I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a little Bill—in Scotland, we would call it a small or a wee Bill—but it will serve the major purpose of helping some of our most unfortunate and disadvantaged fellow citizens. It will address a gap in the legislation enacted by our predecessors 15 years ago. The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 was a consolidation measure: it consolidated the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 and later amendments. We are dealing with legislation that is 40 years old.

Time marches on, and with it changes take place. The intervening period has seen wide-ranging changes in society's attitudes to people who are mentally ill. I am glad to say that there is no longer the unacceptable stigma that once attached to the illness and to those who suffer from it. There have been welcome advances in treatment and, more relevant to the purpose of my Bill, there have been changes in where people are cared for.

The availability of good-quality community care has meant that far fewer patients are cared for in hospital: they are now looked after in the community, be it in their own home, a nursing home or a residential establishment. By and large, I welcome such developments if they are clearly shown to be in the patients' best interests.

However, the growth of community care has identified a difficulty in the 1984 Act relating to the finances of patients who leave hospital. I shall explain a little of the background. Section 94 of the 1984 Act makes provisions for hospital managers to manage the funds of patients who, because of mental disorder, cannot look after their own resources. The legislation provides that managers can do that only if a doctor states that, in his opinion, the patient is unable to manage his own affairs. If no other arrangements have previously been made—for example, a patient's funds may be managed by the Mental Welfare Commission, the local authority or a relative—the hospital managers may receive and hold money on behalf of the patient. That may be a regular income from a pension or savings in the patient's possession.

I am sure that hon. Members agree that patients should benefit from the money held by hospital managers. Their needs may be small, but they are important. Such arrangements are part and parcel of the overall effort to ensure that such people enjoy an appropriate quality of life while in hospital. They may want a particular item of clothing, a magazine each week, flowers in their room or the occasional special outing. It is important that they should be able to benefit from their own resources for such purposes. The 1984 Act enables hospital managers to spend the funds that they hold in the patient's best interest.

Hon. Members will be wondering, given what I have just said, where the problem lies and why my Bill is necessary. The difficulty comes when the patient leaves hospital and is cared for in the community. As I have said, community care is now increasingly widespread, and many patients, such as people with a learning disability, who may at one time have expected to live their days in a long-stay hospital, can now live a fulfilling life in the community with appropriate support. Similarly, elderly patients may prefer the more homely surroundings of a care home.

Unfortunately, the 1984 Act did not envisage a time when the patient would live anywhere but in a hospital. We are dealing with legislation of considerable vintage, which has not kept pace with modern concepts of care and treatment. The problem is that, when those people leave hospital, managers cannot pass the money on to the carers or spend it on behalf of the patient who is no longer in their direct care. Sometimes special arrangements can be made, but they are costly.

The Act contains no provision for those circumstances, and the money becomes stuck in the hospital, out of reach of the patient and of those who look after him. The patient cannot benefit from his own resources. We cannot allow that situation to continue, and my Bill aims to address the problem. It will enable hospital managers holding funds on behalf of patients to continue to use that money in patients' best interests when the patients leave hospital to live in the community.

This may seem a relatively minor difficulty, but it is indefensible to deny patients access to their own resources simply because they have left hospital. We want to ensure that such people enjoy the highest possible quality of life. Moreover, statistics show that many patients are affected. I am sure that many hon. Members will describe the way in which the problem affects their constituents. The position can only get worse as time goes by, and more and more patients leave hospital. We are dealing with a growing problem, but my Bill offers a means of addressing it.

It is not my hope that the Bill will, like the 1960 Act, last for 40 years. My further wish is for the introduction of comprehensive legislation to deal with the finances of incapable people, based on the consultations on the Scottish Law Commission's report, at an early stage in the Scottish Parliament. That would not only deal with this problem, but, hopefully, provide new arrangements for the management of the resources of incapable adults that are appropriate to the 21st century.

I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support my Bill.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on presenting a thoroughly worthwhile measure, which is doubtless supported by the Government. At least, I hope that it is. It clearly has a very good chance of becoming law.

Although I have a Scottish mother and many of my relations still live in Scotland, I realise that many Scottish Members wish to speak, so I promise to be brief.

Although welcome, the Bill will prove worth while only if adequate safeguards and protections for discharged patients are provided. Those who have read the Bill may have a number of specific concerns, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman and Ministers will be able to reassure us in due course.

It is impractical for hospitals to continue to manage money for any great length of time on behalf of patients who have moved to other locations. As I have said, there must be adequate safeguards, and the funds must be reviewed. The Bill can only serve as a stop-gap reform pending the introduction of comprehensive legislation, and I suspect that at some stage, the Government will want to introduce such legislation. Some aspects of the existing provision for hospital management are outmoded and unsatisfactory, and will have to be dealt with either in this Bill or, as soon as possible, in further legislation.

At present, if patients are still legally incapable when discharged from hospital—and most are—the hospital cannot hand over their money. It can no longer spend the money for them, and cannot pass it to someone else who can look after it. Under existing law, the only solution is the appointment of a curator, and that can make the situation worse, as it involves petition, formal medical certification and expensive management arrangements. No one who has considered the issue will think that such an appointment is suitable to deal with the modest amounts of savings typically managed by hospitals.

I have a few specific questions, with which I am sure the Minister will be able to deal. The Bill will allow hospital managers to spend the money that they hold on behalf of patients—the Bill refers to the "benefit" of patients—after their discharge from hospital. Section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 allows a manager to

"expend that money or dispose of those valuables for the benefit of that person and in the exercise of the powers conferred by this subsection the managers shall have regard to the sentimental value that any article may have for the patient, or would have but for his mental disorder."

First, what is the precise definition of benefit to the patient? Secondly, if the manager does spend money to the benefit of the patient, what rights have the patient's family if they disagree with that spending? Thirdly, in the event of such a disagreement, what provisions are there for arbitration?

If an incapax patient who has been discharged, and whose money is being held by hospital managers, is subsequently deemed to be able to manage his own affairs, will the Bill automatically give that patient the right to assume control of his or her assets? Would such a former patient no longer deemed to be incapax have any right of redress against spending of his money by managers, which he subsequently believed was not to his benefit? Is there any provision for the establishment of an independent body to oversee managers' actions in spending the assets of a discharged incapax patient, and to ensure that those managers are acting in the patient's best interests? If not, should there not be such a body?

I suspect that all my questions merely require clarification. No doubt the Minister and his Department have given thought to them, and will be able to reassure us. As I have said, the Bill is clearly worth while, and worth supporting.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). He is indeed a very good friend, who represents a constituency near to mine. It was characteristic of him to use his success in the ballot to present a measure that will bring so much benefit to a vulnerable group, although that group does not consist of many people in Scotland today.

About 100,000 people in Scotland are believed to be unable to look after their affairs as a result of mental disorder. That figure is not accurate, but it is the best estimate that has been made, and, as people live longer and more develop Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia, it will probably increase rather than decreasing. Medical science has not yet made much impact on such conditions.

As my hon. Friend said, a small number of these people have no legal representative, no relative, no friend—no one who can look after their affairs for them. As he also said, special consideration was given to them in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 by authorising hospital managers to hold money and valuables, and to spend money on their behalf. I know that there is concern about the fairness and manageability of the system, but I was surprised to learn that no change had been made to reflect the move towards community care. As a result, the funds of those who leave hospital can be trapped with hospital managers, and cannot be used for their benefit.

As my hon. Friend said, it is estimated that over the coming year, another 540 patients could be caught in the trap. That would bring the number of patients affected to 750, and £3 million of their property would be frozen and could not be used on their behalf. For example, should the patient or someone on his or her behalf appeal to the Department of Social Security for income support or some other type of financial benefit, that appeal could be debarred on the ground that the individual had a capital sum, although it could not be accessed on his or her behalf. That is an important matter, which my hon. Friend seeks to deal with in the Bill.

The funds can be accessed in Scotland only by petition to appoint a curator bonis in each individual case. As lawyers will know, and I am not one, that legal process can be quite costly. By allowing hospital managers to continue to hold and to spend patients' funds on their behalf even after they have left hospital, the Bill will meet an urgent need. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, it is supported by the Law Society of Scotland. In its most recent report, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland also came out in support of such a Bill.

My hon. Friend made the important point that it is a narrow reform which deals with a particular difficulty involving a number of people. What is desperately required is major legislation on mental health in Scotland. Obviously, we have to look to the Scottish Parliament to deliver that.

It is clear that Scottish law has fallen well behind in some areas. The fact that a so-called tutor at law—appointed to look after a patient's finances—must be the patient's nearest male relative on the father's side brings home to us how archaic some of the components of the law are.

Tutors at law are appointed under the Curators Act 1585. I understand that 100 years went by without one being appointed. Obviously, some judge or official discovered the measure in our history and was able to start to appoint tutors at law again. Some areas of the law have stood still for 400 years, but services have changed a great deal.

There is consensus that, where possible, people with mental health problems should be supported in the community, rather than in our great old institutions. I say consensus because there has again been some debate about the matter. I was looking at the exchanges in the House on 8 December between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and hon. Members, when he addressed the issue of individuals who, as a result of mental problems, are a potential danger not only to themselves, but to society at large. There has been at least one tragic incident in this city where a mentally handicapped person has committed murder, so it is not an easy issue.

The issue has been thoroughly addressed. I was quite surprised that the Secretary of State said that he thought that care in the community was not succeeding, although the Opposition spokeswoman, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and a number of Labour Back Benchers take the view—I think that it is the view in Scotland—that it is the right policy. There is no question but that we need to move people out of institutions into more friendly establishments—houses where two or three can live with adequate support, usually voluntary organisation or housing association accommodation. Without doubt, our experience in Lothian is that it is a beneficial policy.

In Lothian, we have the Gogarburn hospital, an institution that is situated in Gogar just to the west of Edinburgh. Just over five years ago, a five-year joint transfer programme was agreed, based on a partnership between the Lothian health board, local council social work and housing departments, the hospital trust and Scottish Homes. Working together, those people have organised the transfer of patients from Gogarburn to suitable accommodation in the community. About 250 patients have been discharged into care homes or housing projects, with the remaining 40 or so due to be relocated by May. When we bear in mind the fact that a few of those people had been in that establishment for more than 60 years, we can understand the trauma involved and the importance of handling these things sensibly and sensitively. I pay tribute to the staff involved.

I had a constituency case of a middle-aged person with mental health problems who had been discharged from Gogarburn. Hon. Members will understand the concern of the family who came to see me. I was tremendously impressed by the way in which that individual's needs were dealt with, by the range of accommodation that was available in Edinburgh for that person, and by the way in which the family were involved in the decision on where to accommodate that individual. I pay tribute to the way in which Lothian health board has handled the issue to the benefit of our people.

Of course, there is still much to be done in the mental health sector. We still need to erase the Cinderella-service image and remove the taboo that is attached to mental health problems. The Government have demonstrated great commitment to mental health. Under the leadership of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), the national health service in Scotland has made mental health one of its three clinical priorities for the coming three years.

In their first year of office, the Government promised a new framework for mental health services. In December, the Under-Secretary announced that he was setting up a committee to review the Mental Health Act 1983, which will report to Ministers in the Scottish Parliament by the summer of 2000. I am sure that that will be an excellent report, not least because the chairman of the committee is a certain Mr. Bruce Millan, who is probably well known to a number of hon. Members in the House. He will certainly be known to colleagues who have been here for a few years—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) nodding his head. I think that a few others were in the House when Bruce Millan was here. Afterwards, he became a European Commissioner and continued to do much valuable work for the community; he is no longer on the Commission.

A major review is being carried out into that mental health issue in England and Wales. I have no doubt that, when the issues come to be addressed, and when the comprehensive legislation that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian referred to comes forward in the Scottish Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament will take into account the review that has been set up by the Under-Secretary and the report that, I hope, will be available on the studies in England and Wales.

The Bill is not only important, but a significant reminder that big legislation is required from the Scottish Parliament. The whole House will probably encourage that Parliament to ensure that, within a few years—within, I hope, two or three years—of it being established, it will deal with that big issue.

In advance of a full incapable adults Bill going through the Scottish Parliament, today's short Bill deals with a problem that faces some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland. I am grateful to have had the chance to give it my support.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on introducing this short, but worthwhile Bill. I am glad to have my name included with those who support it. As we have already heard, it is timely because, while the Scottish Parliament is expected to introduce comprehensive legislation following the outcome of the report on incapable adults, that will take time. If the Bill goes through—I am sure it will—it will have early effect and bring early benefit for the many more patients who are being discharged back into the community.

In my constituency, the Bill has been welcomed by the physician superintendent of Argyll and Bute hospital, Dr. Angus Mackay. When he saw the draft of it, he reckoned that it was worth while and was delighted that the hon. Member for Midlothian was introducing it.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Does the Bill allow hospital management to hand over the patient's money to someone or some body that might have responsibility for the person once he or she is discharged? If so, that person or body would have to be chosen with great care, particularly if the patient were going into a residential home.

If that does not happen, I presume that the hospital will still manage the money for the patient, but it could have considerable difficulty in continuing to expend the funds for the benefit of a former patient if that patient moved away to another area—say, to the south of England. We have to ensure also that hospital authorities are not caught up in a lot of extra bureaucracy in administering and managing former patients' funds. If it is true that any money left after a patient dies goes to the Crown, that is not good or right.

With those few remarks, I am very happy to support the Bill.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) for giving the House an opportunity to debate a very important issue. As we all know, when an hon. Member is fortunate enough to come high in the draw for private Members' Bills, he or she will be inundated with requests from many different types of groups and societies to champion their cause by introducing legislation expressing their point of view. I am certain that my hon. Friend's experience was no different.

My hon. Friend could have chosen almost any subject that anyone might care to mention. He could have chosen to promote a Bill of headline-grabbing proportions—dealing with a cause that would have filled the House to capacity, or caused great division, not to mention tremendous controversy. We all know that reputations in the House have often been made by championing causes that are now—so oddly—considered to be "sexy" subjects.

My hon. Friend, however, has not sought to bathe himself in glory or to seek eternal gratitude. He has chosen instead to promote an amendment to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and, if his Bill is successful, some of the people whom he will help will scarcely be aware of how or from where that benefit comes.

The nature of the legislation that my hon. Friend has chosen to promote and to amend speaks volumes of the man himself. With this Bill, he has chosen—as he has done his entire life—to fight the corner of those in society who are least able to fight for themselves.

The Bill, as my hon. Friend said, is a small one, and is probably only the start of a legislative process on incapable adults. I am sure that the new Scottish Parliament will be only too glad to build on that process very quickly. Today, however, in a small Bill, we have the opportunity to make a big difference in the lives of, currently, about 700 people in Scotland, some 60 of whom are in the Argyll and Clyde area in which my constituency is located.

So many people take not only the big things, but the little things in life for granted, such as being able to buy a magazine, some flowers or a record—or CD. I am harking back to when we played records; I still have some 78s.

My constituency is served by two units that house incapable adults. The whole House should take the opportunity to thank those who work in such units. On behalf of us all, they perform an often thankless and under-appreciated task.

Over the years, the units have improved greatly. They are very homely now, and have been home to some of my constituents for up to 30 or 40 years. I am sure that my constituents living in the homes have felt great changes. Hospital managers have been able to hold and disperse the funds of people living in the units, and some of those people have benefited greatly.

People living in the units have been able to buy not only the little things. Their funds accumulate over the years, and some of them may have up to £10,000. They have therefore been able not only to have flowers, magazines and CDs, but to be taken on holiday to foreign parts that they might never have seen. They have become accustomed to having some of the better things in life—the things that they had never known before. Now, when they are released into the community, they miss those things.

I should like to deal with the case of one individual, who is one of my constituents. For the sake of his privacy, I shall call him John. John was born in 1928. He was the second son, with one brother, who was four years older. Both boys were very bright and did well at school. In 1943, the elder son was called up to serve this country in time of war. He was killed a year later, leaving only John.

In 1946, aged 18, after staying on at school, John went to do his national service. He returned 18 months later with—although no one knew it at the time—schizophrenia, which so often first becomes apparent when those suffering from it are aged 18 to 25. John went directly from the Army to what was then called a mental hospital, where, 53 years ago, things were not so good. He often returned home, for short spells, with black eyes and marks of having been in restraint.

Over the years, John was in and out of hospital; times were better, times were worse. He spent short spells outside the hospital. John's mother, who lived into her 90s, died only four or five years ago. For most of her life, her greatest concern was what would happen to John when she was no longer there to look after him. Very many people—not only those who have handicapped children, but those with mentally ill relatives—share that concern. They wonder who will be their loved one's advocate when they are no longer there. The House's duty is to be their advocate: to see that they have the things in life that their parents would have wanted for them.

Medical science has moved on greatly since John was first taken to hospital, and things are much better for him. He is now 70 years old. He has never lived on his own. Because of his incapacity, he has never had to struggle with the usual daily tasks. Nevertheless, he is much better now and can get by from day to day. He has therefore been released into the community, living in a community house with three other adults.

John cannot understand why, from his funds, he cannot have a new CD every month, as he did when he was in hospital. He wonders why he cannot have a little holiday once a year, as he was used to having. He has a passion for old movies. In the home where he stayed, once a month, video tapes of old movies were bought for him and played in the video machine. Although there is a video machine in the house where he is now living now, he likes to watch his movies alone.

When John was in the hospital unit, he was bought a small video recorder for his room. Now, there are not enough funds to buy a recorder for his room. The unfortunate aspect is that John has £3,500 locked up in his hospital fund, which is managed by his hospital manager—who should dearly love to release the money to get John the things that he wants, but cannot do it.

If my hon. Friend's Bill were passed, within a few weeks, John would be able to have a video recorder in his room. He would be able to watch the movies that he likes and to have the other little things in life that he had become used to.

My plea is made not only for John, but for the other 700 people in Scotland who, like John, are out there in the community and need their funds to be released. I plead also for the parents of those 700 people. Many of those parents have died, after spending a lifetime worrying about who would advocate their relatives' cause and ensure that they—the Johns of this world—live in comfort.

This morning I take great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend whose Bill gives us the opportunity to help people such as John, who lost his brother in the war, who has spent his life in and out of institutions, who has now lost the parents who loved him dearly and who, at 70 years old, deserves all the help that we can give him.

I am pleased to make a brief contribution to the debate for two reasons: first, because I support my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) who has great interest and expertise in the subject and secondly, because for 17 years I was a social worker in Scotland—in Edinburgh, Dumfries and Inverness. For many years, I worked in mental health before selling out to management and becoming a mental health officer. I remember working at the sharp end—supporting GPs who had to certify patients in the middle of the night, and working with mentally ill clients and patients in the community.

I also worked hard to fight against the stigma that society attaches to mental illness. Hon. Members probably remember the Scottish health education poster in the 1980s. It showed a picture of a woman and the words:

"Six months after Jean Maclennan had a nervous breakdown her friends are still recovering."

That poster is very apt.

I support the Bill as it fills a gap in current legislation—in section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. By implication, it also strengthens the 1995 community care order, which makes provision for patients in the community to have a contract which can include financial arrangements. Unfortunately, such a contract is not enforceable. If the Bill becomes law, it will strengthen that provision.

The problem has been well described by hon. Members on both sides of the House. As I see it, the issue is that when a patient is in hospital, his or her funds are easily and well managed by the hospital authorities under section 94 of the 1984 Act. lf, however, a patient is described as incapax by the mental health officer, but is discharged into the community without receiving treatment and there is no relative or friend, his or her funds can become trapped in the system. The irony is that patients in the community may face great financial difficulty, but still cannot obtain access to a lump sum which may be trapped in the hospital system. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) made a very apt point about John and described his emotive story. I shall also use the example of a patient, whose name I shall change.

I shall describe her as Flora Macdonald; she is a patient in Craig Dunain hospital in Inverness, just outside my constituency. She is 55 years old. She was receiving electro-convulsive therapy because she suffered from acute depression. She was an in-patient and she had no relatives. Her mother had left her £9,500 which was administered by patient funds with absolutely no difficulty. However, she was eventually discharged and went to stay in a home run by Albyn housing association in Nairn, on the east coast in my constituency. Flora was having difficulty coping on her own. She had financial problems, but was unable to access her funds which were held by the hospital. If the Bill became law, it would immediately help her.

In conclusion, the at-risk patients who are currently falling into a black hole in legislation are those who are incapax as defined by the hospital medical officer and who are then discharged into the community without receiving treatment, those who have no nearest relatives or friends and those with funds of less than £10,000. That is extremely important because patients with funds of more than £10,000 can have them administered by a curator bonis. However, the Mental Welfare Commission does not recommend the use of a curator bonis for funds under £10,000 because of the legal costs involved.

I warmly support the Bill. It is a sensible and practical measure which will assist the operation of community care in Scotland, and I endorse it.

