1. What discussions she has had with the farming industry about biofuels. [2600]

The Department has had a number of discussions, both at ministerial and official level, with a wide range of stakeholders, including the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and biofuel trade associations, which include farming industry representatives, individual farmers and agricultural businesses.

Why do the Government not encourage farming diversification and renewable energy production by offering comparable non-fossil fuel support to farmers producing biomass and biofuel crops, instead of supporting more environmentally contentious diversification such as onshore wind farms?

There are not many farmers involved in onshore wind farm businesses, although some receive a rental income from them. There is a range of diversification available to farmers, in which biofuels play an important part. Farmers are allowed to grow biofuel crops on set-aside land, for example, and a 20p reduction in fuel duty is available to encourage the use of biofuels. We are also considering other measures to encourage their use, including a potential biofuel obligation on oil companies. About £50 million is also available to encourage the development of biofuels.

In his discussions on this matter, has my right hon. Friend talked to the Department for Transport and the Treasury? I hope that he will accept that, without further policy instruments, a further reduction in excise duty and the speedy introduction of the road transport renewable fuel obligations, the industry will not take off in this country. Is he worried about the import of Brazilian biofuels?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are in close talks with the Department for Transport, the Treasury and other Departments. He will be aware that we are currently engaged in the climate change review, which is considering a range of options, including biofuels and the ways in which we can promote them. We have seen some successful experiments involving coal-fired power stations burning coppice willow, for example, which I very much welcome. His point about structuring the support to encourage the production of biofuels in this country, rather than encouraging imports, is also a good one.

We are aware that biofuels are a sustainable mechanism for avoiding climate change. We are also aware that the Government are committed to avoiding climate change and therefore do not wish to see a massive increase in the use of fossil fuels. However, they are also committed to a substantial increase in air travel. What proportion of the increase in fuel consumption by air traffic will come from biofuels?

Let us draw a distinction in relation to the expansion of air travel. It is not being encouraged by the Government; it is a fact of life that we have to react to and take into account. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that we are pressing for the inclusion of aviation in the European carbon trading scheme, which will represent an important way of controlling emissions. Biofuels have a wide range of applications, and aviation is one of them, although we should not exaggerate their use in that way, because of the amount of land needed for biofuel production. However, it has enormous potential. The Government have set up a taskforce chaired by Sir Ben Gill to examine the role of biofuels and agriculture, which will give us important advice on how we take this issue forward.

Is not the distribution network one of the problems in respect of biodiesel? My hon. Friend will know that the network is heavily skewed towards the eastern part of the country, and that it is virtually impossible for those living in Greater Manchester and the north-west region to gain access to a biodiesel station. Will his Department talk to the manufacturers and distributors to ensure a more evenly balanced distribution network across the United Kingdom?

I know that my hon. Friend has taken a long and close interest in biofuels. There is a garage in my village that sells biodiesel—which I use, incidentally—but I am aware that that is not typical of the whole country. However, I am pleased to say that, as part of the approach to encouraging biofuels, a factory has been established in Scotland to produce biofuel, and a further factory is under construction in Teesside that will have a considerable capacity for producing biofuel. However, we need the distribution network as well. We need the manufacture and the distribution in place to encourage its use—a well-to-wheel approach, so to speak.

The Minister has talked about instruments to encourage the production of biofuel. The other side of the equation, however, is the use of biofuel. Given that previous grants for the conversion of lorries, in particular, to greener fuels have had to be withdrawn, what measures will he take to encourage the use of greener fuels and biofuel, particularly by the road haulage industry?

New EU regulation is to be introduced in relation to heavy good vehicles involving their manufacturing and emissions, which will improve the situation considerably. The big advantage of biodiesel is that engines do not need to be adapted to use it: conventional diesel engines can run on it, which is one of its great strengths.

2. What steps her Department is taking to make interim payments to farmers who have yet to receive the single farm payment. [2601]

Payments under the single payment scheme are forecast to begin in February 2006, which is well within the regulatory window ending on 30 June 2006. We have not ruled out the possibility of making an advance payment, but there are real legal and practical difficulties in doing so, and we would not wish to take any action that would delay the main payment.

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, but, of course, farmers in my constituency are not so much concerned about regulatory windows as cash flow. In the first quarter of this year, farming debt in the United Kingdom stood at about £8.46 billion. Cash flow in the depressed agricultural economy is vital, and it seems to me essential that the Government do more than wait until February 2006 to help out hard-pressed farmers. I hope that she will provide me with better news.

