Would the Leader of the House please give the business for the coming week?

The business for the coming week will be as follows:

MONDAY 19 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.

Second Reading of Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords].

Motion relating to the Common European Security and Defence policy.

TUESDAY 20 MARCH—Second Reading of Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords].

Motion on the Churchwardens Measure.

WEDNESDAY 21 MARCH—Opposition day [7th Allotted Day]. Until about 10 o'clock, there will be a debate on "The Government's Conduct of Foreign Policy" on an Opposition motion.

THURSDAY 22 MARCH-The House will be asked to consider a motion arising from the Second Report from the Procedure Committee: "Election of a Speaker".

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 4 o'clock.

FRIDAY 23 MARCH-Private Members' Bills. The provisional business for the following week will be:

MONDAY 26 MARCH—Second Reading of the Adoption and Children Bill.

TUESDAY 27 MARCH—Second Reading of Social Security Fraud Bill [Lords].

WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH—Second Reading of the Private Security Industry Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY 29 MARCH—Debate on the Intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY 30 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.

The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 28 March there will be a debate relating to the support scheme for olive oil in European Standing Committee A.

The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 28 March there will be a debate relating to waste electrical and electronic equipment in European Standing Committee C. [Relevant documents:

Wednesday 28 March 2001:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 9431/00; Support scheme for olive oil. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 23-xxvii (1999–2000).]

European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 10802/00; Waste electrical and electronic equipment. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports HC 28-i (2000–01) and HC 23-xxix (1999–2000).

I thank the Leader of the House for those announcements. We very much welcome the fact that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement to the House following business questions. Events in the foot and mouth outbreak move fast, so may I urge the right hon. Lady to impress on Ministers at MAFF that it would be extremely helpful to hon. Members of all parties if Ministers were able to come to the House with announcements as frequently as possible? The questions and concerns of hon. Members change every day, so I hope that the right hon. Lady will ask her colleague to ensure that Ministers are more available to the House.

In the coming week, is an announcement—or even a debate—planned retarding the Government's proposed cross-party Committee to consider the proceedings of the upper House? The House will be aware that the other place dealt with the Second Reading of the Hunting Bill this week. The Government made an extraordinary proposal: they tabled a procedure motion in the other place to allow only amendments approved by the Government to be debated. That is as great a concern to hon. Members in this Chamber as it is to my noble Friends. Given the precedent that the Government have set, will the right hon. Lady consider sharing with the House what their intentions are for proceedings in another place?

Will the right hon. Lady say whether the Government intend in the coming week's business to allow time for a debate on remaining order No. 50 on the Order Paper, with which she will be familiar? It has been tabled in her name and concerns the reprimand to the Westminster Four. Conservative Members would certainly welcome the opportunity to debate the order—[HON. MEMBERS: "At length."] I agree with my hon. Friends. Extraordinarily, we had anticipated that the debate would take place on Monday because of what was seen to be almost a business announcement by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), on Report on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. He informed my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe):

"I look forward to seeing her on Monday evening, although, unfortunately, she cannot speak then. I gather that, when it comes to debating her position the Opposition Chief Whip will speak for her."—[Official Report, 14 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 1086.]

That was quite an accurate statement, but, again, it was surprising that that was said by a Home Office Minister when the Leader of the House has not confirmed that that debate will take place on Monday.

I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can confirm that the Government intend to provide time, certainly within the next week or two weeks, for the House to debate the conduct of the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). It is an astonishing situation. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has stated clearly that only half the complaints that were put before her in respect of the hon. Gentleman were dealt with because he has failed or has refused to answer any further questions that the commissioner has put to him. Clearly, the House cannot condone such conduct. I hope that the right hon. Lady will ensure that we get a chance to debate that matter.

