at Grimethorpe, and not only did the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) fail to tell the House that the Tories closed the pits but he did not reveal that they closed that clean fuel technology plant. No wonder the miners were brassed off.

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I well recall that at the time many people were concerned that the then Government were prepared to abandon a technology that clearly had considerable potential for the future.

If she will propose legislation to remove badgers' protected status. [185743]

No.

Does the Minister not accept that badgers are vermin and have no known predators? Disease is thus rampant and spreading throughout the south-west, inflicting enormous damage and losses on herds. Does he not agree that farmers are now less protected than badgers, and that the Government appear not to care less?

No, I do not accept that. The latest figures for Devon, the south-west and the country as a whole are slightly down on last year. The difficulty that the Government face—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands, as he is a reasonable man—is that there is an absence of scientific evidence that a particular badger culling policy would help to prevent the spread of tuberculosis. No Government would make a decision to go ahead on that basis, as was recently stated in a report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is chaired by his right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack).

As my hon. Friend will know, all badger carcases on British roads are removed as soon as possible and taken away for analysis. Does he have figures showing what percentage of those carcases in fact have TB? Is the incidence of the disease higher in certain areas of the country, and has progress been made on a vaccine so that we can at least vaccinate the animals rather than eradicate them?

We very much want to make progress on vaccination for badgers and, indeed, cattle. I have recently expressed a wish to progress scoping studies on both areas as quickly as possible, but I must tell my hon. Friend and the House that successful vaccination for both animals is probably some time away. We hope soon to have a more reliable live test for badgers, which might help if a badger culling policy were adopted at some stage. As for the road traffic accident survey, yes, there are variations across the country, as one would expect, with a higher level of TB in badgers in areas where there is also a greater prevalence of TB in cattle. I do not have the latest figures to hand, but I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of the House so that hon. Members can see them.

Is the Minister aware that Castle Point has one of the largest urban badger populations in the country? Of course, they can cause havoc, especially to domestic property, but nevertheless the current systems for managing badgers work well. The badger is one of the most wonderful British wild animals, and we must continue to protect it.

That was a statement, rather than a question, but I note the position taken by the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has had some interesting badger issues as a local constituency MP, which I think he will acknowledge have divided his constituents and divided residents of the streets where the badgers have been causing problems. There is no simple answer to the question.

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the only answer is to go back to the science. The recent report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made some recommendations, which we hope the Government can respond to. We cannot ignore the fact that bovine TB is present not only in cattle and badgers, but in a number of other species, particularly the deer population, so we must take the right action, rather than precipitate action. Will my hon. Friend comment on the measures that the Government propose with regard to the problem with the deer population?

We have already undertaken some research into the deer population. The interaction between deer and cattle and between badgers and cattle is rather different and of a different degree. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and other members of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Fylde for their excellent and balanced report, most—if not all—of whose recommendations the Government accept and intend to progress as rapidly as we can.

While anyone brought up on "Wind in the Willows" or who has watched badgers at play knows that they are delightful animals, there is a pretty clear case that they are causing a great deal of trouble to our farmers. Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say about putting them on the pill?

Well, there is a certain amount of research from this country, and from other countries such as New Zealand that have had problems with possums, on the potential for oral contraception or sterilisation. I am afraid we have not yet reached the stage where a reliable or effective method has been found, but I am sure that many people, not least those who would like to get rid of grey squirrels, await such a contraceptive or sterilisation pill with great expectation.

What assessment she has made of progress towards carbon dioxide emission reduction targets. [185745]

What progress has been made towards meeting the Kyoto carbon dioxide target. [185750]

The UK remains on course to achieve its Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12. Provisional estimates suggest that greenhouse gas emissions in 2003 were about 14 per cent. below the baseline. The Government have a separate goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. Emissions of carbon dioxide for 2003 are provisionally estimated to be about 7 per cent. lower than in 1990.

Is it not the case, though, that based on the Government's own recently published energy and emissions projections, even if we meet the difficult 20 per cent. renewables target and implement all our energy efficiency policies, the 60 per cent. CO₂ reduction target for 2050 will go off course in 2010 and will not be achieved? Should we not be looking at carbon capture and storage technology now, so that we can bridge that emissions gap and maintain security of supply? The only other option would be the nuclear option.