First, I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). I am absolutely delighted to support the Bill, not just because it is an important one that assists people who society often forgets, ignores or deems unimportant, but because in the short time that I have been in the House I have got to know my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian very well. It is a tribute to him that so many members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, on which he and I have the privilege to serve, are in the Chamber this morning to support his Bill.

My hon. Friend is a man of great wit. He provides great entertainment in the Select Committee when we take evidence and his stories amuse us all, but he is also a man of strong views. It is a tribute to him that he has introduced a Bill that will assist those who are often inarticulate and face difficulties simply because they may be unable to speak for themselves.

I am delighted to be here to support a worthy Bill. It is a wee Bill that will do a big job. It assists people who are described as incapable. I have difficulty with that word; I do not like it. Nor do I like to be described as handicapped, as people make associations. If someone is described as incapable, he or she is often assumed to be incapable of everything. Just because people are incapable of managing their own financial affairs or looking after themselves—as many of those affected by the Bill are—that does not mean that they are incapable in all aspects of their lives. They are not incapable of feeling emotion or of enjoying life.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the concept of community care has been extremely positive in relation to self-determination and helping people to fulfil their potential as human beings?

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Society needs to shift the focus from what people are incapable of or cannot do to what they are capable of and can do. As a disabled person myself, I appreciate that all too well. I am often perceived as being incapable of doing all sorts of things when that is not the case.

It is important that we appreciate that those who we describe as incapable adults have emotions, fears and desires and can enjoy life as much as the rest of us can. Part of that enjoyment is making sure that they get treats. That is why the Bill is important, because it is about enabling people to spend their own money. That may seem a difficult concept for us as we are relatively well paid and can spend most of our money as we please, but we should imagine what is must be like to want something but to be denied it either because someone else determines that we do not really need it or, in the circumstances described in the Bill, because someone else is unable to grant access to the money.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat ironic that the people who suffer most are those with smaller funds as those with more money can afford to have a curator bonis to administer their funds? Those with less than £10,000 are the ones who suffer.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Those at the bottom of the scale would appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North described as the little things in life. We all enjoy them. Yesterday, I had my hair done at the hairdressers in the House of Commons and I felt wonderful. When I went back to my office, at least three people commented on how nice my hair was looking. It is a small thing, but it is important. If it is important to us, of course it is important to people in homes or in care in the community. Such little things are important to everyone. Other people may prefer to buy compact discs or an ornament rather than have a hairdo. Even someone with limited ability to think rationally still has tactile feelings. They may want something soft or comforting, something that they can hold or stroke—a feel that belongs to them. They want something that is theirs and can be bought with their own money.

I take the point of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that there must be safeguards to ensure that money is not spent frivolously. Mind you, most of us spend our money quite frivolously a lot of the time. I wonder why we should deny certain sections of the population that pleasure.

I went to the Monet exhibition recently and spent half an hour looking at the pictures. Needless to say, I spent another half hour in the shop buying all the little trinkets and things that were on sale. None of them is any good for anything, except that they will give me a great deal of pleasure. I hope that my mother, who will get a present on mothers' day, will get a great deal of pleasure, too.

Does my hon. Friend agree that she may well have enjoyed spending some time at the exhibition of the Society of Women Artists at Westminster Central hall? That would not be a frivolous way of spending time, but a valuable experience that can be commended to us all.

I thank my hon. Friend for that recommendation. I shall make sure that I set aside some time next week.

We get a great deal of pleasure from spending our money on ourselves. When people move from a large institution to care in the community—the time when they might want something extra to decorate a new room, even just a bunch of flowers to make the room smell nice—their funds are frozen and they have no access to them. Some think that such people should save their money for a rainy day, not spend it frivolously, but that is the rainy day. That is when they should make the most of what they can buy for themselves.

Does my hon. Friend agree that often the rainy day is the morning when someone gets out of bed and just does not feel too great? On days like that, people want to take a wander in the high street with two or three pounds in their pocket, just for a coffee or to go in a shop and buy a scarf or a pair of earrings. Why should not people who have been released into the community after spending spent most of their life in institutions be able to do the same? The Bill would help them to do so.

Absolutely. I might go for an ice cream in such circumstances, but each to his own; that is the important thing. We should allow adults to spend their money as they see fit.

No one in Grampian is currently caught in the trap that we are talking about, but figures show that, over the next year, there are 24 people who could be discharged from long-term care into care in the community. Under existing legislation, patients' money in Grampian has moved from the hospital to the health board, then on to the social work department of the relevant local authority. However, even in areas such as my constituency, the potential for the problem exists. The Bill addresses that loophole in the existing mental health legislation for Scotland by reforming the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 to ensure that funds that are currently locked up or could be locked up in the next year can be released to be used by the people to whom they belong.

Those who have moved into the community and are covered by the Bill are not the only ones who have difficulty accessing their money. I have a constituent whose mother is in a nursing home suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He has found it virtually impossible to deal with her finances, even though he and his sister are joint holders of their mother's bank account. She has shares that he cannot dispose of. Now that she has been deemed incapable, they cannot even get the tax back on the shares, because the tax refund has been frozen. The only solution would be to apply for the appointment of a curator bonis, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) has said, that process can be very expensive and is time-consuming and complicated. The money to pay for the legal process to get someone to act as curator bonis comes from the funds of the person who is supposed to be helped. It cannot be right to have to spend the same money on the legal process to get it released. Most of us would complain bitterly if our money was taken away to pay for a legal process that we felt was not necessary.

There is a clear need for an incapable adults Bill. It will be the preserve of the Scottish Parliament, which will give the matter due consideration. In the light of my earlier comments, I hope that the Parliament will think of a better name than incapable adult. We want words that describe such people without being derogatory to them.

I may be being a bit presumptuous, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), will be in the Scottish Parliament to see that Bill through. I appreciate that we still have to go through an election and that it is up to the Scottish people to decide, but he would be a worthy champion of such a Bill through the Scottish Parliament.

An incapable adults Bill would address the issues that we have been discussing today, but it should also address the other areas in people's lives in which decision making has been taken from them. People who may have not wanted drugs all their life but find themselves in a home and declared incapable of making a rational decision may be given the drugs that they have resisted throughout their rational thinking life. We should consider whether they have a right to refuse certain treatment. We should also consider advance directives. Those issues are outwith the scope of this Bill, but they are important and should be addressed in the near future. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will be in a position to do so.

I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. His Bill is important and will solve an anomaly, but, as he has said, it is a stop-gap measure until more extensive legislation can be put in place.

As has been said, this is a small Bill that would make a big difference to the lives of patients who cannot manage their own affairs. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on his choice of Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, he had a plethora of choices.

My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian is a big man with a big heart who is used to promoting practical solutions that lead to improvements in people's lives and making the connection between the rights of individuals and those of society. It is therefore not surprising that he is promoting this Bill, which will not only benefit more than 700 people almost immediately, but—I hope—will be a precursor to more radical change, which should be considered in the early days of the Scottish Parliament.

Ironically, the Bill is quite a tribute to the concept of community care. Community care legislation has thrown up many financial anomalies and problems, which have still to be sorted out, but we should remember that, until its enactment, many people with disabilities, especially concerning mental health, were put in institutions, and the key was thrown away. Any concept of choice concerning the basic, everyday rights that we all take for granted was not on the agenda—far less the assurance that any finances could be accessed with no legal impediment for the good of the person concerned. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who articulately described the right to spend one's money in the way in which one chooses.

When one thinks of the many forward-thinking and far more appropriate opportunities of today, such as supported accommodation in the community—in common with many of my hon. Friends' constituencies, South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust provides credible opportunities for people which were not available in the past—one realises that we have come a long way in improving people's physical surroundings and human rights. We all have the right to live, to the greatest possible extent, an ordinary life.

We have taken great strides in recent years. I pay tribute, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North, to health service staff, social workers and voluntary organisations. They have developed community care in a positive manner under very difficult financial circumstances, and often when the community has not cared or has at least needed to be convinced that care in the community is a good idea. Hon. Members have emphasised the difficult issues associated with care in the community, as well as how they have been overcome in many areas in Scotland by the dedication of those involved in its provision. Moreover, those difficulties have been overcome by convincing the community that it is far better that people live an ordinary life in their local community than spend years in institutions, as happened so often in the past.

The Bill has brought sharply into focus what various interested organisations have been calling for for more than 10 years. As many hon. Members have said, such organisations formed the Alliance for the Promotion of the Incapable Adults Bill, and have campaigned on the need to reform comprehensively the law on personal, welfare and financial decisions concerning people who cannot act for themselves. Such reform involves a range of mental disorders, including mental illness, learning disabilities, dementia and those caused by head injury.

The current legal framework, including the issues addressed by the Bill, causes needless distress, expense and inconvenience to disabled people and their carers. It must be recognised that, although we have taken great strides in community care and introduced many positive measures, carers often still feel disfranchised, including on financial matters. That must be addressed. People worry a great deal about what will happen to their relatives once they are no longer able to care for them. The law on that matter is part of the problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the worry about what will happen to a child or a grown adult in such circumstances casts a shadow over the last few years of carers' lives because, at the moment, they cannot guarantee that, once they die, the same level of care will be provided for their loved ones?

I agree. I have assisted several carers in my constituency in their efforts to get a social work agreement. Many carers want the certainty of a programme of respite care for 10, 20 or 30 years, not just the foreseeable future. Given the general scenario of community care, that is very difficult to achieve. There must be far more communication with carers to make them feel far more empowered, because, at the moment, they feel pretty powerless.

This debate must take account of the fact that the legal framework frequently creates problems for social workers, lawyers and health care professionals. I would like to put on record the great successes achieved in my constituency in relocating adults from psychiatric hospitals into the community—often that has led to much more fulfilling lives. I recently dealt with a case of rivalry in my constituency between carers and social workers over the financial dealings of an elderly lady who was put in a residential home for respite care after being in a psychiatric hospital for many years. She has been assessed as needing nursing care, but has not as yet been moved. I suspect that that is because of finances.

The extent to which such problems can be attributed to a lack of clarity in the legal framework, as opposed to general underfunding in the system and hence a lack of fairness, is a moot point. I am sure that all hon. Members await with great anticipation the outcome of the Government's deliberations on future funding of continuing care, which is of major significance in Scotland, as elsewhere.

The specific measure in the Bill offers a short-term solution, but it is very valuable. A clear mechanism to allow managers of hospitals to continue to hold the moneys and valuables held by them at the time of the patient's discharge, empowering them to spend the money or dispose of the valuables for the benefit of the patient under section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, even though the patient is no longer in hospital, will help to break the logjam to which so many hon. Members have referred.

The Scottish Law Commission's report "Incapable Adults", published in 1995, recommended replacing the patchwork of measures with a comprehensive and flexible system of guardianship, with simple no-court solutions to the most common problems. Subsequent Scottish Office consultation has confirmed a wide consensus in favour of the proposals. As hon. Members have said, there is an urgent need to introduce such measures. My hon. Friend's Bill will provide a good start. It will then be for the Scottish Parliament to ensure that wider reform is a top priority, following the detailed work which is more or less available off the shelf as we speak. I hope that the Bill will be dealt with as a matter of priority, and again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian on promoting it.

I offer my compliments to my hon. and old Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). He has heard many compliments this morning, but he will have to suffer yet another one. We all know that, during all his adult life, he has sought to protect and promote the interests of those who, for whatever reasons, are unable to defend their own interests. As someone who has long concerned himself with the need to protect such people, I am extremely grateful to him for choosing this subject.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), I am a little chary of using the term "incapable adult". I think that it is a legal term—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) will help me out on that—and, like many legal concepts, it has a chilling ring to it. I prefer the term "vulnerable person".

Does my hon. Friend agree that the phrase "hospital incapax patients" is downright offensive?

I think that it is. I am not a medical man—I have an authentic doctorate—but it sounds like a piece of equipment from the oncology department. God knows who the author is; he or she—I suspect that it is a man—ought to remain anonymous.

In fairness to both Conservative and Labour Administrations, we have sought to defend the interests of vulnerable people. I was delighted that, just before we ejected that odd-job lot from office, they introduced a measure to protect vulnerable persons giving evidence in court cases. The Bill is yet another element in the continuing reform of legislation to protect those who are unable to look after themselves.

I sincerely hope that the Bill is a precursor to comprehensive legislation on mental health welfare to be enacted by the Scottish Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) mentioned the commission that has been set up under the chairmanship of the admirable Bruce Millan. I hope that that will lead to a reform of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. I am sure that Bruce Millan and his estimable colleagues will take cognisance of the Bill.

I sincerely hope that Bruce Millan and his colleagues will investigate the use of electro-convulsive therapy. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister and I disagree on that form of treatment. I think that it has been used too freely. He may say that the regulations governing its use are sufficiently comprehensive, but I am not so sure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) shares a concern about those who may be discharged from hospitals in the Argyll and Clyde area. A table published in response to a question about how many "hospital incapax patients" currently having their finances managed by hospital managers are likely to be discharged to continuing care in a non-hospital setting over the next year shows that the figure for that area is 60. I am surprised that it is so high. In some areas, the figure is zero.

It is entirely in the interests of those people to be so discharged and I welcome my constituents leaving the Victorian institutions. Some patients are incarcerated in Bridge of Weir hospital at this very moment. I think that it is to close in June or July. When will the contract for the Larkfield unit be signed? I hope that it will be up and running by December.

We are talking about a significant number of people—although even a dozen would be significant. I have some figures from the excellent Library research paper. It says that a

"Scottish Office statistical bulletin Community Care 1997 showed an increase in people with mental health problems attending day centres from 110 in 1983 to 1,695 in 1997 and a decrease in the number of people living in hospitals from 14,693 in 1983 to 10,216 in 1996."

It is essential that the patients' interests are looked after when—finally, in some instances—they take their place in the community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North mentioned the fact that some of the people are in every sense long-stay patients. I know a couple in Port Glasgow who have visited their son in Merchiston hospital for the past 41 years. Some people will never be able to look after themselves in the community, and we must not lose sight of those fellow citizens, some of whom—sadly, regrettably—will stay in hospitals such as Bridge of Weir or Ravenscraig until their dying day.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the concern is not only for the person in that situation but for the parents who have given a lifetime of service? The couple that he mentioned must have spent 41 years not only visiting but worrying about what will become of their son when they are no longer there to visit. People's whole lives are often overshadowed by the fact that they have a loved one in such an institution and that they will not survive that loved one. They are often greatly concerned that the loved one will simply be forgotten and no longer enjoy the little treats that doting parents who visit every week provide.

I agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. Every one of us has constituents who literally devote the whole of their lives outwith work to caring for others. All of us have an obligation to ensure that those carers' lives are made a little easier. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) mentioned the important need for respite care for such people. We have a major duty to protect their interests.

When patients are discharged into the community—be it in supported housing or a house or apartment in a housing association complex—is it possible for aid to be given by way of the mental illness specific grant? I am a little disappointed that the grant is stuck at the figure of £18 million a year.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that MISG

"will continue to provide ring-fenced resources totalling £18 million a year towards community-based mental health projects in Scotland."—[Official Report, 29 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 291.]

I hope that when patients come into the community voluntary organisations might give them assistance, in line with what is sought in the Bill. The mental health development fund is of the order of £3 million per annum. Will voluntary organisations have access to that fund to help vulnerable people? The Bill will help vulnerable people and their families, if they have them, but they also need additional help. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) asked about protecting the interests of people leaving hospital, who may have £2,00 or £3,000 in their accounts. What protection can be given to ensure that those people are not cheated by those who undertake their care in the community? Social workers and others do an admirable job in supporting vulnerable people in our communities, but they need help with the management of their money, above and beyond that which is given by the Mental Welfare Commission.

As hon. Members have pointed out—and the Mental Welfare Commission agrees—the majority of those whom the Bill seeks to protect have no contact with relatives. Given the years they have spent in hospital, their parents may be dead and their brothers and sisters may have moved out of the district in which they were born and raised. The former patients are vulnerable to manipulation and it is essential that those professionals who care for them are of the highest integrity. That might strike a sour note, but I have heard of vulnerable people being cheated of their funds, both in hospital and outside in the community. The Mental Health Welfare Commission has a duty, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, to protect those people, sometimes through the appointment of a curator bonis. Nevertheless, we must ensure that when vulnerable people come out into the community they are protected and their moneys are safe.

Does my hon. Friend agree that 99.9 per cent. of the people who look after those who are not capable of looking after themselves, both in hospitals and out in the community, do sterling work? However, we as legislators must ensure that the protection of vulnerable people is paramount and that the little funds they have are looked after well. We need an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that vulnerable people cannot be cheated.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am married to a social worker who used to assess people coming out of hospital, including elderly people leaving hospitals for nursing homes, some of whom were suffering from senile dementia and other illnesses associated with ageing. I have every trust in our social workers and other professionals who care for people in such circumstances, but there are bad eggs in all professions, including the law and even Members of Parliament.

Vulnerable people need protection when they leave hospital, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said, many of them enjoy fulfilling lives in the community. I know a young lad who was in hospital for many years and is now in his 30s. He is delighted with his new house in a housing association complex. He is still not able to manage his money very well, but the local shopkeepers look after him. In fact, everyone in the neighbourhood looks after that fellow.

I understand that the Scottish Office has published draft guidance on the management of the finances of incapable adults, pending wholesale legislation. When will the final version be published and who will receive it? Will it be sent to local authorities, social work departments, trusts and health boards? The closing date for responses to the draft guidance was 31 October 1998, but there is no fixed date yet for the publication of the final form. I hope that it will be published in the next two or three months.

I welcome the Bill. It is a small measure, but it will give protection to many vulnerable people in our constituencies who have been denied that protection until now. I hope that the Bill has a clear passage through Parliament so that it reaches the statute book, where it belongs.

I am delighted to take part in the debate this morning and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and his Bill. I am delighted that the Bill will pass through Parliament at the same time as the extensive review is being undertaken by the Millan commission on the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. It met for the first time eight days ago.

We should consider the history of mental health legislation in Scotland. Scottish mental health legislation has, since the war, tended to develop in parallel with English law, although there are significant differences, especially in the role of sheriffs in the relation to detention. The origins of the mental health legislation lie in the late 1950s. The Percy committee, which met between 1954 and 1957, was followed in Scotland by the Dunlop committee, and their recommendations led to sweeping reform in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960. That Act sought to ensure that people with mental disorders were not automatically subject to legal controls, and it protected the rights of those who were detained against their will.

In 1983, the 1960 Act was amended substantially and that was consolidated in the 1984 Act. The debate in the early 1980s focused on tightening legal safeguards for patients and defining more precisely the compulsory powers that could be exercised over them. Safeguards on treatment, not just detention, were extended, and that was consistent with the general growth of concerns about patients' rights, but it led to some problems. The powers of guardianship were constrained to such a degree that the legislation became discredited in the eyes of many professionals. The legislation enacted in the early 1980s was not extensively debated in Parliament. It is, therefore, reasonable to say that the Millan commission has the opportunity to undertake the first fundamental review of mental health legislation in Scotland—

In the early hours of yesterday morning, the European Union Agriculture Council provisionally agreed a package of reforms to the common agricultural policy. These will be passed to the Heads of Government meeting in Berlin later this month for consideration as part of the overall package of European Union reforms known as Agenda 2000.

The outcome of the Agriculture Council represents a radical change in the direction of the common agricultural policy. It is a change in direction for which the British Government have been pressing strongly, and it has been achieved despite a reluctance to reform on the part of several countries. We have, however, worked closely with like-minded member states to ensure that the case for reform is fully taken into account. The deal is a very good outcome for British consumers, for our farmers and for the environment. It is also a good deal for the European Union as a whole.

The heart of the reforms is a further shift away from supporting farmers' incomes through keeping food prices artificially high. Cereals support prices will fall by 20 per cent. in two steps. The basic price for beef will fall by 20 per cent. in three steps, and the intervention price by 25 per cent. Dairy support prices will fall by 15 per cent. in three steps, beginning in 2003. Direct payments to farmers are being increased to help compensate them for the price cuts.

These cuts in price support will help bring Europe's farming industry closer to market forces and improve farmers' responsiveness to consumer wishes. Once fully implemented, they will benefit British consumers by £1 billion a year. That is equivalent to a saving of up to £70 a year for a family of four if the effect of the price cuts feeds through fully.

The changes in direction will also benefit farmers in several important respects. The cereals price cut will enable the normal rate of compulsory set-aside to be zero as from the 2002–03 marketing year. It should also normally permit wheat exports to take place without export refunds, thereby removing the World Trade Organisation restrictions on our farmers' capacity to export. The cut in oilseeds aid will safeguard British oilseeds growers from ever-increasing penalties arising from the application of the Blair House agreement.