We would also like to debate the conduct of the Foreign Secretary and the relationship between him and the media during the period that he had possession of a leaked Select Committee report: he had possession of it before it was made officially available. The subject of that report was Sierra Leone, which is an important matter to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that, in the spirit of the reprimand that the right hon. Lady has tabled in respect of my right hon. and hon. Friends, she will feel that matters appertaining to the Foreign Secretary and to the Minister for Europe are as, if not even more, important in terms of censure.

I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the statement that will be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. She is right to say that it is important for Ministers to come to the House to keep it informed. I recognise fully that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the situation and about how it changes day to day. I know that she acknowledges that Ministers are doing everything that they can to spread information and to keep hon. Members up to date with the changing situation by placing updated information continually on the Department's website and by placing in the Library the daily briefings that they are giving.

Formal reports to the House, which allow for questions from hon. Members, are part of that process, but I know that the hon. Lady recognises the importance of Ministers balancing their duties to help to tackle the outbreak with their duties to keep the House informed.

The hon. Lady asked about the handling of debates in the upper House. I have not followed the detail of what has been happening in the upper House. My understanding, however, is that the procedures that were adopted for the Hunting Bill were welcomed and supported by representatives of every part of the upper House—those on the Bishops Bench the Cross Benches and others—with the sad exception of those on the Conservative Front Bench.

That's all right, then.

I thought that majorities ruled, even in the upper House. That probably suggests that it was all right, but I emphasise that it is not a matter for me and that the Government are not making proposals for the procedures of another place, which are a matter for that House. That House took the decision, not us. The hon. Lady will also know that the Government do not have a majority in the upper House; indeed, the Government have only one third of the Members of the upper House. Noble Lords took their decision; that is a matter for them.

The hon. Lady asked me about the issue of the conduct of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—rather unwisely, I should have thought, but that is a matter for her. She also asked me about the issues that have been raised in relation to the conduct of my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. She has raised issues that are highlighted in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. What she does not recognise, and what the House must at all times take into account, is that the reports of the Standards and Privileges Committee are unanimous and have always been unanimous, although there have been some—not least in the news media, but, occasionally, also on the Opposition Benches—who try to give a different impression.

The House charges that Committee with a heavy and very difficult responsibility, which is to weigh the evidence that is put before it and to come to its views. As I had no part in deciding the framework within which the Committee works, or any part whatsoever in the appointment of members to that Committee, I feel perfectly free to say that I think that it is both dangerous and unwise for hon. Members on either side of the House to pass judgment and to try to second-guess the members whom we ourselves have appointed to that Committee—for all of whom I have great respect, although I do not always agree with them. The hon. Lady and others should take that into account.

The hon. Lady asked also about a debate on the conduct of the Foreign Secretary. I read four or five times—because I thought that I must be missing something—the stories that appeared over the weekend about his conduct, and what he said and what he answered to the House, without being able to discover within them any contradiction with what actually happened. Of course it is open to hon. Members to seek to pursue opportunities to discuss his conduct, but I suspect that the content of any such debate would be extremely short and that most normal members of the public would find the matter extremely boring.

I should like to say one other thing to the hon. Lady about her suggestion—I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for this lengthy reply but I think that it is such an important issue for the entire House—that we should have a debate on such matters. Two things, I think, are of great importance to all hon. Members. The first and by every standard the most important is that there should not be corruption in our public life, and that if there is corruption it should be stamped out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That has to be—[Interruption.] I am glad to know that Opposition Members support that contention, and I say to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that he should be more cautious in what he says.

Secondly, however, while it has to be the prime role of this House to ensure that corruption is identified and removed if it exists, every single hon. Member has an interest in ensuring that frivolous or unsubstantiated allegations are not made or encouraged. I say—I have said it to hon. Friends and I say it publicly as I would say it privately to Opposition Members—that allegations should be neither made nor pursued for what is thought to be either personal or party advantage or vendetta. I think that that is damaging to the House and damaging to hon. Members, and it is something that all hon. Members should bear in mind.

