1. How many councils have received support under (a) Vital Villages, (b) the quality parish scheme and (c) the market towns initiative since 2001. [63727]

Since 2001, Vital Villages has helped more than 5,000 communities gain access to more or higher standards of public services—an agenda further supported by more than 270 quality parish and town councils. More than 230 towns received funding through the market towns initiative to support community-led regeneration.

The image of market towns is often that of the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker and, in particular, many solicitors doing business. However, there is another kind of market town: small towns that have been built up and surrounded by the coal industry over the past 100 years. Those market towns have particular problems in regenerating themselves. Will the Minister look at market towns such as Warsop to see whether beacon status could be conferred on them to assist with their regeneration?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could manage an Adjournment debate—he has so much to tell us.

As I ever, I listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) with care. I take note of his comments and will consider them in due course.

Will the Minister explain to the House why his Department, rather than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is taking these initiatives forward? Will he also explain to the House how the initiatives are promulgated? How do parish councils, town councils and others know that the money is available to them? Rather than having all those various initiatives, which people have to know about, would it not be better if the Government simply increased the grant to local authorities in relation to council tax, rather than reducing the grant and obliging council tax to go up continually?

It is clearly appropriate that the Minister with responsibility for rural affairs should have some input into what is going on in rural communities. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is involved, as well as the ODPM. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that we have simplified the arrangements for Vital Villages and the market towns initiative, for example, by contributing all that money to the regional development agencies—as a Department, we are now the third largest contributor to the regional development agencies—so that they can make more localised decisions in the interests of rural communities.

I welcome the market towns initiative, which has gone down extremely well in Neston in my constituency. It can provide a vehicle to improve the centre of a town radically. What efforts is my hon. Friend making to liaise with other key Departments to ensure that there is a holistic approach, particularly with transport and other such key factors?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and interested to hear about Neston; Swanage, in my constituency, is benefiting from market and coastal towns initiative funding. I regularly meet colleagues from other Departments, and in the next few weeks I am due to meet the Minister of State at the Department for Transport. I will have my hon. Friend's comments in mind.

Does the Minister agree that one of the best bits of the Vital Villages funding was the regard given to local transport issues, and transport issues more widely? Does he further agree that one of the biggest problems in our villages today is the increasing clutter caused by traffic calming measures, street furniture of one sort or another, signs and signage? It is almost impossible to see where the village is because of the ghastly mess on the roads. How will the Minister seek to reduce that clutter now that he has cancelled the Vital Villages funding?

We have not cancelled the Vital Villages funding. We have passed it on to the regional development agencies to spend as they see fit within their region—in the spirit of delegation that I know that the hon. Gentleman's party is now welcoming. As for the signs and the clutter, as he calls it, many villages are clamouring for traffic calming, and I am sure that there may be some such villages in North Wiltshire. However, the Department for Transport is concerned about the proliferation of signage and there is some work going on with highways authorities to consider how that can be simplified for the motorist, to make sure that there is not a confusion of signage causing a hazard on the roads.

2. If she will make a statement on progress in implementing the right to roam provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [63728]

The target for implementing the Countryside and Rights of Way Act right of access in England by the end of 2005 has been met, enabling people to enjoy some of the finest landscape that the country has to offer.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We are all aware that ramblers everywhere welcome the right to roam provisions warmly, but the Minister will also be aware that many ramblers would like an extension of the right to roam to cover Britain's wonderful coastline. Are there any plans to extend the access provisions of the CROW Act? [Interruption.]

I can hear someone saying that there is a wonderful coastline in my constituency, and I cannot argue with that. Improving coastal access was a manifesto commitment. We are committed to full public consultation in October, when we will set out our views on how we can best deliver action to improve access to the English coast.

3. How many incidents of bovine tuberculosis were reported to her Department in the last 12 months. [63729]

Some 3,653 new herd incidents were recorded in Great Britain in 2005. That was a 9.1 per cent. increase on 2004.

As the current bovine TB skin test is a rather blunt diagnostic tool with only a 60 to 70 per cent. degree of accuracy, when does the Minister anticipate that the working group that he established in September 2005 will be able to report on the increased use of the gamma interferon test?

