May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Debate on the security and intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

TUESDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Debate on personal pensions mis-selling on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

WEDNESDAY 4 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Opposition Day (20th allotted day).

Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the economy, followed by a debate on agriculture. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.

THURSDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Debate on the report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 6 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.

MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Debate on the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

The House will also wish to be reminded that, on Wednesday 4 November, there will be a debate on the social action programme 1998–2000 in European Standing Committee B.

The House will also wish to know that it is proposed that, on Wednesday 11 November, there will be a debate in European Standing Committee B on Agenda 2000: financial aspects.

Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.

We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for providing the business for next week. Her predecessor was able to announce two weeks' business in advance, which was found to be helpful both inside and outside the House. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that is her intention, and that she will revert to that practice as soon as she can?

I welcome the right hon. Lady's response to my request last week for an early debate on the Jenkins report. I hope that, in that debate, the Government spokesman will reconcile two sentences from the Labour party manifesto:

"We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons"

and

"We have promised only what we know we can deliver."

Can she tell us whether a promise is to be broken?

The Leader of the House will know that we asked for a statement about Senator Pinochet. Of course we understand the sub judice rule, but will the right hon. Lady accept that, once the matter ceases to be sub judice, serious questions will remain to be answered? Will the Home Secretary make a statement before the House about the confusion that arose between Government Departments? Can the Foreign Secretary explain how relationships with Chile can be restored, as their democratic Government have made it clear that they want this matter to be brought to a swift conclusion?

Although we regret the Prime Minister's failure to make a statement following last weekend's European summit at which a number of key issues were covered, can the Leader of the House confirm that the Chancellor will make a statement on Tuesday? Can she confirm that we shall have, in Government time, the two-day debate on the economy that we usually have at this time of year? Following the further fall in business confidence reported in the press today, the Government have refused yet again to find time for a debate on the economy.

In view of the continuing uncertainty in Kosovo, may I press the Leader of the House for a debate on foreign affairs? Finally, is she yet able to give us the date of prorogation?

By chance, the first and last of the right hon. Gentleman's questions work well together. He asked the date of prorogation; he also asked me to return to the arrangement whereby we give two weeks' notice of business. My difficulty in both respects relates directly to the operation of another place. I cannot give a date for prorogation, although I can confirm that it is likely to be late because of the timing of debates in another place. Similarly, that is why I cannot give two weeks' notice of business. I very much regret that. I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman's view that it is highly desirable to do so, and confirm that it would always be my wish to do so as soon as that once again becomes possible.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the debate on the Jenkins commission report. It is clear from the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making on that matter—I know that he will make it clear in the debate—that the Government primarily seek the fullest possible debate. The Government are committed to a referendum on those matters so that the people of this country can give their view, but it is clear, too, that the timing of that must be looked at in the context of the Jenkins report. It is certainly not ruled out that it may well be within this Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me for a statement on the Senator Pinochet issue when it ceases to be sub judice, which it is not yet. However, I can say that, as the Prime Minister made crystal clear yesterday, there has been no confusion between Government Departments. As he pointed out, the request came from the Spanish Government to the magistrates, not via this Government.

The right hon. Gentleman regretted the failure to report on the EU summit. As he is aware, it was an informal meeting in Austria. There were no formal conclusions to report to the House, and no formal statement was issued. The Prime Minister has always followed the practice, where there are such statements or communiqués, of reporting to the House, and he will continue to follow it.

As for a debate on the economy, I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to make a statement on the matter. Arrangements for future debates on the economy are generally a matter for the usual channels, but we are likely in the not-too-distant future to have a Queen's Speech and an opportunity to debate such matters.

We shall continue to keep the House informed about developments in Kosovo, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has done throughout.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, some time ago, the Modernisation Committee reported on the need to improve the scrutiny of European legislation, both within the House as a whole and within its specific Committees? Can she give a firm undertaking that those recommendations will be debated on the Floor of the House before this Session ends so that they can come into effect in the next parliamentary Session?

I cannot absolutely give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks, but I can confirm that I share his wish to see such an outcome. As he knows, the House is under some pressure at present, but I hope to accommodate him before the end of the Session.

Can the Leader of the House give us any more details about the nature of the motions that the Opposition will be tabling next Wednesday? It will not have escaped her notice that we had debates on the economy and agriculture on Monday, and Conservative Members not only did not turn up or table an amendment, but did not vote. It is well known that some Conservative Members find difficulty in reaching the Chamber in eight minutes, but 10 days to get to the Division Lobbies is rather a lengthy time.

The Leader of the House has made an announcement about the timing of the Jenkins report, and we certainly welcome an early debate in the House on the independent commission's recommendations. Does she think that sufficient time will have elapsed for the Conservative party to get its act together between now and then? She will have noted that the Conservative party published its reaction to the report before the report was published, and so missed all the rebuttal of its arguments contained in the report. Will she particularly note that the Conservative party has decided not to use the first-past-the-post system to elect its leader, although Conservative Members now seem to think that that is the one type of election that they can all rally around?

Will the Leader of the House give us a specific answer to a specific question: is it not right that every member of the parliamentary Labour party was elected to the House on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the subject of the Jenkins report in this Parliament?

May I begin where the hon. Gentleman ended? The manifesto commitment, on which—he is right—every Labour candidate fought the election, was that we would have a referendum on proportional representation.

In this Parliament?

No, the manifesto did not say that. It was, broadly speaking, the expectation, and might well indeed be the outcome, that the referendum would be held in this Parliament, but that was not the wording of the manifesto, which is what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said. It is only fair to set the record straight.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on the attendance of Conservative Members at Liberal Democrat Opposition day debates. It would not be right for me to intrude on private grief in that matter. He also asked me to speculate on the wording of the motions. That, also, is not directly within my area of responsibility, although we can be quite confident that, in some way or other, we will discover that the blame for everything that has gone wrong in this country lies at the door of the Government, and that nothing whatever relates in any way to the actions of the Conservative party or to its 18-year tenure of government.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether I believe that the Conservative party will get its act together on Jenkins. It would be wrong for me to predict that it will either get its act together on anything or that Conservative Members will all rally around anything.

May I, too, add my welcome for the early debate on the report from the independent commission and express my hope that, whatever our different views on the report, we debate what is in it, rather than things that are not in it, as has happened today? What happened was hardly surprising, because some views were published before the report was published.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the important debate on the report will take place not in the House, but outside? It is the responsibility of all hon. Members to ensure that that debate is as informed and open as possible, because the British people should have the final say on the way in which Members of Parliament are elected, rather than Members of Parliament working it all out for themselves.

I agree with most of what my hon. Friend said in the sense that I whole-heartedly agree that it is enormously important that there is a thorough, proper and well-considered debate on those issues in the country. I take the view, however, that it is right for the House, if I may venture to say so, to lead that debate. It is important that hon. Members make their own contribution and, although the decision in the referendum will ultimately rest with the British people, the outcome will undoubtedly be influenced by discussions in this place.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to call for a thorough and long public debate—I certainly believe that it should be constructive, and hope that that will be the outcome—but it is also right to recognise that this House has its proper place.

Does the Leader of the House recall that, last week, when I put to her my complaint about the draft order on the arrangements and expenditure involved in The Hague trial of the Lockerbie suspects, she kindly suggested that I should raise the issue with the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday, which I did? He said that there was no reason why hon. Members could not have a debate on the subject. Sadly, however, having applied to Madam Speaker, I was advised this morning that I was unsuccessful in the ballot.

As the United States has said that time is running out, and as this matter is vital to the relatives of those who lost their lives and to the people of Libya, would the Government agree to hold a debate to let the House express a view on what some consider to be an incorrect policy and others think is correct? Surely the House should debate an order produced by the Government on a vital issue of public policy.

I cannot undertake to find time for a debate for the hon. Gentleman in the near future. I suspect that he has not wholly exhausted the procedures. Knowing his skill and experience as a parliamentarian, I am confident that he will continue to explore the means open to him to secure a debate on this matter in the near future. I shall draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

My right hon. Friend may have heard the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refer in Question Time to the need for more competition among the banks. May we have a debate on the banking sector, because the National Westminster bank's operations are causing much damage to many businesses in our constituencies, and much heartache to our constituents? The banking practices of the National Westminster bank, including the practices of its subsidiary Lombard, should be exposed to Parliament. May we have that debate as a matter of urgency?

I fear that I cannot promise my hon. Friend such a debate as a matter of urgency. Like the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), my hon. Friend is skilled in finding opportunities to raise matters, and I am confident that he will do so.

I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that, last October—a year ago—the Government published a Green Paper on the provision for children with special educational needs. In December last year, the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), promised that, when the Government gave their response to the Green Paper, they would come to the House. A response has been promised since last April, and there have been rumours that it will be made in a statement to the House. However, I learned this afternoon that the Government intend to make their response not to the House as promised, but in a press conference next week. Will the Leader of the House ensure either that the response is made to the House in a statement or that we have an early debate on special educational needs and the Government's response to the consultation?

I understand the hon. Lady's concern. The subject of special educational needs arouses great interest on both sides of the House. I hear what she says about expectations of the outcome of the consultation, and I shall draw her views to the attention of my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment. However, I cannot undertake to find time for a debate next week.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, in next week's debate, the Government will be astute and will not get tied hand and foot to the tinpot Jenkins proposals which were published today? If those proposals were carried into practice, every constituency in Britain would have to be changed, there would be first and second-class Members of Parliament, and for some the entire constituency link would be removed. As for the report, we need two bottles of claret to digest it.

Will my right hon. Friend always remember that Roy Jenkins—"Woy of the Wadicals"—was the man who tried to destroy the Labour party some years ago, and failed? He destroyed the Social Democratic party, and now he is among the Liberal Democrats. Word has it that even some of the Liberal Democrats do not like the Jenkins proposition. He is trying to destroy them as well.

My hon. Friend has made it plain why it is necessary for a full debate to take place on those issues, about which he has raised important points. As for his call for the Government to be astute, I assure him that we endeavour to be so.

May we have a debate, as a matter of urgency, on transport in London, in view of the exorbitant and scandalous increases in tube fares that are to take place from January next year? Tube fares are to rise to five times the inflation rate, while bus fares will rise to six times that rate, and further increases above inflation are projected for every year until 2002. Is that the Labour party's integrated transport strategy in action? The debate in question should surely be wound up by a Treasury Minister, as the travelling public will have to travel not by tube or bus, but by car, and will thus be caught not only by duty rates that are above inflation but by congestion tax. It seems that the only possibility for Londoners is to travel on foot.