The final issue that the hon. Lady raised was whether we should debate the behaviour of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. I recognise that this is not a Question Time for the hon. Lady, but there is a question for her to consider in her role as shadow Leader of the House. It is the question that I put to her the other evening about whether Conservative Members uphold the authority of the Chair. I remind her and other Opposition Members of the words of Mr. Speaker a few days ago—which were that the right hon. Lady had no business to be in that Committee, and that he disapproved strongly of her being there. That has always been the rule of this House, and it is a rule that all hon. Members would be well advised to bear in mind.

Will the remaining stages of the Bill on the abolition of hunting with hounds will come back to this House before or after 3 May? Is she aware that yesterday the Duke of Devonshire and the Countryside Alliance were clamouring for a postponement of any election until well after 3 May? Can she tell them when the foxhunting Bill might go through its remaining stages so that they can make their mind up about which date they would like the election to be held?

I was not aware of the specific individuals who were calling for the postponement of an election, which, as far as I am aware, has not been called. I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is clear from the way in which the House voted that a majority of Members take the view that a hunting Bill should reach the statute book, and the House has given its verdict on the form that that legislation should take. It is a matter for Members of the other place how and when they take their decisions, but I am sure that they will be mindful of the views of the elected House.

The Prime Minister yesterday announced the appointment of a Minister for veterans affairs, which I am sure is widely welcomed on both sides of the House. Will the Leader of the House assure us that information will be made available to all Members on the Minister's role and remit, and, in particular, what additional budget will be made available to him? Will the right hon. Lady also assure us that his attention will be drawn immediately to early-day motion 226 on Gulf veterans:

[That this House notes that, 10 years after the Gulf War, veterans and their families are still awaiting the outcome of research; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to disclose what further consideration they are giving to the needs of those Gulf War veterans with still undiagnosed illnesses and of the dependants of those who have died.]

The Leader of the House will recall that I have asked her on two successive occasions at business questions about contingency plans for the census and the county council elections on 3 May. I am very grateful to her for the reply that I received just as I came into the Chamber, which answers some of the questions that arise. However, since I asked those questions, the Tory tabloids have started a clamour to postpone the elections on 3 May.

Name them.

Order. Do not shout at the hon. Gentleman. He is entitled to say his piece.

We all know that the situation is extremely serious in many parts of the country as a result of foot and mouth disease. Does the right hon. Lady support the view expressed yesterday by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that the countryside of Britain is not closed? Does she agree that if we suggested that all business in this country, including an election, had to be postponed because of the severity of the situation it would be the worst possible signal to give, particularly to foreign visitors?

Will returning officers be encouraged to issue a postal vote application form with polling cards to all those who may otherwise not be aware of the new facilities, together with an explanation that the means for postal voting are now much more widely available than they were previously? Will she also give an undertaking that the Home Office will reconsider election expenses, which in rural areas such as Cornwall will be much higher if we have to operate at a distance and cannot use volunteers on foot?

Finally, what legislation may be necessary to make any changes to the census date or polling day for any election, be it the county elections or the general election? What is the last available date by which that legislation must be brought before the House?

On the role of my colleague who has been appointed Minister for veterans affairs, the Ministry of Defence will issue a statement about his role and remit. As for whether that post will have a separate budget, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have already taken steps to deal with the issues of greatest concern that were constantly raised with our predecessors—the treatment of war widows and compensation for former Japanese prisoners of war. Resolution of those issues has been urged on Governments for very many years and it has fallen to this Government to take action, which the previous Government refused to do.

The hon. Gentleman in also referred to Gulf war veterans. The Government's view is that the key components of the issue are dialogue, the provision of medical assistance as required, the pursuit of the right research and its publication.