In the case of beef, the price cut of 20 to 25 per cent. is significant, even though it will not quite take European Union beef prices to world levels. The negotiations on the direct subsidy schemes were particularly difficult. A majority of member states whose beef is reared mainly under intensive systems wanted to correct what they perceived as a bias towards extensive grass-based systems—such as characterise much of British production—introduced in the last set of reforms in 1992.

Despite that, I was able to secure a good deal for our producers, especially those from the hills. That included an increase in the suckler cow premium to 200 ecu per cow and a 100,000 head increase in our beef special premium regional ceiling. Changes to the proposed beef extensification rules will better meet our farmers' needs as well as benefit the environment. The cut in the minimum age for payment of beef special premium will help hill farmers gain access to the premium and encourage quality beef production.

The negotiations on dairy reform were also difficult. Several member states considered that the regime should not be reformed at all and others wanted to enshrine milk quotas as a fundamental element of farm support. My own view, and that of three other member states, was that dairy price support should be reduced to world levels over six years, allowing milk quotas eventually to be removed. The eventual compromise between those positions was that support prices will be cut by 15 per cent.—taking them halfway to world prices—beginning in 2003. In that year, there will be a review of the regime, with the express aim of allowing the present quota arrangements to run out after 2006. The United Kingdom will receive a very welcome increase in its milk quota of nearly 240,000 tonnes, some of which is specifically earmarked for Northern Ireland.

Clearly, I would have preferred an agreement that led automatically to the ending of milk quotas in 2006, because they impose major costs on our industry and limit its development. However, given the balance of opinion in the Council, I believe that the outcome was extremely good. I am confident that, by 2003, the balance of interests in the Council will have shifted significantly in our direction and we will be able to ensure a definite end to quotas.

A key element of the reforms is the creation of an integrated rural development policy, including agri-environment measures. This will provide the basis for a welcome shift of emphasis from production support towards environmental and rural economy measures in the future. It also provides for less-favoured areas compensation to be replaced by area payments with a more environmental focus. Furthermore, the reforms include new environmental protection requirements—[Interruption.]

Would the right hon. Gentleman like me to take over?

That comment is actually very helpful.

The reforms include the new environmental protection requirements to be applied by member states where they consider it appropriate.

The proposal to impose a European Union-wide ceiling—I would have thought that Opposition Members would be particularly interested in this, as it is the point on which the Leader of Opposition decided to condemn me before the negotiations had even started—on individual farmers' direct payments created particular difficulties for the United Kingdom. It would have discriminated strongly against our farmers because of our more efficient farm structure. I am therefore extremely pleased that the proposal was removed entirely from the package. This was a very important gain for the United Kingdom and for our farmers.

The eventual deal did not provide for direct farm payments to be made degressive over time. The United Kingdom has strongly advocated the introduction of degressivity of payments as a means of bringing down the cost of the common agricultural policy over time to the benefit of taxpayers. That would put us in a stronger position before the start of the next World Trade Organisation round and it would help with our ambitions for European Union enlargement. It would also enable a further transfer of funds to rural development measures to take place.

However, despite pressure from several member states—notably the United Kingdom and France—the Commission refused to put degressivity on the table as a proposal. This meant that the Council could have introduced degressivity to the package only if it had acted unanimously. A majority of Ministers in the Agriculture Council were strongly opposed to the introduction of degressivity. My right hon. Friends will therefore be pursuing this issue, and the question of co-financing common agricultural policy payments, in other EU Councils following the guidance on budget stabilisation given on 26 February by Heads of Government at Petersberg. Heads of Government will be considering the package as a whole in Berlin later this month.

I believe the Agriculture Council has constructed a very good set of reforms that will bring substantial benefits to the United Kingdom and to the European Union as a whole. It is not the end of the reform road for the common agricultural policy. In particular, further consideration will have to be given to the financing arrangements. However, a major and most welcome step forward has been taken.

I welcome the Minister back to the House. I hope that he has had a chance to recover from a gruelling negotiation, and I hope that his civil servants will be able to get his papers in order for his next contribution. I also thank the Minister for his courtesy in making the statement available to me about 15 minutes before he delivered it.

However, despite his optimistic tone and rather extravagant claims, is it not the case that this deal is simply "not satisfactory"? In case the Minister does not agree with that statement, may I point out that those were the words of the Prime Minister's spokesman, which were quoted in The Times this morning?

Has the deal not failed to reform the common agricultural policy as promised? Will the Minister confirm that the cost of the CAP to the taxpayer will now rise even further than originally feared? Will the original and very modest aim of getting the total cost of the CAP back down to present levels by 2006 now be met?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that consumers will not benefit from this deal, because there will be no fall in food prices for many years? Are not his claims today of a windfall for consumers hopelessly premature? Will it not be at least seven years before the package is fully implemented, thus meeting the conditions that he says are necessary to get prices down at all?

Does the Minister recognise that his failure to secure an immediate increase in milk quota leaves Britain in the absurd position of importing much of its dairy produce, while British dairy farmers are still prevented from increasing their output? Is that not rather a humiliating retreat after all the tough talking of a few weeks ago? Is not a four-year wait for an increase in Britain's milk quota far too long? What are the prospects for ending milk quotas altogether in 2006?

Also, will the Minister explain how the national envelope for beef will work? Will he assure us that the Treasury will not divert elsewhere funds from that national envelope, which in other countries will be reserved for beef farmers? How many British beef farmers will be able to meet the extensification requirements? When will the Minister be able to explain in more detail how the promised support for environmental and rural economy measures works? Although that support is welcome, is he aware of fears that it will introduce yet more bureaucracy into the countryside?

Does the Minister agree that many people in Britain will be astonished that the European Union continues to subsidise tobacco farmers? Will he confirm that the latest talks leave the growers of a product so dangerous that the EU wants to ban it from being advertised, still receiving more than £500 million a year from taxpayers in the form of subsidies?

Does the Minister agree that the whole package is in danger of being overturned by the Finance Ministers or the Heads of Government in a few days' time? What has the deal done for Britain's chance of keeping the budget rebate that was won by the previous Government? I acknowledge that the threat of ceilings on individual payments to farmers has been temporarily averted, and I welcome that, but is there a risk that the Finance Ministers will reopen the deal and try to impose caps on payments to efficient British farmers or a floor to payments to inefficient continental farmers? No amount of jargon, such as "modulation" or "degressivity", can hide the fact that Britain's interests may still suffer when the Finance Ministers get their hands on the package.

In summary, will the Minister tell us whether anyone in Britain will benefit from this deal in the next four years? Is this not merely a no-win deal—a deal that is the result of going into talks without clear aims and without enough determination to achieve them? Is not the deal bad for taxpayers, who will have to foot an even bigger bill; bad for consumers, for whom the prospect of lower food prices is even more remote; and bad for many farmers, who will still not be competing on level terms?

I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for his comments about my personal well-being. His questions fell away from there on in. He made a jibe about civil servants and the papers—yes, the papers were out of order, but it is unfair to criticise civil servants. Throughout the negotiations, I was well supported by civil servants from my Department. As a politician, one could say that I volunteer to go through all this; civil servants do it because it is their job. They have put in long hours and an enormous amount of work, which has gone well beyond what would normally be expected of them. I put on record my thanks for the work that the Department has put in.

The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the disappointments. As he is the Opposition spokesman, that was to be expected, but he was right to refer to two. The package holds two major disappointments. The first was the failure to get Agriculture Ministers to agree to the introduction of degressivity in the compensation payments. That is a clear aim of the British Government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister will pursue it at Berlin. We will continue to press on that point and, for the avoidance of any doubt, when the final compromise package was settled, I made it clear that we stood by our policy on degressivity and would continue to pursue it. There is no doubt among the representatives of other Governments about the British position.

On milk reform, I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that the reform will start only in 2003. However, the negotiations involved 15 member states, some of which were bitterly opposed to milk reform and some of which had the idea that we should keep the quota for ever and enshrine it in the agreement. That is a hopeless position for the European dairy industry. Four countries advocated reform and 11 opposed it, so to have secured reform in such circumstances is a good deal for the supporters of reform. I have had to accept delay, which was my contribution to the compromise, but the opponents of reform have had to accept reform, which was their contribution. Given that there were four of us on my side and 11 on the other, that is a pretty good deal to have secured.

Although the Conservatives call for that policy now, they have also been through negotiating rounds on the CAP and have not secured reform of the dairy regime. Indeed, successive Conservative Governments renewed the quota regime without any suggestion of its ever being reformed.

On food prices, there are price cuts in each of the different sectors. No sector was taken out, put to one side or shielded from necessary reform. Those cuts should feed through into the shops and to consumers. The hon. Gentleman said that the cuts would not come in until 2007, putting the date as far away as he plausibly could; but, because they will be phased in over time, so will the benefits to consumers. I accept that we will not feel the full effects of the cuts until the end of the period, but they will be felt remorselessly year by year. The most significant part of the package is that we are moving in the direction of world market prices, price cuts in CAP and reform. That is the path on which we are set, and it ought to be a good thing.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the national envelope. The National Farmers Union view is that I should use it to support the Buckler cow premium. I have already received its representations and I am considering them. Before the negotiations started, I promised that, where I had scope to exercise discretion at a national level, I would consult first before making any final decisions. That is what I intend to do on the national envelope and, to answer another of the hon. Gentleman's questions, where there is scope for discretion on rural support measures. I will consult before making a final decision and, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to submit views on how I should apply the national envelope, I will be more than willing to consider his views, as well as others.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the tobacco regime. Yes, there is still such a regime in the CAP. It was not part of this table round. Indeed, other more significant areas were not a part of it. The sheep sector was the big omission. The proposal to make direct support payments degressive over time on the UK model would cover all direct support payments, including the tobacco industry. That means that payments would reduce over time, which to some extent meets the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point. If he is saying that we should not pay agricultural support to tobacco at all, he makes a persuasive case. One wonders why the previous Government did not obliterate the payments when they were in charge.

The hon. Gentleman asked about ceilings. When this round started, and as I was on the train out all those weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition condemned me in south-west England for having already given away our negotiating position on ceilings. I had done no such thing. He was completely wrong. As we can all see from the eventual outcome of the agreement, the United Kingdom negotiating position on ceilings has been obtained 100 per cent. It is not qualified at all. As the Leader of the Opposition accused me personally of having sold us out on this, and as I have obtained our objectives completely—as I said that I was setting out to do—I think that I am entitled to an apology. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, did not offer me one.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Finance Ministers and Heads of Government scrutinising the package and seeking further changes. I have already made it clear to the House that it is an objective of the UK Government to introduce an element of degressivity into direct payments. I tried to do that at the Agriculture Council, but, if the Commission will not put it on the table, I do not have much chance. A majority of delegations were against it and it requires unanimity to achieve, so it was always likely that this area of the negotiations would have to go to Heads of Government, and so it will.

The hon. Gentleman's final point was that we lacked clear aims going into the negotiations. I have set out beyond any ambiguity the principal aims of the British Government in the negotiations. More than that, I consulted widely on them. I met the leaders of the farm organisations and individual farmers to ask them what I should be pressing for—not on the broad aims, because the Government's view is clear, but on matters of detail. I am grateful to the farmers who took time to discuss matters with me. Their detailed points informed the negotiations, and in areas, particularly on the arable side, I was able, because of those discussions, to achieve extra things for the UK.

The principal benefit is that the common agricultural policy is set on the road for reform—not as much reform as I wanted, but reform it is most certainly getting.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the livelihoods of our farmers and farm workers are vital to this country? The crucial economic significance of the agriculture industry lies in the fact that it produces the raw material for our food manufacturing and processing industry in which hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested and thousands of jobs are at stake. Will he continue to ensure in the negotiations that we make certain that no policies develop that put our producers at a disadvantage to producers in other parts of the European Union? The agriculture industry is as important to this country as it is to France and Germany. It is vital that we have policies in place that enable our producers to compete on equal terms. He acknowledged that we are almost certainly being constrained by milk quotas, but there are other commodities in respect of which we are relatively efficient and in which we should have the chance to maintain, if not increase, our jobs and production.

As I would have expected, my right hon. Friend touches on the two most important points in the negotiations. Yes, I have a responsibility to protect the national interest, and that means the interests of producers as well as those of consumers. I have done that. He is right to press me to ensure that the United Kingdom is not uniquely disadvantaged in the outcome. The ceilings proposal would have uniquely disadvantaged the UK. That is why I am so pleased that I was able to fight it off in its entirety.

As the Minister rightly said, the interim outcome is part of a process that will include the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and, further down the route, the WTO. Does he agree that perhaps the most useful thing for hon. Members of all parties to do is to send signals to him, and through him to the Chancellor, about the matters that will be returned to? Specifically, we must ensure that the Finance Ministers do not reconsider some of them in a way that turns out to be disadvantageous to UK agriculture.

In that context, given that the Commission did not table the degressivity measures, for the reasons that he gave, and that Finance Ministers want to reconsider the matter, will he ensure that the British Chancellor's contribution is based on the original degressivity measures, which would have released extra funds in the context of Agenda 2000 for rural development, agri-environment and desperately underfunded schemes, such as countryside stewardship? They must not simply return to the issue as a means of reducing the growth of the further costs involved at this stage in the reform.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about the United Kingdom farmers who have already successfully pursued extensification? There will be some national leeway, or subsidiarity, to use another incomprehensible Euro-speak word. Will he ensure, for those UK farmers who do not fit the current Commission formula, that our Treasury uses the national leeway to increase considerably the uptake in the application of the all-important schemes that go to the long-term heart of CAP reform? That means wider rural development generally. In considering what lies ahead, will he be more specific about how Finance Ministers will pursue this matter in the context of the future of the UK rebate?

It was always the case that overshadowing the negotiations were the financial framework, the discussions between Heads of Government and Finance Ministers about the different methods of funding and the pressure that the UK was coming under on the rebate. I had to secure for the UK a decent agricultural component in what the hon. Gentleman rightly described as a much larger package. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue to defend the British rebate vigorously. They will be able to do so because it is justified. We are still net contributors to the arrangements, and I am afraid that nothing that happened at the Agriculture Council has changed that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about extensification. That was a particularly difficult part of the negotiations, as I am sure all who follow such matters realise. The countries with extensive production systems are, essentially, ourselves, France and Ireland. Other countries have an interest in intensive production systems. They felt that the 1992 reforms shifted the balance too far in favour of extensification. My responsibility was to ensure that we were not disproportionately disadvantaged in the negotiations. Price cuts from the producer point of view affect everyone. We managed to safeguard the United Kingdom position. More than that, several elements in the package improve on the present position, including the increase in the regional ceiling.

I have some room for manoeuvre on the national envelope. It is much diminished from the original Commission proposal because it has been used in part for the introduction of the new slaughter premium. Where I have discretion on the national envelope, I intend to consult. The hon. Gentleman is right that many farmers will look to me to use it to protect extensification and extensive production systems. That is the thrust of the representations that the NFU has already made to me.

On rural development, I am very keen both on the agri-environment part of the package and on strengthening the second pillar of the CAP more generally; so I welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have to say that the time to do that was in the Agriculture Council round of the negotiations, rather than the Finance Ministers or Heads of Government meetings. We have achieved something for the rural development measure, but not the extra contribution that degressivity could have made had it been negotiated in the Agriculture Council. I regret that, and it would be unreasonable for me to hold out prospects that we could return to it. Finance Ministers and Heads of Government will want to consider the budgetary constraints, rather than reopen the agricultural part of the package. I think that it is those two different components that have led to some confusion in this morning's press.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the past 18 years, the Tories have been talking about reforming the CAP? I always took the view that, if anyone—especially a Labour Government—dared to reform it, they would play merry hell. Already this morning we have seen Tory spokesmen making it clear that even this marginal decision is not satisfactory to them. I rather suspect that that will be the attitude from here on in. [Interruption.] It is the farmers talking over there.

What concerns me, however, is that the newspaper reports have been suggesting that Britain's rebate will be affected as a result of the negotiations. I know that the Liberals made a reference to that, but, before the Tories start, may we have a categorical assurance that the rebate was never discussed in the negotiations this week and that the rebate in total is still on the table?

Order. Before the Minister replies, I remind the House that today is a private Member's Bill day. May I have brief questions and, of course, brief answers?

That is a fair point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but these are complex issues and, although the questions seem general, they require detailed and specific responses.

I assure my hon. Friend that the British rebate was not under discussion at the Agriculture Council. No delegation ever raised it. The British Government intend to fight to protect the rebate.

My hon. Friend is right to point out one further matter. Those who advocate reform confuse reform with the immediate imposition of budget savings. The two things are incompatible. In the short term, if we want reform, the budget will have to rise. The previous Government always fell at that hurdle. They put the short-term budgetary interests before the medium-term interests of reform. They always failed. This is the most significant reform of the CAP ever, and the United Kingdom Government have been in the vanguard pressing for it.

I acknowledge the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman met at the Council. None the less, does he accept that the outcome represents a substantial shortfall on our long-term objectives? Does he accept that one of the major problems lies in the compensation payments—the direct payments? Does he accept that they are properly to be regarded as transitional payments which will taper away into nothingness over a period?

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the fundamental problems is that there is not a majority within the Council for fundamental reform and that, if many of the Council members had to choose between forgoing an enlargement and forgoing fundamental reform, they would choose to forgo enlargement? Does he accept that, in the absence of an appetite for fundamental reform within the Council, we are likely to see reform only if Heads of Government give very clear and tight riding instructions and, if necessary, take policy responsibility for the process?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that Heads of Government have to take final responsibility is right. Both the Agriculture Council and the separate discussions about the structural funds will go as two separate components of Agenda 2000 to the Heads of Government for final discussion and decision.

On fundamental reform of the CAP, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that a majority of Farming Ministers still oppose what he and I would describe as fundamental reform. There is a philosophical difference between those who want radical reform of the CAP, encouraged and led in part by the United Kingdom, and those who still adhere to the European model of agriculture, which involves price supports, export refunds and protectionist measures, which I believe are fundamentally the wrong way forward.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman accurately describes our proposals for degressivity. A majority of Agriculture Ministers were not willing to accept it. The mechanism of degressivity makes the direct support payments reduce in value over time, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly described. He described the package as a shortfall. I prefer to describe it as a start, but I fully accept that it does not start quickly enough.

If the Opposition will not apologise to my right hon. Friend, I will apologise because he has achieved far more than I imagined possible, given the vested interests in the European Union that make the negotiations tremendously difficult. One argument about the possibility of achieving reform was that, unless there was reform, we would not be able to achieve expansion of the EU because the terms and conditions of the common market CAP would be unacceptable to applicants. Will the arrangements facilitate the possibility of enlargement, or do we still have to wait for further reforms?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He has put his finger on an important point. The reform package still makes enlargement of the EU difficult. It marches in the right direction, but it does not get there quickly enough to facilitate enlargement on the present timetable. It would not surprise me if we returned to these matters again before the end of the six-year period.

Who are we to believe this morning—the Minister, who tells us that this is the most radical deal in his generation, or the Prime Minister's spokesman, who says that it is just not satisfactory? On this occasion, I prefer to believe the No. 10 spokesman.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the British public will not find it satisfactory when the issues discussed at the Agriculture Council have resulted in cuts for northern European farm produce and farmers in Britain, but an overall budget that will increase by £1 billion, while the wine lake, the olive oil sludge pond and the obscenity of the £500 million taxpayers' subsidy to tobacco were not on the agenda? Does he understand that British farmers will think that he has been suckered into a deal that cuts their prices while paying no attention to the scandal of the CAP in southern Europe?

I think the right hon. Gentleman has slightly lost the plot. Olive oil and tobacco were never part of this negotiating round, although of course the direct payments would have been affected had the British idea of degressivity been accepted.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whom he should believe—the Prime Minister's spokesman or me. I have good news for him: he can believe both of us. The CAP reform package does not go far enough for me or for the United Kingdom, but it is still the most radical shake-up the CAP has ever had. It is certainly much better than anything achieved by the right hon. Gentleman's party when it was in government. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have described it is as not acceptable. Of course it is not acceptable that there is not some limit of degressivity in the direct payments. I have always made that clear. I made it clear at the conclusion of the Council in the early hours yesterday by reading a statement on to the record on behalf of the Government. We have made it clear that we intend to pursue the matter at Heads of Government level.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and applaud his efforts in what were obviously very difficult negotiations. I believe that there is broad agreement that the common agricultural policy is a very bad system of agricultural subsidy and has always been specifically disadvantageous to Britain. Does my right hon. Friend think that, taken together, these reforms will diminish Britain's relative disadvantage compared with other EU states? Will these reforms, taken together, make a difference and improve the malign redistribution effects between member states?