I do not entirely accept my hon. Friend's analysis because, although I take his point that the 60 per cent. target is a challenging one, there are a number of trajectories that one could follow to reach it. There has always been a discussion about whether we ought to try to pursue a straight line path, or whether there is merit in back-end loading as, for example, the newer technologies become available, recognising that we may be able to make greater moves at a later date than we can at present. However, my hon. Friend is right that there is considerable interest in carbon abatement technology. A great deal of thought and study is going into it and I anticipate that we shall hear more of it in the not too distant future.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, apart from helping to eliminate fuel poverty, has made a considerable contribution to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions? Given the fact that, according to DEFRA's figures, those emissions have been going up since 1997, does she believe that the targets will be reached by 2010?

In fact, the trend since 1997 has been downwards, although in the past couple of years there has been the fluctuation that I mentioned. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that attacking fuel poverty is the right course in itself. It also makes a considerable contribution to reducing emissions. I am sure that he knows, because he takes a great interest in such issues, that we are reviewing the effectiveness of the previous fuel poverty, or warm front, programmes and intend to produce proposals in a few months' time. I expect that he has also noticed that, thanks to the Chancellor's spending review, substantial extra resources have been allocated to tackling fuel poverty. We are hoping to publish an implementation plan for the new funding and the new proposals later in the year.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that Conservative Members were encouraged when, 18 months ago, her ministerial colleague announced the energy efficiency target of a 5 million tonne reduction in carbon emissions? That figure was confirmed by the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, Lord Whitty. Industry was more than satisfied when the Chancellor, no less, endorsed the 5 million tonne target. The final seal of approval was put on it by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only three months ago. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why, after all this spin and hype, she has announced a target that is significantly lower? Does not that send completely the wrong signals to industry and to everyone who is trying to cope with the situation?

I can understand why the hon. Gentleman reaches that view, but I assure him that he is mistaken. The figure of 5 million tonnes was very much an illustrative figure in the energy White Paper. It was never intended to be a goal or a target, but an initial indication of what was then thought might be possible—[Interruption.] Yes, I am conscious of the document that the hon. Gentleman indicates. Since the energy White Paper was produced, a great deal more detailed analysis has been carried out. That led us to conclude that 5 million is not a realistic figure, but 4.2 million would be. However, that is certainly not the wrong signal to be sending to business. The hon. Gentleman must have noticed that through the energy efficiency plan, we plan to make more savings as a result of energy efficiency than under the previous proposals. On the basis of that further, more detailed analysis, we think that although we may not be able to make quite as much of a saving from the domestic sector, we can make more of a saving from the business sector.

If she will make a statement on illegal dumping in the Dee estuary. [185746]

Responsibility for controlling the deposit of materials within the Dee estuary is split between the Department in English territorial waters and the National Assembly in the waters adjacent to Wales.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, to the best of my knowledge, two companies were fined for illegally dumping tens of thousands of tonnes of sand in Mostyn deep? Is he equally aware that the effects on that vastly important and ecologically fragile site are incalculable? Does he make any connection between that and the current application to dredge, and what proposals does he have for preventing its happening in future?

I assure my hon. Friend that we in this Department take our environmental duties very seriously and that we work in close conjunction with the Welsh Assembly. The prosecutions were brought by DEFRA lawyers, and DEFRA technical staff have been giving advice on dredging in the Mostyn area and on the disposal of dredgings. As my hon. Friend says, it is a very sensitive environmental site, and it has to be protected with proper regulation. Of course, we will have no hesitation in taking appropriate action if people break the rules.

Does the Minister agree that illegal dumping in the Dee estuary would be reduced if the legal disposal of waste was encouraged and made easier for the public? That means more resources. Under the circumstances, is he aware that the Gershon review, which was adopted by the Treasury only last week, announced a £300 million cut in waste services. What impact will that have on dumping on the Dee estuary? Is not that simply code for sacking dustmen and closing tips? Where will a third of a billion pounds of cuts in waste services fall?

That appears a bit bizarre given that the Conservative party made a big thing about rooting out waste and becoming more efficient in spending money. The Gershon inquiry is examining ways in which to achieve the same and even better service delivery by reducing cost. Gershon pointed out that there are considerable potential savings, for example, in procurement, in the regional approach to waste management. The Conservative party appears to want to waste money rather than use it efficiently to improve service delivery, which is our commitment.

What recent discussions she has had with the Fisheries Ministers of (a) Norway, (b) Iceland and (c) the Faroes. [185747]

I discussed fisheries issues with Nordic ambassadors last month and I hope to visit Norway, Iceland and the Faroes soon. All three were represented at this week's annual conference of the International Whaling Commission at which, on behalf of the United Kingdom, I strongly criticised their support for the resumption of commercial whaling.