The hon. Gentleman asked about contingency plans, with regard to the election, and I am grateful to him for his thanks for the information that I have given to him. He raised an important point when he referred to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, but it is my understanding that a range of organisations concerned with the tourist industry in particular has begun to express serious alarm at any suggestion that the local elections might be postponed because of the signal that that would send. Along with the concerns of those who, for perfectly understandable and legitimate reasons, argue that the local elections should be postponed, is the different and equally worthy point of view that that would be the wrong signal to give. The Government are taking all those issues into account.

The hon. Gentleman suggested what should be the action of returning officers, and I shall draw his suggestion to the attention of the relevant authorities. It is possible that the money involved would come from local authorities' budgets, so it may be a matter for them; but returning officers must always encourage people to be aware of how they can exercise their votes, and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is interesting. I shall also pass on his comments about the impact on election expenses, although I offer him no great prospect of change.

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, primary legislation would be required were we to seek to change the date of the local elections. I understand that we would also be required to name a new date: many of those who suggest a postponement do not seem to have taken that into account.

According to my recollection, the date of the census was set by order, so the position may be simpler. However, the hon. Gentleman will know from the answer I have given him in writing that those who conduct the census are considering the timing of information and how it is collected, to establish whether there are changes they could helpfully make that would mean things could proceed with the same effectiveness, if not in precisely the same way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a broad smile on the face of Tyneside this morning, following the excellent news that AMEC and Shell have clinched the largest-ever overseas offshore contract? It will bring 4,000 jobs to the country—1,000 on Tyneside, 1,000 in the rest of the north-east, and 2,000 throughout the remainder of the country.

May we congratulate the workers and management of those companies, and—given that the news comes on the back of major investment announcements by Nissan, Toyota, Rolls-Royce, Volkswagen, Jaguar and Ford—may we have a debate on why Britain is a good country in which to do business?

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's wish for such a debate. It is clear from the decisions and, indeed, the comments of these many internationally mobile inward investors that they share the view expressed by organisations as disparate as the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that, under this Government, Britain is a very good place in which to do business. I also understand my right hon. Friend's welcome for the extra employment—on behalf of his constituents and others—which I am sure is shared by Members throughout the House, and echo his congratulations to management and work force.

I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but my right hon. Friend might consider Westminster Hall.

Would the Leader of the House be kind enough to tell us when we can expect a statement from her about future sittings? She will know that, under a completely new and revolutionary procedure, the Committee considering the Criminal Justice and Police Bill was deemed to have finished its work when it manifestly had not. Can we expect the right hon. Lady to announce at next week's business questions that we are to debate a motion stating that Parliament is deemed to have completed all outstanding business, and is therefore to be dissolved?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can expect that, although it is a tempting thought sometimes.

On occasion, there is some inaccuracy in Opposition Members' description of these events. The House decided merely to deem that the Bill had been reported. It would have been a case of the Committee's considering a single issue—a single motion that it would certainly have considered, and presumably passed had there been an opportunity to put the question.

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). When a Back Bencher used such tactics on a previous occasion, he said that if tactics are used artificially to disrupt the proceedings of a Committee, the Government and the House must find a remedy for it. It is not to be tolerated that such a procedure should be used without remedy.

I am not used to receiving unqualified support from Prime Ministers, especially Conservative ex-Prime Ministers. My right hon. Friend may have noticed that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) has signed my early-day motion 257

[That this House warmly supports the proposal put forward by Rita Restorick, and others such as the Royal British Legion, the Gulf Veterans, the Falklands Families and the South Atlantic Medal Association, that a posthumous medal, similar to the US Purple Heart, be presented to the next of kin of troops killed in action so that it can be worn with pride on Remembrance Day; accepts that suitable criteria for such a medal need he carefully defined and that this is best done by the Ministry of Defence in consultation with the Royal British Legion and forces' associations; but believes that servicemen and women who are killed in the line of duty have made the supreme sacrifice and deserve recognition for this in the form of a medal, as well as the Government's proposed memorial in central London.]