The hon. Gentleman asks me to arrange a debate in the near future, which I am not sure that I can undertake to do. He also asks whether that increase is a consequence of the Labour party's integrated transport policy. No; it is a consequence of the Conservative party's neglect of London Transport, its failure to invest and its ignoring of Londoners' transport needs over the past 18 years. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, London Transport fares are the statutory responsibility of London Transport, not of Ministers, and the balance between fare levels and the need for investment is always difficult to strike.

May we have a debate on the role of private firms and private capital in education action zones? I understand that McDonald's has become involved in one zone. I cannot believe that its motive is entirely altruistic; it is more likely to be the wish to stuff hamburgers down children's throats.

There are various worries about the role of private firms in the new education action zones. May we have a debate soon?

I know that the issue of education action zones, how they might work and how they could deliver different ideas on the running of the education system is a matter of interest and controversy throughout the House. I will bear my hon. Friend's request in mind, but I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate in the near future.

I am grateful to the Government for lifting the siege of the London clinic, a subject to which I shall want to return when the case ceases to be sub judice, but did the Leader of the House really mean to say that the extradition request had come from the Spanish Government? I had understood that that was the one source from which it had not come.

I think I am right in saying that, although the request originated with a Spanish judge, it had to have the imprimatur of a Spanish Minister in order to be delivered. If I am incorrect, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman, but 'in any event' that does not affect the main thrust of my earlier answer, which was that the matter was not dealt with through this Government.

Has my right hon. Friend read the comment attributed to Sir Paul Condon this morning that pay levels in the Metropolitan police somehow excuse corruption? I am sure that that rather strange comment was a misquotation, or that it was quoted out of context, but does it not highlight the fact that the sooner we have the annual Adjournment debate on policing in London, the better? I wonder whether it could be fitted in before prorogation.

I do not know whether the remarks that Sir Paul Condon is reported to have made have been quoted accurately, but I recognise and understand my hon. Friend's active interest in policing in London, and agree that it is worthy of debate in the House. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate during this Session, but the next Session might be another matter.

The Leader of the House is aware that western parts of the United Kingdom have experienced severe weather and flooding in recent times. In my constituency, Garden street, Steeple street and Hurdsfield road, and the houses in those streets, have been under water. In the village of Bollington, north of my constituency, Water street and John street have been under water. The village of Adlington has experienced severe flooding, and part of the village of Prestbury, at Bridge green, has also been under water.

As the House will have time over the next week or two, will the right hon. Lady arrange for the appropriate Minister to come to the House and make a statement about the experience in the west of England that has resulted from the severe weather, so that we know what action we can take to help our constituents and what help may be available to our local authorities—whether borough or county councils—so that they can try to alleviate the suffering?

Like hon. Members from both sides of the House, I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the distress that is being experienced as a result of the flooding. I will certainly bear in mind his request for a debate, although, as I know that he will appreciate from his long experience in the House, we are approaching a point in the Session when time will be under pressure in various ways. He will know that, on 20 October, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made a statement on the lessons to be learned from the Easter floods. The Government keep those matters under review and will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituencies, particularly the fact that they have a responsibility to represent the areas for which they are elected? In the context of the Jenkins debate, will she make it clear that any proposal for a two-tier system of Members of Parliament, in which Members at large could interfere in any of the 10 constituencies within an area, would be contrary to the tradition in which Members of Parliament represent the electorate of a town, city or constituency for which they are elected?

My hon. Friend, too, alludes to the proposals in the Jenkins commission report. He identifies important aspects of those proposals, which I know the House—whether hon. Members support or oppose them—will want most thoroughly to debate and to encourage the public to debate.

May I press the Leader of the House on the issue of the floods that are causing so much havoc not only in the west of England but in the Welsh borders? In my constituency, the city of Hereford is effectively cut off—there are no trains in or out of the city and the main A49 is blocked by waist-high water at the Belmont roundabout. The city is in gridlock and Herefordshire's largest trading estate—at Rotherwas—has been closed. People are today being evacuated from their homes, at least one fanner is believed to have drowned and two old people's homes have been closed. Floods are heading for Ross-on-Wye, where evacuations will take place later today and a school is being made ready as a reception centre. Moreover, four Royal National Lifeboat Institution inshore lifeboats have been stationed in Herefordshire. Although, as the right hon. Lady said to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), we have had a statement on the Easter floods, clearly the lessons have not been learnt, so why can we not have a statement on those floods?

I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman was here when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement a few days ago, but part of the problem at Easter was the failure of the flood warning system and, as I understand it, some lessons have been learnt from that. However, that does not detract in any way from the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which the House will share, for his constituents and others who are affected by present developments. I assure him that the Government are monitoring, and will continue to monitor, the position carefully. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who deal with those matters, are in the Chamber and have heard this exchange.

Are not some of our hon. Friends being somewhat unfair to Lord Jenkins? As for next Thursday's debate, should not Lord Jenkins and his colleagues be warmly congratulated for making recommendations that are so untenable and unacceptable that most people will conclude that, with all its faults, the first-past-the-post system is far preferable to a two-tier House of Commons, which there has never been in the past and which there should not be in the future?

My hon. Friend makes it absolutely plain how wise the Government were to arrange for a debate next week.

Has the right hon. Lady seen early-day motion 1714?

[That this House welcomes the acknowledgement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that his responsibilities for competition policy require him 'both to act fairly and impartially and to be seen to do so'; notes that he satisfied himself he could take decisions about the British Airways/American Airlines alliance, and 'having discussed it with officials' decided he should determine whether the proposed acquisition by BSkyB of Manchester United be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; calls upon him to explain why he concluded that he will be seen to be acting fairly and impartially in these cases, despite the acceptance by the New Millennium Experience Company of sponsorship from British Airways and Bskyb totalling £24 million; further notes that the Director General of Fair Trading is investigating the profitability of supermarkets, including Tesco which has committed sponsorship to the NMEC of £12 million; is concerned that the NMEC is negotiating with the Ford Motor Company over a £12 million sponsorship when it may lay off workers at Dagenham and when the DGFT is about to investigate UK car prices; is concerned that companies may appear to be compromised by the refusal of the Secretary of State to separate his role as regulator and sole shareholder of the NMEC; and calls upon him to give up his position with the NMEC immediately or step aside from any regulatory role regarding any industry involved in NMEC sponsorship.]

Will the right hon. Lady arrange a debate on the difficulties arising from the different interests of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the issue of interests and understandings for someone who holds the important post of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is always kept under review by the Ministers involved and by proper officials. It has been confirmed repeatedly that my right hon. Friend does not have a conflict of interest.

Yesterday's statement on welfare reform by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security was very welcome, but will my right hon. Friend discuss with him the urgent need for widowers' rights to be promoted, because the existing anomalies are unacceptable?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks can and will be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention. Welfare reform is a major programme that is being conducted benefit by benefit and service by service. I feel confident that further announcements will be made in due course.

Is it possible to arrange an early debate on the Government's energy policy? An application is pending for 15 wind turbines that will stretch from Pendle, a neighbouring constituency, into Ribble Valley, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty which attracts tourists and is used largely for agriculture. There is another application for about 350 wind turbines in Wales. If we have one more wind turbine in Wales, it is likely to take off on a windy day—not the answer to devolution for which we were looking. For a small fraction of the cost that goes towards subsidising turbines, energy conservation measures could save more energy than could ever be generated by those useless, ugly and unwanted wind turbines.

I take heed of the hon. Gentleman's request. He will know that there are a variety of ways in which to pursue the opportunity to raise such issues, especially if they are constituency related—in Adjournment debates and so on. I will, of course, draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who deal with such matters.

Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the accountability of quangos set up by the previous Government between now and the date they are likely to be wound up? I refer in particular to the Cardiff Bay development corporation and its cavalier treatment of charter fishing vessels owned by my constituents which sail out of Cardiff bay. Up to a dozen small businesses could be destroyed and, I am afraid, people are desperate. I spoke today to Skipper Steve Jones of the Lady Helen; my impression was that, unless the development corporation behaves in an acceptable manner, people may take desperate measures.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I know of his great regard for his constituents' interests. I feel confident that he has taken steps to draw the matter to the attention of my parliamentary colleagues, but I fear that I cannot promise him a debate in Government time in the near future. Perhaps he might pursue the matter through an Adjournment debate.

May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the Labour party manifesto commitment to end

"unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists"?

She has redefined a manifesto commitment as not necessarily applying to the Parliament concerned—which makes that merely a commitment to keep it in the manifesto—but does she accept that the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, which was steered through all its stages in the House of Lords by the Labour peer Lady Turner of Camden, would be a worthwhile measure to end the institutionalised, widespread and systematic discrimination against homosexuals? As the Member in charge of the Bill in this place, I wonder whether Government time could be found in this spillover period to debate and legislate on that important matter.

I am deeply touched by the care with which hon. Members have read the Labour party manifesto and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we stand by its contents. I fear, however, that, as he will know, it is always difficult for a Government to find time for other measures, no matter how important and worth while the subject. I take his points about the seriousness with which those matters should be discussed and the opportunity that has been made in the other place. I cannot undertake to find time before the end of the Session, even for such an important measure.

Will the Leader of the House find time for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to resolve the ministerial muddle over the future of the Post Office? The right hon. Lady will recall that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, who is responsible for the Post Office—the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—announced on 16 May last year a review of the options for the future of the Post Office with a view in particular to removing "unnecessary and damaging shackles" on it. The right hon. Lady and her colleagues will be aware that, since then, there has largely been an eerie silence in public, punctuated by occasional briefings to some journalists that the Government favour a radical move, and counter-briefings to others that they do not. Is it not time that Ministers stopped arguing like ferrets in a sack, came clean and announced their proposals for the future in the interests of management, employees and customers of the Post Office?

I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter with me today, since we have just had Trade and Industry questions—

The matter did not come up. The question was not reached.

That has never stopped the hon. Gentleman before. I feel confident, knowing the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, that, had he really tried, he could have worked the matter into some question or other.