Has the Under-Secretary discussed fishing issues in his meetings with those Ministers? The common fisheries policy meant a management regime that is unacceptable to most fishing communities, yet the Norwegian, Icelandic and Faroese have all created more environmentally friendly and sustainable fishery management regimes, especially through the inclusion of fishermen, community leaders and other stakeholders. Does he believe that the European constitution's inclusion of article 12, which establishes exclusive EU competence, gives any scope for the development of such a scheme in Scotland, or is there to be even more centralisation and destruction of our industry?

It is wrong to suggest that the proposed constitution changes the competence on fisheries in the European Union. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's support for withdrawal from the EU. It did not do his party much good in the recent European elections in Scotland, where its vote dropped substantially. However, we are keen to learn from best practice in other countries, as the Prime Minister's strategy unit makes clear.

When considering the preservation of fish stocks, will my hon. Friend take into account the effect on marine mammals? He has already mentioned whaling, and my constituents will be grateful for his comments. Is he also concerned about the welfare of dolphins? If we are not careful about our fishing methods, are not the lives of those lovely marine mammals at risk?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. She may have noticed that, this morning, we announced that we would seek the closure of the Bass pair trawl fishery off the south-west of England because of concerns about the stranding of dolphins and porpoises. We are asking for emergency action by the Commission under article 7. We have also made it clear that, if the action is unsuccessful, we are prepared to consider unilateral measures, which will help to prevent such carnage.

Has the Minister discussed with the Ministers of Norway, Iceland and the Faroes their important freshwater fisheries and the shared problem of pollution of our rivers, especially through sewage overflow, endocrine disruptors and phosphorous?

I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss those matters, but I hope that I shall shortly. I am aware of the problem. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the recent Environment Agency report, which showed that the state of the rivers and most of the stocks in them in this country were better than they have ever been. However, we can always improve and we are especially worried about, for example, the amount of salmon in many rivers in my part of the world, where they were previously abundant.

I welcome today's announcement of the Government's request for emergency measures to close the Bass pair trawl fishery, which, as the Under-Secretary said, is known to result in the deaths of many thousands of dolphins and porpoises. Will the Government make similarly robust and determined efforts, through Europe and with the co-operation of Norway, the Faroes and Iceland, on industrial fisheries and the introduction of a meaningful regional dimension to fisheries management?

We made some progress on industrial fisheries at the last December Council, in that we introduced a reduction in the total allowable catch and, for the first time, an effort control regime in those fisheries. On regional management, we are making good progress on establishing the regional advisory councils. The United Kingdom will always look for ways in which we can make improvements to the common fisheries policy to set it on course for a profitable and sustainable future, in contrast to the cruel deception perpetrated by some parties who suggest that we could solve all our fisheries problems if we simply withdrew from the CFP, which would also mean withdrawing from the European Union.

I had hoped to get in on question 1 and ask my hon. Friend whether he had any information on the stocks of grayling. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Grayling's off!"] We are obviously one short here today.

I do not have those figures to hand, but I will ask my officials to dig them out and to write to my hon. Friend. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir): Iceland, Norway and the Faroes have undergone substantial reductions in the capacity of their fleets. They use different means of managing their fish stocks—indeed, the methods used by Iceland and the Faroes are quite different from each other—and those methods are not problem-free. We have a more complicated mixed fishery. We are much closer to the European mainland, and we have scores of different stocks that we have traditionally shared with other countries. So we face a more complex set of challenges.

I accept what the Minister says about the welcome reduction in the total allowable catch for industrial fishing that was achieved last year. He will be aware, however, that fishermen, fishery scientists and fisheries managers in the Nordic Council countries are still scathing about the unsustainable level of industrial fishing that we maintain. When are the Government going to get real about the need to tackle the level of permitted industrial fishing under the common fisheries policy? Does the Minister share my disappointment that the Prime Minister's strategy unit report was absolutely silent on that issue?

No, I do not accept that at all. The Prime Minister's strategy unit report was the first comprehensive, strategic look at the future of our fishing industry in living memory. It pointed out that, if we get our capacity right, our fishermen and their communities can have a profitable and sustainable future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with the Government and the fishing industry to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. I agree with him on industrial fishing; that is a case that United Kingdom Governments of both political colours have been making for some time, and we are making those arguments more and more successfully. We must, however, have the science to back those arguments up and, this year, we are again investing more than £1 million in scientific collaboration with fishermen to get the evidence that we need to make the case that the hon. Gentleman advanced. I repeat that it is simplistic to think that we can adopt the systems that are used in countries such as Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, which have very different fisheries from ours.