We are very conscious of the cash-flow issues for the farming community, which is why, as I have reported to the House previously, we have had discussions with the banks about some of the implications. Equally, however, while I know and am sensitive to the concerns of those who will not receive payment before February, a genuine balance is to be struck between trying to do something to ease that difficulty and doing something that would delay the main payment, as that, too, could cause cash-flow and other problems. We keep the issue under continual review, however.

Does the Secretary of State accept that farming throughout the United Kingdom has faced tremendous challenges over the past few years, especially given the number of crises that it has faced? Is it not therefore vital that the Department is speedy in getting money out to farmers? Cash flow is just as much a major problem in Northern Ireland as in any other part of the United Kingdom. Will she encourage the Department to get the money out as quickly as possible rather than at the last moment as that makes farming more difficult?

I completely understand and sympathise with the point that the hon. Gentleman is also making. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) raised the issue of making sure that payments are made and keeping on top of the issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there are very frequent meetings to maintain pressure, update and try to be absolutely sure that we deal with the issue as speedily as possible. The whole House recognises, however, that we are in the first year of establishing what will ultimately make for a much simpler and, I hope, easily managed system. Changing to a completely new system is always difficult.

Does the Secretary of State agree that not only this system but others that she has in mind, such as under the water framework directive, depend very much on farmers' support and understanding, and that the farming community currently has a very low regard for its relationships not only with the top of her Department but right the way down it, for which there are all sorts of reasons? Can she consider carefully ways of using farm payments so that farmers see that she listens and understands what their problems are; otherwise, I fear that there will be a knock-on effect for all the other things that she wants to do? There is a lack of confidence and support, and she must try to do something about it.

I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that he has much experience in these issues. All I can say is that although, as he says, there are many short-term difficulties, he will know that the Department has embarked on a major reorganisation of the Rural Payments Agency and is now introducing a new system on top of that precisely because we understand the difficulties that people experience. I am confident, however, that what farmers want in every part of the United Kingdom is a system that will ultimately be simpler, more efficient and effective, and that will result in fewer forms, fewer inspections and less of the bureaucratic burden of which they, like every other business community, complain, and understandably so.

No one would disagree with the Secretary of State's words. The problem is that the reality is somewhat different. Having just come up against the RPA and animal welfare office in trying to register my new sow, Maud, I can now empathise with the frustrations felt by farmers up and down the country. The reality is that the computer system used by the RPA is simply not up to it, and the animal welfare office to which I spoke asked weepingly whether I would raise the issue in Parliament, which I am now doing. What we and farmers up and down the country face is confusion over the next year until the Secretary of State gets a grip and sorts out the RPA system.

It is precisely because we are sorting out the RPA system—which in itself is bound to cause difficulties—and, on top of that, implementing a new system that, understandably, there are problems and concerns. I entirely understand the anxiety that is being expressed.

Since all I hear from Conservative Members are complaints, let me point out that the proposal announced by them at the general election to cut £118 million from the RPA's funding was unlikely to have helped.

That is certainly true, but does the Secretary of State recognise that there is significant concern about the operation of the RPA? What plans has she to investigate complaints from farmers who have received inaccurate forms and maps from the agency? Accurate forms and maps are vital if farmers are to claim the support to which they are entitled. Does the Secretary of State understand the low esteem in which the agency is held and the impact that this is having on farmers, and indeed on how her Department is perceived?

I do understand that, but before we leave the issue it is only right for me to put on record that the RPA has found itself with an inadequate and unsuitable system. That system is being reformed and modernised, which involves an enormous amount of work. The RPA's staff have tried tremendously hard: like all Members of Parliament, they understand the difficulties faced by farmers.

To an extent—a small extent, perhaps—this is a two-way street. The RPA is trying to produce accurate maps that will form the basis of payments in future. There has been a 700 per cent. increase in the number of changes that have had to be made to maps that were originally drawn up on the basis of existing information. No one anticipated that. One reason for it is that farmers are now notifying the agency, literally in some cases, of parcels of land that have never been registered. Legally, they should have been registered under the previous payment system. Because a basis is being established for a system that will run well into the future, there are bound to be teething problems. There have been more than were expected, so the RPA has used extra staff and made staff work extra hours, including weekends, to tackle them. The situation is not easy for anyone, but we are working hard to deal with it.

With respect, what the Secretary of State says is wrong. There was no obligation for landowners to register land if they were not seeking to claim integrated administration and control scheme money, headage payments or payments under a stewardship scheme. The problem has been caused partly by the fact that the Secretary of State changed the scheme and allowed registration of a lot of different land, such as land used for equestrian purposes.