It calls for posthumous medals to be issued to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice as troops in the forces for Britain. The campaign is run by Rita Restorick, whose son was the last person to be murdered on duty by the IRA in south Armagh. As it now has such prestigious support, may we have a debate about it on the Floor of the House?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. He knows that the House has the greatest respect for Rita Restorick. We sympathise with her loss, admire her courage and recognise the concerns of the wider community with which she bore that loss. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the granting of medals can be contentious. There is not a tradition of awarding a medal because an individual has died, however tragic the circumstances of that death. The Government keep these issues under review. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is so grateful to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I am sure that such support lends lustre to his early-day motion. Although I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I fear that that support may not be the clinching factor that swings the decision one way or the other.

Has the Leader of the House seen the draft statutory instrument, Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications No. 1) Order 2001? Is she aware that this Bill—Freudian slip—or rather, statutory instrument appeared yesterday and is down to be debated at 4.30 pm on Monday? Is she aware that it is 144 articles long and longer than the original Postal Services Act 2000 that appeared on 27 January 2000? Is she aware that the other place was due to consider it with six other statutory instruments tomorrow but, following representations, it has been withdrawn? This is either carelessness or an abuse of power. Will the Leader of the House ensure that its consideration is postponed and that either it is split into six or seven manageable statutory instruments or we have a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House?

As the House will recognise, if we were always to judge the time we spend on a matter by its length, it would not be wise. I was not aware of the issues that the hon. Gentleman identified. I cannot undertake to make changes on the hoof, so to speak. I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends who have responsibility for this matter. No doubt they will take heed of his remarks.

May I first thank my right hon. Friend for her welcome visit to King Richard school in my constituency to underline its anti-drug culture?

May we have time for a debate on fairness at work? I ask because of revelations in a newspaper on Sunday that the Leader of the Opposition has sent a threatening letter to Sir Ken Jackson, the leader of my union, promising that if the Opposition came to power they would revoke all legislation on recognition for trade unions. Does not that underline the Opposition's wish to exploit people, whereas the Labour Government are protecting them all the time?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy; I very much enjoyed my visit to an excellent school in his constituency, which is doing a tremendous job. I was much impressed by the talent of the young people taking part in the anti-drugs campaign—as any Member of the House would have been.

My hon. Friend asks for a debate on fairness at work, and raises the correspondence between Sir Ken Jackson and the Leader of the Opposition. I have, of course, taken on board the policy observations that were made. I understand my hon. Friend's concern; as he recognises, the Labour Government have long taken the view that it is a gross economic error to try to compete in today's economies on the basis of sweatshop conditions or of aiming for ever-lower pay and costs. Investment in quality and value must be the only sound long-term basis for the United Kingdom. It is clear that that view is shared across the economy—not least by the great bulk of private sector employers. Many people will share some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time on the Floor for a debate on the matter, but I am sure that he will find other opportunities to raise it.

Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the latest report of the Select Committee on Liaison, "Shifting the Balance: Unfinished Business"? Does she recall that the previous occasion on which the House debated such matters was due to the generosity of the Opposition, who found time for the debate? It is up to the Government to find time for such important issues.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Committee concludes unanimously:

"It is clear that the system for nominating members of select committees must be changed."?

If that change is to be implemented in time for the new Parliament, the Government will have to activate the machinery quite soon. Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate and the necessary votes?

I was not aware of the latest report from the Liaison Committee, which was, I understand, published at one minute past midnight today, when I had other concerns. Of course, I shall study the report with great interest. On two previous occasions, we have debated and discussed the recommendations of the Committee; I shall read the report's recommendations with great care and attention.

Will the Leader of the House recognise the misgivings in many parts of the House about the report published on the Minister for Europe? Although my right hon. Friend is right to reject the exaggerated claims made for party political reasons by the Opposition, the report gives evidence of inadequacies in our procedures and of the need for a debate on future reforms.