There is no confusion about the future of the Post Office. The Government are committed both to giving it greater commercial freedom and to its success. As for talk about removing shackles and concern about its future, all I can say is that when the Tory party had responsibility for those matters, it made an awful mess.

May I ask the Leader of the House in her capacity as Chair of the Modernisation Committee—[Interruption.] Chairman of the Modernisation Committee—to draw to her colleagues' attention when bringing forward their proposals for the Queen's Speech the excellent new systems for bringing legislation before the House? Will she ask them to fulfil the promise of her predecessor that, in the next Session, there will be a number of Bills that take advantage of those new procedures, which will be to the benefit of the House and the legislation?

I do not wish to pre-empt any of the processes of the Queen's Speech, but I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I strongly share the view that there is room for improvement of the ways in which we scrutinised legislation in the past, which would immeasurably improve the quality of the legislation and perhaps even our efficiency in dealing with it. I share the hon. Gentleman's view and I can assure him that those matters are under consideration.

The right hon. Lady has told us that, on Monday, we shall debate the security services. As she knows and as many hon. Members will have heard, Ministers frequently take refuge in the answer that they cannot discuss something because it relates to security matters. Would it be in order to ask a Minister whether the assessments of individual Cabinet members and their possible security risk are submitted in the first instance to the Prime Minister or to Mr. Alastair Campbell?

I believe that the question about what is in order is not a matter for me, but I suspect that that is not the point that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. The role of the Prime Minister's official spokesman is well known. He is highly respected. We all take note of the fact that the Tory party so much dislikes his efficacy in that role that hon. Members do everything that they can to undermine him.

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the ingenuity of that answer. I have two points to raise with her. First, following up a point made earlier, will she reconsider having a free vote at the end of next Thursday's debate so that every right hon. and hon. Member can express an opinion on a report which, in effect, proposes the destruction of our parliamentary system, so that she herself can be free, unfettered and unshackled and can tell us what she thinks about such a monstrous proposal?

Secondly, on a point that will unite the House, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that it is a great pity that we have been unable to debate early-day motion 1647, headed "Speaker's Chaplain".

That this House notes that the Reverend Canon Donald Gray is to retire at the end of the current session after 11 years as Chaplain to the Speaker; pays warm tribute to his years of service to this House both in his formal duties and in his less formal but equally important ministry to honourable Members and staff throughout the House (including his support to the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship); notes also that he and his wife Joyce having made many friends in and outside Parliament, will be greatly missed; and wishes them both many happy and fulfilling years in their retirement.]

The right hon. Lady will know that, this afternoon, Canon Gray conducted Prayers in the House for the last time. Does she agree that it would be appropriate for us all to place on record our great respect for Canon Gray and our profound gratitude for the service that he has rendered to the House, to all right hon. and hon. Members in a pastoral role and to so many of the staff of the House and the other place who have gone to him for counsel and help? He has been an exemplary Speaker's Chaplain and it is appropriate for that to be put on record before we move on to the next business.

The hon. Gentleman asked me for a free vote at the end of the debate next Thursday. It is not the end of the debate or the discussion; it is very much the beginning. It is certainly my view and that of the entire Cabinet that we would like widespread and thorough debate on the issues raised by the Jenkins report.

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his remarks about the Speaker's Chaplain and for giving me the opportunity—which might not otherwise have been in order—to say how strongly I share his views, which I know are shared by all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Speaker's Chaplain is held in not only great respect but much affection. The hon. Gentleman referred quite rightly to his pastoral role and his work with staff and with right hon. and hon. Members. If one may put it this way, he has adorned the House for a long time and we shall always find Prayers very different and for some time a little strange without him. I hope that he will be aware of how highly he is regarded and certainly, if that were not the case, I hope that it will be now.

This is the first parliamentary occasion on which I have had the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to his new role as principal Opposition spokesman on agricultural matters and I do so now. I know that he will be a robust opponent on party political issues, but on issues of national importance that transcend party politics, such as the date-based export scheme, I hope that I can count on him as an ally.

Today's debate is not party political, although it involves matters on which people hold very strong views. Since becoming Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, much of my time has been consumed by the specific difficulties faced by farmers and the Government's desire to do what we can to respond; Agenda 2000 and the wider search for common agricultural policy reform; and, of course, the beef export ban, on which I have set myself the target of getting the issue resolved before Christmas. I am absolutely determined that the intense focus on those priorities will not divert me or the Department from our other responsibilities, especially food standards and the protection of the public.

Our quarantine laws, and the case for their modernisation and reform, are one aspect of public protection. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her having secured Government time for the debate. The views of individual hon. Members are especially important on an issue such as this one, in which there is no obvious party political divide. The British people are internationally famous—or notorious—as animal lovers. We keep pets as part of our families, and we object to forced separation. It is no surprise that the requirement of six months in quarantine for dogs and cats entering the United Kingdom has always been unpopular among pet owners, especially those whose work commitments require them to travel abroad. That has a particular application for the armed services.

There are good reasons for quarantine, however. Rabies is an appallingly unpleasant disease which still causes many deaths in some parts of the world. It is right to take strict precautions against it. I am not willing to recommend to the House anything that puts our population at risk from rabies. Nor am I willing to put to the House anything that would inflict rabies on our wildlife or our pets. There has been no native case of rabies among animals for more than 75 years, and it is 95 years since someone last died of the disease after contracting it here.

We maintained that record during a period in which an epidemic in wildlife made rabies common on continental Europe. It is no longer common, however. A successful campaign is pushing the disease back beyond the frontiers of the present European Union. Western Europe is now largely free of rabies. There were only 100 cases last year in animals other than bats, compared with 14,000 cases in 1989.

We must also take into account the freedom to travel that people now enjoy. Holidays abroad are part of modern life. In particular, the channel tunnel has made travel easy. Against that background, we must ask whether our arrangements are still justified. In 1971, the Waterhouse committee recommended retention of six months quarantine as a standard requirement. In 1994, the Select Committee on Agriculture had a fresh look at the subject, and it reported that vaccines were available for the prevention of rabies, that blood tests could show whether the vaccine had taken and that microchips could identify whether an animal was the one mentioned in a vaccination or blood test certificate. The Select Committee concluded that

"scientific advances since the Waterhouse Report now make it not only feasible, but desirable, for the UK to permit anti-rabies controls based upon vaccination and blood-testing as an alternative to quarantine for pet dogs and cats arriving from other EU countries and all other countries internationally recognised to be rabies-free and carrying out appropriate policies to maintain their rabies-free status".

That report is before us today to help inform our debate.

The then Government welcomed that report, but concluded that the changes proposed were premature. The Conservative Government argued that the eradication programme in the European Union had not been completed. They said that new arrangements for importing traded cats and dogs to the UK were still untested. They said that similar relaxations recently introduced in Norway and Sweden were also untried.

Whatever the case may have been at that time, those objections surely have little force today. Highly respected bodies—including the British Medical Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association—have argued that the time has come for a re-evaluation.

When we came into office, the Government were aware of strong opposition to quarantine among many pet owners, but aware also of deep fears among those who support the existing system. To help to reconcile those views, my predecessor called for a scientific assessment of the risks that we run under the policy of quarantine and under five other options. It is, perhaps, remarkable that that had not been done previously, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for his decision. Professor Kennedy chairs the advisory group on quarantine that conducted the review. On 23 September, I published his report "Quarantine and Rabies: A Reappraisal". The report is an excellent and thorough analysis which gives a sound basis for conducting the public debate. I commend it to the House, and am most grateful to Professor Kennedy and all the members of his group.

The essence of the report lies in the first two of its 41 recommendations. It recommends an alternative system for bringing pets into this country from the European Union, European Economic Area and rabies-free islands. For such animals, the alternative system gives safeguards equivalent to quarantine, which would be abandoned for those areas. That would apply both to pets taken from Great Britain to those countries and then returning, and to pets coming into Great Britain from those countries if they satisfy the same conditions.

The key to the new system will be certification showing, first, that the animal is identified by a microchip; secondly, that it was vaccinated against rabies at or over three months of age using an approved vaccine; thirdly, that it has had a blood test to confirm the effectiveness of vaccination carried out at least six months before entry into Britain; and, finally, that it has had treatment against ticks and a parasite no more than 24 hours before entry. The reasoning behind the requirements is well set out in the report. Of course, we shall have to review them in the light of comments on the report, but the basic structure of identification, vaccination, and certification is fundamental to any new system.

In considering the options, the group recognised that even the present system is not risk free, because smuggling clearly occurs. It found that its recommended alternative did not involve any significant increase of risk. It could make no assessment of the impact of smuggling in the modern environment. This is a personal view and not something on which the group felt able to advise me, but I think that some of the incentive to smuggle lies in the six-month period of separation. People do not want to be separated from their pets, and some of them, foolishly and wrongly, decide to try to circumvent the law by smuggling. It logically follows that, if we can find a legal alternative that does not require separation, at least part of the incentive to smuggle will be removed. We are, therefore, providing a further public safeguard, rather than undermining the protection of the public.

If anyone needs evidence of what is going on with smuggling and its vast scale, particularly in respect of cats and dogs, they need only ask around confidentially in the expatriate English-speaking communities in any capital in Europe. One of the reasons is that to which my right hon. Friend alluded, but there is another: it can cost between 1,000 and £1,500 to put a cat away for 15 months. Most people cannot afford that, which is why they have to smuggle, sad as it is. I look forward to a change in the law because it is desperately needed.

My hon. Friend is on the right track. It is difficult to estimate accurately how many pets are smuggled because of the nature of the activity. To judge from anecdotal evidence of the sort that he mentioned, it is a problem and, at least in part, the desire to avoid separation between pet and owner is the motivation. If we can put in place a system that avoids that motivation, we may diminish the amount of smuggling, and, because ours is a tested route, diminish risk to the public.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. While I agree broadly with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), does the Minister accept that the Government need to maintain a system of emergency regulations in the event that an outbreak of rabies occurs in a given geographical area? Will he ensure that, if he goes through with the reforms posited in the Kennedy report, any collection of emergency regulations will not damage activities, such as farming, more than the evil from which protection is sought?

For example, the Government might intend to ban at short notice all animal movements within a given area. That could have a direct effect on horse race meetings and other equine events, such as Badminton and Burghley by Stamford. While taking every care to prevent the spread of rabies, the Government should not simultaneously damage the economic value of activities involving horses.