The figures that the hon. Gentleman gives the House are not quite correct. The skin test's sensitivity, which is its identification of infected animals, is between 77 and 95 per cent. Its specificity, which is its identification of uninfected animals, is 99 per cent. The test is much better than he suggests, and it is recognised internationally, as it is in the EU. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have set up a working group to look into rolling out the gamma interferon test, but that test could only ever be used as a supplementary test, although I agree that it has the potential to be helpful.

With the number of cases of bovine TB continuing to rise, which is deeply worrying, will my hon. Friend assure me that no decision has been taken on how the Government intend to respond to their consultation, given that there is a clear need to examine alternatives, including vaccination and the idea of mineral deficiency? We must rely on science, not several of the ideas that are floating around.

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he wants. The consultation was important. We received tens of thousands of responses, so I do not think that anyone would think it reasonable to expect us to reach a decision within five weeks of the end of the consultation period, given the scientific uncertainty to which he alludes.

Will the Minister tell the House whether herds that have had, or are suspected to have had, a tuberculosis outbreak in the past three years will be restricted from exporting live animals when the beef export ban is lifted in early May?

I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact answer to that question, but I think that I am right in saying that because our status is officially still TB-free, our export markets will not be affected.

With regard to the consultation, is the Minister aware that there is growing opposition among major landowners, such as the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to the possibility of a major cull of badgers, because they believe that the science does not justify any sort of cull whatever? Will he need legislation to be able to go on to such property to cull badgers if that is the final, and unfortunate, decision?

I am on record as saying that I do not think that it is practicable to have any sort of culling system that involves enforcement when landowners do not want badgers to be culled on their land. That would not be a feasible option—but my hon. Friend's point about landowners is absolutely right. One of the problems with getting widespread and intensive coverage for our badger culling trials is that a number of landowners do not want such culling to happen as a matter of principle, although that might not necessarily be the case in all areas. My hon. Friend is right to imply that if there is to be badger culling as part of our bovine TB policy, all the scientific evidence, which, as he rightly says, is uncertain, tends to suggest that it would need fairly widespread coverage over a very large area, which would be a challenge to achieve.

The Minister half answered this question when he replied to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), but we want to know when the Government will announce their decision about what they will do following the consultation on badger culling. Does he think that we should accept a level of TB in wildlife?

As I have said before, and as the consultation document said, the international experience suggests that if we leave the reservoir in wildlife untouched it will prevent us from containing and eradicating bovine TB. We have made that perfectly clear, but we face a challenge in finalising a practicable cost-effective system of culling that is scientifically sustainable in the long term. As for timing, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact answer, but we wish to proceed as quickly as possible, given the seriousness of the situation.

Is the Minister convinced that the new compensation scheme for affected cattle is an adequate reflection of farmers' losses? A farming family in my constituency have put the alternative case to me very vigorously, as they say that there is a significant risk that beef and milk production—the engine room of English agriculture—will be seriously affected, and that some farmers will stop milk production altogether without adequate compensation.

It is early days, as the new compensation system has been operating for only a short time. I remind my hon. Friend that reports by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, as well as a number of independent reports, have repeatedly found that there was serious overcompensation in the system, and the Government have a responsibility to defend taxpayers' interests as well as to compensate farmers for the true value of the animals that are slaughtered.

4. If she will make a statement on progress in making payments under the single payments scheme. [63730]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written statement given to the House yesterday.

I wrote to the Minister on 4 April giving her notice that I wanted to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Arthur Adams, who is typical of farmers across the country who have had to sell their grain early at a loss, whose rent was due last month, and who simply cannot afford to buy the chemicals that they desperately need now that spring is here. All of them have one thing common—they still have not been paid. All that I want to know—all that farmers across the land want to know—is when they will be paid.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for writing to me, as that provided me with an opportunity to look at his constituent's case, which is not the norm. I am afraid that some validation tasks remain outstanding in that claim, but we hope that they will be completed as soon as possible. I remind the hon. Gentleman that of course there is, and always has been, a payment window. It was never the case that we hoped or believed that everyone could be paid at the start. Payments are being made as fast as possible.

My right hon. Friend is aware that Scotland and Wales have managed to ensure that farmers are paid, but farmers in Lancashire are struggling without the single farm payment. Can she ensure that it will be paid as soon as possible? If not, can she guarantee that interim payments will be made, and that farmers will be compensated for the delay?