What progress did my hon. Friend make at the International Whaling Commission on the demise of so-called scientific whaling and, more importantly, on developing a conservation agenda?

I am pleased to report that the countries led by Britain, the so-called like-minded countries, were successful in regard to the main issues of concern, namely Japanese attempts to introduce secret voting in the IWC, to close one of the biggest whale sanctuaries in the southern oceans and to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling. However, the majority that we have had in the IWC over the years is slowly being eroded by an aggressive recruitment campaign by the Japanese of small, mainly poor and developing countries that appear to have no obvious interest in hunting whales, whose representatives suddenly turn up and read out speeches supporting the Japanese position and vote with the Japanese. This is a serious issue, and we and the countries that agree with us on whaling really have to get our act together if we are to prevent a reverse of the advances that have been made in conserving the whale in the past 20 years.

Is it not the case that one advantage enjoyed by fishermen in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes is that they are not covered by the working time directive? Does he accept that the nature of fishing makes it wholly inappropriate to impose limits on working times, and will he say whether the Government intend to make exceptions for fishing based on the compensatory rest proposals that have been submitted by the industry? If so, on what basis will those exceptions operate?

Discussions on the working time directive are going on at the moment. I will examine the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and write to him.

What assessment she has made of the value of orchards in terms of (a) the environment and (b) biodiversity. [185748]

Traditional orchards form an attractive and important habitat for a wide range of species including wild flowers, lichens, insects and birds, and the Government fund their conservation through the countryside stewardship scheme.

It is hard to imagine a more benign agricultural practice than orchards, particularly the cider orchards in my county. The Minister will be aware of the concerns of many fruit growers at the implications of the single farm payment scheme and the intention of many of them to grub up old and unproductive orchards before the end of the year. I know that the Department is working on that and that it is making progress. He could make a big difference to the future of traditional cider orchards, in particular, if he could clarify the position for dual-use orchards that are grazed by livestock. Is any thought being given to a density limit for application of the single farm payment scheme for traditional orchards?

The hon. Gentleman is right that we are discussing with the European Commission the definition of grazed or grazeable land in relation to orchards, which may have an implication. It is worth bearing it in mind that orchards were not included in the previous subsidy regime and the regime that has been proposed is the same for the whole of Europe. There is not an incentive to grub up orchards because, in the initial stages of the new payment, those who did so would be eligible for only £20 per hectare. In contrast, older orchards, which are important for biodiversity, can go into stewardship schemes, which involve payment of hundreds of pounds per hectare. On top of that, in the hon. Gentleman's area, some orchards have gone into the organic scheme. Bulmers has been active in promoting that and I saw some of the work that it was doing, for which it deserves great credit. He will also be aware of measures to support that side of industry, which have been welcomed in his part of the world.

Does my hon. Friend realise that not only has there been great discontent, even in Yorkshire, about the threat to orchards, the grubbing up of orchards and the impact on biodiversity, but that, if it has been covered extensively on "You and Yours", perhaps it must be true? Will he now scotch the rumours that have been going round and which have been carried on the BBC? Are orchards in this country under threat or not?

This is a hypothetical threat, because it assumes that there are people in this country who would bulldoze ancient orchards simply to get access to funds under the revised common agricultural policy. I do not believe that many people will fall into that category. Some of the allegations have been exaggerated. At this moment, we do not have much evidence that that is happening. I repeat that a range of other support mechanisms are available, not least stewardship, under which considerable financial support can be provided in recognition of the range of environmental benefits that older orchards provide.

What the Minister has not mentioned is that the stewardship scheme is closed for this year. Will he confirm that all traditional orchards will be eligible to join whatever the new scheme is when it reopens next year?

The rules will be more or less the same as those that apply now, in the sense that applications were made in relation to the old stewardship scheme, and we are now moving into the entry-level scheme. That scheme will have a higher tier, which depends on point-scoring, the range of options, eligibility criteria and what people can offer in terms of meeting the demands of the scheme. Many orchards will fall within that scheme and, when it opens, people will have that option. In addition, with the changes in the mid-term review—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had a considerable success in getting that agreement—increased resources will go into our agri-environment programmes, which will mean a wider range of options and more flexibility.

How many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants announced in the spending review will take place in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency; and if she will make a statement. [185749]

Work is in progress to identify the scale of reduction in staff numbers at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. It is too early to give specific figures.

Which other parts of his Department is my right hon. Friend looking at to reduce the numbers of staff?