I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point and thank him for welcoming me to my new position.

The emergency regulations are designed to deal with a rabies outbreak after it has been identified. They do not take into account the source of that outbreak—although the appropriate authorities will prosecute those who caused it. We do not intend to change the emergency procedures for dealing with an outbreak or to alter the criminal sanctions that are already in place regarding smuggling. Those people who attempt to smuggle animals into the country in defiance of the rabies regulations are being very selfish and foolish, and I deplore their actions.

The Kennedy group considered other options, but they were found to carry a greater risk and, therefore, were not recommended by the group. The Kennedy group rejected the option of simply reducing the quarantine period to one month. It did not find a system of identification, vaccination and certification to be a good enough safeguard for pets coming from every country in the world. Indeed, the report advocated European Union action to put adequate controls in place against animals coming from third countries, including the candidate member states. However, it recommended a further study of the number of animals that might come from North America, and a risk assessment in light of that. That seems to me to be a reasonable recommendation.

The group envisaged controls coming into force at the port of entry, and was very clear about the need for proper enforcement. Any scheme that is introduced to parallel existing quarantine rules will rely on enforcement, and I am determined to ensure that enforcement features strongly in any such scheme.

Upon entry, the pet and its certificate would be presented to an official whose sole responsibility would be to check imported animals. Although nothing has been firmly decided in this area, the House will want to know that it is pretty certain—as certain as we can be at this stage—that, if such a scheme were to come into effect, those officials would come from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The official would read the pet's microchip number and check it against the certificate. Provided that they matched and the certificate was satisfactory, the animal would enter the country without further ado.

In order to avoid any doubt, I stress that the Kennedy group did not propose—and the Government would not accept—anything that would imply a green channel whereby animals would be waved through. That is not the proposal on which we are consulting. Animals that failed to meet this simple requirement, for whatever reason, would be quarantined for six months or until such earlier time as their certification was shown to be in good order.

It is important to stress that quarantine would remain the rule not only for pets coming from most countries outside Europe, but for animals that failed to meet the new requirements in full. If animals failed to meet the requirements, they would go straight into quarantine.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This may be an appropriate moment to congratulate him on his new position. I was in the House when he made his maiden speech from the Opposition Benches, which roughly coincided with my own debut at the Dispatch Box.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that it would be his Department's staff who monitored compliance with the new regulations or criteria. It is clear that that will be an expensive matter. As he knows, the considerable delay envisaged in the report has been the subject of objections and is a matter of great concern. During his opening speech, will he tell us that he has already started the costing of the arrangements; that he is making allocations in the next public expenditure survey round for his Department's proposed expenditure; that there is a realistic progression of stages leading to the implementation of the new proceedings; and whether those can be accelerated?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new duties and thank him even more for having sat through my maiden speech, which was delivered in 1983 at around midnight, if I remember correctly.

It was memorable.

It did not strike me as being memorable, although I did have one good joke. I have been telling it ever since and it has carried me a long way.

The arrangements will have to be paid for, of course, and I shall talk about costs later in my speech and deal with the main thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's question then. When I referred to the official being a MAFF official, it was not to invite the House to go through the Department's whole budget to see whether existing resources would cover the money to pay that official, but to make the point that the official would be dedicated to that specific duty and that it would not be added to the responsibilities of other officials who have duties at points of entry. The Government will take enforcement extremely seriously.

One of the Kennedy report's most important recommendations is for a large-scale education and publicity programme. Everyone who might use the system, as well as those operating it, will need to know the rules well in advance. Otherwise, people will try to bring in pets that do not qualify and there will be chaos and ill feeling at the point of entry, as pets are refused entry and sent straight into quarantine. The group recognised that the new system could not be brought in overnight and recommended that up to three years be taken to get it up and running. Sites at port should be ready, staff recruited and trained and the public properly informed. I shall return to the issue of timing later.

The group emphasised that its proposals must be viewed against our obligations within the European Union. I am also mindful of our special obligation to Ireland, with which we have a common land border. I am grateful to the group for covering several detailed aspects that are often left by the wayside when quarantine is discussed.

As to the Government's response to the report, without pre-empting the public consultation, I am sympathetic to the case for change. In the light of the Kennedy report, we cannot maintain the status quo, nor can we any longer argue that quarantine is the only way in which to protect our country against rabies. I do not see how we can keep our current system unchanged when there is a less onerous alternative that gives rise to no greater risk and, indeed, has some advantages over the current system.

The report confirms that we have the scientific knowledge and techniques to take the necessary precautions against rabies. Many have said that before. That is not the key issue, even though some important technical details remain to be settled. The report treads new ground in its emphasis on implementation and the effects of change. It puts that into context through its risk assessment, which helps us to devise a new system and warns of the points to watch. Compliance with the rules is essential to the success of any scheme, but particularly this one.

First, we have to be ready for a vast increase in the number of pets taken to and fro. The report assumes that the number of animals might reach 250,000, rather than the 8,000 that currently go into quarantine. That would be in line with the Swedish experience. Gearing up to deal with that number of animals is a task we cannot afford to underestimate. Secondly, vaccination and blood testing are not infallible. Checking remains important and we shall have to consider how that is best carried out. I am determined that we should remain a rabies-free country with strong safeguards against the disease.

Thirdly, we must be ready for people who are willing to break the law. The report recommends that we should check the certificates of every animal coming into the country and makes further recommendations designed to make enforcement easier and more effective. The problem lies not with pets going to, and coming from, rabies-free countries, but with the difficulty of distinguishing those animals from others that carry a risk. Following up the report will therefore not be a straightforward task.

When we published the report on 23 September, I announced that we were inviting comments by 31 December. We are anxious to have reactions to the proposals. We have already received more than 300 responses from more than 20 countries and expect many more. I welcome today's debate as part of that process.

Will the Minister give way?

The House would probably like to know how the consultation is going. Eighty-seven per cent. of the responses are broadly in favour of change as proposed by the Kennedy report, but not going beyond that; 10 per cent. are opposed to change, mainly on the grounds that they do not have pets and do not want to be placed at any risk by other people's pets, and 3 per cent. made neutral points. I give way to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Will the Minister give us his view on paragraph 11.9.1 of the report, which says:

"We understand that the Minister may wish the animal owner to meet the cost of any enforcement under any new system",

and goes on to offer observations? It would be useful if he told the House whether he believes that it would be proper and reasonable for the users of the system to pay the full cost and that the cost should not fall on the taxpayer.

That is a fair point, which parallels that made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). I am about to deal with that matter in terms that will brook no misunderstanding. I assure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that I shall not equivocate on that issue—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not let me.

Good man.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that the Chancellor is a good man. I strongly agree with that.

While consultation continues, we are doing some preparation and taking a hard look at all that would have to be done to put a new scheme in place. We must concentrate on three aspects at this stage. First, there are legal issues to be resolved. We must be sure that what we do is compatible with European Community law. I am keeping the Commission informed of progress in my Department. We also need to consider how we shall link together the three systems that might in future apply: quarantine, the so-called Balai system for traded cats and dogs and the new arrangements for pets based on vaccination and certification. Linked with that is the need to specify certification that we will have to ask other countries to provide.

Secondly, the pet owners who benefit from the new system will have to pay for it. I hope that that is sufficient answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea.

That is an interesting and perfectly legitimate response. If that is the case, surely the pet owners—the paymasters—can determine to a far greater extent than if cost were a matter for the right hon. Gentleman's Department when the measures will come into force, and plainly they will want that to happen at the earliest opportunity. Since pet owners can no longer be put off by the explanation that the scheme will take a long time to put in place and the provisions must be passed through the public expenditure survey and the Chancellor, surely there are good grounds for accelerating the implementation of the measures.

I am keen to do what I can to meet the legitimate aspirations of pet owners, but my primary concern is to protect the country from rabies. The interests of my fellow citizens and public health and safety come first, and within that I shall consider what can be done to meet the legitimate requests of those who own pets and want to take them abroad. Professor Kennedy's report will inform and advise decision making in the Department.

However, the fact that pet owners will have to pay for the new arrangements does not mean that they can set out their terms and conditions. Under the existing system, it is a requirement not only that pet owners are separated from their pets for six months if they have brought them in from abroad, because of the quarantine requirement, but that they pay for quarantine. The state does not pick up the cost of those arrangements, which can be quite high—£ 1,600.

Currently, anyone who wishes to bring a pet into the country is required to pay. It does not seem unfair and unreasonable, therefore, for the arrangements to continue if the test and the public protection arrangements—and that is what they are—are to operate differently from the quarantine procedures when we deal with the European Union.

Can the Minister confirm the valid point that he is making—that at the moment, there is a cost to the Exchequer of inspections of quarantine kennels and the like, so the present system is costing us in any case?

What the hon. Gentleman says is completely right. There is a cost to the Exchequer of kennel inspections, and that cost will continue to be incurred—although its extent might be different under the new arrangements—because Kennedy does not propose, and the Government are not considering, the abolition of quarantine.

Quarantine will remain for animals coming to the UK from countries outside the scheme. It will also be needed for animals brought in by people who believe that their pets comply with the regime, but find that the pets do not. Those pets will go into quarantine, and the obligation will be on the owner to be able to show that the pet can be brought into compliance—perhaps by providing the certificate that they left outside the country—but the effect will be the same. They will have to be able to comply with the new arrangement or the old arrangement will carry on, and I am afraid that they will be charged for it.

The third aspect that the Government will need to consider closely is the question of the time that will be needed to put the new arrangements into place. The Kennedy estimate—three years—seems a long time. I am examining the case for an earlier pilot project—perhaps funded at a premium—to establish new arrangements, or perhaps one covering a limited number of animals. These are early days. I am considering the possibility of speeding up progress—at least for part of the scheme. However, I ask the House not to underestimate what needs to be done. I emphasise that the project is being driven forward by considerations of the safety of the public in the United Kingdom—not by the views of others who will benefit from the project.

Does the Minister agree that, if it is known that quarantine will shortly be abolished for some categories of country, the temptation to smuggle will be much increased in people who—perhaps having served in the Army abroad—have been waiting a long time to return a pet? They will think, "This system will die anyway in a few months, so why should I go through all that?" If it is possible to accelerate the process for an especially urgent case of that kind, it might help increase security.

