If she will make a statement on reform of the common agricultural policy.

We secured major improvements to the CAP in 2003 and 2004 and again last month, on the sugar regime. In the EU budget discussions, we are pressing for further fundamental reform, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in Hong Kong this week working for agreement on the liberalisation of agricultural trade.

May I refer my hon. Friend specifically to the current discussions in Hong Kong? Does he share my concern about the fact that, whereas we in the House of Commons face considerable pressure from civil society to reform agriculture policy by reducing subsidies and removing trade barriers, there seems to be no such pressure on politicians in France?

I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend. We are working for a successful outcome to the World Trade Organisation negotiations this week, which could bring significant benefits to developing countries, cut consumer costs and lead to wider economic benefits for Europe. Given the Secretary of State's negotiating triumph on CAP reform in 2003, her triumph on REACH—registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—and on sugar during the UK presidency and her most recent triumph in Montreal at the UN climate change conference, I cannot think of a better person to lead those difficult negotiations than her.

Given efforts to reform the common agricultural policy, will the Department, with the same political capital, consider reform or abolition of the common fisheries policy?

We do not see any merit in the abolition of the CAP, which is important in ensuring a level playing field for our farmers. Without it, they would undoubtedly suffer competitive disadvantage.

The symbol of the Scottish National party is a fish rather than anything else. That is all there is.

On the question of the CAP, should not the Government take some of the blame? In 2002, they signed up to a modification to the CAP that did away with the link to production. It still costs a vast amount of the EU budget. We trapped ourselves into that position because we wanted enlargement. Now we are trapped in there to 2013. Anything positive that we can do should not be done on the basis of nationalistic arguments, but by convincing all the 25 countries that there should be a substantial modification to the principles of the common agricultural policy in Europe.

A great deal has been done. The reforms of 2003–04 break the link between the bulk of subsidy and production and make subsidy dependent on meeting environmental, animal health and welfare standards. It is hugely significant that we managed to break that link, making the CAP significantly less trade distorting and less environmentally damaging. Clearly, there is much more that we need to do. That is why the UK is at the forefront of those calling for reform, which will help farmers become more competitive, benefit taxpayers and consumers, improve the environment and increase opportunities for developing countries.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that the recent reform of the CAP has eliminated the financial incentives for farmers to engage in food production. Before he embarks on any further reform, will he make some assessment of food security in this country, because I can assure him that a hungry nation will not be a happy nation?

I caution the hon. Gentleman about saying that we have removed the incentives for food production. What we have done is made it easier for farmers to grow to the market rather than to grow to subsidy. That is the importance of the reforms of 2003–04. Food security is important as we obviously need to ensure that people have enough food on their tables, but in the globalised world in which we live, I have every confidence that the current regime is sufficient to meet and indeed go beyond those food needs. For all the reasons that I have stated, further reform remains important.

Two weeks ago, the Government published "A Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy", which suggested that future support should be concentrated on pillar two payments for environmental benefits and rural development. My party wholly supports that principle. Last week, however, the Government's proposals for the EU budget included cutting £40 million from pillar two. Why?

It is important to achieve a negotiated settlement on the future financing of the EU for the benefit of all member states and all their residents, but we are committed to sustaining the level of payments within pillar two. That is why voluntary modulation is part of our present position, ensuring that we can move money across from pillar one to pillar two to sustain the important work that I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees should be continued.