The Secretary of State referred to payment by February. Her own published targets show that the Department does not expect the bulk of payments to be made until next March. To her credit, in the past she has shown barely concealed anger at the delays, but when she talks of a simplified system does she understand the huge anger in the farming industry? Does she realise how thin her case sounds when farmers know that farmers in other EU countries such as Germany are issued with forms a fraction of the size of those issued here? The German form has seven pages, whereas the English form has 17.

Will the Secretary of State give an absolute assurance that no penalties will be imposed on farmers who could not complete their forms on time, or did so inaccurately, because they did not receive the correct information from the RPA?

Order. Perhaps in future questions could be cut a bit.

I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Of course land should not necessarily have been registered in quite the same way as it must be registered now. I am afraid, however, that there are parcels of land that should indeed have been registered in the past. We are not pursuing the matter, but the fact is that all that has greatly complicated the RPA's work.

The hon. Gentleman said that I had displayed barely concealed anger. I do not think that the anger was concealed at all, actually. I can assure the House that neither I nor any member of my ministerial team wanted to have to come here and say that we would be unable to begin making payments at the very start of the payment date.

The hon. Gentleman says that in other member states the forms are simpler. They may be in some cases, but the systems are not necessarily simpler and in fact we are not comparing like with like. In Germany, for example, there is a different structure and system in each Lander. We published what we hoped would be the payment dates, and we published the new date as soon as we knew that it would have to be a little later, to try to give people at least some long-term planning certainty. Many other member states that have not publicly commented on their payment dates are experiencing exactly the same difficulties as us.

3. If she will make a statement on proposed reforms to the EU sugar regime. [2602]

Proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime are not due to be announced until 22 June.

I thank the Secretary of State for that perhaps less than full reply. She will join me in recognising the importance of sugar beet as a break crop and a rotation crop, particularly in constituencies such as Vale of York. What assessment has been made of the impact of these reforms on UK producers? Following the expected publication of the EU proposals on 22 June, what consultations will there be with UK producers and other interested parties on the further impact on them of those EU reforms?

We are on slightly tenuous ground here because, as I said, the proposals have not yet been published, although—

They were leaked.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that ideas have been leaked, but whether what has been leaked is wholly accurate remains to be seen. We did in fact carry out an assessment and looked at a range of options, precisely because no one could—and still cannot—be entirely sure exactly what package the Commission will come up with. The assessment was carried out by Cambridge university and the Royal Agricultural College, and it has been published on my Department's website. The range of possible options was considered, and the primary conclusion was that any scenario for reform is likely to lead to less production in the UK, but that the impact would be significantly lessened if growers restructured, reduced their costs and so on. Issues such as the potential for substitution were also examined, and we will keep that assessment up to date as we see what proposals the Commission produces. I can assure the hon. Lady that just as we consulted on the initial proposals, we will certainly consult on the final proposals.

Can the Secretary of State assure us that, in making her representations to the Commission before the publication of its proposals on 22 June, the right balance was struck between the interests of EU consumers and those of producers outside the EU, who have suffered because of the subsidies provided by some member states?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the impact of proposals for sugar reform on the wider world is very much part of the context of the discussions that have taken place not just in the UK, but in the EU as a whole. For example, as he will probably knows, the European Council invited leaders and representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to address it last year. I intend to hold a further such meeting with those representatives in September, when the position concerning the negotiations will be clearer. We are very mindful of this issue and, of course, such countries receive the prevailing EU price. But part of the reason why this reform is complex is that it is combined with the end of the existing regime, with the introduction of the "Everything but Arms" agreement, and with a range of other impinging issues.

Is the Secretary of State aware that probably more sugar beet is grown in west Norfolk than in any other part of the country, and that much of it is grown not just by large farmers but by many small farmers, including county council smallholders? Is she also aware that if these proposals go ahead, the average profit per hectare will come down to £4.30? All these farmers appreciate the need for change, but is there not a way in which we can protect the interests of very small farmers?

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and I am, of course, conscious of both the way in which such growing is concentrated in certain areas and the fact that many small producers are involved, as he rightly says. I can assure him that the overall impact will indeed be very much part of the assessment, and I am sure that the whole European Council will wish that to be the case. Of course, whatever changes are proposed, people will look at what adjustments can be made—compensatory measures and so on—and I feel confident that that will be an important part of those discussions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments regarding sugar growers outside the EU. What advice can she give to me so that I can respond to my stepdaughter-in-law, who is from Nyeri in Kenya and tells me that many farmers in that part of Kenya have been put out of business owing to EU sugar subsidies? Not only are they put out of business, but whole communities are being destroyed and the sugar refinery has closed. They are not seeking aid; they simply want fair trade.