I do not think that it is fair to describe the desire of individuals to move now and bring their pets with them as urgent in the sense of public policy. I hope that nothing that I say in the House today will give any comfort to anyone who has smuggled animals or is even thinking about it. If they are caught they will be punished, and punishment can involve custodial sentencing. A more likely outcome of today's debate, and the broader understanding that the Government are minded to agree to change and reform, is that those who can adjust their travel arrangements will wait a little to see whether a scheme comes on stream that is more acceptable to them than the existing quarantine arrangements.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the quarantine arrangements are very harsh if they are not strictly necessary for the protection of the public. Professor Kennedy and his group have made a very persuasive case that, at least in the context of the European Union and other rabies-free islands, the case for continuing the existing arrangements is pretty weak. Substitute arrangements will be put in place.

Many rabies-free countries are not islands. Has the Minister considered, in the consultations, including some more of those countries in the scheme?

The Government proposal will have to be very area specific when it is set before the House, and I shall consider those questions of nuance when the consultation is finished. However, if I err, it will have to be on the side of the safety of people in the United Kingdom, not on that of people's desire to move their pets around.

I have made a specific comment about arrangements in north America, which is the pretty obvious great exception to what is proposed. Very reasonably, Kennedy asked for a further look to be taken at that, and I find that request very persuasive. Rabies is endemic in wildlife in north America, but those who travel from north America—perhaps to work in this country, for business reasons or to take an extended holiday—are very unlikely to keep a rabid animal in their household as a pet, and veterinary standards in the United States are very high indeed. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we shall be able to devise a parallel system for north America, but that is for the future.

I shall now discuss arrangements for establishing the new system. We must gear up ports to receive arrivals in a way that is compatible with the rules that we intend to impose. We shall need to install facilities and procedures, which will, I am afraid, slow down pet owners. Currently, ports usually move people through as fast as is compatible with the duties of Customs and Excise and immigration controls. Pet owners will have to do something different from other travellers: there will be a separate official for them to see.

We must tell other countries about the certificates that they may need to provide for those of their nationals who want to bring pets here. We must consider the diseases, other than rabies, that dogs and cats may carry. Moreover, we want the arrangements to be agreed for the whole of the British Isles, not for Great Britain alone. None of the details to be worked out seem to carry with them insuperable obstacles.

Eurotunnel and Eurostar got in touch with me today to say that the concept of Eurotunnel was designed specifically with such changes in mind, and that they could implement the regulations very quickly indeed. Eurostar would be delighted to offer its services for a pilot study.

That is excellent news, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful suggestion. I shall arrange to get in touch with Eurotunnel and Eurostar through the Department to discover whether we might devise such a scheme. It seems logical that, if one were to set up a pilot project, the terminal at Waterloo and embarkation at Paris would be suitable—but I seem to remember that Eurotunnel also stops at Ashford and Lille, so the latter might be better. As I have shown, the details are best not worked out over the Dispatch Box. There is at least a possibility of a pilot project, which will be explored.

In the meantime, we have no choice but to continue to apply the existing laws; I hope that no one is under any illusions about that. We shall move as fast as we can, depending on the outcome of consultation, but quarantine will stay until we have something as effective to put in its place. Madam Speaker—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker is in the Chair. How easy it is to lose friends in this place! Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging the debate. I know that other hon. Members want to take part. I take the views of Members of Parliament from both sides of the House on such a topic very seriously indeed.

I thank the Minister warmly for the welcome that he extended to me at the start of the debate. I assure him that the Opposition are ready to support any measures that address the acute problems which have arisen in the industries for which his Department is responsible.

I take this opportunity of offering the Minister an apology for mistakenly suggesting earlier this month that he was once a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a mistake that he hastily pointed out to me. In making that suggestion, I had his own best career interests in mind, because I was seeking, with some difficulty, to find aspects of his early career that he shared with the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, I regret the error.

This is the Minister's first chance to speak in the House since the summer recess started three months ago. It is a matter of some regret that in this, his first debate since the recess in Government time, the subject is quarantine. It is an important subject of course, but I cannot believe that, in House of Commons terms, it is particularly urgent, since the consultation period does not end until 31 December. That will be noted by farmers up and down the country. They will be puzzled—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The reaction of those on the Treasury Bench who are trying to deride this important point is extremely instructive. Farmers throughout Britain will note and be puzzled about why the Government and the Leader of the House, and possibly the Minister, think it more important for Parliament to discuss quarantine this afternoon than to address the crisis in agriculture, which became so much worse during the parliamentary recess.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about me and for putting the record right. I am not and never have been a member of CND. On the question of the difficulties that the agriculture sector is experiencing at present, I and my Department have been working hard on those very issues and, at an appropriate time, I shall come to the House and have something of significance to say. Farmers are looking not for a debate, but for answers. When I can, I shall come to the House and say what I am able to do.

Order. Now that the point has been made about the farmers and it has been responded to, we can go on to quarantine.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. In reverting to quarantine, I would just say that the Opposition are not at all reluctant to debate agriculture, as we hope to do next week. We look forward to the Minister's statement in due course.

The Opposition fully recognise the powerful case for reforming the present laws. Matters have moved on since the previous Government considered the issue. I endorse the Minister's appreciation of Professor Kennedy's report. We fully accept that the onerous restrictions imposed by the current quarantine requirements cause real anguish for many pet owners—for families who have to live abroad for professional reasons and particularly for those in the armed forces who serve this country. For all those people, the system is an extra burden on top of those that they already carry.

We are mindful of the example of Sweden where there is now a certain amount of experience and where the determination to exclude rabies matches our own. We also have the 1994 report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which reached the clear conclusion that an alternative to the existing arrangements was desirable. I also accept the force of the argument that a change in the regulations will reduce the incentive for owners misguidedly to try to smuggle pets into Britain.

The Opposition will support the removal of the present tight controls subject to two essential conditions. First, the ending of the present restrictions on the movement of animals should not increase the risk that rabies will enter Britain. I warmly welcome the tone in which the Minister has assured us that that is also his concern. Secondly, the practical arrangements needed to make the proposed new system work should be feasible, realistic and watertight and not be a burden on the taxpayer. That point has already been raised by Conservative Members, and the Minister has said that the pet owner will bear the cost of the new system. I am glad that, on this matter, there has been no equivocation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that the Minister's right hon. Friend is equivocating like anything over some other matters which he is no doubt debating with him at the moment.

The question of risk is clearly the overriding consideration, and I have read the relevant chapter in the report. As the Minister said, no responsible Government would wish to be the instrument by which the country lost the freedom from rabies that it has enjoyed for almost the whole of this century. I do know how concerned the Government are with risks, even with quite small risks, as we have learnt from their imposition of a ban on beef on the bone. That ban was imposed despite the risk of dying from eating beef on the bone being less than the risk of being struck by lightning. The Minister will be familiar with the Opposition's view, which is held as strongly today as when last expressed, that that ban should be lifted.

I assume from what the Minister has said and from my reading of the report that it is the Government's view that, since the risk of eating beef on the bone in the past year was unacceptable, the risks that might arise from ending the current quarantine arrangements—I appreciate that we are not abolishing quarantine altogether, but we would be proposing a substantial relaxation of the arrangements in respect of some countries—are even lower.

Strictly speaking, comparing like with like, I cannot truthfully tell the House today that the Government have measured the risks identified in Professor Kennedy's report against the risks of consuming beef on the bone. A direct comparison is not quite so easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he studies Professor Kennedy's report carefully, he will see that the risk assessments cover a pretty wide range.

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. It is a point to which we might wish to return later. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the emphasis must be on making only those changes that do not impose any measurable risk. One important difference between the two examples in my comparison is that a risk that results from eating something is more or less run knowingly, while a risk from rabies might be outside one's control.

A number of detailed aspects arise with regard to the effectiveness of the practical arrangements proposed. The first concerns the position, which might arise, of a British pet returning to Britain from another EU country. From what I have read and heard so far, I am not clear how the checking station at the port of entry, say, Dover, will know whether, during the time that the animal has spent abroad, it has been outside the EU to a third country that might not be rabies free. It is at least possible that checks on animals re-entering the EU—outside Britain—might be rather less rigorous than those envisaged for the UK. So a UK resident who had a second home in another EU country, as a growing number do, and who might spend a substantial part of the year there, say six months—

Tuscany.

I believe that that is favoured by a number of the Minister's colleagues. If the cat had not mysteriously disappeared from No. 10 Downing street—who knows? — it might have been favoured with a trip to an expensive villa in Tuscany where it might have received extremely generous hospitality.

A retirement scheme.

Possibly so. Anyway, a British resident who made an extended visit to another part of the EU might, during the course of that visit, travel from there to a non-rabies-free country, return to the EU country where the second home was maintained, and then return to Britain. I should be interested if the Minister could give assurances about such a situation, which might easily arise.

One of the conditions of the scheme proposed by Professor Kennedy is that the animal must be inside the European Union or one of the islands referred to in the scheme for at least six months. It will have to have been vaccinated, the effectiveness of the vaccine will have to have been checked, and the animal will have to be deloused 24 hours before coming in, so that parasites that might carry rabies or other equally damaging diseases will be killed off. The safeguards proposed by Professor Kennedy are severe.

I understand that. I have read the safeguards, and I have a continuing concern about the first one, which stipulates that an imported animal should have been in an EU country for the six months before it enters Britain. I am not clear how that fact will easily be verified at the point of entry into Britain. In trying to avoid the risk that an animal might not have been continuously in the EU for the previous six months, there is a danger that we will effectively be relying on standards at every point of entry into the EU to be as stringent as ours. The consultation is no doubt intended to cover such points. There is a loophole which I hope will be dealt with.

My second concern relates to the possible enlargement of the European Union. If countries where rabies exists were admitted as EU members, how do the Government envisage that the safeguards will be maintained? Can the Minister say whether any of the countries likely to negotiate EU membership are not rabies free? Does he agree that, unless a special system of protection is established, the admission of a non-rabies-free country into the EU could drive a coach and horses through the controls that are envisaged?

In that connection, will the Government publish a list of countries outside the present EU that would qualify as rabies free? The list that is envisaged does not precisely coincide with the list defined by the World Health Organisation as rabies free. It would clearly be helpful to know which countries are envisaged.

