What plans he has to increase the area of farmed land subject to countryside stewardship agreements. [146778]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a substantial increase in the countryside stewardship budget in December 1999. As part of the England rural development programme, £500 million is allocated to the scheme over the seven-year period 2000–06. Each year, we will be accepting roughly double the number of applications that we did in 1999.

May I tell my hon. Friend how important the countryside stewardship scheme is to those of us who live in cities and who greatly value the conservation of landscape and wildlife in rural areas? Will he confirm that spending under this Government on such schemes has trebled? Will he also confirm that, in terms of public support for farmers, it is further proof, if any were needed, that the Tory party can no longer claim to be the friend of the farmer?

I can certainly confirm my hon. Friend's point. The budget has increased by the amount that she claims. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to the countryside, to the people who live and work there and to the taxpayer, who pays for the schemes. The schemes are good news for all our objectives. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, compared with 1996–97, when spending on countryside stewardship was £10.9 million, by 2006–07, under our projected budget, the Government will be spending £126 million. That will be more than a tenfold increase—a commitment to the countryside unlike that of the previous Administration.

As the Minister who had the privilege of launching the countryside stewardship scheme, I am delighted that progress is being made. However, will the Minister tell us when the backlog of payments under existing schemes will be cleared?

I was discussing that very point —ensuring that payments are made to those who are part of the countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive area schemes—in one of the regional service centres yesterday. There has been a computer problem. I understand that it has been largely resolved, and that the vast Majority of payments are now being made.

May I tell my hon. Friend that throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s I had the good fortune to live in a house that overlooked open countryside in which hedgerows were a prominent feature? However, they were steadily uprooted as a result of farm practices and the inducements of the then Governments. Is my hon. Friend confident that the countryside stewardship scheme, which I believe has restored about 6,000 miles of hedgerow, will continue even further to reverse the tragic losses of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s?

I am confident of that. Farmers have been taking advantage of the countryside stewardship scheme and have been restoring hedgerows. Many have been planted over recent years. As my hon. Friend rightly said, about 6,000 miles of hedgerow have been reinstated. The advantage of stewardship is that we can adapt it to changing circumstances. We have introduced the new arable stewardship pilot scheme. The increasing budget means that we can further extend various aspects of the scheme, to the advantage both of those who live in the countryside and of those who want to see it protected.

What can the Minister say to the Hosking brothers of South Hams, who have been turned down once again for countryside stewardship funding, despite exemplary farming practices which they have pursued for many years? Does he agree that the focus on paying for improvements in standards rather than on standards themselves has real disadvantages for conscientious farmers who have taken it upon themselves to engage in best practice to meet environmental standards? Would not such farmers be better off if they had bulldozed their hedges, ploughed up pastures, filled in ponds, and then applied for funds to repair the damage?

The hon. Gentleman has a point. It is true that the priority of the scheme is to reinstate lost habitats and introduce features that have been lost. It is right to have priorities, and I am sure that Members would accept that we need to get maximum gains from the budget in relation to the benefits that the scheme is paying for. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that conscientious farmers, many of whom have kept important environmental, wildlife and landscape features because they are committed to conservation, are at a disadvantage owing to the way in which the scheme works.

The priority can be justified, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in 2003, we are having a mid-term review of such schemes and the way they operate. That is an opportunity to look at how we can address problems of that kind, bearing in mind the fact that, under this Government, there will be a continually rising spend on the budget for those schemes.