First, I remind my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that the payment is not late, as the payment window does not close until the end of June. May I also draw to his attention, and to that of the whole House, our announcement yesterday that because of continuing concern about the rate at which the Rural Payments Agency can make payments, we have made work on a system of substantial partial payments a priority?

A great many farmers in my constituency in north Hampshire are also waiting for payment under the scheme, and it is causing a great deal of hardship, particularly among smaller farmers. Many of the provisional acceptances received by those farmers are littered with errors—for example, with regard to field boundaries. One of the farmers in my constituency has been given an entitlement for a type of land that does not even exist in north Hampshire. What is the Minister doing to deal with those problems? Does she agree with the statement by a farmer in my constituency that the IT system is in meltdown?

No, the IT system is not in meltdown, but there are continuing problems. The hon. Lady is probably not aware that since September 2004 there have been no less than 100,000 requests for new land to be registered or for changes to be made to the boundaries of land that had in many cases long been registered with the payments system. Indeed, 61,000 changes in registration have been made in the past five months alone. That is a substantial task. It is a substantially greater task than anyone had anticipated when the system was put in hand. That has caused difficulties, but I can assure the hon. Lady both that attempts are being made to resolve those as fast as possible, and that if there are difficulties with the specific information given to a particular farmer, we are trying to encourage contact between that farmer and the Rural Payments Agency.

I welcome the statement yesterday. In meetings with my farmers recently, they highlighted the genuine concern that many of them have, particularly the smaller farmers, who are finding it difficult to maintain their cash flow. When does my right hon. Friend expect progress to be made under the timetable for improvements to IT? Would it be possible for the RPA to ensure that farmers dealt with a specific individual? One of the problems seems to be that when they phone, they have to go through the whole history all over again. Perhaps we should learn from other agencies, where specific case officers are assigned.

First, it is our intention that all those who are eligible will receive full or substantial partial payments by the end of June. The second point that my hon. Friend makes is a valid and important one. Among the changes that have been brought in by the acting chief executive is a major overhaul of the way in which claims are processed, which gives staff responsibility for individual applications. I understand that previously, not only was there a system whereby staff had responsibility for individual tasks, but the staff involved in dealing with the tasks relating to particular claims were not the staff who were allowed to talk to customers. That is one of the first changes that our new acting chief executive has introduced. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's observations, in case the further point that he makes is helpful.

There seems to be a misconception. It is not just in England and Wales that there are problems with single farm payments. Some crofters in my constituency—I declare an interest here—have still to get their single farm payments, although those will be modest sums compared with payments to farmers in England and Wales. Will the Minister give an assurance that, perhaps with the Scottish Executive, she will look into the systemic problems connected with the single farm payments system?

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's observations. It was also my understanding that although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) said earlier, there is a different system in the devolved Administrations and most of the farmers had been paid, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, not all had been paid. As he will appreciate, I do not have responsibility for the way that payments are made in the devolved Administrations, but I undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of those who do.

One of my farmers recently tried to take the Secretary of State to court by issuing a summons for her in the Weston-super-Mare small claims court. The right hon. Lady will doubtless be sad to hear that she has been deprived of the opportunity of coming to visit the beautiful town of Weston-super-Mare because of a legal technicality—but does she agree that that farmer, Paul Bateman, typifies the frustration felt by farmers across the country, particularly when he received a letter from the Rural Payments Agency telling him exactly how much he was owed in euros, but no cheque was enclosed with the letter? Would it not have been simple for someone to have signed a cheque, put it in with the letter and got that one out of the way immediately?

No. We are doing everything we can to speed up the payments system. On the validation of claims, identifying the amount is the first step, but I recognise that it is the cheque that really matters. Far more cheques are being issued, and that work will continue. As I have said, our top priority is a system that at least involves substantial partial payments.

Uncertainty is the politest word to describe the mess which is the RPA. Applicants who have not had this year's claim validated now face a four-week time window before next year's payment application must be made. How can someone apply for help from 2007 onwards with certainty, when they do not know whether they have made a clear application for the current payment?