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the possible impact. Of course, this issue is not confined to sugar. Sugar is just the worst example of the way in which the subsidies that have been paid in developed countries in the past—not only in the EU, but in the United States, for example—have distorted the patterns of world trade and done great harm. Indeed, some interesting figures show that there are costs to taxpayers and consumers in the EU and costs elsewhere in the world as a result of the level as well as the nature of those subsidies. I can assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the reasons that drive us to pursue reform.

The Secretary of State has said that she will see the representatives of the ACP countries in the autumn. I welcome that, but she will be as aware as we are—some Labour Members appear not to be aware of this—that the reform of the sugar regime, while inevitable, will have a shock effect on the signatories to the sugar agreement that are ACP countries. What steps is she taking, together with the Secretary of State for International Development, the Chancellor and other EU countries, to try to ensure that the timing of the restructuring of EU aid is such that those countries can weather that shock?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, and I support it entirely. I can assure him that it is part of those discussions. What is perhaps not so much in the public domain is that, when the Commission publishes its proposals for reform on 22 June, I understand that it will also publish an action plan alongside them, so that we will be able to assess the timing and impact of the reform not only on producers from west Norfolk and elsewhere in the EU, but on other trading partners. That will be an important part of those discussions.

I neglected to say that, when we held the meeting with the ACP representatives, the Commission was represented by the Trade Commissioner, the Agriculture Commissioner and the Development Commissioner. I certainly hope that they will also all be in attendance when we meet the ACP representatives again, and such matters are part of that collective discussion.

That is good news, and we look forward to seeing that happen.

Turning back to the UK producers that my hon. Friends have mentioned, while we accept that they are among the most effective sugar producers in Europe and that— subject to successful negotiations with British Sugar, with which I hope that the Secretary of State will help—many of them will weather the storm, does she accept that their prospects, as well as those for reducing carbon emissions, would significantly improve if the Government were to take active steps to emulate the French and the US in encouraging bioethanol production, hence the growing of biofuel crops, in the UK?

This reform has a whole range of possible impacts—not least, for example, on food manufacturers and confectioners, which provide many thousands of jobs in this country and elsewhere and the EU—although the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that Britain is fortunate in being among the more efficient producers. However, I certainly agree that it is essential that we take into account the whole range of those issues. That will be very much part of those discussions. Of course, when the Agriculture Council discusses those issues, the UK chair will be taken by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). He has heard all the observations and comments that have been made, and I am confident that he will follow them through.

4. If she will make a statement on action to tackle bovine tuberculosis. [2603]

We published our 10-year strategy for the control of bovine TB in March, and a copy is available in the Library of the House. I have today approved the first field trial of a TB vaccine for badgers and a new study by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to prepare for similar field trials in cattle.

The Minister has no doubt seen the report today from the university in his constituency that shows the harmful effects that bovine TB has had on farming and, indeed, on farmers, given the stress and loss of income that they are now suffering. In light of the successful trials on culling in Ireland—the results were out at the beginning of the year—will he finally consider allowing culling to go ahead and do so with some urgency?

We are studying the results of the Irish trials with great care and are already carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of their implications, but I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as I am sure he is aware, the Irish Government have not changed their policy on culling as a result of the trials. They have not introduced proactive culling along the lines of those trials, because they do not believe that such a policy would be viable. For example, the trials involved the almost total extermination of badgers over quite large areas of the country.

The questions that we all need to ask ourselves are whether a badger-culling policy could be cost-effective, sustainable and viable. Those questions still have to be answered. I welcome the report from the university of Exeter. I have not yet had a chance to read it in full—it was published only yesterday—but I shall do so. From what I have heard of it, it sounds like an excellent report on a subject that we take very seriously.

What progress has been made in the Krebs trials in hot spot areas such as Staffordshire, Moorlands? Have useful conclusions been reached in those trials and has my hon. Friend had time to consider the compensation regime for bovine TB in view of the substantial losses that some farmers face?

The Krebs trials are progressing, although they are under the auspices of the Independent Scientific Group, which protects its independence very fiercely. It has assured Ministers that if there are any interim reports from the trials before they are due to end in the current culling season—that is this winter and early next year—it will let us know. It is important that we do not wait until the outcome of the Krebs trials. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) has already suggested, we have interesting results from Ireland and we are already working on a cost-benefit analysis of those results.

On compensation, my hon. Friend will be aware that the independent implementation group on bovine TB, which is chaired by a livestock farmer, is considering the issue, and the Government believe that we need to do something about compensation levels following the National Audit Office report that was highly critical of overpayments in Wales.