My third concern relates to the technology that will be used to identify animals. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will deal with the matter in more detail in his speech, so I shall flag it up briefly at this stage. I understand that more than one type of microchip is already in use. Is that likely to cause practical difficulties?

Like other hon. Members who will no doubt take part in the debate, I have a constituent who runs a quarantine kennel. Miss Valerie Sheldrake has raised her concerns with me, one of which relates to the microchip. She suggests that it can move around inside an animal and could be reprogrammed or replaced. I hope that the Government will comment on that risk in due course. Like many other kennel owners, Miss Sheldrake points out that she has invested heavily in the facilities that she provides for quarantine. I hope that the Government will take account of her concern about the future of her own and other people's investments.

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the animals that currently go into quarantine—about 8,000 a year—would still have to do so if the new system were adopted. It is clearly impossible to forecast how many animals will be brought into the country in the future. The Minister referred to 250,000. I assume that, whatever the number, the Government will be flexible about the number of staff needed to maintain the new controls adequately, given the assurance that we have received that the costs will be borne by the pet owners, not by the taxpayer.

The Opposition support in principle the case for a fundamental change to the quarantine laws. We believe that the change should take place only when the legitimate concerns about the risks and the effectiveness of the arrangements proposed have been satisfied. I welcome the way in which the Minister has addressed the problem, and the tone of his comments and his reassurances. We welcome the fact that the consultation is taking place. I hope that that will help to meet the concerns that I have outlined.

I add my congratulations and welcome to my right hon. Friend the Minister on his first outing. He might remember coming down to my Dover and Deal constituency three months before the election and introducing me to the now famous pager. Much water has passed under the bridge since then.

One could easily be tempted to treat the subject of quarantine and the potential spread of rabies in an alarmist and emotive manner. I know that, in previous debates in the Chamber, that has happened. I shall avoid that temptation, but we cannot avoid the reality that rabies is, as Professor Kennedy states,

"still a horrific disease in animals and man".

That has been acknowledged in the debate.

We should not ignore the fact that, last year, there were more than 100 reported cases of rabies in mammals in EU countries, and more than 3,000 reported cases in central and east European countries. No one would deny the seriousness of the subject, and the need to approach the changes and relaxation of controls with care and consideration. The Kennedy report reflects a measured approach. I am sympathetic to the animal welfare case presented by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

My constituency, Dover, is in the front line in the importation from mainland Europe of animals that might be infected with rabies. Officials in the port of Dover are committed to preventing the illegal importation of animals. East Kent has a significant number of boarding kennels which are licensed to hold animals in quarantine and whose primary business has evolved to meet the Government's requirements in respect of the existing quarantine laws. The vast majority of those kennels meet the high standards of care required of them.

There are some 80 licensed kennels in the United Kingdom. Almost 80 per cent. of those are members of their representative body, the Quarantine Association. The association understands the need for change, and wants the Government to understand the implications for its members' business if the sweeping changes proposed in the Kennedy report are implemented in full.

Given that the number of animals coming through the port would be much larger, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ironic consequences of introducing the new system might be more animals in quarantine than there are at present, because they would fail the strict conditions laid down by the Government?

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, but we would have difficulty convincing the kennel owners whose businesses go bust over the next three or four years that the proposals contain good news.

The kennel operators want to draw on their considerable experience and make positive and practical responses to the consultation, but they are deeply concerned about the uncertainty that will affect their businesses over the next few years. Kennel owners and their employees are worried about the impact of the changes on their businesses and the consequent loss of jobs. They realise that the present system, which has been in use since the turn of the century, is out of date and needs modernising, but they are anxious that all the necessary infrastructure should be in place before any new arrangements are implemented.

I was a little alarmed to hear suggestions from my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench about accelerated schemes, hurrying up the system and filling the channel tunnel with cats and dogs. We have had the present system for 100 years, and it is less than 100 days since the report was published. We should make a considered response and let the consultation process take its course over the next two months. We should listen to all the arguments, rather than rushing into change under pressure from a few particular lobbies.

While the association realises that the system needs reforming, kennel owners, and their association, have raised a couple of specific concerns. One that has been mentioned this afternoon involves lax border controls. An animal could be taken from one area to another and falsely licensed. The Minister has given some assurance on that in respect of the six-month rule, but we shall have to consider it a little more closely.

I fully appreciate the interests of quarantine kennel owners in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country, but to coin a pun, one does not want to let the quarantine kennel owner's tail wag the animal welfare dog. Can he suggest a scheme allowing the 50 per cent. of quarantine businesses that will be lost under the proposals to receive some form of decommissioning compensation, perhaps along the lines of the scheme for the fishing industry? Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that, and will he press the Minister for such a scheme?

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated issues that I shall deal with later in my speech.

The second issue is the possibility that an animal owner living in, say, France might do a tour of central and eastern Europe before returning to France and crossing the channel. Can the Minister reassure us about that risk, which concerns proof of residence?

Kennel owners have also voiced concerns about the proposed means of validating incoming animals. Last year, 150,000 pets entered the country through the port of Dover. The bulk of them entered during the busy summer period. There would be major problems in dealing with the increased number that would result from the changes.

The proposals have implications for both airports and sea ports. Dover Harbour Board says that it will be pleased to discuss ways and means of handling any new arrangements, but would have to take a commercial approach to any additional facilities or boat space that it might be asked to provide. It emphasises the need to deal with different ports in different ways.

For instance, the recommendation that there should be a dedicated lane for traffic from ferries to the new inspection facility is simply impracticable for Dover, which is the busiest ferry port in the world. Last year, it handled more than 21 million passengers. It has seven berths with seven carriageways serving each "link span", and incoming traffic is separated from outgoing traffic by a complex arrangement of overhead roadways and underpasses. If one adds to that the squeeze on available land, the extreme difficulty of providing dedicated lanes for travellers with pets becomes obvious. However, the port is happy to explore other options for facilities within the port.

Some kennel owners have suggested alternative options. For example, pets could be removed, under appropriate security, to inland sites such as existing quarantine kennels. That would allow adequate space and time for checks, including, where appropriate, blood tests.

Kennel owners have other practical concerns which they want to put to the Government as part of the consultation process. They are particularly concerned about the uncertainty of the present climate of change, which means that they cannot produce business plans, reassure their staff about their future, or invest in their kennels. They rightly feel, having effectively been an instrument of Government policy for so many years, that, if the Government's change in policy now threatens their existence, it is reasonable to expect some decommissioning funding or other special support to help them either to close their businesses in an orderly way and meet redundancy liabilities or to adjust to the new circumstances.

The Quarantine Association believes that full implementation of the proposals would lose its members some 46 per cent. of the market. If the changes are followed by a relaxation in quarantine regulations in north America, they would lose a total of 79 per cent. of their work. Such a dramatic impact would drive smaller kennels out of business. The association anticipates that fewer than 20 businesses would survive and more than 60 would be driven into bankruptcy.

I urge the Minister to consider all the responses to the report so that he can give due regard to the input from the quarantine kennel industry and its staff. I hope that, as he moves towards decisions that may seriously affect the prospects of hundreds of kennel workers across the land, including my constituents in Dover, he will agree to meet some of their representatives and explore ways to ease their difficulties.

May I add my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box and on introducing this debate in such a non-partisan way? I fully understand the caveat that a significant number of agricultural issues need to be debated in the House, but it would be wrong of any of us to suggest that the issue is not of considerable concern to many people in the United Kingdom, as well as UK expatriates. The attention that the matter is at last receiving is long overdue.

As the Minister reminded the House, Sir Jerry Wiggin introduced the Agriculture Select Committee's report in 1994, when he was Chairman of that Committee. It said that the current quarantine system could no longer be justified and change was clearly overdue. At that time, the all-party parliamentary animal welfare group, which I had the privilege to chair, made it plain that we supported that view, and we have pressed for change ever since. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary, who will wind up the debate, is in the Chamber because he has been a doughty fighter in the cause of change. I hope that my saying that does not embarrass him.

As the Minister said, the status quo is no longer an option. Even in the best quarantine kennels, quarantine is inhumane, to a large extent ineffective, and unnecessary. That is not to say that those of us who support change do not recognise the clear warnings that have been issued and the need to ensure that whatever replaces the quarantine system is every bit as secure as the current system. In that regard, the proposal by Professor Kennedy in his excellent report is not only as secure, but is arguably better.

It has already been said that significant numbers of animals are believed to be smuggled into the country by an increasing variety of means. It may originally have been by private yachts, but latterly it is by cross-channel ferry and, most recently, through the channel tunnel. We are led to believe that it is relatively easy for somebody who wishes to bring an animal into the UK illegally and to avoid quarantine to secure the services of a veterinary surgeon in northern France to have a cat or dog anaesthetised. It can then be put into the boot of a car with a blanket thrown over it, and it will not miaow or bark as it enters the country. We all know that, given the volume of traffic that now comes across the channel, the chances of detection are extremely remote. That is clearly going on, so to suggest, as some do, that the current system is somehow foolproof is very wide of the mark.

There is a tremendous incentive to smuggle animals into the country. The financial penalty of putting an animal into quarantine is £1,500 to £2,000 per animal, and many families have more than one animal. That is a great deal of money to spend for six months. That is not the animal lover's prime concern. What is, especially for the owner of a relatively elderly animal, is the animal's welfare. The owner desires not to be parted from that cat or dog for six months, so, because the animal lover knows that the animal is healthy, there is tremendous incentive to skirt round the rules, in the knowledge that no real harm will be done. However, there is always the danger that harm will be done and what Professor Kennedy is suggesting will therefore probably enhance rather than weaken the existing position.

As an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, I attended its annual congress this year. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that, following publication of Professor Kennedy's report, this issue was a major topic of discussion throughout the three days. The then president of the association made his view plain, and he represents the view of a considerable number of veterinarians, which we should not ignore. Although they are reasonably content for there to be change, they urge haste with caution.

We must put the proper safeguards in place. If something goes horribly wrong, the veterinarians will be right at the sharp end, dealing with the problem. It is therefore not entirely surprising that they, more than some others, are expressing concerns, but whereas they were cautious about the quality of vaccines, the efficacy of blood testing and the reliability of microchips when Sir Jerry Wiggin's Agriculture Committee report was published in 1994, they are now satisfied on all those counts.