Whether or not someone has a clear application for this year does not affect the need for people to get in information for 2006. Alongside the work that is being done to resolve the current problems at the RPA, we are trying to make sure that we protect the system for 2006, because we recognise the importance of a smooth transition into that subsequent year.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that any delays that may occur beyond the end of the payment window in June, which she mentioned in yesterday's written ministerial statement, would be a clear breach of the undertakings on which the farming community relies? Will she now promise that any farmers whose payments are not completed by the end of June will have their interest costs defrayed by the Exchequer? Given that the sacking of Johnston McNeill represented some recognition of the existence of an implementation problem, does she recognise that a policy decision was involved, as we can see from the difference in the payments in England, Scotland and Wales, and that she and her team must take responsibility for that decision? Will she now consider her position accordingly?

No. I have two things to say to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is easy to overlook the fact that in Scotland and Wales not only is there a different basis for payments, but there are far fewer claimants. Nevertheless, payments in Scotland and Wales have not been completely problem free, as was identified earlier in this Question Time. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the ministerial team made a policy decision, for which I take full responsibility, and in the long term that decision will be seen as having been clearly in the interests of the English farming community. Without getting into dispute about the decisions that people in other member states and in other parts of these isles have taken, perfectly rightly and properly, there are already growing concerns in farming communities where a different payment system has been adopted. The hon. Gentleman is comparatively new to his responsibilities, and he might not fully appreciate that the alternative basis—

Do not patronise me.

I am not being patronising; I am trying to be helpful. The alternative systems rest on paying somebody what was paid on a farm between 2000 and 2002. Such figures are already substantially out of date, and that will increase as the years go by. There is growing unrest in farming communities about that being an unsatisfactory basis on which to proceed.

I refer hon. Members to my interest. There is a real human crisis out there, because farmers face a huge amount of debt, and their suppliers are carrying large amounts of credit that they have extended to farmers who cannot pay. Any money will be welcome, and yesterday's announcement takes us in that direction. Will the Secretary of State tell us what she means by "substantial"? What proportion of farmers' entitlement does she expect to pay? Can she give us an accurate estimate of when those payments will begin? Now that she has had to start making executive decisions herself, does that not prove that she has no confidence in Lord Bach, who spent months criticising anyone who forecast this crisis, while failing to grasp the seriousness of the situation? As she has had to intervene now, how can the industry have any confidence in him?

I entirely share the view that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I fully recognise that there is a human crisis in the farming community, and that is why we are doing everything we can to resolve it.

The hon. Gentleman asked what we envisage as a substantial partial payment. We are working on the basis of roughly 80 per cent. of the claimed amount. I think that that is recognised as being substantial, and substantially helpful. I cannot tell him at the moment when the partial payment system that is being worked on will have been validated and will be able to run. However, if it would be helpful to him and to other hon. Members, particularly Front Benchers and the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the acting chief executive could come to give a briefing with his technical experts. I know that Members will want to raise particular technical issues arising from their experience and the questions of their constituents. The best thing is for them to get those answers from those who are charged with making the day-to-day executive decisions.

Finally, let me say how much I regret the hon. Gentleman's observations about my noble Friend. I have every confidence in Lord Bach. Had it not been for his assiduous work and continued pressure, we might not even now have had such a clear picture of the scale of the difficulties.

Does not that make my point? The Secretary of State cannot have her cake and eat it. The more she tells us of Lord Bach's greater involvement, the greater is his responsibility for the crisis that we are facing throughout the country, and there is even more reason why he should go. If she is not going to meet fully the window that she keeps talking about by the end of the June, how much will the British taxpayer have to pay in penalties to the European Commission for that failure?

In fact, as I have already said, we do anticipate making all those payments within the window. That is the task on which the RPA is currently engaged. Of course I understand that there is genuine distress, concern and, in many quarters, anger at these difficulties, as well as genuine anxiety for many in the farming community. However, that does not justify looking for a scapegoat in the form of an assiduous and hard-working Minister. I do not believe that Conservative Members, or any other Members, really think that this is Lord Bach's fault or that he should go—they just cannot think of anything else to ask for.

5. If she will discuss with the European Commission and member states requiring publication of single farm payments under the common agricultural policy. [63731]

I am pleased that a number of member states have followed our example in publicising details of payments under the common agricultural policy, and I would certainly encourage others to do so in respect of the single payment scheme.

Given that the Commission is publishing its Green Paper on transparency in May, why does my right hon. Friend not lead the way by introducing complete transparency for single farm payments under the CAP? After all, this is £1,600 million of public money, and every other Department has to identify contractors. Why should farmers be any different?