Tomorrow at the Royal Cornwall show, the number of vets signed up to the February letter expressing total dissatisfaction with the Government's TB policy will rise to 420. These vets have more experience of TB than the Government's advisers and, if the disease is to be eradicated, they believe strongly that the Government must bear down on the disease both in cattle and in wildlife. Above all, the vets believe that there are very serious animal welfare implications in allowing large numbers of badgers to die of bovine TB. Why do the Government disagree with them?

There is nothing to disagree with, because the letter from the vets did not make any practical suggestions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have written back to the vets who signed the hon. Gentleman's letter asking them for their practical suggestions as to what a badger-culling policy would look like. Perhaps the next time he stands up in the House, he will say what the badger-culling policy that he advocates would look like. One of the ludicrous suggestions that was made by his party during the general election campaign was that it would kill infected badgers. He must know that there is no reliable live test for TB in badgers, so we cannot tell whether a badger is infected until it is dead. His party's other suggestion that its policy would operate only when the badger setts could be repopulated with healthy badgers is also ludicrous, because there is no way of telling whether a badger has got TB until it is dead.

Not for the first time, Conservative policy on rural affairs seems to be: if in doubt, kill something. Does my hon. Friend accept that the overwhelming majority of people who take an interest in the matter support a science and evidence-based approach that involves action only at the moment at which we feel that it will actually do some good?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The debate has moved on from the Conservative party's position to one about whether badger culling works. We know from Ireland that that can work; the question is whether it can be made cost-effective, sustainable and practicable. As my hon. Friend rightly says, any policy must be based on sound science and evidence, and as long as this Labour Government are in power, it will be.

Can the Minister tell us whether there are any plans whatsoever for the introduction of pre-movement testing and, if so, how that will be paid for?

There are indeed plans for the introduction of pre-movement testing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue because all too often the problem of cattle-to-cattle transmission of bovine TB and the extra measures that farmers can take on biosecurity are ignored in the debate, which is dominated by badgers. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace), who tabled the question, comes from a part of the country that is virtually TB-free, because I think that there have been two outbreaks in Lancashire in the past five years. It is absolutely vital to keep the parts of the country that do not experience the terrible problem that we have in Devon, and which the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) experiences in Cornwall, free from TB. Pre-movement testing is an important tool within that policy.

May I talk about the human impact among farmers of bovine TB? Staffordshire's rural emotional stress team—REST—is held up by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as an example of best practice in supporting people in rural locations who are isolated and suffer mental health problems or emotional difficulties. The team would confirm the same findings as the south-west study, and I can confirm from my personal experiences that farmers are positively suicidal when they see their whole herds destroyed because of bovine TB. I have watched bovine TB approach and take hold in my constituency, so I know how frustrating it is that the science is behind us. However, surely the March strategy is still too little to satisfy farmers under that sort of stress that enough is being done.

I accept that some people are not satisfied that the Government have not already announced a mass extermination of badgers in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend. However, I suggest to him that no Government could do that in the absence of scientific evidence to support it and serious work on cost-effectiveness, practicability and sustainability.

I absolutely understand my hon. Friend's point. I have spent a lot of time talking to farmers who have been affected by bovine TB. It is a terrible and distressing experience, although I should point out that the Exeter university study shows that the overall economic impact has not been major, even in an area such as Devon. I believe that the report says that only one farmer who has been affected by a TB breakdown has consequently left the livestock industry.

5. How many officials were employed in administering the single payment scheme in 2004–05; and what the administrative cost of the scheme was in that year. [2604]

In 2004–05, the Rural Payments Agency incurred single payment scheme development costs of around £11.3 million as part of a wider change programme to modernise the making of common agricultural policy payments. Staff working full time on the single payment scheme increased during the year to 242 by March 2005, in preparation for the 16 May scheme deadline. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs met its target of reducing the cost of administering common agricultural policy payments by 10 per cent. by 31 March 2005.

I thank the Minister for that informative answer, following on from our earlier discussion. Is DEFRA aware of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's initiative to reduce paperwork for small companies? Over and above all the complexities of mapping and the application forms about which we heard earlier, is he aware that hundreds of thousands of farmers received separately 10 documents—explanatory booklets—relating to the scheme, which amounted to 357 pages? The documents included gems such as an explanatory note on the calculation of allocation, which told readers to replace throughout the word "increased" with "decreased". Who is ultimately accountable for the vast waste of resources involved in the exercise?

I am aware that farmers have received a large amount of paperwork in relation to the scheme, much of which has been the result of widespread consultation that was carried out because we were introducing a new scheme. It would be a shame if the House lost sight of the real benefits that we will get from the scheme when the teething problems have been sorted out. It will bring farmers closer to the market, enabling them to provide the safe, high-quality food that the market wants. It will reduce the damaging environmental impact caused by overproduction and cut bureaucracy. It will also place the EU in a position to secure a World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture under the Doha round.