The efficiencies coming from each of the non-Rural Payments Agency executive agencies involve the VLA, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Central Science Laboratory. The figures are being worked out to deliver the efficiencies that DEFRA has to achieve.

What recommendations her Department makes in relation to the disposal of carcases from farms. [185752]

Fallen stock must be disposed of in accordance with the EU animal by-products regulation. An industry-led fallen stock collection scheme, backed by Government funding, is expected to be introduced this autumn.

Given that carcases now cannot be buried on farms and that the new scheme has not come in yet, what would the Minister say to farmers in my constituency who are quite reasonably concerned that they cannot find an outlet for disposal at reasonable cost?

If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me with details of where farmers are having that sort of difficulty, I will happily look into them. Farmers should be complying with the regulations, but the Government made it clear when we initially signalled our intention to set up the fallen stock scheme that, until the scheme was up and running, we would expect the local authorities, which are the enforcers in this matter, to act with a light touch.

Since we last met at oral questions, the Minister has answered a series of written questions on the statistics relating to disposal of carcases. He made it plain that DEFRA does not collect statistics on whether carcases are disposed of in hunt kennels, knackers' yards or elsewhere and does not know how carcases are disposed of. How does he account for his answer at a previous DEFRA oral question time, that

"hunt kennels play a role, but it is small in terms of the amount of stock they collect."—[Official Report, 20 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1079.]

We do not have the exact figures, but the "small" role to which I referred in my previous answer was based on estimates and the agreed view of the National Farmers Union, the renderers and the knackers. They have made it clear on many occasions that, while hunts play a role in some parts of the country, they collect a relatively small quantity of fallen stock and the renderers and knackers have ample capacity to fulfil the role 100 per cent. should the hunts not be interested in doing it any more.

When the Government will consult on a regime of co-existence and liability for GM crops. [185753]

I announced our consultation plans last Friday. We will first hold a number of workshops with stakeholders over the summer and early autumn. Then we will publish our specific proposals and options, on which everyone will be able to comment.

My hon. Friend is aware that our constituents do not wish to see the contamination of non-GM crops with GM crops, yet he told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that the UK was legally obliged to ensure that co-existence measures did not go beyond those necessary to meet the 0.9 per cent. labelling threshold. Is my hon. Friend aware that Germany's co-existence plans go substantially beyond those thresholds? Is he really telling us that the UK cannot establish stronger co-existence measures designed to ensure that contamination is at a lower level than the EU labelling threshold or to avoid it?

We have already said that in our consultation we will look into the option, for organic crops, of a threshold lower than 0.9 per cent., but I repeat that 0.9 per cent. is the legal threshold set by the EU and we are obliged to take that into account in our calculations. I am not aware that Germany is doing anything different. In fact, I understand that, unlike the UK, Germany is applying a 0.9 per cent. threshold to the organic sector, so we are going a bit beyond what the Germans propose.

Will the Minister confirm that the new co-existence and liability regime will be in place and on the statute books before any further commercial planting of GM crops or any further trial planting?

Trial plantings are a different proposition. We do not have any applications at present, but the idea of trials is to examine the real concerns that people have about environmental impact, and we make no apology for that. We have led the way in ascertaining the biodiversity impact of various GM crops, and no one else internationally has done that on the scale that we have.

The letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about consultation mentions co-existence, and I have no doubt that it will address issues relating to thresholds and separation distances. However, I am concerned that the letter makes no mention of liability. Given the biotechnology industry's central concern about not being held liable, can my hon. Friend the Minister give the House an assurance that liability will be at the centre of the discussions and that we will not end up with proposals that show that the greatest separation distance in our policy is that between contamination and those who should be held liable for it?

We have made it clear that we are responding to the recommendations of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on both co-existence and liability. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined that in a statement that she made to the House. In parallel with the consultation on co-existence, we are also consulting on the basis of the liability scheme, how it should work and who should be responsible.

If she will make a statement on the proposed allocation of carbon allowances under the EU emissions trading scheme. [185754]

The UK's national allocation plan was approved by the European Commission on 7 July. The number of allowances in the UK plan that was submitted to the Commission is based on the UK as a whole reducing emissions by 15.2 per cent. by 2010. The allocation for the second phase of the scheme will be based on the trading sectors' contribution to meeting the UK goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide from base year levels by 2010.

May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that I wrote to her at the end of May, and I followed up with another letter, drawing attention—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) does not mind, I am talking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on a constituency matter. I would have thought that he would be interested in the fact that I wrote to her in May and have not had a reply. If the Opposition were any good, they would be pursuing that.