As my hon. Friend is aware, we have shown transparency in publishing broadly the amounts of the payments that are being made. I can assure him that in the fullness of time the payments for subsequent years will be published and released. That is an example that has been followed in several other member states. We are pursuing openness, but doing so with a regard for personal privacy in making available the general information, as opposed to a much more specific set of details.

It is incredible that the Secretary of State managed to get through the whole of the previous answer without saying when the payments will be made. As she will be fined by the European Commission beyond a certain date, what has she told it? When will the payments be made to farmers, and when will the last payment be made?

I do not tell the European Commission anything different from what I tell the House. The Commission is familiar with events and has been kept informed about the steps that are being taken. Like the House, it has been told that we anticipate making the payments by the end of June.

Is it correct that farming has been singled out uniquely as the only business in receipt of EU funds that must have the amounts published? I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. Are farmers the only people who are taxed on prospective EU funds which they have not yet been paid?

I cannot answer the first part of the hon. Lady's question because she asks me about matters for which I have no departmental responsibility. However, I would anticipate that the answer depends on whether a freedom of information request has been made. There was such a request for us to publish the moneys that went to the farming community. They are public funds and I would be surprised if the hon. Lady argued that that should not have happened. If she feels that there are other groups in receipt of EU money to whom the same rules should apply, she, or those who think like her, should consider making a freedom of information request on that basis.

I am afraid that I have forgotten the second part of the question.

Tax.

Farmers are not expected to make tax payments now on single farm payment claims. Any payment on account that is sought would be based on previous subsidy receipts. That position must be the same for any business.

6. Which Minister has responsibility for liaising with the civil contingencies secretariat on an outbreak of avian flu in the UK. [63732]

DEFRA is the lead Department for animal diseases, and the level of ministerial liaison with the civil contingencies secretariat depends on the seriousness and nature of any outbreak.

I am sure that the House would like to thank all those involved in dealing with the recent H5N1 case in Cellardyke for their hard work and professionalism, and the British public for their vigilance and co-operation.

I thank the Under-Secretary for his reply and pay tribute to the work of the civil contingencies secretariat. However, does not the answer pose the problem that the secretariat faces? It has to deal with the whole gamut of emergencies, from serious terrorist incidents through flooding to avian flu. Each time, it has to deal with a different Secretary of State or Minister. Before avian flu strikes this country, is it not time that the Government listened to the cries from not only Conservative Members but Labour Members, and appointed a single Minister, of Cabinet status, to deal with civil contingencies?

That worked well in the United States in the context of hurricane Katrina—did it not?—when the President had to sack the official responsible. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It does not make sense to expect a single Minister to have such expertise in a range of policies. The experience of the avian flu outbreak shows us that the current system works well.

I assume that the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) tabled the question before the first incidence of avian flu in the UK. Given that it happened in Scotland—the Scottish Executive dealt with it well—it highlighted an interesting division of responsibility between the Scottish Executive and DEFRA. What plans are in place to ensure total co-operation north and south of the border and that any emergency measures, if required, are rolled out smoothly and consistently throughout the UK?

I assure my hon. Friend that the co-operation was total and extremely good from the beginning. The Scottish Executive took part in the daily Cobra meetings by video link. I was in regular contact with Ross Finnie, my Scottish counterpart, and the Secretary of State was intimately involved at all times. The way in which the outbreak in Scotland was handled is a good example of our working together extremely well within the devolutionary settlement, despite the potential for some complication.

Given that Shropshire primary care trust decided yesterday to refuse Herceptin to patients and constituents of mine, who would be responsible for purchasing and distributing Tamiflu—the Government or the overstretched primary care trusts?

Those are matters for the Department of Health.

Will my hon. Friend find time in his busy schedule to read the report on the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country? Will he also find time to visit the marketplace to establish the price of fowl, so that if there is an outbreak of avian flu—which we all hope will not happen—the taxpayer will not be left picking up the bill to replace the many geese that, according to the industry, lay the golden egg?

The implication of my hon. Friend's question is that it is important that we learn the lessons from the foot and mouth outbreak. As has been mentioned in relation to a question on bovine tuberculosis, we have already looked carefully at the compensation that we pay. It is right that poultry and egg producers should be entitled to compensation for birds that are slaughtered in the event of any outbreak, because that provides an important incentive for them to report any signs of disease at an early stage. Everyone knows that with avian flu, as with many other animal diseases, the most important thing is early identification and quick containment and eradication.