6. Why the revised figure for domestic energy efficiency savings in the energy efficiency implementation plan excluded projected carbon savings in the white goods sector for 2000 to 2010. [2606]

The revised figure does include projected savings from all household appliances, including white goods. These are shown in annex 3 of the plan, table A3, and the value is given as 0.1 to 0.2 million tonnes of carbon a year.

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Does she agree that there has been a significant backsliding on the targets for reducing carbon energy emissions and for efficiency, and that it is important that we are told today what percentage improvement in domestic energy efficiency the Government have achieved?

No, I do not accept that there has been a backsliding. We are not on course to meet our CO ₂ targets, if that is what the hon. Gentleman means, but we have made substantial improvements on the previous position. It is the case that we need to do more, and as much as we can, through energy efficiency measures. I do not carry in my head the latest figures on how much has been done on that, but he will probably know that the energy efficiency commitment is substantially strengthened and will run for a longer period—it is something like double the original level. He may also know about the energy efficiency innovation plan, which I think the Chancellor announced in his last Budget. A great deal of work is going on. We are reassessing the whole climate change programme and will make announcements later.

Barely a day goes by without a major story on climate change coming forth from our television screens. Should not we capture that public concern with a mass public campaign about energy saving so that we get everyone to do their bit? I do not hear that debate going on at the moment. We have programmes, but we are not into mass communication. The rise in prosperity in this country is, I fear, being translated instead into more of an American lifestyle, in which we consume energy more profligately than we should.

I take my hon. Friend's point entirely, including what he says about a mass campaign. If he looks at his utility bills, he will find that, under instructions from the Government, the utility companies are drawing to people's attention the potential of energy saving and that they offer energy efficiency and energy services packages.

As a result of the moneys that we secured in the 2004 spending review, we have given an additional £10 million to the Energy Saving Trust to boost its activities in giving advice and support, and it proposes to pilot sustainable energy centres. We ourselves are developing a new £12 million climate change communications initiative, which we hope will do more to make people aware not only of the nature of the problems, but of what they can do to address them.

I thank the Secretary of State for the notice that she gave of answering questions. I wish she would persuade her colleagues in the Wales Office to be as courteous.

The target of a 30 per cent. improvement in domestic efficiency by 2010 was restated no fewer than 23 times in the Government review that monitored the implementation of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. With only five years to go, will the right hon. Lady explain what she can do to achieve that target, especially if she does not know where she is at the moment with regard to the figures?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities on the Front Bench. I am sure that he will find it a fascinating and enjoyable experience.

I do not have the specific figures as to where we are in terms of energy efficiency, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of work is going on to assess both what has been achieved through energy efficiency measures and what more can be done. That is a key part of our approach to the climate change programme review. I am confident that it will form part of the recommendations.

7. What assessment she has made of the threat to biosecurity from illegal meat imports. [2607]

It is impossible to eliminate completely the risk from illegal imports, but a number of measures that the Government have taken to improve prevention, detection and domestic biosecurity have, we believe, reduced the risk.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Have the Government looked at new imaging technologies to detect meat and plant material in personal luggage?

Yes, we have been considering that, and if the research that we have been doing proves to be useful in this important work, we will certainly take a serious look at it. That is on top of a number of other measures that we have taken, including £29 million of expenditure over three years, 100 new dedicated customs officers and 10 sniffer dogs operating at our airports and ports. The National Audit Office recently published a very complimentary report on the work of customs in detecting illegal imports.

8. What the estimated cost is of extending the Environment Agency pollution inventory to sites regulated by local authorities under the local authority pollution control and local authority pollution prevention and control regimes. [2608]

We have not established the cost of doing what my hon. Friend suggests because we believe that a better use of time and resources is to concentrate on action to reduce harmful emissions.

I thank the Minister for that brief reply. Does he accept that extending the pollution inventory to the 17,000-plus sites regulated by local authorities would improve public access on the net to information about pollution from local businesses and thereby help to reduce pollution and improve public health?

I agree that it might well increase the amount of information available, although information is available about the 17,000 sites that my hon. Friend mentions, which are the lesser-polluting installations. It is important that the Government, in making decisions on these things, act in a proportionate manner that does not overburden either local authorities or local businesses and, as I said in my original answer, concentrates our efforts and resources on dealing with the problem of emissions, rather than the quality and collection of data, important though that is.