The question of the balances between member states is very complex. There is a north-south balance, to which the Mediterranean countries draw attention—from their viewpoint, one can understand why—and there are differences in the balance caused by the relative incomes in different countries and differences in the balance resulting from the different agricultural structures in the different countries. I believe that the outcome represents a fair compromise between these different interests. However, by far and away the best way to secure the United Kingdom's long-term advantage would be to press on with radical reform so that our efficient farm structures can benefit from access without penalty to world markets, and gain the advantages that accrue to efficient agricultural production systems.

Does the Minister agree on the direction in which we are meant to be going? Consumers want to know that prices will fall, and the reduction in price support will be worth while only if there is a reduction in prices in supermarkets. What has been really frustrating for farmers—indeed, for everyone—is the fact that the substantial falls in farmgate prices have not been passed on to consumers. I do not blame the Minister for that, but may we have some discussions with the supermarket chains to ensure that consumers have some benefit from the reforms?

Does the Minister agree that we all acknowledge that an objective of UK policy must be to ensure that eventual common agricultural policy reforms reward efficient UK producers? If we can at least all agree the objectives, there may not be as much accusation and counter-accusation.

We have made a substantial move in the direction of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about producers. We have not got there as fast as I would like, but at least I have got the common agricultural policy to go in the direction that I want it to go.

We did not specifically discuss retail prices because that is beyond the competence—the scope—of the Agriculture Council. I am certain, though, that if producer prices are reduced, that must feed through into benefits to consumers.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on negotiating this reform. I am certain that it will be good news for consumers; it will certainly be welcomed by my constituents.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this reform is clear evidence that the Government's positive approach of working in co-operation with our European partners is best for Britain and brings benefits for Britain, and is in marked contrast to the approach of, and the outcomes achieved by, the Conservatives when they were in power?

My approach to these negotiations was to make sure that I kept the United Kingdom at the heart of the negotiations on the Commission's proposals, and that I did not allow the United Kingdom to be marginalised in such a way that the other Ministers would gang up on us and introduce a measure that specifically disadvantaged the United Kingdom. In particular, I was thinking about the possibility of ceilings being imposed on these payments, which would have meant that the United Kingdom would pay disproportionately for support measures that we did not welcome.

If we had left ourselves out of the debate about reform, there would have been substantially less reform, but I am not sure that there would have been substantially less expenditure. I believe that it is right that the United Kingdom co-operates with our European partners—instead of perpetually lecturing them and telling them that they are wrong, even when they suggest things that are in our interests, which was the previous Government's approach.

Judged by what most of us thought possible, the Minister has probably not done that badly, but, judged by what Labour promised in opposition and in its manifesto, this deal is a complete flop. How can it be radical progress when the budget will be 2.5 per cent. above what was agreed in Germany only weeks ago? How can we talk about substantial progress when it will take longer to reform the dairy regime than the period in which the Government think it is possible for us to join the euro? In the meantime, dairy farmers and farmers in other sectors will see their incomes fall. They are already bleeding to death, and there will be an even worse haemorrhage as a result of this shambles.

The immediate effect of the package on farm incomes is relatively modest. As for the point about dairy reform, no other Government have managed even to make a start on the issue. As I said, 11 countries are opposed to reform, four are in favour, and I managed to secure reform, although it was delayed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his rather more generous introductory remarks.

I congratulate the Minister on what he has achieved in these negotiations and on what I understand is progress on environmental stewardship as part of the negotiations. Do the negotiations include discussion and/or agreement on support for the production of biomass feedstock for alternative energy production? Does the Minister intend to discuss the consequences of these moves forward on environmental stewardship with English Nature and the new Countryside Agency?

I do intend to consult on the rural development measures and yes, there is scope within the regime for environmental measures of the type that my hon. Friend describes, and he and I both support. Right up to the end of the negotiations, I was pressing for a stronger regime on non-food crops. I consider that this is an important area, in which this country could make substantial progress. The regime is permissive, but there is not as much in it as I wanted. We have made an amendment to the text, which goes some way towards achieving what we want, but does not go far enough.

In relation to the application of the national envelope, the Secretary of State said that he would consult. In respect of Scotland, will he confirm that it will be up to the new Scottish Parliament to undertake those consultations and, more particularly, that the new Scottish Parliament will be in charge of deciding how those funds will be allocated?

There is not a separate Scottish national envelope, I am afraid. The United Kingdom negotiates in the European Union at United Kingdom level, but, where there is room for devolved discretion, I am willing to consider any sensible proposal, as long as it does not introduce market distortions. Remember that the common agricultural policy is a common agricultural policy for the whole European Union. There is not a separate Scottish version of it, I am afraid.

Consultations will be done, as they would have been done anyway, by the Scottish Office in Scotland, by the Welsh Office in Wales, by the Northern Ireland Office in Northern Ireland and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, post-devolution, the Scottish Parliament will have a role. I am now discussing—although, of course, we cannot reach a final conclusion until after the elections—ways in which the new Scottish Agriculture Minister can play a full part in the UK delegation to the European Agriculture Council.

I have long argued that the failure to reform the common agricultural policy will have harmful consequences for the applicant states. Is it not likely that applicant states will demand full implementation of all agricultural benefits—or, if we are to stick to the timetable, are we going to finish up with two classes of member states in relation to the CAP?

My hon. Friend is on a very good point. It would be completely unfair to devise a two-tier CAP and a two-tier European Union where some people were fully in and others were only half in and were a second type of member. If countries are going to join, they should join fully and their joining should be facilitated fully.

Thanet's farmers produce some of the finest cauliflowers in the world. It is a high-risk crop, requiring high investment and providing a low price to the farmer. The supermarket price to the consumer is very high and the farmgate price is very low; that is at today's prices. Given the track record of retailers, if there are to be any pig farmers left in business in this country, their livestock will fly before supermarkets reduce their prices to the consumer. The Minister has made great play of the fact that real savings will be made and will be passed on to the consumer. What possible justification does he have for that claim?

If prices come down at producer level, that feeds through at the retail level; it is as simple and straightforward as that. That is a market economy—a concept that used to be pretty well understood by Conservative Members. Neither cauliflowers nor pigs were part of the negotiations or the Agenda 2000 package.

I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend on securing a hard-won but substantial agreement, albeit not a perfect one. This deal benefits farmers and consumers, such as those in my constituency. Given the negative and nit-picking attitude of the Conservative party, does my right hon. Friend believe that farmers and consumers will be relieved that it is new Labour negotiating in Brussels, and not the Conservatives?

I am certain that that is true. The Conservative party's negotiating approach is to tell everyone else that they are wrong and then wonder why the others have ganged up on this country. It could not have secured this agreement.

I welcome what my hon. Friend said about farmers. At the end of the negotiations, in the early hours of yesterday morning, I explained the outcome to the leaders of the United Kingdom farming unions who were out there. They all, without exception, congratulated me on what I had secured for the United Kingdom. They shook my hand and said, "Well done."

Although I recognise the difficult job that the right hon. Gentleman has had to do, does he accept that we have ended up with fudged proposals that are not sustainable in the long term? Does this agreement not extend the period of uncertainty for dairy farmers? Has he confidence that the WTO talks will not intervene during the currency of these proposals? After 2003, there will be a 1.5 per cent. increase in milk quotas for Britain and the other member states. Why will Italy, Greece, Spain and Ireland have those increases in quota earlier? Why are they to get a competitive advantage over our farmers?

Because our increase in quota is part of a general linear distribution of quota, which it was agreed would come later. It comes later for all the countries. Special requests were negotiated for some countries, and I was able to secure an extra allocation for the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland.

There is some truth in what the hon. Gentleman said about uncertainty in the dairy regime. I should not be surprised if we had to return to these issues when we know the outcome of the agricultural component of the WTO discussions. I regret the fact that we could not start on dairy reform earlier. As I said, 11 countries were against it and four were in favour, so the fact that we have got any reform at all is an achievement. The hon. Gentleman described the deal as a fudge: I would describe it as a start in the right direction.

Farmers' incomes have seen a dramatic decline in the past couple of years. The president of the NFU said this morning that the next few years would be exceedingly difficult for farmers. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will not take any measures that will put in danger the future of Milk Marque, which gives security to many milk farmers?

The Government have in front of them the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque, and I do not think that I should say anything to the House until they have considered their position and a formal statement has been made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Department of Trade and Industry has the lead responsibility for that area.

If, as the Minister says, all the farmers' leaders have been falling over themselves to congratulate him on the CAP compromise, why has Mr. Ben Gill, the president of NFU, been quoted as saying that it will not solve the financial problems of Britain's farmers and that the next few years will still be very difficult?

Mr. Ben Gill was not falling over himself, and I did not say that he was. He shook my hand and said, "Well done." That does not mean that all the problems facing farmers have been resolved in this round of negotiations. He was right to say that times would still be difficult for UK farmers in the future, as they will be for EU farmers. My job is to stay as close as I can to producers and to others, to ensure that we have a continuing dialogue and to do what the Government reasonably can to help.

I understand that there is to be a shift from headage to area payments. How will that affect hill livestock compensatory allowances, which are vital, particularly to family farms in the severely disadvantaged areas of the highlands and islands? Who will be the winners and losers? I do not share the Minister's confidence that the consumer will benefit. After all, the supermarkets did not significantly lower their prices when the beef and lamb markets collapsed in Scotland last October.

I shall not go over again what I said about cuts in producer prices feeding through in the marketplace to retail prices. I shall respond to the hon. Lady's very good question about the future for the HLCAs. The new proposals take the system from the current headage arrangements to an area-based arrangement. There are a number of advantages to that, and I welcome the change. We have consulted on the matter, but we cannot give a final view until we see how it will work out in terms of real money. The extra payments on the HLCAs that I secured for farmers—a 55 per cent. increase for this year—have been widely welcomed. The change in regime will be subject to consultation throughout the United Kingdom on precisely how to make the transition. I intend to implement the changes in a fair and even-handed way, ensuring that there are no spectacular losers. It is possible to envisage how they might occur, and I am mindful of the difficulties faced by people who are livestock farming in less-favoured areas.

When I was on my feet earlier, I wondered why so many people had come into the Chamber. I now realise why. Under normal circumstances, I would be upset at being interrupted in full flow, but I was delighted to be disturbed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who came to the House to make such a positive statement for farmers and consumers.

Before the statement, I was going over some of the history of mental health provisions in Scotland. The 1983 amendments and the 1984 consolidation Act were not extensively debated in Parliament, so it is reasonable to say that the Millan commission has the opportunity to undertake the first fundamental review of the legislation for more than 40 years.

Since 1984, the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 has been introduced. That was also a private Member's Bill, and was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) to improve the rights of disabled people, including people with mental disorders. However, significant sections of the Act were never implemented, including a statutory scheme for advocacy and a requirement for care planning for people being discharged from long-stay care.

The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 reorganised the health service, creating what we all now know as NHS trusts. That has, without doubt, complicated issues raised by the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 relating to who bears legal responsibility for such matters as detaining patients and managing their funds. The Act also established new duties for local authorities to assess the needs of those who require community care, and to plan community care services.

In recognition of the fact that community care services for mentally ill people were underdeveloped, a mental illness specific grant was introduced, with the use of powers under the Act. Directions made under the Act established a new right for people requiring residential care to choose their care home. That is an important aspect of something that is happening in my constituency.

Although the Act did not introduce charging for residential care, the increasing use of community care rather than hospitals—especially in the case of elderly people—and budgetary constraints on local authorities led to more people being charged for residential and home care services. That includes services that people receive compulsorily, under, for example, mental health guardianship.

A number of other Acts deal with patients with mental health problems—for instance, the Access to Health Records Act 1990, the Mental Health (Detention) (Scotland) Act 1991, the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995. The list goes on.

Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the terms of the Bill are very narrow. The Bill concerns the ability of patients to gain access to private funds.

I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

There have also been important reports by the Scottish Law Commission on, for example, incapable adults and vulnerable adults.

What my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian described as a "wee Bill" will nevertheless confer major benefits on those whom it will touch. How would any of us feel if we were told that all our savings were locked away out of our reach, and that we could not have access to them without a cumbersome, lengthy, expensive and inappropriate court procedure?

Many of my constituents with mental health problems are moving out of institutionalised care. In Dumfries, the Crichton Royal infirmary, a well-known hospital for people with such problems, is due to close by 31 December this year. I can tell hon. Members that that timetable will not be achieved.

The intention is to move patients into the community. At an early stage, I spoke to the chief executive of my local community trust, and impressed on him that any move to relocate people in the community in and around Dumfries should take place on the basis that they should be located appropriately. I said that the relocation should not take place with the aim of meeting a deadline. When I met the chief executive again last week, I was delighted that he was able to tell me that the site could not be vacated by the end of the year, and that the process might take another three or six months.

People have been moved into a host of different settings—converted properties, and properties purpose built to house patients. It should not be forgotten that relocating patients means moving them into a different setting. Some of those people may have spent only 12 or 24 months in what is classed as institutional care, but, for many others, it has been their home for 40, 50 or even 60 years. Life will be very different for those people.

I was recently asked to visit a newly purpose-built property in my home town, which was to house four frail elderly ladies. Establishing such homes can be an anxious time not just for the people concerned and their carers, but for the communities in which the people will be placed. I am pleased to say, however, that communities are getting the message that people need more appropriate settings than institutional care.

In my area, 190 patients are in community trusts beds and subject to the incapax rule, 142 of whom have their funds managed by hospital managers; the funds of the other 48 are managed by curators. It is predicted that 75 of those 190 will move from health care into a variety of social care settings over the next 12 months. To date, around 40 people additional to those 190 have already left hospital within the resettlement programme, as it is being called. Some were incapax when in hospital. A small number, around five, have a curator in place.

In the area, a local working group was set up to produce joint health and social care guidance on supporting people who were incapable of managing their own financial affairs, especially after leaving hospital. In Dumfries and Galloway, we are running almost a unique system where we are endeavouring to assist people as they move out, but the issues are complex and we need to take into account whether patients have close relatives who will take responsibility, and whether patients have significant capital or income. The lack of a clear legislative framework has made the task of the group, which has done some sterling work, more and more complex.

One hospital—I will not mention any names, but it is obviously outwith the area—has taken a particularly clear and rigid line that it cannot in any circumstances transfer money. That money can still be accessed by patients and their care workers, but it is an infringement of human rights that their money is not more easily accessed. It is ridiculous that someone could be discharged back into their home area of Dumfries with their money still being retained more than 100 miles away.

Does my hon. Friend agree that life is often difficult enough for people who are making the transition from long-term residential care back to the community? Often, as he has said, they have been in care for 40 or 50 years and have enjoyed the little luxuries that their funds have bought them in recent years. When they are released back into the community without access to those funds, they are even further confused by the fact they cannot continue to enjoy those little luxuries.

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It comes back to the saying about the simple things in life being so pleasing to people with severe mental health problems.

The issue of arranging for people's money to be managed after their discharge has taken up hours and hours of the resettlement group's time in Dumfries. Banks and building societies are anything but helpful when people cannot sign for themselves to open an account. Arranging for a curator to be put in place is expensive and leads to inflexibility. It is a nightmare; it can be classed as nothing but that. The lack of legislation to provide a framework means that local authorities cannot agree arrangements to resolve that situation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of community care can complicate matters in relation to the Bill? Many elderly people move from one part of the country to the other; many have moved to Ayrshire because it is such a picturesque part of Scotland. Does he agree that that aspect has to be taken into account as well?

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Ayrshire is a beautiful part of the country, but I have to say that Dumfries is equally beautiful.

As a society, we are moving towards discharging people back into the community, but the major anomaly in relation to how patients' finances are managed is an infringement of human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said that she believed she had spent her money somewhat frivolously at the Monet exhibition yesterday. Frivolously or not, as we head towards the millennium, those who fall into the category of incapax patients also deserve to have that right in a civilised society.

The Bill will move things forward for so many vulnerable people and is a great credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian—who, as hon. Members have already said, is a big man with a big heart. By choosing this issue above all those from which he could have chosen, he has also, once again, shown his true socialist credentials. I know full well that, first thing on Monday, he will grab a copy of Hansard to read all the compliments that have been paid to him today, and justifiably so. However, in the eyes of many of us, he will remain—as we say north of the border—a crabbit old devil at times.

The Bill is a major step forward. Once enacted, it will plug a loophole. The new Scottish Parliament will also be able to take on board the issue. I merely hope that all hon. Members will support my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian in promoting his Bill.

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate. However, looking at the statistics that we were given today, I see that Lanarkshire, the Western Isles and Shetland have no one who would be affected by the Bill's provisions. I do not know why that is, although I shall certainly look into it. I hope that it is because the areas are very enlightened and have moved on in addressing the issue. Anything else that Lanarkshire, the Western Isles and Shetland might have in common is a completely mystery to me.

I am pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) in promoting his Bill, and heartily associate myself with the words that other hon. Members have spoken about him today. His choice of issue to promote in a Bill tells us much about him. It tells us about the type of man that he is.

I shall use some of my hon. Friend's own words. He said that it was a "wee Bill". He should have said that, "It was a wee Bill that was needed for a wee while, but will make a great big difference to the lives of a lot of people in Scotland."

I should like to echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who spoke about the committee established by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), under the excellent chairmanship of Bruce Millan. Although there is a huge task to be done by the Scottish Parliament, this small Bill will make a tremendous difference and help in that work. We want an early resolution of the matter, but it is important that time should be taken to get it right. The Bill will help the committee to address all the issues.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) for her extremely amusing and telling speech, in which she demonstrated the importance to the House of having her as an hon. Member. She spoke with such conviction, authority and humour that it makes me look forward to the day when it is not a surprise to see in this place people who are wheelchair bound. She was right to say that language is crucial. My preferred option is to speak of "people with disabilities", as that puts people first, focusing on their abilities, not disabilities. We should be talking about people's capabilities.

I should like to mention a facility in my own constituency that, before passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, was created by people in the community. In the early 1980s, a partnership of local authorities in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and in Strathclyde, the then Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, the parents of handicapped people and local businesses established one of the first group tenancies in Scotland.

When the partnership was created, my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) was its chairperson—she had also been very much involved in its creation—and I was the local authority leader. The partnership solved a problem for the parents of the group home's residents, who had been extremely concerned about their children's future. Most of the people came from long-term institutions, but some of them were within the community. It was a real partnership and it worked extremely well. It was the first group tenancy in our town. There are now three in Cumbernauld and one in Kilsyth. They make a tremendous difference and have dramatically improved the lives of the people involved.

I mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling was chair of the partnership. She will remember an incident involving Derek, who will not mind being mentioned by name. In fact, he will be absolutely delighted to see his name in Hansard. At the official opening, Derek, who was in his early 20s, asked my hon. Friend to intervene and tell his mother that it was his decision as to when he went to bed. Derek treasured being allowed to make that simple decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling handled the situation very diplomatically.

Derek had come from a much-loved home where he was extremely well cared for, but going to live in the group tenancy gave him independence and a tremendous feeling of being part of the community. I treasure that, as does the entire community in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. Group tenancies have enhanced the quality of life of the adults in the group, who go out for pub lunches and cause mayhem at local church dances. I should say that they are quite indiscriminate about the church dances. They love them all, and they are very welcome. They also go shopping in the town centre. They have enhanced the quality of life of the entire community. They are part of our community. Children grow up with such people in their midst and we gain as much from their presence as they do from having their freedom.

We should all support the Bill. Mention has been made of the concern of parents. I should like to raise another issue that is not directly related to the Bill, but involves people making decisions. As a local councillor, I once tried to deliver a letter to the local nursing home where there were about 60 geriatric patients. I asked to speak to the matron, who agreed to take the letters but said that they would make no difference. I said, "Don't you think they should know who their local Member is and who they should speak to if they have any problems?" She replied, "I decide that." That really worried me. I am also worried that they do not have proper access to voting—

Order. I have allowed some leeway, but I cannot allow the hon. Lady to go so wide of the Bill and discuss polling facilities.

I was saying that everyone has the right to vote—

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Lady to talk about the right to vote. She must restrict her comments to the contents of the Bill.

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter that I can pursue elsewhere, and I certainly will.

Society should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members. As the law has not been changed to reflect care in the community, we are all failing the most vulnerable people in our society when we deny them small items of comfort. It diminishes them and us, so I urge the House to support the Bill.

I appreciate the choice of Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and the elegant and persuasive way in which he spoke. He has received so many compliments today that I wonder whether he is the same person whom we know or his brother. I am happy to say that all the compliments were justified. As has been said, many hon. Members who have the chance of a private Member's Bill go for an approach that creates publicity and media attention and gives them a reputation. In keeping with his record in the Labour movement and the trade union movement, my hon. Friend has once again chosen an unspectacular route that will benefit a large number of people. He should be congratulated on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian was crabbit. That is probably true from time to time, but it is only because of his frustration at being unable to enact his good measures. We forgive him for his crabbit behaviour, but we congratulate him on the Bill, which is a significant step forward that will be regarded as a small but important measure for the people concerned.