My hon. Friend may or may not be aware that the Standards and Privileges Committee published a report some little time ago, stating that we should look again at our procedures. The Committee is now taking evidence—several hon. Members have given written or oral evidence—and I have little doubt that a time will come when the House will look again at the framework within which we make judgments on those matters. However, I doubt that it is likely to be in the near future. When and if we discuss those issues, I hope that the House will look more widely at the framework—the structure—for how we make such judgments, rather than relying on individual reports, because there are different views and concerns throughout the House.

In my constituency, dozens of four-year-old children face the prospect of being bussed five miles or more to their first school in September. That is due to the abject failure of the Conservative-controlled local education authority to provide sufficient school places for those children in their catchment area. Will the Leader of the House ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement to the House, setting out the duty of local education authorities to provide school places for local children, and to tell the House what measures he can take to ensure that education authorities subscribe to their duties?

I was not aware of the position described by the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly sorry to learn of another example of lack of investment resulting in inadequate opportunities—especially for young people. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the issue, but I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

Is the Leader of the House aware that if there is a debate on the reform of the Register of Members' Interests, full account should be taken of the fact that since it was set up in the mid-1970s it has never had the full authority of all Members of the House? At the beginning, at least two Members would not comply with it at all. Latterly, we made a suggestion, which we thought would apply, that every Member with outside interests—the moonlighters, many of them on the Tory Benches—would have to put down all their outside earnings within specific brackets. Some of those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench—the Tory shadow Ministers—refused to put down their earnings, so the whole purpose of the register has been violated for several years. We should have full authority to reform the register, and when we have that debate, let us make sure that all those Tory MPs, the moonlighters, who refuse to put down their earnings have to declare them before they are allowed to speak.

I recall the very early days of the register and those Members who, as my hon. Friend rightly said, refused to comply with it. If I remember correctly, there was one on either side of the House. Of course I understand the point that he makes. There will come a time when the House will have to take a fresh look at how we handle those issues and what is the right framework in which to ensure that the information that should be known is on the record. We have to decide whether Members should declare what is relevant to their performance as Members, or whether everything with regard to Members' financial affairs should be fully disclosed. My hon. Friend will know that some of my hon. Friends and I have different views on that matter, and there are different views about it on either side of the House.

Will right hon. Lady agree to have words with the Prime Minister before next Wednesday's business, to point out the massive concern in the west country, especially in Devon, about the affect of the foot and mouth epidemic and the feeling that it would be quite impossible to run a proper general election during this period? [Interruption.] It may be funny to some hon. Members, but in my constituency and throughout the west country, it is a very serious matter indeed. Perhaps the right hon. Lady would point out to her colleague, the Prime Minister, that, although he is making great play of the fact that there is a great deal that the Labour party yet has to accomplish, he still has 20 per cent. of this Parliament in which to do so, if he would get on with it. That would be much more satisfactory to my constituents, and perhaps even to me, but we shall leave that out.

We are scheduled to hold local elections on 3 May, as the right hon. Gentleman will know. Of course I understand and sympathise, as does the House, with his constituents' concerns, not least because they live in perhaps the second most severely affected part of the United Kingdom until now. Obviously, although the media have been talking about a general election on 3 May for more than a year, no general election has been called. However, the Government keep the position under review. At present, we are primarily concerned with handling the foot and mouth outbreak, which is obviously at the top of everyone's agenda.

Pursuant to the questions asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), may I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that the last dedicated, full day's debate on veterans' affairs was held on the anniversary of the battle of the Somme—1 July 1994—when I was fortunate enough to table a Back-Bench motion. Unfortunately, such motions have disappeared under the Jopling changes. On that occasion, the House unanimously passed a resolution that there should be a dedicated veterans Minister. My right hon. Friend will understand my joy—and, more importantly, that of the 1.75 million members of the Royal British Legion—that, yesterday, the Prime Minister fulfilled the resolution that was passed in the previous Parliament.