May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the article in last week's New Scientist that cast doubt on the methodology used to take samples and to deliver them with the avian influenza virus intact to the laboratory? Is he absolutely confident that his Department is receiving top quality scientific advice and that it is at the forefront of scientific research into aspects of this important disease, such as the detection of the virus in birds that have been vaccinated?

Yes, I did read that article, and I have asked my officials for further advice on it. The initial advice is that the group that carried out this type of testing in Sweden is not officially recognised under EU rules. However, I would like to take this opportunity to praise and congratulate the excellent work that is done at the Veterinary Laboratories Agency at Weybridge in Surrey. It is the world's most renowned testing centre and it tests for avian flu and animal diseases not only from this country, but from all over the world. Some of the criticisms that have been levelled at it during this outbreak have been unfair and unfounded.

7. If she will make a statement on water shortages in London and the south-east. [63733]

8. If she will make a statement on water shortages in the south-east. [63734]

12. If she will make a statement on water shortages in the south-east of England. [63739]

Both groundwater and some reservoir levels in the south-east are below average for this time of year, and public water supply will need careful management. Water companies are taking prudent measures to conserve supplies in accordance with their drought plans.

I thank the Minister for that answer. He mentioned prudent measures. Is he aware that the hosepipe ban introduced by Thames Water on 3 April extends only to privately owned vehicles? Does he agree that the public sector also has a role to play here? It would appear, for example, that ministerial cars are exempt from the ban.

It is important to recognise that the hosepipe ban is implemented under the water companies' own measures, and they are restricted in regard to the conditions that they can apply. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that a hosepipe or sprinkler can use in one hour the total daily water consumption of a family of four, which can have a big impact. If the water companies wish to go further and apply the ban to companies, they can apply for a drought order, as some companies have done.

But it does not stop with hosepipe bans. Will the Minister confirm the drastic nature of the "essential use only" orders that are about to be imposed, which will result in a ban not only on car washes but on the watering of bowling greens, golf courses, tennis courts, sports grounds such as Lord's, the Oval and Wimbledon, and the Royal Parks, including Kew Gardens? Far more importantly, however, this situation has arisen because we have just had our second dry winter in a row. What are the Minister's contingency plans in the event of a third dry winter? If he waits until then, it will be far too late.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the drought started in November 2004. It is the worst drought in the south-east of England since 1976. There is a range of measures that people can take, and it is important to manage water supplies prudently. That includes taking drought orders if necessary. In the longer term, companies have obligations to have drought plans in place and to produce a 25-year forward programme that takes into account water supply and demand as well as issues such as climate change.

Is the Minister aware of the anger of many pensioners in my constituency about the hosepipe ban? They feel that, together with the disabled, they are the most discriminated against, as they cannot walk with watering cans to save their plants. They are therefore looking to the Minister to engage in more action and discussion with the water companies to reduce hosepipe bans in future years, and are concerned about further housing developments in the south-east, which will use more water and possibly result in more shortages in future.

That is not necessarily the case, but we should not get away from the fact that we are facing a two-year drought—and the worst drought since 1976. Indeed, in some parts of the south-east it is the worst drought for 100 years. In that respect, it is not a lot to ask that people should face some restrictions on hosepipe bans in gardens. They can still use watering cans and recycled water. Future demand for water is being taken into account, both in the current five-year price round and 25-year forward plans.

This problem is likely to be connected to climate change, which is here to stay, as people will not give up their cars and cheap flights. As a country, we must deal with the effects of climate change as well as discussing measures such as the climate change levy. Can the Minister say a little more about what his Department is doing to address the effects of climate change, to which he adverted earlier, with regard to water, coastal defences, plant research and so on?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently launched our Department's climate change review, which outlines a range of measures that cut across all Departments, relating to fiscal policy, regulation, taxation and incentives designed to deal with climate change. It is easy to talk about tackling climate change, but not so easy to implement effective measures.

In relation to the possibility of water shortages in the south-east, has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the water authorities in Scotland, which, as he will be aware, are still under public control? What discussions, if any, have there been about financial arrangements? I am sure that he will agree that it would be wrong to use public money to bail out private water companies.

The issue of water is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive. Of course, there are interests of common concern, but policy and strategic decisions are devolved.