Before I deal with some of the issues in the Bill, I should like to refer to some of the points that have been raised. I thank the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for his support for the Bill and the kind words that he passed on to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. He asked some important questions, including what happens if someone ceases to be incapacitated. As at present, the funds will be returned to the person from the control of hospital managers before or after discharge. He also asked about the meaning of benefit. There is no definition of the word in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, but courts would continue to look on the ordinary meaning of the word.

The hon. Gentleman was also concerned about expenditure and the right of redress. One or two other hon. Members have raised that. I may deal later with guidance on how those issues should be managed. There are no specific rights under the 1984 Act for an incapable patient to challenge expenditure by hospital managers. We shall consider that in the context of the incapable adults Bill to come forward under the new Scottish Parliament, but anyone who deals with a person's funds has an obligation to account for his actions. If he is negligent, that can be remedied under common law. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's queries on that, but if he has any other concerns I should be only too pleased to reassure him.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) eloquently described the benefits of community care and the reason why we need the Bill. He has visited many former long-term hospital patients, particularly from Gogarburn, and seen their terrific success in the community. I endorse everything that he said on that.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) welcomed and supported the Bill on behalf of her party. I am grateful to her for that. She raised several issues, including whether the hospital manager can hand over funds to someone else to be managed. The answer is no. That is why the Bill is necessary. Other arrangements, such as the appointment of a curator bonis, can be made, but they are very expensive and would not be appropriate for some of the amounts involved.

The hon. Lady was also worried about extra bureaucracy. We shall deal with that in the guidance that we shall issue if the Bill becomes law to ensure that there is no unnecessary bureaucracy. She asked whether the money would revert to the Crown following death. Normal laws of succession will apply, as they do to every patient—an incapable adult is no different. If the person has a will, it will be implemented; if not, the law of succession will apply. It is only if neither of those circumstances apply that the Crown would receive the funds under the doctrine of ultimus haeres. I hope that I have reassured her on that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) described extremely well the reasons for the Bill when she talked about John. What she outlined is exactly the problem that we face, and I am grateful to her for highlighting it. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for describing the reasons for the Bill and the reality behind it. I am sure that all of us would find someone who is involved in such matters in our constituencies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) was right once again to mention that language is important. As a doctor, I always used to be upset when people were described as "a low back pain" or "a head injury". I used to try to inculcate my colleagues with the notion that such people were real people with dignities, realities and futures. We should always remember that. In my defence, I should say that such terms are legal ones—and my hon. Friend knows what lawyers are like. She is right that the medical profession must treat people with dignity. She also described some of the small activities from which we all benefit, and mentioned getting her hair done. That is not one of the benefits that I share, but I understand what she means.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) talked about funding of community care. There is now more than £1 billion available for social work. We will increase that by £279 million over the next three years to address the very problem that she described.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked some very specific questions on people in long-term care; bridging care before moving into the community; and re-provision at Larkfield. The folk involved in that re-provisioning are very confident that the contract for the new Larkfield unit will be signed very soon. He mentioned the mental illness specific grant. We have made it very specific, and a permanent fixture. It used to be temporary and considered each year, but it has been analysed and found to be useful, so will become permanent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde also asked about guidance on managing the funds of incapacitated patients—not just in hospital but in the community—and mentioned the draft guidance that was published last year. We have received a number of responses to that, especially from the Law Society, the Mental Welfare Commission and local authorities. We are considering them, and hope to issue final guidance very shortly, which will go to all the usual statutory bodies, such as local authorities, health boards, and so on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries talked about Crichton Royal. I am pleased to hear that the principles of community care are firmly followed there, and that nobody leaves hospital for the community until the right facilities are provided for them. There are no time scales for such things; facilities must be right for the patient. That must be the most important criterion, and I am pleased that it has been adopted at that hospital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) mentioned the review of mental welfare legislation and described the benefits of community care. In doing so, she did not only talk of the person involved, although that is very important. Indeed, such matters are the most important to those people; that is what we are all about. She is right, however, that the community often benefits and is enriched, too. I am grateful to her for her contribution.

The Government unequivocally support the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said, it responds to a real and pressing difficulty caused by the inflexibility of section 94 of 1984 Act. As he so clearly described, the Act, which consolidated the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960, is of considerable antiquity and has not kept pace with changes in the way in which people are managed and treated in care. It was enacted when hospital care was seen as the right and proper way for society to look after people who were unable to care for themselves. Since then, developments have shown that individuals with mental disorders can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North described, live much more fulfilled lives in the community, given appropriate support.

The Government recognise the case for new comprehensive mental health legislation consistent with current practice. I am glad of the welcome from all parties for the review that I announced in December to be conducted under the chairmanship of the right hon. Bruce Millan, a distinguished former Secretary of State for Scotland. The review is now into its stride and the first meeting was held last week. I am certain that we will get a report that will lay the basis for enlightened mental health legislation fit for the new millennium.

That legislation will take time to go through the new Scottish Parliament. The 1984 Act in its present form does not allow hospital managers to release the funds of incapable patients when they leave hospital to live in the community. That would be an unacceptable situation even if only one patient was affected, but when, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, perhaps as many as 750 people could be in such a position by the end of the year, with more in the following years, we cannot allow the situation to continue. Action is needed, and that is why I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

It might be helpful to the House if I say a little bit more about the management of the funds of people who, through mental disorder, are unable to look after their own affairs. The 1984 Act recognised the problem and, within the prevailing wisdom at that time, provided a helpful framework designed to ensure that the interests of patients and their resources are fully safeguarded. For example, the legislation allows local authorities to apply for the appointment of a curator bonis to look after the funds of people incapable of doing so for themselves, whether in hospital or in the community.

The Mental Welfare Commission, a body set up under the 1984 Act to exercise protective functions with respect to the mentally disordered, can also arrange a similar appointment but, as numerous hon. Members have mentioned, such arrangements can be extremely expensive and in many cases they are totally disproportionate to the sums held in the hospital.

Section 94 was enacted to allow hospital managers to receive, hold and expend the resources of patients in the hospital. The provision was conceived with the best of intentions, and indeed it still provides a perfectly adequate solution for the management of patients' funds while they are in hospital, with hospital managers ensuring that they get the optimum benefit.

Many patients now have the opportunity to move into the community, whether returning to their own home or moving into supported or nursing home accommodation. For many, whether young or not so young, that offers the best opportunity for a better quality of life than is possible in hospital: a life with some decency and dignity. That is not because long-stay hospitals are unpleasant places, although some are, but simply because care in the community, by its very nature, can offer the necessary security, protection and comfort in a more domestic and acceptable setting. I am sure that we have all been to see patients who used to be in hospital and are now living in the community, with all the advances and improvements that have been made. I have no doubt whatever about the benefits.

Before any patient is discharged from hospital, the social work department will co-ordinate a multidisciplinary assessment of the care and support needed in the community. Services can be provided by a range of statutory and independent sector agencies, ensuring that there is a package of support for everyone.

That package, to be put in place before the patient returns to the community, should include planning to ensure that resources accruing to the patient when in the community will be properly managed on his or her behalf by whatever means are appropriate. The difficulty, as I have said, is that resources already accumulated by patients while in hospital cannot move with them when they move into the community. That is simply a lacuna in the 1984 Act, which our predecessors in the House could not have been expected to foresee. My hon. Friend's Bill plugs the gap. It will also allow hospital managers to receive and hold interest accruing on moneys already held in the hospital, a point which has been made by the Law Society of Scotland. The Bill will have a dramatic effect in liberating funds trapped in hospitals and help to ensure that the persons concerned, while in the community, will secure the maximum ability to obtain the small things that make the difference, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South.

Several hon. Members made the point that we need to ensure that reasonable and proper safeguards are in place to make sure that the resources are truly used in the patient's best interests when in the community. The hospital manager will retain responsibility for the funds, and will be responsible for authorising expenditure. There will need to be close co-operation between the new carer in the community and the hospital manager. I anticipate that the procedures, which will be put in place when the Bill becomes law, will enable the new carer to apply to the hospital manager for the release of funds, as the occasion arises, to be spent in the most appropriate way for the person's benefit.

I would expect each NHS trust, in such circumstances, to be satisfied that the proposed spend is appropriate and for the real personal benefit of the individual, and that consideration has been given to value for money in each case. I would emphasise that such spend will not replace expenditure on items or services that are the proper responsibility of the care facility, the NHS or the local authority. We must always remember that the moneys that we are speaking about today belong specifically to a particular patient and must be used for that person's individual benefit. To guarantee that, if the Bill is enacted, I undertake to ensure that further guidance is issued to those who will be required to operate the new provisions. The guidance will set out, for example, how money should be requested from hospital managers, and how hospital managers should consider such requests.

In his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said that he had no wish to see his Bill grow old in the same way as the 1984 Act has done, and he expressed the hope that wide-ranging, comprehensive legislation would be enacted in the Scottish Parliament that would modernise the arrangements for managing the affairs of incapable adults. Hon. Members will be glad to know that I share my hon Friend's views.

The report issued by the Scottish Law Commission on incapable adults as long ago as 1995 made proposals for a new legislative framework for managing the affairs of incapable adults. Following consideration of an extensive consultation on the commission's proposals, the Government made it clear last December that we fully accepted the need for reform of existing legislation in that important area, and set out the Government's views on the commission's proposals. It will be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in that area and, while we cannot prejudge or pre-empt what the Parliament's legislative programme will be, it would certainly be my hope that legislative progress can be made in this deserving area at an early stage.

While legislation must await the new Parliament, we can take steps administratively to improve the current situation. That is why we consulted last year on draft guidance that seeks to address concerns about the arrangements for managing and protecting the finances, housing and other property of people who are incapable of managing their own affairs as a result of mental disorder. It provides guidance for health boards, local authorities and relevant independent sector agencies and seeks to clarify the existing legal options for the management and protection of incapable adults' resources. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde. Many constructive responses have been received during the consultation, and we hope to be in a position shortly to issue the final guidance to the bodies that I have mentioned. The guidance will focus above all else on the needs of the individual. It will assert the primacy of private or family arrangements over institutional ones, with due regard to appropriate safeguards, and it will reaffirm opportunities to make best use of existing options for managing the financial affairs of incapable adults. This guidance, together with the Bill before the House today, will help to clarify current areas of doubt and ensure that people who suffer from mental disorders receive the best possible deal under the existing legislative framework.

I cannot emphasise enough the extent to which the Government view my hon. Friend's Bill as an important and necessary measure. All hon. Members referred this morning to cases where money has become entrapped and cannot be used for the future. We cannot allow that situation to continue. I hope—as does my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian—that the Bill will be an interim measure until a fully fledged modern legislative framework for managing the funds of incapable adults is introduced in the new Parliament.

I congratulate my hon. Friend once again. He has taken his time and used his resources and experience to do something positive for a group in society whom he is able to assist through his own direct action. In his conduct in the House and throughout his public and private life, my hon. Friend has always sought to use what powers he has to root out inequalities, deal with disadvantage and to produce a richer, fairer and more dignified life for as many people as possible in which everyone is free and more able to realise their potential. My hon. Friend has sought to do that in this measure, and I congratulate him on behalf of all hon. Members on both sides of the House.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know what to say—everyone has been so nice to me. I am grateful to hon. Members for the welcome that they have given the Bill. I also thank the Minister—it is a mutual admiration society—and his civil servants who helped me behind the scenes. They encouraged me to produce this Bill and assisted me in drawing it up. I am very grateful to them.

I must also thank the Law Society and Michael Clancy, Adrian Ward and Ann Keenan. I have discovered that not all lawyers are crooks and that many care about society and want to correct anomalies. Those three people are in that category.

I must mention some of my hon. Friends specifically. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) did an embarrassing amount of work behind the scenes. Another lawyer, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), also did a tower of work on my behalf. I was also assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd)—who is from south of the border—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire). The sponsors and supporters of the Bill have been absolutely wonderful. Bruce Millan told me on Saturday that I was doing a marvellous job, so he has endorsed the Bill as well.

I must declare an interest in the debate as I am a disabled person. It is correct to say that this is a small Bill which, as it currently stands, cannot hope to put right the problems that hon. Members have identified regarding the management of the finances of those who are incapable of looking after their own affairs because of a minor disorder. Indeed, the Bill does not attempt to do so. It aims simply to address one problem that, if not corrected, would seriously disadvantage the people concerned. As such, it represents one small but important step along the way to comprehensive legislation, which we all hope will be pursued in the Scottish Parliament. I hope—indeed, I am sure—that the support that I have received from my hon. Friend the Minister also demonstrates the Government's willingness to deal with this important topic.

Future action will be taken in the new Parliament in Edinburgh. In the meantime, we must take steps so that we can tackle this cumbersome problem. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Order. I have much pleasure in putting the Question.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

When I was fortunate enough to attend Committee Room 10 just as you were drawing the ballot for private Member's Bills this year, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I was pleased that my name was drawn from the box, giving me the opportunity to present this Bill. Once he has been lucky in the ballot, an hon. Member is offered many choices for the subject of his private Member's Bill. Many hon. Members have told me how many letters one gets as soon as one's name is drawn. This is the first time that I have been so high in the ballot, and I was surprised to receive about 600 letters over Christmas suggesting subjects for my Bill.

Last September, I visited one of the community transport schemes in my constituency, in Bakewell, to see the good work done and the help provided by the Community Transport Association.

At this stage, I must thank all the sponsors of the Bill, who range from the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs to a former Secretary of State for Transport and a former Local Government Minister, as well as hon. Members representing Derbyshire—the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat party, and other Members of Parliament, who have all understood what I am trying to achieve.

The Bill would exempt operators of certain community bus services from the payment of Customs and Excise duty on fuel used to operate the services. In particular, it would ensure that the exemption is granted to those community bus services that assist thousands of elderly and disabled people in both rural and urban areas. The service is particularly helpful to my constituents, many of whom live in isolated villages where the terrain makes a walk of even the shortest distance difficult for old people.

The House may not be aware that registered commercial bus services already receive a fuel duty rebate, which was raised in line with the duty increase in the Budget. It amounts to around two thirds of the duty paid by commercial operators. However, that fuel duty relief does not apply to voluntary and charitable community trust bus services, which assist elderly and disabled people daily. I was surprised to find out that that anomaly existed, particularly given the way in which the Government continue to increase fuel prices—as we have seen with the escalator. The increases will have a detrimental impact on community bus services.

Community bus services do not qualify for fuel duty relief because they do not operate a fixed route or timetable. That means that those valuable services are penalised for going out of their way to offer a door-to-door service that accommodates people who might otherwise be housebound and unable to gain access to mainstream transport. It is a huge anomaly that a bus operating empty but on a registered route qualifies for the rebate but a community bus that offers a specific service to individual people does not. It is ironic that such a huge differential applies between the commercial and voluntary sectors. Community transport is valuable but is denied the fuel duty relief to which commercial operators are legally entitled.

The Bill's sponsors agree that community transport schemes perform a valuable service. Their real value derives from the quality of life that they help to bring to so many elderly and disabled people with mobility problems who would otherwise be unable to access essential day-to-day amenities such as health care—dentistry, chiropody, hospitals—or visit friends and community groups. Such people thereby gain active involvement in society in a way that would otherwise not be possible for them.

Deborah Oddy of the Bakewell scheme told me:

"There are a substantial number of people who have needs which deny them access to the things that others take for granted, such as appointments at the doctors or hospital, visiting friends and relatives or joining in adult education classes. There are increased problems faced by rural communities in making even the smallest journey unless you have a car".

I saw the service at first hand in my constituency when I undertook a bus journey on 16 September to from Hassop to Bakewell. The people using it found it tremendously valuable, particularly in remote rural areas such as those in the north of my constituency. It is no exaggeration to say that the bus services are a lifeline to housebound people who would otherwise not have access to towns.

Community transport services in Derbyshire have been at the forefront of the campaign for fuel duty exemption. A convoy of five community bus transport groups from the county came down before Christmas and their petition and was presented by the hon. Member for Amber Valley to the House and the Government. Following the first scheme in Glossop 18 years ago, others have replicated the service throughout the county in Bakewell, Chesterfield, Clowne, Ilkeston, Ripley, Swadlincote and Derby.

In 1998, there were eight community transport schemes in Derbyshire. They used an estimated 265,000 litres of fuel, had running costs of £2.5 million and a contribution from the county council of £775,000. They covered nearly 1.2 million miles and carried some 443,000 passengers. During an average month, community transport in Derbyshire covers more than 65,000 miles and carries some 76,000 passengers. All the Derbyshire schemes are registered non-profit-making charities that have been operating for the past 10 years with a mixture of paid staff and volunteers. They operate a range of targeted schemes.

Dial-a-bus takes people who have difficulty using public transport from their homes to local town centres and supermarkets. Dial-a-ride transport allows people who are unable to use ordinary taxis to travel from home to wherever they want to go—to hospitals or to visit friends or relatives. The social car scheme offered by the Bakewell and Eyam service is similar to dial-a-ride. Volunteer drivers use their cars to provide transport for people, escorting or waiting for them when they reach their destination or returning for them. The community bus operates normal services in Bakewell, Eyam, Clowne and Swadlincote on designated routes on which no commercial service operates. Small detours can be made to pick up regular passengers who are unable to get to the bus stop. That can be very important in the remoter parts of my constituency and hilly areas where the terrain can be steep and difficult.

Financial support for such bus services comes from Derbyshire county council, district and parish councils, local businesses, trusts and fund-raising schemes. The rural nature of Derbyshire illustrates one of the key points in the debate. In many rural areas of the United Kingdom, sparsity of population and public transport provision mean that there is even greater dependency on community transport schemes.

As the TAS partnership has said:

"some 20 per cent. of rural settlements in England are estimated to have a bus service below 'subsistence' levels—fewer than four return journeys a day, and no evening/weekend service."

The Minister of Transport has said:

"a significant proportion of people in rural areas—upwards of 20 per cent. in rural households—have no access whatever to a car."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1075.]

According to a survey by the Rural Development Commission, 75 per cent. of parishes had no daily public bus service in 1997.

The Government have recognised the value of community transport. In the last Budget, they announced a rural transport fund of a further £10 million for capital modernisation funds, matched by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions over the next two years. I am sure that rural areas will benefit from, and welcome, that money. However, this week's Budget announced an 11.6 per cent. increase in the duty on diesel from 44.99p to 51.13p per litre. I doubt that any road user will have welcomed the fuel duty increases announced in the Budget but, while registered bus operators have the consolation of an increase in fuel duty rebate in line with the duty increases, no such cheer is available for the 5,000 voluntary community transport schemes, which offer a wonderful and valuable service.

The Minister may well point out the capital programme that she has announced. However, it is not always the capital that is the difficulty. Often, it is the revenue running costs. That is what the Bill deals with. It addresses the severe problems that community bus services feel that they may face as a result of the road fuel duty escalator.

The Bill gives the Government an opportunity to ease the pain that the fuel duty increases have caused community transport operators. The savings that exemption will allow could provide resources for operators to broaden their services, and many more handicapped, disabled and elderly people would benefit. The savings for Derbyshire as a result of the Bill, now and following implementation of the measures in this week's Budget, could well be more than £117,000, which could pay for new specified minibuses and enable operators significantly to increase the mileage covered.

The hon. Gentleman said that the cost to the Exchequer for Derbyshire alone, after the fuel escalator, would be about £117,000. Can he give the House an idea of the likely cost to the Exchequer of a nationwide scheme?

I was expecting such a question to be asked—not planted; that would be an absurd suggestion. The Bill would give the voluntary sector the same treatment as the commercial sector. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports will make an allowance for an increase in the fuel duty rebate to the commercial sector this week, following the Chancellor's Budget announcements. A few weeks ago, in a written answer to a question that I had asked, the Minister for Transport in London said:

"Expenditure"—

this was last year, before the Budget—

"is expected to be £270 million in this financial year, reflecting the increase in the rate of rebate in line with this year's increase in duty."—[Official Report, 19 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 445.]

The Government will therefore increase the fuel duty rebate for the commercial sector even more this year.

I am saying to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are finding about £300 million for the commercial sector. In some cases—not in all cases, and they would not want to do so constantly—operators may be running buses empty, and they will receive a Government subsidy for doing so. The community transport scheme provides a valuable service, which is used.

I say to the hon. Gentleman, anticipating the intervention that he or another hon. Member may make, that my Bill would give a 100 per cent. rebate. I am the first to accept that the Bill has not been drafted by the parliamentary draftsmen whose services were open to the Government to use—and we know that sometimes even they can make mistakes in Bills. I believe that, so far, more than 70 amendments have been tabled to schedule 1 of the Employment Relations Bill—a Government-drafted Bill.