Logically, if we have a veterans Minister, we also need an annual, full-day debate along the lines of the debate on the Metropolitan police that takes place every October. Will she build such a debate into the parliamentary timetable after the next general election?

Finally—[Interruption.] The House might not like it, but the issue is important. In the debate in 1994, the then Conservative Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Jonathan Aitken, said:

"My answer to the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Thurrock is that, at first glance, it sounds attractive and interesting, but the attraction of establishing a single focal point with responsibility for all the needs of ex-service personnel is superficial."—[Official Report, 1 July 1994; Vol. 245, c. 1104.]

They denied it; we have delivered it.

I know that my hon. Friend has long been a very vigorous campaigner on this issue.

I think that he should get the job.

Without any personal interest in the outcome, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has long been a vigorous campaigner for such a post to be created. He deserves the congratulations of both sides of the House on the fact that the campaign has been successful. As he rightly said, it has long been a campaign of the Royal British Legion, and I know that it will welcome the creation of the post.

As my hon. Friend knows, any Leader of the House receives many—they are almost all extremely worthwhile—requests on a whole range of issues for a commitment to a day's debate on the Floor of the House. I therefore cannot give him such a commitment, but I shall certainly bear his observations in mind.

The Leader of the House will know that I have previously called for a debate in the Chamber on early-years education. Such a debate might focus on the fact the pre-schools and playgroups have closed at a rate of knots under this Government or on the fact that the number of children educated in nursery classes with more than 30 children is greater than it was under the previous Conservative Government. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about this matter, and he told me that he was in liaison with the Leader of the House. What are the results of those discussions? May we have a debate in the Chamber about how the Government are failing our youngest children?

The hon. Gentleman raises an entirely reasonable and legitimate concern, but I rather suspect that the chief reason why pre-school groups and playgroups are finding it difficult to continue to make headway is that the Government have made available opportunities for universal nursery education on a scale that has never been seen before. Therefore, the outcome is a consequence of success rather than of failure.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has repeatedly stressed how much he values that range of provision. The Government have done a great deal to try to work with, support and assist such voluntary groups, and we shall continue to do so. My right hon. Friend is aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the near future.

May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and ask for an early debate on the suggested postponement of the local elections due to be held on 3 May? My right hon. Friend will have heard that The Wall Street Journal has the mistaken view that Britain is under quarantine, and that causes great concern in Chester, which is important to my constituency. I heard today on Radio 5 Live that the deputy leader of Cumbria county council, which covers a rural area, has expressed her concern about such comments. It would cause immense damage to tourism if a similar message were to go out from this House. We must have an early debate.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He will know that the taskforce that was set up this week is trying to clarify the position in rural areas. It is clear that many people who were thinking of taking a holiday break in parts of the country that might be unaffected thought that they might be helping the general position of the agriculture industry by changing their minds and cancelling their arrangements. That is obviously causing great concern to the tourist industry.

My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the fact that we must make it plain that Britain is not in a state of quarantine. Firm action is being taken and it is incumbent on us all to try to identify what can safely be done and what should be avoided so that we ensure that we do not do anything that would add to the spread of the disease. I understand his concerns. He will know that we have made regular statements to the House and will continue to do so, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate soon.

I know that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is here to make a statement and answer questions on foot and mouth, but I want to raise a related matter that concerns the Leader of the House. What mechanisms are in place for Members of Parliament to bring foot and mouth problems to the Minister's attention? The right hon. Lady will be aware that I mentioned this in a point of order on Monday, in which I explained that there is no dedicated officer in the Ministry with whom we can raise our concerns. When I rang the Minister's private office on Monday, one of his officials told me that I should call a local animal health office. I said, "Come on. I am a Member of Parliament. I want a dedicated officer." He promised to get back to me, but still no one has contacted me. I rang the foot and mouth helpline, which said that it could not help because the information was three days out of date. That is not good enough.