Further investment in water storage and improved infrastructure maintenance to cut out leaks will be fundamental to addressing this water shortage. I understand, however, that the Government are trialling compulsory metering in some areas. What further plans do the Government have for compulsory metering, and what protection would they put in place for poorer families to prevent them from suffering water poverty?

Water meters are but one tool, but they are an effective tool. Under legislation, water companies can make an application for the compulsory implementation of water meters if there is deemed to be water scarcity status. So far, only one company, Folkestone and Dover Water Services, has made that application, which has been granted. Other companies can make applications if they so choose. The vulnerable groups regulations are designed to protect the most vulnerable in relation to water charges, and we are trialling a pilot scheme in the south-west of England to examine what further measures can be taken to assist people on low incomes.

We cannot really blame the Government for the weather, but we do hold them to account for their failure to tackle climate change. The worry is that the Government are in danger of making the water crisis, if it becomes that over the summer, even worse. Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee warned that significant areas of the south-east are already being supplied water by an unacceptable and unsustainable abstraction regime in both winter and summer months. We all know that more affordable homes are needed, but is not the Minister concerned that pushing ahead with a mass house building programme in an area of water shortage will only make the situation worse? Will he talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about his plans?

That assumes that the issue of water supply is not taken into account. In the current price round, periodic review 2004, finance is available to water companies in England and Wales to upgrade and connect up to 1 million additional homes. That is within the current programme. Within the future programme, water companies are consultees on regional planning. They must ensure that there is adequate provision in their 25-year forward plans. There are plans for considerable upgrading of existing reservoirs in the south-east and for the building of new reservoirs, along with further measures to make more water resources available.

9. If she will make a statement on the performance of local councils in meeting their recycling and waste targets. [63735]

Levels of recycling by local authorities have improved dramatically on the record under the last Conservative Government. In 1997, only 8 per cent. of household waste was recycled. This year we expect local authorities to achieve the target of 25 per cent. that we set them—more than a trebling of recycling since Labour came to power.

I thank the Minister for his reply, although he failed to mention that Conservative councils have a much better recycling record than Labour and Liberal Democrat councils. Can he tell us what help his Department gives communities to support local recycling initiatives, especially those run by the voluntary sector?

Yes, I can. The hon. Gentleman raised the same issue at Question Time recently, after which I contacted the local re-use and recycling network. We recently approved a new system of credits for re-use and recycling, in addition to the help that is already given to those groups. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as part of the waste review that is currently being consulted on, we envisage a more significant role for local voluntary and community groups.

To what extent does my hon. Friend consider that the reduction in the amount of municipal waste going to landfill is a result of the implementation of the landfill allowance trading scheme? Does he intend to monitor the scheme's progress, and does he intend to review its long-term future after 2009 as part of the waste review process?

Everything, to an extent, is up for review as part of the process. It is still too early to judge how well the landfill allowance trading scheme has worked, but the initial signs are encouraging. Of course, the landfill tax escalator is a much more significant driver for local authorities and businesses to reduce the amount of waste that they produce and send to landfill. The level of that escalator and its steepness are also being considered as part of the waste strategy review.

There is no doubt that local authorities take recycling increasingly seriously, and I commend them for that. Obviously, we want to monitor their performance, but have the Minister and the Government any plans to try to reduce the amount of material presented for recycling, particularly the massive amount of packaging on practically everything that we buy in the shops? Is there any Government policy on the issue, and what contact does the Minister have with the huge superstores that generate that massive amount of material for recycling?

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. It is important for us to minimise the amount of waste that we produce in the first place, and minimisation is at the top of the Government's so-called waste hierarchy.

We have had some success. Last year, for the first time ever, we reduced by 1 per cent. the overall amount of municipal waste that we produced as a country. There are packaging waste regulations, which make challenging requirements of the businesses and supermarkets to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are also considering carefully, as part of the waste review, what further measures could be introduced to encourage waste reduction and minimisation.

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is looking at community recycling. Will he pay particular attention to Wastesavers in my constituency, which is an award-winning project? Community enterprise is much cheaper than many private schemes. The level of participation is high, and residents separate material at source so that less is contaminated and ends up as landfill. Will my hon. Friend examine that project as an example of good practice?

I should be happy to do so.

10. What recent discussions she has had with the Department of Trade and Industry on the cost-effectiveness of (a) nuclear power and (b) other measures in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. [63736]

There are regular discussions at ministerial and official level on energy and climate change, including discussions on the relative costs of different means of generating power.