I am happy for the Bill to pass into Committee and for the Government to use their draftsmen and to say that we have not quite got it right and a few amendments—tinkerings—are needed. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if no such amendments were needed, it would be the first time ever that a Bill needed no amendment at all. My Bill may not be perfectly drafted, but there will be an opportunity in Committee to address some of those problems.

I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that another charity gets a 100 per cent. rebate—I am very pleased that it does—and that is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I consider that the schemes that I am talking about today provide a valuable service to all those elderly, handicapped or disabled people in my constituency. I am not sure which constituency the hon. Gentleman represents, but I am sure that the same applies there.

This important Bill should progress further through its parliamentary stages.

I return to the question that I asked earlier. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an idea of the likely cost of his Bill to the Exchequer, should it be introduced nationwide?

I have just said that the amount of money that the Government are spending this year or as a result of the Budget that the hon. Gentleman no doubt supports and no doubt waved his Order Paper for, will mean that the commercial sector will get a £300 million rebate, on the Government's figures. As a matter of fairness, the Community Transport Association should be treated in the same way as the commercial sector. The points that the hon. Gentleman makes about cost can be discussed in Committee.

The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that some of the costs that are already being faced by local authorities in giving the money to community transport schemes are a call on the Exchequer. The simple fact is that 50,000 registered bus services already place a charge of about £300 million on the Exchequer.

It is also possible to assume that the exemption would lead to lower charges for users. For example, the Bakewell and Eyam community transport scheme charges to cover the costs and has stated that, with the £14,500 a year saving which it has estimated would come from a fuel duty exemption, it would be able to offer lower fares and expand the service.

The Public Accounts Committee report on the bus fuel grant, which was presented to Parliament in June 1989, stressed the contribution that bus fuel grants for public bus services make to keeping fares down and enabling wider mileage of provision than would otherwise be possible.

I have already described the tangible difference that community transport schemes make to everyday life for elderly and disabled people. The Bill could make even more of a difference by extending that excellent service. That would increase the provision of public transport, especially in rural areas, and help to build the integrated transport system that the Government keep talking about. If they are serious about that, they should take the Bill seriously.

I believe that this measure is fair for voluntary community transport schemes, which do so much good for their communities. They and the registered operators should be given equal treatment, especially because community bus services, which go out of their way to help those who have least access to mainstream transport, are disqualified from assistance. My Bill would correct that anomaly.

I have had plenty of support for the Bill. I have already referred to its sponsors, and I should like to thank some of the other people who have given me tremendous help with the Bill. I thank the Public Bill Office for its help with drafting the Bill. It is difficult to draw up legilsation. This private Member's Bill has not been given to me by the Government to progress through the parliamentary process.

It is outrageous that the Government have made a statement, which took an hour of our time, on a Friday during debate on a private Member's Bill. This is only the third Friday of this parliamentary Session on which the House has sat, and it is the second Friday on which the Government have made a statement. It is disgraceful to interrupt discussions on a private Member's Bill. In the past, the Government have made statements at seven o'clock on a Thursday evening before a non-sitting Friday. Given that this statement was trailed in the press yesterday, there is no justification for the Government to take valuable time away from debate on private Member's Bills. They are obviously attempting to ensure that my Bill makes no further progress. I hope that the Procedure Committee will examine that problem. When that happens on a Friday—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point many times over.

The point is always worth making strongly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I accept your ruling. I hope that the Procedure Committee will look into the matter.

I have received support from various people. I should like to mention Colin Smale, who runs the Amber Valley community transport scheme in my constituency. He said:

"If the Government are going to be looking to Community Transport to continue to expand their work in rural areas in particular then it is reasonable for us to look to government to offer financial support to help make that happen."

In the Community Transport Magazine in 1999, the Minister for Transport in London said:

"The White Paper is about integration: different modes of transport, of transport policy with other policies and of transport policy at local, regional and national levels. It is also about integrating the needs of a wide variety of groups and individuals in the operation of transport planning and provision.

It's about transport helping to build and serve communities. The White Paper is founded on the principle that transport should be safe, it should be efficient, it should be clean, and it should be fair. It must be fair in that it serves the needs of all those who use it, including elderly people, disabled people and children. In other words, it must mitigate, not contribute to, social exclusion. It must serve rural areas as well as urban ones. Rural communities have a strong tradition of self-help and community and voluntary transport has made a significant contribution to the quality of life in rural areas for many years."

If the Minister and the Government mean what they say, they should not object to discussion of the issues in Committee, so that we can find out more about the Government's views. The Bill is small and not complicated, but it would significantly improve the operation of community transport in a number of constituencies.

As I have said, a contribution is already being made to the commercial sector, and the Budget will increase that contribution. Help is already being given to one voluntary organisation, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I am asking for the same help for another voluntary organisation, which provides much help and support throughout the country.

A couple of months ago, I visited a centre in Heanor, in my constituency, called Stepping Stones. It provides lunch every day for pensioners. For the first time, I achieved my ambition to keep fit by joining the centre's morning keep-fit class. I do not normally get around to that here, although I always intend to go to the gym.

At lunchtime on the day of my visit, we discovered that several people who should have been there were missing, because of a bomb scare near the pick-up point for the community transport buses. People had not been able to travel to a centre on which they relied for their daily meal. That shows how important community transport is every day. The system started in Derbyshire in the early 1980s, as a result of the international year of the disabled. As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said, there are now eight groups in the county, one of which is in Derby.

As a sponsor of the Bill, I am delighted that my neighbour has seen the light, recognised the importance of this issue and become aware of the campaign that took place all last year in Derbyshire, and has also been taking place in other parts of the country. I shall restrain myself from talking about the Conservative Government's record on public transport, although the hon. Gentleman lashed out a bit at the end of his speech, letting himself down after showing a very co-operative approach. I will, however, give a little of the history of the campaign that led to the Bill.

Let me say, first, that the community transport services in my area have even been visited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, during the election campaign. She has seen the valuable work that community transport can do.

Those in charge of community transport are very pleased about the new understanding of its role that is developing among Transport Ministers, in particular. They are especially pleased with what has been said in the transport White Paper. Paragraph 5.35 states:

"Conventional public transport cannot always meet the diverse accessibility needs of all in our communities, particularly the needs of disabled people and those who live in remote rural areas."

The White Paper goes on to refer to the strength of voluntary action and community transport. The Community Transport Association is pleased that the Government have commissioned a special report to examine the issues surrounding community transport and is therefore confident that action will be taken to help it. The Bill proposes one way in which to help.

That report, which was commissioned from Steer Davies Gleave, has not yet been published, but, as a result of a parliamentary question that I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, I have been given a copy of its findings. It says that a number of issues should be taken on board to assist community transport:

"The voluntary transport sector requires encouragement if it is to develop; otherwise, as it faces increasing pressure to deliver transport services

it will become less effective; and,

its task will become ever more difficult."

It recommends that a number of measures should be taken by central Government, including

"providing the voluntary sector with access to passenger transport financial support comparable to concessionary fares and fuel duty rebate".

That recommendation will go to the Government from a report that they themselves have commissioned. As I say, the Bill provides one mechanism for giving that assistance.

The petition to which the hon. Member for West Derbyshire referred had 7,000 signatures from people throughout the county, and I presented it in December. It raised a specific issue: if we allowed the fuel duty rebate paid to commercial bus operators to be paid to community transport vehicles, that would end the discrimination faced by elderly and disabled people who were unable to gain access to normal bus services. Those people seek an end to discrimination. That is the campaign that I have been pursuing.

Because of the mechanisms that one has to use in terms of parliamentary procedure, the Bill goes rather further than that, but we look for some assurance that, even if the Bill cannot progress, some mechanisms will be examined to meet the recommendations in the report to end that discrimination.

I am not particularly fussed about what mechanism is used. I am continuing to pursue the issue of extending the fuel duty rebate, but I want that issue to be taken forward.

May I assure the hon. Lady that I did realise that? As I understand it, although I was not able to extend the rebate scheme, for the reasons to which she referred, it would be possible to amend the Bill to allow a percentage of the rebate, so that it would indeed do exactly what we both want: give the same to the commercial sector as to the voluntary sector.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) asked what the costs of the scheme would be. On a completely rough-and-ready basis, depending on exactly what parts of the community transport service are involved, my proposal to extend the fuel duty rebate would cost between £4 million and £8 million. That is a ball-park figure. Obviously, I do not have access to the information. I hope that more will become available as a result of the study by the consultants.

As a result of the petition, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) and I visited the Chancellor and the Minister of Transport. Before I talk about the some of the specific issues that they raised with me, I shall look a little more at the role of community transport and some of the things that it does.

I mentioned the White Paper on public transport, which looks at an integrated transport system. Unfortunately, the current transport system is not accessible to all the general public; it is not accessible to perhaps 10 per cent. of people who have mobility problems: the elderly or disabled. I ask the Minister to acknowledge in her reply that the current public transport system is not open to all the general public. That will at least get that out of the way.

I agree that the position has been made worse by what happened in the Budget, although I do not in any way criticise the fuel duty escalator, which was introduced by the previous Government. However, an issue arises from it. We estimate that the measure will cost Amber Valley Community Transport an extra £1,900. I understand that about £50 million will be added to the fuel duty rebate to commercial bus companies. I say that not to challenge the provision, but merely to raise an issue that should be addressed.

We already get community transport on the cheap. Amber Valley Community Transport has 40 drivers and 36 escorts who volunteer—they work for free—in driving buses and in helping people who cannot reach supermarket shelves, for example, to do their shopping. There are many examples of the work done by those volunteers—such as John Waldron, who gave up his Christmas day to drive people to a Christmas dinner.

As an example of the lengths to which people will go to help in providing community transport, I should mention Karen Dudley, the operations manager at Amber Valley Community Transport, who herself is in a wheelchair but—I was rather stunned to hear it—did a free-fall parachute jump, in tandem with an experienced parachutist, to raise funds for the scheme. By doing the jump, she raised £2,000 from a Chesterfield firm and another £1,000 from other people.

Another example is the Amber Valley Community Transport administration officer, who is also a barbershop singer. She organised a barbershop concert to support community transport. Those are the types of things being done to subsidise a community transport service for a section of our community.

Amber Valley has four different services, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for West Derbyshire. Dial-a-bus—which is equivalent to dial-a-ride elsewhere—provides both regular bus services from one part of the area to another and free helpers to assist people with tasks such as shopping. There is also a door-to-door pick-up service, which, in our area, is called dial-a-ride. There are also group rides. Finally, there is a bus contracting facility—which would not be covered by the Bill. All four are valuable services, and any rebate to one service would enable us to expand the others.

I should like to give a couple of examples—with which I was provided, just the other day, by my local community transport—of the assistance provided by community transport services.

Mrs. B is 79 years old and lives alone four miles from the nearest town centre. She suffers from arthritis and walks with sticks. She travels on dial-a-bus into Alfreton every Thursday morning, and into Mansfield every other Monday, to do her own shopping, to visit the bank and to collect her pension. The service is the only way in which she can remain independent. She has also built up a wide social circle by using dial-a-bus.

Mrs. D is in her late 30s and has multiple sclerosis. She uses a wheelchair. She is the mother of two children. She goes into Heanor every week to do the family shopping. She uses a dial-a-bus escort to help her get around town. It is the only way in which she can maintain her family and her role within the family nucleus.

Mr. O is 84 years old. He is a war veteran and lives alone. He has double vision, and therefore cannot use conventional public transport. He travels on the Wirksworth dial-a-bus every Tuesday, and also uses the regular Matlock bus—in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire. Mr. O also travels on the fortnightly out-of-town service, which takes passengers into Derby, Mansfield and Chesterfield. He is a very proud man, and the service is the only way in which he can keep his independence.

I have given those examples not only to show the importance of community transport, but to explain the type of services that are provided, and why I believe that such services should, like commercial bus services, be assisted.

Some of the issues on community bus services that Ministers have raised with me can be tackled. I realise that there will be some complications in addressing the issues, but, as I said, I am not hooked on any one particular method of doing so. I am speaking today simply to try to raise the issues and to get Ministers to consider them seriously. I certainly hope that resolving the matter will not require a private Member's Bill. I hope also that the matter will be taken on board in the current review of community transport, to which I know Ministers are sympathetic.

The current legal position is that the fuel duty rebate is available only for buses that run scheduled services that are open to any public passenger. I contend, first, that commercial bus companies are not open to all the general public living along their routes, as 10 per cent. of the population along those routes are unable to access bus services because they have mobility problems. People in wheelchairs, for example, cannot use the buses.

Secondly, some community bus services, particularly dial-a-bus, which makes 60 per cent. of the journeys in my area, are scheduled services. All the people I mentioned earlier use a regular scheduled bus service that happens to be a community transport service. I have a whole sheaf of schedules. One can go from Somercotes to Alfreton every Thursday. The bus gets there at 10.30 am and leaves at 12 o'clock. They are all scheduled services which run on a regular basis in the same way as those operated by a commercial bus company. They are open to all members of the general public who do not have access to the services operated by the standard commercial bus companies which claim to be available to the general public; the only difference is that people phone in advance to say that they will be using the service and arrange to be picked up from their homes.

I noticed in a newspaper today that the Deputy Prime Minister is examining whether taxis could be used to provide a more comprehensive service without requiring a bus to go to every village: the taxi service would complement the bus service. It is an excellent idea, which would expand the integrated transport system. If such a facility could be arranged to enable people living in remote areas to have access to the scheduled bus service, why would the same not be possible in respect of community transport? It is the only factor that distinguishes dial-a-bus from a commercial bus company. Some of the legal arguments and definitions are not necessarily valid, and that should certainly be taken seriously.

Because of the way in which it is formulated, the Bill is in Treasury hands. However, according to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, any rebate scheme would be paid out of the transport budget. Quite understandably, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport was concerned that it would be an open-ended commitment; so it is a difficult issue.

As there are many different types of community transport, definitions are also important. There will have to be a number of gateways. Which organisations would be eligible to be defined as community transport organisations? That is easy. Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985 defines who is eligible for a permit to run community transport bus services. That could be the first gateway. It would then be necessary to decide which parts of the service qualified to be included in the provision. That would need to be examined carefully. My contention is that at least the dial-a-bus service should be eligible.

It is also argued that, if a large section of the public are unable to use the general transport service because of mobility problems, the same applies to others who cannot access public transport because no services are provided in rural areas. That is a legitimate point. People could set up a car-sharing scheme in a rural area and expect it to qualify. The issue needs to be examined, but we are taking action and putting money into rural transport. In south Derbyshire, we have a rural bus challenge for which we have gained money. It will use some of the community transport vehicles.

My hon. Friend has put her finger on the problem with the Bill. First, it is necessary to establish the category of exemptions, how broad a category it should be and precisely how it should be defined. Does she accept that that in itself is problematic, before one even begins to look at the other vexed question of defining exempted and non-exempted use?

I am quite sure that Ministers and civil servants are perfectly capable of producing some fairly robust definitions. I would be happy if the provision applied simply to community transport in Derbyshire, although we are unlikely to get away with that.

There are a number of possible definitions. One is in the Transport Act 1985 in relation to organisations that are eligible for permits. We would also need to specify exactly which services qualified. I am not particularly hooked on the Bill; however, the issue will be raised in the forthcoming community transport report which the Government have commissioned.

I am happy for any mechanism to be considered. The Bill is an opportunity to raise the problem of the genuine discrimination between the services. If some other mechanism is used to address that issue and another way of providing better services for those with disabilities is found, I shall be equally happy. My aim is to get the issue on the agenda and push it forward. Much as the hon. Member for West Derbyshire would like the Bill to become law, I do not have any expectation of that happening, but it has given us an opportunity to ask for the issue to be taken seriously.

I should like to mention one other issue on the transport White Paper that community transport groups have raised with me, which relates to alternative methods of developing an integrated transport system. Local authorities have been asked to draw up local transport plans. The draft guidance puts strong emphasis on the importance of involving cyclists and walkers from the beginning. I hope that similar emphasis will be put on involving community transport at the start of the development of local transport plans. That may answer some of the questions that have been raised and make the financial mechanism in the Bill less necessary.

Community transport is important and provides a valuable service; I have not heard anyone argue with that. I support the principles of the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept that public transport is not open to all members of the public and that there is discrimination against people with mobility problems. The Government have recognised that in the White Paper. I ask her to pass on to Transport Ministers how pleased we are that they will take the issues seriously. If she cannot accept the mechanism in the Bill, will she discuss with her colleagues alternative measures on the fuel duty rebate? If they cannot accept that, will she encourage Transport Ministers to consider alternative ways of assisting the community transport service? I have every confidence that that will be done, because we are committed to a fair public transport system. I am confident that Ministers will look seriously at community transport issues.

I am delighted to have had a chance to raise the issue today. I hope that we shall find a mechanism—through the Bill or in some other way—of removing discrimination and ensuring that the most vulnerable are able to live in their home and have a full life, with access to the public transport system.

On behalf of the Opposition, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on securing a place in the ballot and on introducing a measure to address an apparent anomaly in the funding of local bus schemes that discriminates unfairly against crucial community bus links.

The Bill raises some important issues with which all hon. Members can be sympathetic, whether they represent rural or urban constituencies. The distinguished cross-party sponsorship of the Bill shows the wide support that it has gained. I hope that it will strike a chord with the Government's apparent policy on public transport, as articulated so often by the Deputy Prime Minister, when he is in the country.

We support a Second Reading for the Bill and believe that the problems that it highlights deserve close scrutiny in Committee. It should be for the Committee, when the issue can be given a full airing, to decide whether the method of supporting community transport schemes set out in the Bill is the most practical way to tackle the problem. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. Many of the queries about eligibility and gateways raised by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) can be dealt with in Committee.

I am sure that, like me, all hon. Members have first-hand constituency experience of the essential service provided by community bus schemes. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire has said, in rural areas, up to 20 per cent. of the population have no access to a car and local shops can be few and far between. For those people, such bus services are a lifeline.

In urban areas, too, elderly people in particular can be stranded if they live a mile or so away from essential services, as is so often the case. Such people obviously need links with shops, banks, post offices, doctors' surgeries, health centres and hospitals for appointments. In the Worthing and Adur districts in my constituency, local community bus schemes are run by very dedicated staff to provide links with just those essential services. Without such schemes, and if scheduled bus services do not pick up close by, people are reliant on friendly neighbours, family or expensive taxis, which are often out of their price range.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the most recent Rural Development Commission survey of 1997, which showed that 75 per cent. of parishes do not have a regular scheduled daily bus service? In view of the astronomical hike in petrol duty of 17p a gallon and the 28p a gallon hike in diesel, will not rural people particularly be severely disadvantaged unless they have a community bus service? Surely community bus services will be crucified unless they are given the same fuel duty exemption as commercial operators.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. This week's Budget did no service to people living in rural areas. The anomaly in transport provision in such areas has been exaggerated even more by Tuesday's events. I reiterate, however, that we are not just talking about rural communities.

Even more crucial than the plight of elderly people is that of disabled people, who are obviously even less mobile. Scheduled bus services are often unable to cope with wheelchairs, although, in some areas, low-floor buses are making wheelchair access easier. It therefore seems absurd that community buses, which are tailor-made to cope with the needs of elderly and less mobile people in particular, suffer discrimination at the hands of the taxation system—a system through which, by offering scheduled bus services a fuel duty rebate that is worth £270 million already and is likely to rise, owing to measures in the Budget, to around £320 million, the Government already recognise the work and worth of public transport systems. Through what appear to be minor technicalities, that system excludes arguably the most community-oriented and public-spirited of all bus services.

The existence of more than 5,000 community transport schemes in the United Kingdom bears testimony to the take-up rate. Many operate on a shoestring, often only through the goodwill of volunteer drivers and charitable fund raising, which pays for the maintenance and purchase of the buses. Many more community bus services are needed, and I am sure that many more would start up if given a level playing field on fuel duty rebate.

The main reason that community buses are excluded from the fuel duty rebate is that most schemes are either not available to all members of the public or, as a door-to-door service, cannot supply a schedule of stopping times and places. Typically, that excludes hopper bus dial-a-ride schemes, which are targeted specifically at elderly and disabled people. The provision of disabled access and wheelchair lifts is proving particularly costly, never mind their on-going maintenance.

In October, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury rejected an extension of the criteria for granting the fuel duty rebate on the grounds that it would entail extra expenditure or a lower rebate overall, and that the provision of dial-a-ride services should be left to each local authority. Much local authority transport spending is taken up by the transporting of school children, especially those who attend special educational needs schools, as well as by many other competing causes. That is understandable. Given the Government's pump priming of local authority bus service provision in rural areas, it would be only consistent to allow local authorities to promote community bus services as well—if they enjoyed the same fuel duty rebate. I know that my local authorities would like to be able to do just that. Community buses do not stack up the raw miles or passenger numbers of the scheduled services, as they are closely targeted and localised, but that should in no way diminish the vital role that they play.