Does the Minister consider it timeous to use the register to take in sites within 200 to 600 m of high-level pylons? As he knows, the latest study, the Draper study, concluded that children living in households within 200 to 600 m of overhead cables are nearly twice as likely to have leukaemia. Is it not time that we took a serious look at air pollution and put those sites on the register so that we do not build more houses in those zones and cause childhood leukaemia as a result?

I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I do not know whether it would be legally possible to take in the alleged danger posed by pylon sites under these regulations, which are about pollution and the emissions of substances that we know cause harm, but I shall have a look at the matter and write to him.

9. What discussions she has had with HM Revenue and Customs on the tax treatment of the single farm payment. [2609]

There have been a number of discussions between DEFRA and Inland Revenue officials to clarify understanding of the rules governing the single payment scheme and related tax issues.

I thank the Minister for that reply. There has been a lot of criticism about the administration of the single farm payment during questions already today, but the Minister may know that the problem is compounded by further uncertainty about the tax status of the payment. Will he confirm whether it will be classified as farming income for tax purposes? If he is unable to give a definitive reply now, because he has to liaise with the Inland Revenue, will he at least undertake to give such an answer in writing by the end of the month?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question, because I am aware of farmers' concern about the matter. Tax issues are of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than this Department, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that a dedicated tax bulletin on the single payment scheme will be published on 24 June, and I trust that it will answer his questions.

10. What steps the Government are taking to encourage local authorities to improve energy efficiency in their housing stock. [2610]

The Government are reviewing the guidance issued to local authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. We have set targets to ensure that all social housing is made decent by 2010, and we are encouraging councils to work in partnership with energy suppliers through the energy efficiency commitment and our funding of the Energy Saving Trust.

Is the Minister aware that homes waste about £5 billion-worth of energy a year and that a quarter of all harmful carbon emissions emanate from the home? Bearing it in mind that housing associations and councils run a quarter of the homes in the country, and that there is climate change and fuel poverty to consider, will the Minister use his influence to try to get them to do something about that?

My hon. Friend is right; we have made considerable progress on fuel poverty in the private sector. In the local authority sector, the insulation of something like 250,000 council homes has been upgraded. He is right that energy efficiency is an important key step in any strategy on reducing emissions and dealing with climate change. We are also reviewing building regulations—the new regulations will be out next year—and, in conjunction with the ODPM, looking at the findings of the sustainable buildings taskforce, which has particular potential to reduce emissions from housing.

The House will be aware of proposals from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for low-cost, affordable housing, which I am sure we all welcome. Will the Minister be ensuring that the low-cost housing provided under that scheme will be built to the highest energy-efficiency standards, so that the long-term costs take account of the needs that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) outlined in his question?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are talking to organisations such as the Building Research Establishment about better standards of building. I had the opportunity of seeing some of the possible designs at the recent conference organised in Manchester by the ODPM. To have the very highest energy- efficiency standards does not add a great deal to the cost of new buildings, and even if there are additional costs, they are of course recovered by lower fuel bills over time.

11. What steps she is taking to encourage the farming and food industry to expand domestic demand for its products. [2611]

Our strategy is focused on helping industry adapt and build on its capacity to produce and deliver efficiently and sustainably what the market wants. By reconnecting farmers with the market, common agricultural policy reform, which we have discussed so much this morning, is key to ensuring that the farming industry can better respond to consumer demands and increase its competitiveness. In addition, our public sector food procurement initiative and support for the red tractor logo are examples of the Government's support for UK producers.

I welcome the Minister to his new post and thank him for that reply. Does he accept that the key way forward for British agriculture is through increasing value added? That is important to British consumers every bit as much as it is to British farmers, and incidentally reduces the amount of unnecessary and wasteful movement of food between continents. In that spirit, and building on the work of Donald Curry and others, will he undertake on behalf of the Government to do every bit as much to support British agriculture in providing value added to British consumers as do European counterpart Ministers in support of their own industries?

I certainly welcome that response. As ever, the hon. Gentleman takes an intelligent approach to these matters. The food and farming taskforce is addressing those issues, and I certainly agree with what he said.

I also welcome the Minister to his new post; I am sure that he will have a very interesting time in DEFRA. One key thing that his Ministry could do to help British agriculture—I declare my interest as set out in the Register of Members' Interests—is encourage all public procurement bodies to purchase British food. Will his Ministry take an initiative in that respect and particularly address the Department of Education and Skills and the Ministry of Defence, which are large food procurement agencies?

The public sector food procurement initiative that I mentioned, which was launched on 26 August 2003, is designed to do exactly that, within the rules that we all understand. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have read the Labour party's rural manifesto, which says clearly that, as part of the Government's commitment to schools, we will look through the school food trust to local farmers and suppliers for their produce wherever possible.