Now that the bill for clearing up nuclear waste is approaching £70 billion, of which £5.2 billion is for the three Scottish sites, does the Secretary of State agree that money spent on new nuclear power would be better spent on energy efficiency and renewables? Has her Department undertaken any work internally to assess the cost benefit of various energy options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? If so, what conclusions has it reached?

It was a feature of the energy White Paper that we published together with the Department of Trade and Industry in 2003 that the prime emphasis was initially on energy efficiency and renewables. That was precisely because they were seen as the most speedy and effective way to begin to tackle some of these issues, and also the most cost-effective, so I can certainly tell the hon. Lady that that has been a high priority and that the issue is being looked at afresh in the energy review.

Despite what my right hon. Friend has just said, does she agree that it is unfortunate that the energy review has become so focused on nuclear power when nuclear power is only 8 per cent. of the total UK energy mix that gives rise to emissions? Will she ensure that any outcomes of the energy review are fully integrated with the climate change review to achieve a major reduction in energy demand, an improvement in energy efficiency and maximum development of renewable technologies?

It is my understanding that the review is not focused only on nuclear energy, although I appreciate that the media coverage is. It is the intention of both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and myself—and, indeed, the Government—that the issues should be fully integrated with those that concerned us in the climate change review, including reduction in demand—not least through energy efficiency—and an increase in renewables.

My hon. Friend may recall that when we announced the climate change review we were careful to point out that that specific review was not the last word, not least because the energy review is under way.

Whatever decision the Government eventually make on the matter, at a time when consumers already face increases in their energy bills will the Government ensure that they are not faced with an additional nuclear levy to make nuclear power attractive to investors in a way that it would not otherwise be?

My hon. Friend rightly makes a point about increased energy prices. There are immense gains to be made in terms of energy efficiency because it is not only beneficial for the climate, but beneficial for the pocket of the customer. The review will include whatever issues would have to be taken into account were there to be a recommendation for further nuclear build.

11. what proportion of single farm payments were made by the end of March. [63738]

Some 25 per cent. of applicants had been paid by the end of March, and 15 per cent. of the fund disbursed. This unacceptably slow progress was, as the hon. Lady knows, the reason why the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency was replaced on 16 March.

I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State of substantial part payment—approximately 80 per cent.—of entitlements under the single farm payment scheme. It will help to ameliorate the disastrous financial situation in which many in the farming community find themselves. Will the Secretary of State go even further and suspend cross-compliance inspection until the payment process is complete? Will she waive penalties for late claims in 2006 because, as she knows, the system is completely inflexible?

I do not think that I can undertake to waive cross-compliance considerations, but we fully recognise the concerns about all these issues. I assure the hon. Lady and the House that we are trying to look sensitively at a number of specific issues, such as the one that the hon. Lady raised of differences and difficulties with particular payments.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the premium that her Department places on stakeholder engagement and discussions in this important area. I was pleased to welcome the Minister with responsibility for rural communities to my constituency in the recess for a rural conference. I welcome yesterday's statement on partial payments. How did stakeholder discussions with Lord Bach inform the decision?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, Lord Bach and the acting chief executive Mark Addison have been having weekly meetings with stakeholder representatives, which have included opportunities for stakeholders to raise any concerns and to discuss issues with the technical experts dealing with the issues on a day-to-day basis. As I think the stakeholders recognised in their press release of yesterday, it was very much as a consequence of the discussions as well as the exploration of what can be done within the RPA that we made the announcement that we did yesterday. We are grateful to the stakeholders for their input.

The Secretary of State's approach to this whole fiasco smacks of complacency. Her own figures show that in the first four weeks the RPA paid 23 per cent. of the claims. In the last three weeks it has paid a further 16 per cent. How can she possibly claim that there is a significant improvement when the rate has slowed?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that some work, not least to prepare for 2006, had to be done on the IT system over the past couple of weeks. That inevitably and regrettably led to a slowdown. A reason why I offered the House a technical briefing with the acting chief executive and those who are dealing with those issues was so that Members, all of whom will have particular concerns brought to them by particular constituents, have the opportunity to raise those issues with the RPA, as we are doing, and have a full discussion on a more sustained basis than is possible across the Floor of the House.