The total amount involved has not been quantified by the Government, but it need not be excessive. It could be merely a matter of the redistribution of the existing rebate funds of £320 million, part of which is being used to fund empty or almost empty buses, which does not seem to be the most efficient subsidy.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire said that services in his county travel about 1.2 million miles a year, carry 443,000 passengers, use more than 265,000 litres of fuel and, if the Bill had been law, would have been able to claim a rebate last year of about £80,000. The figure would of course be much greater after the Budget. We are talking not about small tin-pot schemes but about major contributions to community transport, carrying a great number of people who would otherwise have severely limited transport choices.

The sum is not enormous in the great scheme of things or in the context of bus subsidies overall, but it is an enormous amount to the small community bus service operators and could make the difference between survival or otherwise. The measure is timely, in the wake of the Budget, which brought about an enormous increase of 11.6 per cent. in road diesel duty, bringing it up to 51.1p a litre: the highest duty by far in Europe, and perhaps the highest in the entire world.

That is another substantial stealth tax hike and it is already having serious repercussions for the road freight haulage industry, part of which is already looking to reflag its vehicles and operate from the continent. Tax on diesel is 2.5 times lower in Germany, which is the next highest charger.

The Government seem content that competition will now come from French, German and Belgian lorry drivers filling up on the continent and coming here to take British loads on British roads to British destinations. By no stretch of the imagination will there be similar competition from dial-a-ride—or should I say telephone-un-bus?—services operating from Paris and Brussels. I fear that they will not penetrate as far as Derbyshire. Schemes will be severely financially penalised.

Apart from the effects on the freight industry, the diesel duty rise may have disastrous consequences for the economics of many ordinary bus services, let alone the community schemes, which under current legislation will suffer the full brunt of the increases.

As the green tax Minister, the Economic Secretary may be interested to know about the implications for environmentally friendly road fuel gases. Many of us were pleased that in the Budget the Government revived the previous Government's initiative to promote liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas over fossil fuels by substantially reducing the duty on them, although even after the 29 per cent. cut the duty on road fuel gases in this country remains the highest in the European Union. The changes suggested in the Bill could go some way towards providing further financial incentives to promote the use of road fuel gases in community buses converted for the purpose. That should and could be considered more closely in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire has highlighted the current situation in which the Royal National Lifeboat Institution rightly gets 100 per cent. fuel duty relief, as has been the case for the past 35 years, since 1964. That is an obvious precedent for another service that offers a valuable contribution to the community.

My hon. Friend has done the House a great service by bringing to our attention that obvious anomaly. I hope that the Government will respond positively and allow the Bill to go to a Standing Committee for full debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on securing a high place in the ballot. I was very interested in his remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), who adopted a realistic and flexible approach to some of the problems that may be experienced. My first question is whether the fuel duty rebate is the best way to support community transport. It is a technical and complex scheme. My hon. Friend mentioned section 19 of the Transport Act 1985 and I also researched that Act for my speech today. Some people might think a bus is a bus is a bus and is easy to define, but—in an example of the complexities of the scheme—section 19 defines a bus in several ways. A "bus" is a vehicle which is adapted to carry more than eight passengers. A "large bus" is a vehicle which is adapted to carry more than 16 passengers, and a "small bus" means a vehicle which is adapted to carry more than eight but not more than 16 passengers. We may think that we know what we mean when we talk about a bus, but the legislation is complex even when it comes to simple definitions. I question whether one would wish to get bogged down in such complexities of the law, when it comes to community transport schemes.

Another issue that arises is the transparency of public support for community transport schemes. Many such schemes, in my experience, receive support from a variety of sources, including charities, local authorities, other public bodies and, in some circumstances, commercial companies. It is important to know where the money for community transport schemes comes from. The whole system of fuel duty rebate is very complex and provides some hidden subsidies. Before I started to examine the issue, I was unaware of its existence and the support that the rebate scheme gives to commercial companies.

We must consider the role of community transport in local communities. That issue is addressed in the White Paper on the future of Transport "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". In paragraph 5.35, it states":

"Conventional public transport cannot always meet the diverse accessibility needs of all in our communities, particularly the needs of disabled people and those who live in remote rural areas."

The Government accept the importance of community transport schemes, and the White Paper pays tribute to the role of those who developed them. It states:

"Voluntary action is a strength of local communities everywhere. In London, for example"—

as a Member for a London seat, I know the situation well—

"it has given rise to an extensive network of transport services run on a voluntary basis for disabled people."

It continues—and this is the important point—

"We are conducting a review of voluntary and community transport activity. There are already relaxations of the normal rules for bus operator licensing to help non-profit making bodies, especially those who provide 'community' bus services including mini-buses."

We must be aware of the possible abuses of the system, including those that are intentional, through fraud, and—probably more likely—unintentional, through inadvertence, that could arise from extending the fuel duty rebate scheme. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley mentioned the complexities of the scheme and it could be difficult to distinguish between qualifying and non-qualifying use of a vehicle, especially the smaller ones. If a minibus has a full tank of fuel, it might be used sometimes for a qualifying journey and sometimes for a non-qualifying journey. How can we unscramble which litre of fuel was used for one purpose and which for another?

The hon. Gentleman is creating a smokescreen. The commercial sector has no difficulty in identifying the difference. Some operations carried out by bus companies do not attract the rebate and some do. The scheme under which the bus companies certify which journeys qualify and which do not is open to inspection, as the Public Accounts Committee pointed out in its report.

That is an interesting intervention, but I am not mixing up two different things. I cannot remember the last time that I saw a driver on a jolly through the west end in his double-decker. It is much more likely that a small community vehicle would be used for non-qualifying journeys. It is also perhaps easier to distinguish between the fuels used by larger vehicles.

We may end up subsidising school journeys that we would otherwise not support financially. When travelling to work in the morning, one often sees little minibuses that are run by private schools. Those schools could afford, by using school fees, to pay for their pupils' transport but they would undoubtedly claim that, because they are running a school bus, they should qualify for a fuel rebate. I question whether those are the sorts of organisations that we should support.

There is an additional complication with regard to the European aspects. I am afraid that we must consider Europe from time to time in the House, and the fuel duty rebate raises particular problems. Duty rates and uses are subject to European Union directives with which the Government obviously comply. If we were to pass this legislation, we would have to try to obtain a derogation from the European Union—and no doubt end up having lengthy arguments about whether we were entitled to do so.

We must also consider some important environmental aspects. Vehicles that are perhaps not in the first flush of youth are sometimes used for community transport schemes. Such vehicles may not be very fuel efficient.

I assure my hon. Friend that the nine buses in Amber Valley use clean fuel when they can find it at the local pumps. We are about to get rid of the only vehicle that does not use clean fuel. Therefore, it is possible to have energy-efficient community transport.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend's constituents have such an excellent bus service, but I am afraid that that is not the experience nationwide. We have heard much about community transport schemes in Derbyshire, but the same conditions do not necessarily prevail throughout the country. I think that there is a risk with community transport that the vehicles used will not emit the most environmentally friendly particulates.

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The simple fact is that, if we introduce this rebate scheme, many of those who operate community buses will be able to spend more money refurbishing their buses and using more modern vehicles. The hon. Gentleman should not use that argument against the community transport system. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) said, the people of Derbyshire have modern community transport vehicles because they have raised so much money through voluntary mechanisms.

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting issue, which brings me to my next point regarding the position of alternative fuels. The scheme under discussion applies only to certain types of fuel and I think that, in considering community transport, we must have regard to possible alternatives. The Red Book makes it clear that the Government are trying to move towards fairer tax treatment of the different fuels available. Paragraph 5.68 on page 77 refers to the Government's commitment to

"moving towards a fairer tax treatment of petrol and diesel, when calculated on an energy or carbon basis. This means that the duty on diesel should be higher than that for unleaded petrol".

On the following page, the Red Book refers to

"increasing the duty differential between ultra low sulphur diesel…and standard diesel to encourage the use of this cleaner fuel. This will reduce emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxides from existing vehicles and, over time, encourage the use of cleaner diesel technology."

The Government state that they wish to encourage

"the use of road fuel gases, which produce lower emissions, especially of particulates, than conventional fuels".

That is an important start, which is not covered by the proposals in this Bill.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a particular concern of commercial bus companies has been that the fuel rebate system offers them no incentive to invest in alternative fuels and creates inequalities between conventional and non-conventional fuels? Is he also aware that the Government have apparently moved in the Budget towards increasing the rebate on road gas in addition to reducing the duty? Therefore, a constructive development would have been for this Bill to add an incentive for such alternative fuels to be used by community transport services.

My hon. Friend has a valid point. We have been exploring some of the alternative fuels, one of which has not been mentioned in any of the documentation that I have seen—the use of electric vehicles. For community transport, where smaller vehicles may be used, we should consider ways to support the use of electric vehicles, which have no emissions—other than, perhaps, back at the power station.

On page 122 of the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" the Government state that they intend to consult on more environmentally friendly vehicles, as part of their transport policy, which is an important development.

I asked the Library to look into this issue and was pleased to find that the Government said that they would consider the issue as part of their review of vehicle excise duty and that they intend

"to go ahead with the proposal…It will be extended to 'clean' buses, which will further improve air quality in urban areas. Also to encourage clean buses, the possibility of changing the fuel duty rebate paid to buses, so that those with low emissions receive more than those with high emissions"

is to be reviewed.

If fuel duty rebate were withdrawn altogether—I do not think that that is on the cards at present—it would have to be replaced with some alternative payment or support to bus operators. I want such a replacement to give full range to the possibilities of alternative fuels, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) suggested in his helpful intervention.

We must also consider the possibility that there would be other people in the queue for rebates if we provided exemptions for community transport. What about other important community uses of transport, for example the emergency services—ambulances, the police and the fire service—which do not benefit from the rebate at present? Ultimately, it will be the taxpayer, either at the local or the national level, who will have to pay. What about the medical profession—doctors and community nurses? If we can provide support to farmers through the scheme, what about providing it to doctors as well?

I cannot believe what I am hearing, especially the hon. Gentleman's latest excuse. The state pays for the emergency services: it pays the whole of their fuel duty. Admittedly, they pay part back to the Treasury, but it is all the same money, going round and round. To suggest that one cannot subsidise community transport because the ambulance, police and fire service would want similar subsidies is scraping the bottom of the exhaust pipe.

That was an interesting intervention. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with my point. The subsidy might affect the balance between local and national Government—in terms of where the money comes from. I also mentioned the position of general practitioners, who obviously use their cars a great deal for community benefit. I do not recall the taxpayer ever picking up the petrol bill of a GP at the filling station. The same is true of community nurses. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but it can be developed.

That begs the question whether the existing system works effectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley pointed out the many flaws in the existing public transport system. If the fuel duty rebate were such a good way to support public transport, we would have better bus services. She mentioned constituents who benefit from community transport schemes. Perhaps I may respond by mentioning constituents who suffer real problems with their bus service, which already benefits from the fuel duty rebate. For example, consider the 113 service in my constituency. A constituent writes:

"The buses are still a disgrace, both in presentation and maintenance along with a service which is unreliable and inconsistent."

I can only share those sentiments. The problems have clearly not been cured by the availability to Metroline, the bus company in question, of the fuel duty rebate. I question whether such relief would achieve some of the objectives claimed for it by proponents of the Bill.

The head teacher of one of my local secondary schools wrote to me complaining about the school bus service provided by Arriva on behalf of London Transport. She tells me of the problems of almost 100 students who have to travel towards Edgware and leave the school from 15.30 onwards. The buses, scheduled at 15.31., 15.41 and 15.57, should serve the needs of the school adequately.

My hon. Friend seems to be arguing that the fuel duty rebate has an inverse relationship to the quality of service. Is he really prepared to sustain that argument?

My argument is that the fuel duty rebate has little impact on the quality of service from what I can see in my constituency of the public bus network. I get many complaints about the bus service in my constituency. I mentioned the 113, which is one of the greatest culprits.

Order. I have indulged the hon. Gentleman long enough. He is stretching his remarks way beyond the confines of the Bill.

I shall refrain from quoting further examples of the rotten bus service in my constituency. I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) that there is no relationship between the rebate and quality of service.

Before the hon. Gentleman reads out the entire timetable of the outer London bus service, is he saying that bus fuel duty rebate should be scrapped altogether to create a level playing field for community bus services? If he is, has he cleared with it with the Deputy Prime Minister?

I was not saying that. I was saying that I welcome the review of the operation of such schemes. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to remind him of the contents of the White Paper, I would be happy to read out the extracts again.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman obviously remembers what the White Paper says. I am pleased that the Government will consider the schemes in the round, not only from the point of view of the existing narrow schemes but in respect of the more environmentally friendly fuels that we were discussing in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. There is a possibility of greatly developing those schemes. As that happens, I would like to think that we could consider community transport in the round.

Page 111 of the transport White Paper shows that the Government are acting on local transport. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) made a valid point when he said that we are not only discussing rural transport but urban transport. I am pleased that the White Paper talks about local authorities needing actively to involve local people, businesses, transport operators and other organisations, such as those providing health care, in drawing up plans.

That is important in my area because one of the biggest single complaints concerns the health service. People in my constituency in Colindale and west Hendon have difficulty travelling to hospital. Since the previous Government closed Edgware hospital, they have had terrible trouble trying to get to the alternative acute facilities at Barnet because it can require three bus changes. I am pleased that as we develop local transport plans, the health service will be involved. I know from discussions with the chair of my local health authority that there is commitment to working with partners such as the local authority to solve this thorny problem. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is trying to make an intervention. The Government are making great progress on rural transport.

Order. These general remarks about local transport and national transport are outside the scope of the Bill, which is about exemption from fuel duties.

The reason why I raise the issue of rural transport is that the proponents of the Bill relied in their arguments on the need to support community transport services. It is appropriate for me to respond to those arguments by questioning the need for the Bill and saying what the Government are already doing for rural transport.

In the Budget, the Government stressed their commitment to improving public transport in rural areas. Last year's Budget allocated an extra £50 million for transport in rural areas, the majority of which was used to provide additional bus services in England. In the Budget statement on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor allocated an extra £20 million to the rural transport fund and £10 million to the capital modernisation fund—

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has heard me. We are talking about whether certain categories of vehicle should be eligible for the exemption from fuel duty. General arguments about rural or any other form of transport are not pertinent.

In those circumstances, perhaps I can conclude by saying that the Bill does not provide a complete answer to a real problem. Support for rural transport can be provided more satisfactorily through some of the initiatives announced by the Government in the transport White Paper. The Government have already addressed many of the problems, but the Bill does nothing to deal with environmental concerns.

It is a pleasure to support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I apologise that I missed part of his speech; I was tied up in another meeting. I am grateful to him for the excellent brief that he has provided on community transport. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I must confess—as a former law and order Minister, it is dangerous to make such confessions—that, as a young child, on occasion I misbehaved by sticking a potato up an exhaust pipe to make a vehicle grind to a halt. As I sat and listened to the hon. Gentleman, I wished that I had a bag of King Edwards handy.

The Bill is an innocuous little measure. It is a simple one-clause Bill. All the points that the hon. Member for Hendon raised were suitable for Committee. One heard cynics say before we came into the Chamber that the Labour party was opposed to the measure. I said, "I don't believe it. It cannot be." The measure is right up the Labour party's street. It is exactly the sort of measure that Labour Members used to advance just before the election.

The Bill is about three things close to the heart of Labour Members—buses, communities and subsidy. In those circumstances, I cannot imagine that any Labour Member opposes it. I heard the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) support my hon. Friend. I am glad to see the same all-party support for the measure that we had for the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill earlier this morning.

As the Bill has already had a good airing this morning, and can safely be sent up to Committee before we end our proceedings today, I shall be relatively brief. There are more than 5,000 community transport schemes across the United Kingdom, which offer a vital service to sections of the community, such as the elderly and disabled people, who might otherwise be denied access to essential day-to-day amenities. It enables them to get to shopping and health care facilities or simply to visit friends or other community groups. It gives them a chance to participate in things that they would not otherwise be able to do.

That is not an exaggeration. The Rural Development Commission—which the Government are abolishing—said:

"75 per cent. of parishes had no daily public bus service in 1997".

Upwards of 20 per cent. of people in rural areas have no access whatever to a car.

It was a pleasure in the Budget debate to follow the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), who made a passionate plea on behalf of those people in rural areas who are not wealthy but need to have a car-yes, perhaps an old car, perhaps a slightly smoky car, but, if they do not have a car, they do not travel. It is not that their choice of buses is limited to those at 8 o'clock, 8.5, 8.30, 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock and so on; there are no buses whatever in large parts of the rural areas.

The unfortunate, often inadvertent, discrimination that those people face is that Government Departments—we find this in the health service—look at the structure of the country and say, "There is an area with a lot of buses. People therefore must be poor, so we shall allocate more money. There is an area with a lot of cars; they must be wealthy, so we shall allocate less money." In rural areas, there can be as much poverty and deprivation as in urban areas, but motor vehicles are essential if people—including those who are trying to return to work-are to find a job. I believe that the new deal will reveal how difficult it is, in rural areas, to get transport to work.

Community transport fills a vital role, as it has since its inception. The hon. Member for Hendon made a surprising speech. No doubt, I shall get a letter from London Transport next week, correcting me, but, as a rural Member, I can say that, if buses in the lake district mountains emitted the smoke that I often see coming from London buses, we would make pretty sure that they were put out of action straight away. It sits ill in the mouth of a London Member to suggest that community buses in our rural areas might be more polluting or dirty than commercial buses. That comment—and a few others—may prove a slight source of embarrassment to the Government and to other Labour party members when we have the benefit of analysing Hansard on Monday.

It beggars belief to suggest that a rebate for community transport on the same basis as the rebate for commercial operators would be too complicated for the Treasury to operate. A Department that can apparently make sense of self-assessment has some pretty clever civil servants in it—civil servants cleverer than this taxpayer trying to complete the forms—so the argument that the Treasury would not be competent to administer such a scheme is not persuasive.

I cannot understand why anyone would oppose the Bill. It is not as though it is introducing the radical concept of a subsidy to bus operators for the first time. The subsidies to the commercial regular daily bus operators, including those on the 133 route in London—[Interruption.] I meant the 113. I look forward to trying it out some time if the hon. Member for Hendon will send me a schedule. We know that there is a subsidy to commercial operators. I cannot imagine that any Labour Member is willing to say to the Community Transport Association, and to the 5 million pensioners who will write to them next week if the Bill does not get into Committee today, "It is all very well to subsidise commercial operators, but we cannot give the same subsidy to volunteer operators—those who drive the minibuses for disabled people, those who, in their own time, drive community transport vehicles, providing that vital lifeline to so many of our constituents, urban as well as rural." I know that no Labour Member will wish to oppose the measure.

I look forward to serving on the Committee, where some of the technicalities raised by the hon. Member for Hendon may be properly addressed. We may have to do a couple of sessions in Committee before we get it right, but I believe that we are all willing to sacrifice that time in a proper House of Commons Committee to ensure that we get the technicalities of the Bill right, to bring relief to those wonderful volunteers who do so much to help all our constituents.

I shall begin by congratulating the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on securing a position in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I also congratulate him, his hon. Friends and my hon. Friends, the co-sponsors of the Bill, on securing an extremely lively and interesting debate on a subject of great importance to their constituents and to many people throughout the country.

The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have spoken eloquently about the need to support community bus services, and about the real benefits that they deliver to their communities. The Government accept wholeheartedly the worth of those services, and said as much in the White Paper on the future of transport, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", which was recently launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

The hon. Gentleman and others who have spoken in the debate stressed the fact that many people living in rural areas do not have access to bus services. That is right. In paragraph 5.35 of the White Paper, we said:

"Conventional public transport cannot always meet the diverse accessibility needs of all in our communities, particularly the needs of disabled people and those who live in remoter rural areas."

I am a little surprised to hear from the official Opposition such concern for rural transport, given that the Conservative Government did so much to undermine rural transport. It is because of our concern for people living in rural communities that we have allocated £50 million a year to rural transport.

It is most courteous of the hon. Lady to give way. I accept that she has allocated £50 million a year to rural transport. Will she tell us what the income to the Treasury will be from the 17p a gallon increase in petrol that rural motorists will have to pay in the next year?