12. Whether it is her Department's policy to meet the European Union's 2 per cent. target for renewable transport fuels by 2005. [2612]

The Government have set the UK's target at 0.3 per cent. use of biofuels by 2005. That amounts to about 12 million litres a month, which is a significant increase over current sales. It reflects the situation as the Government expect it to be with the current support. The key issue is not the 2005 target but the long-term development of the industry.

Will the Secretary of State explain why, if she is so committed to encouraging the use of environmentally friendly biofuels, there seems to be a Sir Humphrey-like delay in instituting a renewable transport fuel order that would make that happen? It appears to have become bogged down in what is described as a feasibility study.

I hardly think that it is consistent with evidence-based or sensible policy making to impose such an obligation without carrying out a feasibility study and consulting stakeholders. The hon. Gentleman is right because that is exactly what the Government are doing. We take seriously the potential of the renewable transport obligation, but I do not think that the House would expect the Government to take such a profound step without full consideration of all the options. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are moving as speedily as we can, and we will report to the House as soon as we can.

I call Mr. Caton.

It is Mr. Challen, Mr. Speaker. It has been a while since I last rose.

The Americans—we have to listen to them a great deal on climate change—claim that they have a 12 per cent. consumption rate of bioethanol. Will my right hon. Friend examine how they have achieved that—I know that there are specific reasons for it—to ascertain whether in our future review we can learn some lessons from them?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are willing to learn lessons from any source that is useful and practical, and I take his point. As I think I said earlier to the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), we are starting from an extremely low starting point. The target that we have set for 2005 is, from memory, about five or six times the present level of consumption. Some member states in the EU have not set any target at all for 2005. I assure my hon. Friend that we wish to make speedy progress on this directive and that we are willing to learn from anywhere.

13. How many horses have been issued with passports. [2613]

Based on the data that we have received from English Passport issuing organisations, 580,183 passports have been issued, and a further 24,915 applications are currently being processed. Among those issued include two by the Arab Horse Society for my family's two horses, Merlin and Shadow.

I thank the Minister for that response and for those large numbers. He will appreciate that under his regulations horses have a greater need of passports than we do—they require them even to breed. Given that, how many passports does the hon. Gentleman imagine have yet to be applied for and issued? What is the current level of compliance?

We are pleased with the level of compliance. We are pleased also with the welcome that we have had for the horse passport scheme from horse welfare societies such as the International League for the Protection of Horses. Passports are a good thing. They reduce the risks for the continued availability of many commonly used veterinary medicines; they discourage indiscriminate breeding of horses and ponies; and they also discourage theft, because the sale and certain use of horses are now dependent on the passport accompanying the horse.

14. If she will make a statement on prospects for the fishing industry. [2614]

The prospects for the fishing industry are good so long as fishing effort is set according to the health of fish stocks. I was pleased that following assiduous lobbying by the hon. Gentleman I was able to persuade the European Fisheries Council to remove the haddock permit scheme, which I know has been warmly welcomed by the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I welcome his return to the fishing brief. As we view the prospects of taking the presidency of the Fisheries Council, his presence offers us a welcome element of continuity. Will he use his time in the chair of the Fisheries Council to address the wide discrepancy that is now reported among member states in the imposition of penalties for breach of fishing regulations? He will be aware that last week the Commission published a report indicating that penalties range from £189 in Finland to £52,000 in this country, and that there is an EU average of £3,130. If we are to be part of a common policy, surely our fishermen deserve fairer treatment than that.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am grateful for his kind remarks about the importance of the forthcoming presidency and the chairmanship of European Council meetings that I will share with my right hon. and hon. Friends across the Government. He is quite right about the importance of a level playing field. The British Government take that extremely seriously, as does the Commission. The new Commissioner, Joe Borg, has introduced an action plan to ensure that the penalties to which the hon. Gentleman referred are much more equal in the common fisheries policy. If we do not have a level playing field on enforcement, it is not a genuinely common fisheries policy at all.

15. What discussions she has had with the Department of Health on measures to promote access to energy-efficient housing as a national public health priority. [2616]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no direct discussion with the Department of Health on this matter. However, we fully recognise the health benefits that can come from improving the energy standards of housing, and that is a key factor in the development of our programmes to tackle fuel poverty and improve the energy efficiency of housing.

That answer is a little disappointing. Surely, this should be a priority. The Government should state exactly what their intentions are and, indeed, lay out a time scale for such programmes.

We are reviewing the issue of energy-efficient housing, as I spelt out in my previous answer. Energy efficiency reduces emissions and costs, but there are also health benefits, which we take seriously and which we address through a cross-government approach.