Veterinarians are now concerned that implementation is secure, and that the facilities, the trained personnel and the checks and balances are in place to make sure that the system works as Professor Kennedy intends it to. That is a major shift in the opinion of those to whom we should listen most—people in the veterinary profession.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). He represents a significant number of quarantine kennels, which are used by my constituents and many others using the channel ports, and I fully understand his desire to represent those interests. There is a significant concern here. It is not so long ago that a television programme "exposed" the Dover and Folkestone quarantine kennels. That was especially unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman will endorse, because the kennels had changed ownership by the time that the programme was transmitted. The new owners were attempting to clean up the act, invest in and improve the facilities, and bring those kennels up to standard.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the exposéprogramme on Channel 4 was filmed the day after the exchange had taken place? Since then, the new owner, whom I spoke to this morning, has invested more than £90,000 in cleaning up the kennel's act, making it respectable and achieving a caring arrangement. He is a animal lover and a pet owner. He says that he is in it purely for the love of the animals; I will not extend that argument too much, but he is dedicated to providing a careful and proper service.

I am very aware of all those things. I visited the kennels, and I hope and believe that I sought the hon. Gentleman's permission before I did so. He has put it clearly on the record that premises change hands, but there is another point.

The hon. Gentleman, having visited those kennels and the catteries, will be aware that there is an on-going programme of investment. I am concerned that, if we do not get a move on and the signals are not clear, and if provision is not made for the quarantine kennel owners, we shall effectively achieve planning blight—legislative blight, in this case.

What kennel or cattery owner will invest more in facilities that he or she believes may be redundant within two or three years? My fear is that, unless we move much more swiftly than has been suggested, standards will deteriorate and, as a consequence, animal welfare in quarantine kennels across the country will deteriorate. Owners simply will not be able to afford to invest, and what bank or lender would lend money to the proprietor of a business that is going to go out of business?

Although I do not seek to over-represent their cause, I believe that quarantine kennel and cattery owners have just cause to look to the House to secure their interests. They have been, effectively, acting on behalf of the Government, doing the business and the bidding of the regulatory process. People such as me have called on them to invest more, raise their standards and make sure that the animals in their care are well cared for. Having done that, we now have a responsibility to them.

As I suggested to the Quarantine Association a couple of years ago, it is possible to look to Europe, because we shall effectively be harmonising our regulations with those throughout the rest of the European Union, to allow freer movement of animals. If we are to do that, there is no reason why the EU should not look favourably, as it has on other agriculture issues, at what would be a modest contribution in European budgetary terms but what would be significant to the owners in terms of compensation for likely loss of business.

I want the process to be speeded up. I do not believe that it is necessary to take three years to get moving, and I am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is already considering staffing costs and ways of bringing the process forward. It should be possible to introduce a pilot scheme swiftly—not at the channel tunnel, but at either the port of Ramsgate or the port of Dover, as I proposed two years ago.

Four years ago, we proposed a pilot scheme on this basis: initially, but not for ever, quarantine kennel owners should collect animals from the port and take them to their kennels to hold overnight for blood tests and identification checks. There could be a problem at the ports. I do not want to make too much of another issue, but the port of Dover and other ports will be faced with the ludicrous imposition by Brussels, with the support of the Member of the European Parliament for East Kent, of the passenger registration system. That will cause interminable delay when it is introduced, and, not a green channel, but a channel for people with animals, would also cause severe delay.

I believe that the Minister could say now that those who can demonstrate, as Professor Kennedy requires, that their animals have been vaccinated, blood tested and microchipped should be able immediately to take advantage of such a system, provided that they are prepared to put their animals into quarantine kennels for a brief holding period while blood tests and identification checks are carried out. That would mean that we could take the heat out of the risk that was highlighted earlier and start immediately, rather than wait and risk further smuggling.

I go further: there is no reason whatever—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) may want to touch on this—why, given the services of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, service men serving overseas should not immediately be allowed to embark down this road.

I want to clarify a point. The hon. Gentleman suggests that animals should be blood tested on arrival in the United Kingdom. I thought that the idea was that they should be blood tested six months before, and that a microchip should be inserted. They would then have to go through a process similar to the use of a bar code in a supermarket.

The hon. Lady is right: that is Professor Kennedy's intention, and I am sure that that is what we shall arrive at. I am suggesting an interim measure to allow a pilot scheme to begin immediately, without the full ramifications of having to appoint and train staff and build and provide holding facilities at ports. If we have to wait for all that, there will inevitably be considerable delay.

I am suggesting to the Minister a way of getting this process up and running now without having to wait. If he can do that, it will enable him and his colleagues and veterinarians to study the process in practice. It will allow systems to be established for identification, vaccination and blood checks, and it will enable parasitology measures to take place, which are important as we are dealing with other problems as well as rabies. The sooner the Minister can get on with the job, the better, and I hope that he will be able to do so.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on his exemplary introduction to the debate. From what he said, I am sure that the process will be dealt with cautiously and in great detail. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) apologised to my right hon. Friend, who was not a member of CND. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for targets, I am a minor one, because, like the Prime Minister, I was a member of CND. Unlike the Prime Minister, I still am a member—at least, I think so, because it seems to have given up collecting subs in the past few years.

I am glad of the opportunity to speak in favour of the recommendations in the Kennedy report—I have one or two minor reservations—and to congratulate his advisory group on the thoroughness of its work. It is remarkable how similar its central proposals are to those made by the Select Committee on Agriculture back in 1994, of which I was a member. There was a debate in the Chamber on 13 July 1995—some six months after the report. It is surprising that my speech and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), the Minister and the Chairman of the Select Committee, Sir Jerry Wiggin, if they had been made again today word for word, would have been directly germane to the discussion of the Kennedy report.

A couple of weeks ago, my good friend, Mrs. Mary Rees, the chairman of Lathom parish council in my constituency, told me that she was still nervous about the prospect of rabies. A decade or so ago, when it became clear that the channel tunnel was an inevitability, she expressed deep foreboding, in whatever forum she could find, about rabies entering the country. She had worked out that a fox can travel about 25 miles in a night, so, within 10 days, a rabid continental fox could be in Lathom—where, of course, it would want to go.

The Select Committee visited the channel tunnel before it was opened. We went inside it and saw that it was the one entry point where it was impossible for animals to come in unless they were deliberately smuggled in. It is ironic that there may be a pilot scheme through there, given that the company spent £20 million on defences against animals being brought into the country through the channel tunnel.

The fact that Mary Rees is still worried, and no doubt reflects the worries of many thousands of British people, shows the deep-seated and instinctive fear that rabies inspires.

Has the hon. Gentleman pointed out to Mary Rees the evidence on page 224 of the report, which suggests that even she may not have to worry too much about this matter? It states:

"if 1000 dogs are imported each year one would expect that on average a dog incubating rabies might enter the country once every 1250 years."

Mary Rees is an elderly lady, but not quite that old. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I shall point that out to her to ease her mind.

As I said, there is a deep-seated and instinctive fear about rabies in this country, which, to all intents and purposes, has been rabies free for a century. That fear was reflected in the evidence given to the Select Committee in 1994 by the then Minister for Agriculture, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). She was always meticulous in her evidence to the Committee. In answer to specific questions, she said:

"there would be, rightly, an enormous outcry if a relaxation of the system that we already have resulted in an outbreak of the disease".

Of course there would. She said:

"at this stage I am not persuaded that there should be further moves … I still believe that the overwhelming public view is that rabies is dangerous and frightening and that this"—

quarantine—

"is the best, most effective way of preventing its outbreak in this country".

She rightly said:

"it is an appalling disease, both for animals and for human beings. I would certainly not want to move in any direction that increased the likelihood of the incidence of rabies in this country."

That is almost exactly the phrase that my right hon. Friend used.

I am quoting the right hon. Lady's perhaps over-cautious responses because they articulated the emotional response of citizens such as Mary Rees. They also more or less articulated my own feelings at the start of the Select Committee inquiry four years ago. Like most of the Committee members, I had a strong prejudice in favour of quarantine. It seemed to me that quarantine took advantage of our island status, it was a sensible bulwark against a horrible disease and it appeared to work. I believed that removing quarantine would seriously undermine public confidence. With the exception of Sir Jerry Wiggin and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Committee shared that prejudice at the start of the inquiry.

By the time that the then Minister gave her evidence to the Committee at the end of its deliberations, we were unanimous in our belief that the alternatives to quarantine were infinitely preferable. Most of us had made a substantial U-turn on the basis of the evidence that we had heard. We were convinced beyond reasonable doubt, and we remain so.

We thought that the submission of our report to the Government made that crystal clear, but the then Minister's view prevented further action. It is important that Governments, for the most part, go with the grain of public opinion, especially on such big, emotive issues. However, there are occasions—this was, and still is, one of them—when Governments should take a lead in explaining why an emotional reaction of historic proportions must be tempered by hard evidence and new science.

The previous Government failed on that count, and I am more than pleased that my right hon. and hon. Friends have encouraged the public education process by setting up the reappraisal under Professor Kennedy. I also congratulate the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, members of the armed forces, Passports for Pets, the all-party committee and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has been meticulous member of that committee. Since 1994, they have taken part in an unwavering programme of public education on the alternatives to quarantine. I believe that that has made strong inroads into public prejudices on the issue. The public are not quite so terrified of possible alternatives to quarantines as they were four years ago.

The central reason why I changed my mind during the inquiry had nothing to do with sympathy for pet owners. Although I do sympathise with them, if the balance were between their natural attachment to their pets and the possibility of rabies, there would be no contest. My main concern, and that of my colleagues, was to recommend the best possible way of maintainin the United Kingdom's rabies-free status. The costs of quarantine, in both financial and emotional terms, were shown to be so huge as positively to encourage the smuggling of animals. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington and the hon. Member for North Thanet both put that point forcefully.

We became more than ever conscious of our vast and indented coastline, with its thousands of small harbours, and the huge increase in the use of small leisure craft and even business craft. Of course the alternatives recommended by the Select Committee, and refined and amplified by the Kennedy committee—vaccinations, blood tests, identification by microchip, health certificates and passports—involve costs, but nothing like the costs of quarantine to the individual concerned.