We are continuing the fuel duty escalator introduced by previous Government—the right hon. Gentleman was a member of that Government. Now that the Conservative party is in opposition, it has given up on the policy that it correctly introduced to reduce people's dependence on car transport, and in so doing to contribute to our environmental objectives, in particular, the achievement of the Kyoto and other targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

I shall explain what the Government are doing to assist rural transport, especially in Derbyshire. Derbyshire's share of the rural transport fund is £700,000 a year: the fund assists new bus services in rural areas. That is a matter of concern not only to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire but to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). There is also a further £800,000 for the Southern Derbyshire rural access initiative, which has been awarded through the rural bus challenge competition.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this morning has been a bit like a session in another forum with which my hon. Friends are familiar? An important subject is raised and a resolution is proposed—in this case a Bill—that addresses the subject but not necessarily in the most helpful way, and the movers are asked to remit it. In expressing the Government's support for, and intention to promote the interests of, community transport, will the Minister please take into account that this subject is just as important in urban areas as it is in rural communities?

My hon. Friend is right. There are notable examples of community and voluntary transport schemes—in London, for instance—that are enormously helpful to people with disabilities. My hon. Friend made another important point in reminding us that concern about rural transport and community transport schemes is not the subject of the Bill.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I should have liked to finish what I was saying in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), but of course I will give way.

I understand that, although so far petitions on the issue that I raised have come from Derbyshire, petitions are being signed in the West Midlands metropolitan area asking for exactly what we in Derbyshire have asked for. This is not just a rural issue.

That is an interesting point, but I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend welcomes the additional funds that the Government's rural transport initiative has provided for people in Derbyshire.

My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the volunteers who participate in community transport schemes in her constituency. I pay tribute to them, and to others involved in such schemes in urban as well as rural areas throughout the country. They provide a vivid example of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described as the need for more people to give to their neighbours—to give their time, as well as their money, to their communities, and in doing so to build a stronger, more inclusive community for us all. I am particularly aware of the invaluable work done by volunteers in regard to community transport initiatives, because—until recently, when she became too frail to drive—my 83-year-old mother was a volunteer driver for a community transport scheme.

My hon. Friend mentioned a study by consultants that was commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who has joined me for the debate, assures me that she and her colleagues will consider the consultants' report carefully as part of their review of community transport schemes.

When does the Minister expect the Department to complete its review?

It will do so as quickly as possible. The matter is complex, and my colleagues and their officials wish to consult and reflect on it. An announcement will be made in due course.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) spoke of the need for community bus services, and the need for community transport to be put on the same footing as commercial operators. Like the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, he referred to what he described as the precedent set by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. He is wrong: although the RNLI is exempt from fuel duty and receives a rebate, that is not because it is a charity doing deserving work but because all sea-going vessels are exempt from fuel duty under a European Union directive. The RNLI has not been singled out for special treatment, and it does not set a precedent in that regard.

I believe that the RNLI has been exempt since 1964, which probably predates an EU directive. Moreover, it provides a community service, both on sea and on land. That is the principle that we were trying to extend.

I am grateful for that clarification. Of course the RNLI provides an invaluable community service, and it is one of the many charities whose work we wish to support; but the fact is that a European Union directive exempts all vessels, and another exempts aircraft. I am afraid that, in 1999, the hon. Gentleman cannot support what he has said.

Will the Minister confirm that, in 1964, there was no European Union directive and that the RNLI was exempted under other directives, which emanated from our Government? Therefore, is she not confusing two things?

I was trying merely to bring the hon. Gentleman up to date with the position as it exists now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) also spoke about the Government's review of community and voluntary transport schemes. That is an important point. As I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley recognised, it is to that review and the work of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that she and other sponsors of the Bill need to direct their concern and efforts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon stressed the technical difficulties with the Bill. They are real. They are not mere matters of drafting that can be sorted out in Committee. As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire recognized—indeed, admitted, when he courteously came to see me in anticipation of the debate—although his objective was to secure an extension of the fuel duty rebate for commercial bus operators to operators of community and voluntary transport schemes, his Bill was directed at the operation of fuel duty itself and would require the fuel that was made available for community and voluntary transport schemes to be exempted from duty. That is not a matter that can simply be sorted out in Committee. As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire recognises, nor can the operation, or possible extension, of the fuel duty rebate be properly dealt with in a private Member's Bill. That problem goes to the heart of the Bill. It is not simply a technical difficulty to be ironed out upstairs in Committee.

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady. I accept that it may not be a matter for a private Member's Bill, but will she accept an amendment to the Finance Bill, or preferably introduce a relevant and appropriate amendment to the Finance Bill, so that the matter can be dealt with properly in the budgetary measures, where much more complicated things are dealt with easily?

The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Government. I am sure that he will recognise that it would be a wholly inappropriate matter for the Finance Bill. I shall explain, should I have the time, precisely what the implications of the Bill, or a similar amendment to the Finance Bill, will be. The objectives that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire and the Bill's sponsors seek to secure are properly a matter for public spending, whether through the rural transport fund, the fuel duty rebate or some other mechanism involving my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

I want to press the Minister on the matter. I am surprised by that answer. I do not accept it. Bearing in mind that, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor announced that there was to be a review of shipping, cabotage and the rights of shipping, surely it is a matter that could be accommodated—I will not say easily—in the Finance Bill.

The hon. Gentleman indicated his full understanding of the difficulties with his Bill when we met last week, but it would assist in answering him and other hon. Members if I said a little more about the operation of the fuel duty scheme, to which the Bill refers, but to which few hon. Members have referred.

We have an efficient means of collecting Excise duties. They are collected essentially at an early stage in the production and distribution system. Road fuel duty is collected on delivery from the refinery, or import warehouse. There are few taxpayers. Those that pay are mostly household names from the oil industry. They are reputable, compliant businesses who pay a large amount of money to the Exchequer every month, on time and accurately.

Object.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for Labour Members to object to a private Member's Bill with which the Government have told me they agree in principle, and which also endorses the Government's own White Paper—which pledges:

"We wish to reduce the impact on traffic and pedestrians caused by streetworks for utility companies"?

Order. Whether any hon. Member objects to a measure before the House is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 March.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

After today's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the outcome of the Brussels negotiations on common agricultural policy reform, this debate has become rather more topical than I had expected it would be. May I express my pleasure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), has returned safely from Brussels? It is good to see him in the Chamber. I shall have some serious questions for him about the rather important issue of how common agricultural policy payments and subsidies are administered.

I should like, first, to concentrate on the system for distributing the moneys that play such an important part in sustaining agriculture, not only in Wales but across the United Kingdom. Although I accept that the Government have made progress on the matter, there is great concern that the current system is inefficient and subject to wholly unacceptable delay, and that it needs to be reformed root and branch.

The second theme which I wish to pursue concerns the manner in which European Union regulations governing payments of subsidies are interpreted and the overall issue of fairness. There is a perception—I can vouch for it from my own constituency postbag—that the rules are construed rather inflexibly and unfairly by the Welsh Office Agriculture Department.

There is a perception that Wales has been the poor relation in respect of the administration of the system of payments and the resources and the information technology required to deliver an efficient system. The Government have acknowledged that, as they have commissioned a major review. I expect that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can tell us more about the progress on that.

Let us remind ourselves of the importance of CAP payments and subsidies to Welsh farmers and the Welsh rural economy. In 1997–98, the payments amounted to £230 million and no fewer than 20,000 Welsh farmers received some form of payment or subsidy. I understand that the payments account for some 50 per cent. of farmers' net incomes.

I need hardly remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that agriculture is in a difficult state. His Department's forecast for this year anticipates a drop in farm income of 41 per cent., leaving the average farmer in Wales with an income of about £6,000 per annum. If there were any need to disabuse the general public of the idea that small farmers in my constituency and in Wales as a whole are well off, the figures would speak for themselves. Farmers are going through a particularly difficult time as a result of world trading conditions and the aftermath of the BSE crisis. Farmers, particularly in the less-favoured areas in Wales, depend heavily on the hill livestock compensatory allowance.

Given the critical state of the Welsh rural economy, cash flow is crucial. The Government accept the need for public support for agriculture in the widest public interest, but we need a better system for delivering payments, which must be made more efficient and more timely.

A letter that I received recently from the National Farmers Union in Ruthin about the inefficiency of the present system stated:

"The dramatic fall in farm income has been compounded in recent years by continued delays in administration and processing of applications by the Welsh Office. These delays are unacceptable and have contributed to severe cash flow difficulties experienced by Welsh producers, thus placing them at a serious disadvantage with their English counterparts."

As I said earlier, the Government have responded and, following a comprehensive review by the management consultants, Hedra, work is in progress on a three-year project to update the system. One of the key findings of the Hedra report was that the Welsh Office Agriculture Department, to which the task of distributing payments has been devolved—and it will subsequently go to the National Assembly for Wales—could not meet farmers charter targets. The report accepted that, for many years, the Welsh Office Agriculture Department had been operating under what was described as crisis management. There were severe problems with the IT system, which was regarded as outdated, and there were inherent difficulties in the paperwork and the forms.

On 15 December last year, the Secretary of State for Wales announced that he accepted the findings of the management consultants' report and that there would be a three-year project to revolutionise the payment system while retaining the present network of Welsh Office Agriculture Department offices. The aim to which the Government aspire is, in the words of the Secretary of State, to

"concentrate on treating farmers properly and releasing payments accurately, on time and with as few burdens as possible."

In the light of that, I have some questions for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. First, what progress has been achieved? I appreciate that this is at an early stage, but an indication of what steps have been taken to implement the project would be much appreciated. Secondly, what resources have been put into the project? I ask that with particular regard to computer technology, which will form an important part of the updating process. Thirdly, when will the improvements come about? Fourthly, what steps will be taken to monitor the effectiveness of the changes? Fifthly, how will the system cope with recent and imminent changes to the common agricultural policy regime and the introduction of the all-Wales agri-environmental scheme, Tir Gofal, which was launched in my constituency last week? Sixthly, and crucially, will the Government consider accelerating the process of change from the anticipated three years to nearer two years or one year? If the implementation of the new computer technology is outsourced, why is it not possible to have real progress much earlier than in three years?

Delay in payments is an important issue. Farmers have experienced severe problems, causing tremendous cash flow difficulties. On the death of a partner in a farm partnership, the Welsh Office Agriculture Department freezes all payments of subsidy to the farm until it has received the grant of probate. That can take up to a year, during which no payments are received. I should like my hon. Friend to review that issue, about which the Farmers Union of Wales is particularly concerned. Could not written assurances from a solicitor be accepted? I appreciate that the Welsh Office needs assurances as to the identity of the right person for payment, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will adopt a more pragmatic approach.

My second main issue relates to the fairness and consistency of the application of the integrated administration and control system—IACS—rules, particularly in the light of European Union regulation 3887/92, with which I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is familiar. My evidence is that it is applied inflexibly and unfairly. I appreciate that the European Union demands high standards of probity and accountability, and that there should be rules to prevent the risk of abuse, but rules should be for the guidance of wise men, not the blind obedience of fools. On many occasions, insufficient common sense and common justice have been applied. My hon. Friend knows of my keen interest in agricultural matters, reflecting my rural constituency, and I am due to see him next week to discuss some individual cases.

Mistakes arise as a result of the complexity of the paperwork. There are examples of claims being turned down because field areas were given in acres rather than hectares, because certain boxes were not ticked, because incorrect field numbers were given on the claim forms, because of a failure to submit a valid form due to ill health or because there was a mistake in copying an identification number.

I should like to refer to two cases, to which I do not expect a formal reply from my hon. Friend today. I am simply putting him on notice. He has received correspondence on the matter, and I look forward to a detailed response from him when I meet him next week.

The case of D. W. and E. F. Roberts of Tan-y-Crraig, Llangernyw, involves an incorrect forage declaration on the IACS form. There was absolutely no element of bad faith on their part. There was an error in so far as the field recorded on the form was the wrong one. That was due to the fact that the owner of the field had given my constituents the wrong number—an innocent mistake, which seems not to have been taken on board in the Welsh Office. I want the Welsh Office seriously to consider taking a sympathetic approach to that case.

The case of the well-established family farmers G. E. Edwards and Sons of Llanfwrog has also given me much cause for concern. There has been extensive correspondence between me, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his predecessor on the matter. It concerns sheep annual premium and hill livestock compensatory allowance claim forms for 1997, which were rejected because they were submitted out of time. Rather unfortunate circumstances surround the case, arising from the illness of the senior partner, who would normally have provided the paperwork. I ask my hon. Friend seriously to reconsider the merits of the case, which is very sad. I want him to think again about it, even if it means stretching the rules. He can do so justifiably because they allow sufficient scope for discretion in order to formulate solutions that are consistent with common sense.

What progress has been made in agreeing the recently published Commission proposals, which would permit the waiver of automatic penalties for certain types of error? I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend's response. Article 11 of the regulations to which I refer deal with the vexed issue of force majeure. The European Commission accepts that, where the defence of force majeure is made, it can excuse claimants from failure to comply with certain conditions. How is that article interpreted? Does the Welsh Office have a definitive view? Is it a question for the Welsh Office Agriculture Department or for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here in London?

I speak as someone who has a predilection for adopting a legal approach, since I was a lawyer before I entered Parliament. Article 11 gives very wide discretion as to how to interpret force majeure. Clause 3 of the article says:

"Without prejudice to the actual circumstances to be taken into account in individual cases, the competent authorities"—

I query whether the competent authority is MAFF or the Welsh Office Agriculture Department—

"may recognize, in particular, the following cases of force majeure".

They include the death of the farmer, long-term professional incapacity, a severe natural disaster, and so on. What is significant, and what I do not think the Welsh Office fully accepts, is that the list is neither exhaustive nor determinative of what amounts to force majeure. I want the Welsh Office to apply its collective mind to how to interpret article 11 fairly and consistently.

Clause 2 of article 11 refers to the need to lodge the invocation of force majeure

"within 10 working days of the date on which the farmer is in a position to do so."

That must mean that the farmer must be aware of the circumstances that enable him to invoke the force majeure defence. That was not acknowledged in the cases to which I have referred.

I want the Welsh Office to consider an appeal tribunal—a second independent opinion—for rejected claims. Such a tribunal exists in Ireland. Does the Welsh Office believe that the transfer orders under the Government of Wales Act 1998 allow the National Assembly for Wales to use its subordinate legislative powers to set up such a tribunal? That would certainly be much valued.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree that we must get the administration of payments right. That is necessary in the public interest and is essential for fairness and to ensure that farmers can survive what is a very difficult time.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) for raising such an important issue for debate at a time when farming and rural communities are facing a great deal of economic hardship. We are now facing major changes as a result of negotiations that were completed only a few days ago in Brussels. He has been assiduous in representing the interests of farmers in his constituency to the Welsh Office over many months, and he is joined today by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), who has been similarly assiduous.

Sheep production makes a very significant contribution to the local economy in Clwyd, West, with more than three quarters of a million sheep and lambs on more than 900 holdings. Net farm incomes in the less-favoured areas of Wales are forecast to have fallen by two thirds in the past year, and the situation has been exacerbated by the continuing strength of sterling, the collapse of export markets in Asia and Russia, and the beef export ban, which we have been working so hard to overturn.

Farming communities are the bedrock of rural Wales and the Government are committed to supporting the industry as it meets the challenges of the years to come. Reform of the common agricultural policy is necessary as fundamental changes occur both in the European Union and in the liberalised worldwide market, with the reduction or removal of supply controls.

The Government are committed to the concept that environmental considerations must be integrated into subsidy payments to farmers. We cannot tolerate a situation in which the agricultural community becomes wholly dependent on direct subsidy from central Government and the European Union.

Since coming to power, in recognition of the difficulties faced by farmers, the Government have provided vital short-term help for the industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 16 November a further major aid package for UK farmers totalling £120 million. Welsh farmers will receive £21 million of that, which will mean, on average, about £1,500 extra for all cattle and sheep farmers in the less-favoured areas.

A £5.6 million subsidy was targeted to suckler cow producers in Wales, and 98 per cent. of that has already been paid. The remaining £15 million earmarked for Wales means that farmers can expect an average increase of about 55 per cent. on current rates for hill livestock compensatory allowances. The payments are well under way and we expect to have paid the vast majority by the end of April.

The new all-Wales agri-environment scheme, Tir Gofal, will embrace the best practices from existing schemes. It is a whole farm initiative, to be run by the Countryside Council for Wales in partnership with the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency and Snowdonia national park.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has launched three agri-food plans for the lamb and beef, dairy and organic sectors this week. They have been developed after wide industry consultation and are based on a common vision, linking the primary produce of Welsh agriculture to profitable markets. The plans form an important part of the Welsh Office's strategy to help farmers, and clearly demonstrate our continuing commitment to the industry. However, we cannot fully protect farmers from economic realities, though our short-term aid package will help to offset some of the financial hardship. The extra aid payments have placed additional burdens on the Welsh Office's payments regime.

The Welsh Office has made some progress with its standard CAP payments this year. For 1998–99 arable payments, 98 per cent. of advance oilseed payments were made by the due date last September, and 93 per cent. of the main arable payments were made by the end of December 1998, against 63 per cent. in 1997. I am also pleased to say that final oilseed payments commenced last month and we anticipate paying 100 per cent. of those claims by 21 April. Also, 97 per cent. of eligible claims from the sheep annual premium scheme have now been paid. Beef special premium and suckler cow premium advance payments commenced in November 1998 and have achieved a payment rate of more than 80 per cent. to date, against 75 per cent. in the previous year. General scheme performance against farmers charter targets is improving, but I acknowledge that it is still unsatisfactory when most schemes are achieving only between 70 to 80 per cent. of their required targets.

It has been recognised for some time that the administration of EU agricultural subsidy payments has been problematic in Wales. The current payments system is out of date and labour intensive. Most of the schemes are difficult to administer and are underpinned by a plethora of EU regulations and accompanying UK statutory instruments.

The payment of £200 million of EU subsidies, via 160,000 transactions to 20,000 farmers each year in Wales alone, necessitates the production of a complex suite of computer programmes. Those have to be tested and rolled out to our divisional officers who strive to give the best possible service, but it is clear that improvements to that service can and must be made.

We fully accept that farmers should receive their subsidy payments on time, notwithstanding the complexities of the current EU rules governing those payments. We recognise that delays in payment have been an added problem for farmers. Our failure, in Wales, to meet farmers charter targets is not acceptable.

As part of the Government's comprehensive spending review in 1998, the Welsh Office appointed consultants to assess the options for securing improved administration of payments to farmers in Wales under the CAP rules. All options, including transferring the work to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Intervention Board Executive Agency, involved developing new computer systems and business processes for making payments. Following widespread consultation with farming unions, Welsh Members of Parliament, Welsh Office staff and trade unions, it was decided to retain the work within the Welsh Office.

As hon. Members in Wales will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 15 December 1998 a major three-year project that will improve the payment system to Welsh farmers. It will develop joint delivery of services with other public sector bodies in Wales, and establish front offices for the National Assembly at the Agriculture Department's divisional and local offices. The project will develop local accessibility of services to farmers and safeguard approximately 500 jobs in rural Wales.

The £16 million project is a new investment and will not be funded from existing provision for Welsh farmers. It is one of the largest single projects facing the Welsh Office and the National Assembly, and demonstrates our commitment to improving the service provided to farmers and others living in rural Wales. Three quarters of the funds have been secured from the Treasury's new invest-to-save budget which is intended to encourage cross-boundary working between Government Departments to ensure more efficient and effective public services. That will involve a new farmer-centred approach to the administration of the CAP in Wales and will reduce the administrative burden on farmers. An early priority will be the simplification and standardisation of services.

Over the coming months, we will work closely with the farming community and others in rural Wales to find out what improvements they want. We will also look at how the common agricultural policy is administered in other member states so that we can adopt best practice. I regret that I cannot answer specifically some of the questions that my hon. Friend asked about the payment process and its development. However, I trust that he understands that we recognise that the present payment regime is inadequate and are actively seeking to improve the system.

While attempting to make our services more customer friendly, we have to acknowledge the need for good regulation and control. Regulation is unavoidable as United Kingdom farmers benefit from around £3 billion-worth of European Union and domestic support measures. We have to take account of operating systems in all member states in order to ensure consistency of approach.

Taxpayers' money cannot be spent without controls, which are in place to ensure that the right amount is paid to eligible farmers. Controls also need to be seen to be in place, particularly in the context of lifting the beef export ban. Member states presently have little discretion over how European Union rules are implemented, and EU auditors frequently check that the United Kingdom territories are administering the schemes correctly. The penalties for not doing so can result in substantial financial disallowance of European Union funding, with a consequential cost to the United Kingdom Exchequer.

I shall meet my hon. Friend to discuss the particular cases that he has brought to my attention. However, he will understand that I cannot address those specific problems from the Dispatch Box today—and it would not be advantageous to those concerned if I were to do so. I trust that I have been able to demonstrate that, subject to the constraints of ensuring consistency across the United Kingdom and the European Union, I shall do all I can to make sure that the rules are operated in a manner that takes account of human frailty. I ask my hon. Friend to accept my reassurances for the time being. I will be glad to discuss with him and with any other Welsh Members specific cases in depth if they require me to do so.