I was sorry to learn that my hon. Friend had not received an answer to his letter. I was not aware of that until I saw the proposed answer to his question. I apologise, and I assure him that an answer is urgently in preparation as we speak. We will, of course, take very seriously the concerns that he expresses. He will know, too, that the Government have tried hard to strike a balance between what is necessary to make the emissions trading scheme work, which is in everybody's interest, what is necessary to meet the criteria for a satisfactory allocation plan that would stand a chance of being approved by the Commission and competitiveness issues. We believe that in almost all cases the concerns that have been expressed about competitiveness are not well founded. Many companies have assumed that others, elsewhere in Europe, would be treated differently. We have been urging the Commission to be both robust in its assessment of national allocation plan proposals and transparent in reaching its decisions. My hon. Friend may not be aware that several countries have already been asked to revise their initial proposals.

What net reductions in staff levels she expects in her Department and the agencies for which she is responsible as a consequence of the spending review; and what estimate she has made of the savings accruing therefrom. [185755]

The number of posts across core DEFRA and its executive agencies will be reduced by about 2,400 by the end of 2007–08.

Following the headline announcements about net job losses of 2,400 and 390 relocations, when does the Minister propose to set out precisely where those cuts will occur? In particular, how many of them will flow from the announcement made yesterday about the creation of the new integrated institution? Will that institution be located in London or elsewhere?

May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the reduction of staff numbers and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday are both about increasing and improving delivery and achieving greater efficiency? They are not just about random numbers. The majority of job reductions will be achieved through the implementation of change programmes; for instance, the Rural Payments Agency change programme will lose about 1,600 posts and change programmes in finance, IT and human resources will contribute about 250 posts—some of that has already happened. We need to produce an efficiency delivery plan and when that is completed, the Office of Government Commerce will look at it and make a report to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It will then be available on the website.

As the Minister takes the axe to jobs in his Department, will he also look into the number of special advisers—who are termed civil servants—which has more than doubled since 1997? How many special advisers will face the axe?

That is a repetitive question. They are not the same at all. We are looking into the contribution made by civil servants and considering how to use core civil service staff appropriately; for instance, through improving quality by the more efficient delivery of IT. Rather than examining serious questions on the improvement of efficiency, the hon. Gentleman is just trying a cheap jab.

What plans she has to change the rules relating to the transportation of live animals. [185757]

Following the failure earlier this year to agree new EU rules on animal welfare during transport, the Government's priority is now to ensure that the current rules are enforced properly in all member states.

I continue to receive representations from constituents about maximum journey times and travel conditions for live animals, as may other Members and Ministers. The draft Animal Welfare Bill contains a new rule-making power, so is it the Government's intention to make new rules to provide for the more humane transportation of live animals in Europe, and will they do that whether or not they have the support of other EU nations?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. We were deeply disappointed that, despite the best efforts of the Irish presidency and countries of a like mind to the United Kingdom, which wanted strict limits on journeys, we were unable to achieve a majority and that in fact the less welfare-minded countries were able to block any meaningful improvement on the status quo. However, we think that implementing the existing rules properly in a number of countries—not least the accession countries—will lead to a big improvement in animal welfare overall. My hon. Friend is right: the Animal Welfare Bill, which we published last week, introduces for the first time a duty of care, and will apply not only to pets but to all animals. That should help to improve animal welfare across the board.

What discussions she has had with (a) the National Farmers Union and (b) other farming organisations about ensuring a strong domestic market for the produce of British farmers. [185759]

All Ministers at DEFRA, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, regularly meet farming organisations, including the NFU. Our policies are designed to give farming a sustainable future, which will be helped by the hard-won reforms to the common agricultural policy.

Does the Minister agree that the best friend of the British farmer is the well-informed British consumer insisting on quality British produce? Does he agree that it is difficult to insist on quality British produce without proper labelling? Will he explain the Government's position in principle on country of origin labelling and why they cannot do more in practice on supermarket pre-cooked meals, which often include produce from foreign countries where welfare standards are low and food is often pumped full of drugs?

A well-informed consumer is certainly a good friend to the farmer. Another good friend is the Government, who have assisted the farming industry with their marketing. Consumers have responded positively to the many brands that are now identified as local and regional in this country, which has enabled many farmers to be successful. Linking farmers with their markets and what consumers want creates a two-way process between the consumer and the farmer, which is the best way forward. That approach underpins our plans for a sustainable future for farming and food.