Whereas quarantine tempts otherwise honourable and honest people to smuggle—dishonest people will always smuggle: it is their business—the alternative gives those same people an incentive not only to comply with reasonable regulations, but to maximise the monitoring of their animals' health. The case for the alternatives to quarantine is not a sentimental response to the emotional ties of owners and pets, nor is it about helping the tourist trade. It is about positively improving our protection against rabies.

As I have said, the case for the Kennedy recommendations was effectively made four years ago, and I think that it was approved by most hon. Members on both sides of the House who followed the issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Parliamentary Secretary, made their general support for the alternatives clear before the last general election. For four years, the case has been examined, in public and in the trade press, and the Kennedy report has now set it out very clearly.

That brings me to one problem that I have with the report's recommendations, which others have mentioned and on which I shall be interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister. In recommendation 15, the advisory group said that the new system should not be adopted for, perhaps, three years. I agree with what has been said so far: surely that is much too long a delay. Of course time is needed to get the system right, to train staff, to inform the public and to organise premises, but I should have thought that could be achieved in a time nearer to one year. If the Government really feel that the whole scheme cannot be up and running until 2001, would they consider introducing pilot schemes as soon as possible—as the hon. Member for North Thanet suggested—in two or three ports of entry? Perhaps Dover should not be one, but Liverpool might do. It is rather a long way away, but it needs the jobs. My right hon. Friend the Minister seemed quite sympathetic to that idea.

Perhaps there should also be a pilot scheme at Heathrow—which is already fairly well equipped for the purpose—so that we can see how the system works, and meet the training requirements in the report. There is no point in beginning to train people if there is nowhere for them to be trained and, if we have pilot schemes, it may be possible to provide the necessary facilities.

I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could interpret the recommendations on European harmonisation in paragraphs 10.5.5 and 10.5.7. I understand our legal obligations under the treaty of Rome and so on, but I fear that—unless I have misread those recommendations—we might create a bit of a pickle. In its summary, the advisory group recommends

"that the Minister introduce the new system specifically and explicitly as a transitional system".

That is fine. It also recommends

"that the Minister simultaneously seek to promote a harmonised EU system of controls against rabies which will reflect the concerns and meet the needs identified in our recommendations."

That is a two-track business. Thirdly, the advisory group recommends

"that, until rabies has been effectively eradicated from the EU and appropriate EU-wide measures put in place in respect of animals to be imported from third countries where rabies is endemic (including the candidate countries of eastern Europe), the Minister should, if necessary, seek a derogation from a harmonised EU system to allow checks to take place at British points of entry."

Unless I have misread the proposals, we could end up with a wish-mash of systems—for which the Government would be responsible—that in some ways contradicted each other. That could create more of a worry among kennel owners who still have some part of their business to run over the next few years.

Nevertheless, the report offers great promise. It confirms the strongly held belief of many that the existing system of quarantine is no longer the best way of dealing with the inward movement of animals from what are virtually risk-free countries. Its proposals would establish a much stronger and fairer system, while maintaining powerful safeguards—in fact, the same safeguards—against the entry of animals from risky countries. That is only a personal opinion, but I think that we should class the United States and Canada as risky countries until they can be conclusively proved not to be.

Incidentally, the implementation of the proposals would be an enormous relief for thousands of individuals, especially in the armed forces, whose jobs necessitate their living abroad with their families and moving back and forth. It would also help the tourist trade at the margins—although I must say that I contemplate the prospect of thousands of foreign tourists arriving with their dogs with no pleasure at all.

Those last two factors, however, are bonuses. The main point of the Kennedy recommendations is safety and common sense. Parliament, and the Government, have a duty to sell them to those in the United Kingdom, such as Mary Rees, who have a deep and abiding fear that quarantine has so far helped to allay. It is our duty to explain in detail that the new measures will constitute a better, not a weaker, system of control.

The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) performed a service by reminding us so lucidly of the background to the Agriculture Committee's deliberations in 1994, and the reasons—which he gave fairly and coherently—why it reached its decisions and its vantage point.

The Minister described himself as sympathetic to the Kennedy report—I hasten to add that Professor Kennedy is no relation—and his stance has been broadly echoed in the House. This is one occasion—another may be next week's agriculture debate, which will arise from a Conservative motion—when the Conservative spokesman and I can make common cause. Given another issue that is being dealt with outside the House today, perhaps we are all into constructive opposition—on this issue, if not on others.

I agree with the fairly consensual points that have been made about changes to the quarantine system. However, although concern has been expressed about the timing, we should bear in mind the fact that the present system has been in place since 1901, and has been stupendously successful. Parliament is right to tread with caution, given the horrendous down side—rabies—which is the alternative to the status quo. But, as the hon. Member for West Lancashire said so persuasively, given the costs of quarantine—which are undoubtedly driving some people into illegal activity—it is surely the lesser of two evils to opt for a system that is likely to deliver than to stick with a system that, at least potentially, is delivering less well. That is the balance of probability that should commend itself to the House.

I remind my hon. Friend that many pet owners act responsibly and vaccinate their pets—which would thus qualify for a pet passport or microchip—but still have to pay quarantine costs to kennels. I am particularly reminded of my constituents, the two dogs Whisky and Soda, who have already suffered six months' quarantine for this country after their master dealt with Hong Kong. They could easily have to go through the process again if their master, useful man that he is, is sent to Europe in another role. I make a plea to the Minister to remember Whisky and Soda.

Anyone who knows my personal habits knows that I am always willing to defer to whisky and soda, although not necessarily of the canine variety. My hon. Friend makes a telling point, which has been well trailed through the national and international press by her constituent, Mr. Chris Patten, although what she says may be a strong argument not to offer him a job at the EU Commission. However, I shall not stray too far down that road.

Joking aside, it was useful that someone with a high public profile was able to draw attention to the sense of frustration that so many people have felt as a result of the current arrangements. Indeed, that is partly what lay behind the Kennedy committee proposals.

It is obviously extremely important that documentation and vaccination requirements are met. Proper border controls are also important in preventing unprotected animals from entering the country, and that relates to monitoring generally.

Hon. Members have mentioned kennel owners, and gun control may be a more valid comparison than fisheries decommissioning policy in this case. When, under the new Government, the House passed primary legislation on guns, we dealt with the issue of compensation for those who would lose out in terms of business. I accept that the comparison is not ideal, but there is a legitimate argument that the Government should consider those people with businesses that carry out, albeit privately, a Government agency function and who, as a result of primary legislation, may be financially disadvantaged.

I take this opportunity to make a plea for those people who have to use guide dogs—there is a strong case for exempting them from the current rules on travel outwith this country. I expect that all hon. Members have heard from constituents who have found themselves in farcical situations when travelling abroad on holiday. They have discovered—in some cases, not even at the point of exit from this country but when they have been in transit—that they were not to be allowed to have their guide dogs with them on arrival. That is a bizarre state of affairs for people who are self-evidently dependent on a guide dog for access and mobility and for their capacity to enjoy visits to the continent or elsewhere abroad. I hope that the Government will be particularly sympathetic, even under the current arrangements, to the rights of disabled people, especially those who use guide dogs.

As has been clear from this debate, the House is generally supportive of the Government's stance on the Kennedy recommendations, and I hope that we can make further legislative progress on the matter sooner rather than later.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned the fact that people with guide dogs have faced great problems in travelling abroad because of the quarantine laws. That point has been raised in the considerable postbag—more than 100 letters—that I have received on this subject from my constituents. All those who have written have been in favour of the Kennedy recommendations, and some have gone further, wanting quarantine to be ended immediately, although I do not go along with that view.

There has been consensus in this important debate and I, too, welcome the Kennedy report and its recommendations. A review of quarantine is now long overdue, not least, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) argued, on animal welfare grounds. We can debate quarantine reform because veterinary science has developed to such an extent that there is a viable alternative to quarantine—vaccination, blood testing and microchipping.

We also have a far greater knowledge of animal behaviour and the effects of the long-term separation of animals from their owners. Indeed, it has been known for some time that dogs can develop behavioural problems as a result of being separated from their homes and owners. Now, however, we own far more cats than dogs; we seem to be turning into a nation of cat owners, of whom I am one. I have owned cats for 35 years—

Hear, hear.

My hon. Friend says, "Hear, hear."

I regard myself as a responsible owner, and the House may be interested to hear that I made electoral history last year as the first Member of Parliament to choose to be photographed not with the nearest and dearest of my family—my husband and son—but with one of my kittens. What greater commitment could anyone have to a pet?

There has been a great deal of research into the behaviour of cats, and it has been discovered that cats suffer far more than dogs in quarantine. Two of the saddest letters that I have received were from constituents explaining how their pets had died in quarantine, not from rabies or parasitic diseases from abroad, but, after about four months in a kennel and a cattery respectively, from diseases caught from the other animals.

There is nothing sadder than having to part from one's pet when it has to be put in quarantine. Pet owners do not want their pets to return to this country with rabies, but they do not want them to die from another disease that has been picked up in this country. Now that there is a real alternative to quarantine, the animal welfare argument should be given due weight in our consideration of the Kennedy report.

Until we manage to eradicate rabies worldwide, there will always be a risk that it could get into this country. I have long thought that our analysis of where the risk lies has been wrong. We have assumed that people will get rabies from pets brought in from abroad, but more and more Britons travel abroad to countries that have rabies—the House of Commons Library came up with the figure that a quarter of summer holidaymakers from Britain regularly travel to Turkey, the United States of America, Kenya and other countries that are known as rabies black spots—so rabies is more likely to be brought back here by someone who, perhaps through lack of caution, has been bitten by a rabid animal abroad.

Every time I go abroad on a ferry, I am struck by the emotive posters warning of the dangers of rabies from bringing pets into the country, but I wonder how much information is given to those travelling to countries where there is known to be a risk. We should consider an education campaign aimed at travellers, because we must reassess the source of the risk of rabies ever getting back into this country, which of course we all hope will not happen.

Moving from quarantine to vaccinating, blood testing and microchipping will certain mean upheaval, but, since 1994, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has accepted that animals imported for sale can come in on the vaccination rather than the quarantine route, so we clearly already have the beginnings of that way of controlling rabies.

Three years will be too long a delay. I agree with those who have suggested a pilot scheme based on vaccination in one of our ports where animals come in, in line with the European Union directive. That should be started within a year.