Will the Leader of the House urgently investigate whether we can have a dedicated officer to whom we can rapidly bring problems? It was suggested that the hon. Member for Bolton. West (Ms Kelly), the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, would be that contact. I handed to her last Thursday an urgent constituency case, but I have heard nothing from either the Minister or anyone in his office. I do not know what has happened to that case—perhaps it has been lost. Will the Leader of the House urgently investigate the problem and see what can be done?

As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend is here and will, no doubt, take heed of what he says. I have pages of listed contacts that different hon. Members have rightly and legitimately made with the Ministry to pass on information and concerns, which may be of help to it. My right hon. Friend is doing everything he can in difficult circumstances to keep the House informed, which I am sure he will continue to do. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's wish to have a dedicated officer. Although the Government take fully into account the concerns of the House and hon. Members, he will know that the Ministry's primary task is not merely to keep the House informed, but to perform its role of dealing with the outbreak. All its offices are doing their best to balance those heavy responsibilities.

As a member of the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the scope of, and time allocated to, the motion that we will discuss on the behaviour of those Members who disrupted our proceedings? It was obvious to many of us on the Committee that there was concerted effort to engineer a crisis. Conservative members of the Committee wasted the equivalent of one full sitting on bogus points of order. After the disreputable behaviour of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), she confirmed in the newspapers that their action was part of an organised campaign by Opposition Whips. We now learn that their Chief Whip will defend her and her colleagues in the debate on that motion, but perhaps he should be in the dock with her.

My hon. Friend makes important points and those matters might be aired in the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have to consider carefully their responsibilities to the House as a whole and, not least, to the Chair, whoever that may be. I am concerned, as is Mr. Speaker, about the difficult position in which the Standing Committee Chairman was placed. Members who perform that onerous role undertake great responsibilities on behalf of the House. They spend many long hours and are not remunerated. The least we owe them is to treat them with respect.

I want to update the House on the latest position on the foot and mouth disease outbreak. I also want to set out how the Government are taking forward disease control measures, given our increased knowledge about how the disease has spread.

As at 1 pm today, there have been 240 confirmed cases in the United Kingdom. Some 205,000 animals have been condemned for destruction, of which more than three quarters have already been slaughtered. That is out of a total UK cattle, sheep and pig population of more than 55 million. Out of 160,000 livestock farms throughout the UK, 1,200 have been placed under restriction because of a confirmed or suspected case of the disease. We have been able to lift restrictions on more than 660 of those farms, leaving fewer than 550 farms still restricted.

This is a devastating disease for farming and for the rural communities affected. I express my deepest sympathy for those farmers who have lost their herds and flocks and for the wider farming communities who are going through a time of terrible uncertainty and distress.

I was sorry to learn of a confirmed case in France earlier in the week. I understand that, so far, there have been no further cases on the continent. We have stayed in close contact with the European Commission and other European countries' veterinary authorities. They have all strongly supported the firm action taken in the UK to control the disease and prevent its spread. From the outset, the Government have put firm disease control measures rapidly in place. Every action has been taken on the advice of the chief veterinary officer.

Each day, we have learned more about the outbreak. Epidemiological investigations and the incubation of disease in livestock have revealed the mechanisms by which the disease has spread. As our understanding has increased, I have shared new information with the House and given daily briefings.

The disease has spread mainly through movement of sheep and subsequent mixing of animals at a small number of livestock markets. It is important to stress that the vast majority of disease spread around the country took place before 20 February, when the first outbreak was discovered in Essex.

With increased knowledge about how the disease has spread, the Government have been able to refine disease control measures. In the infected areas, we have intensified controls. Where possible, we have allowed movement; for example, licensed movements to slaughter and short movements for welfare reasons.

The Government are working to five key disease control aims. The first is to keep free of disease those areas of the country still free of it, and the second is to halt the deterioration of the disease situation in Devon. Thirdly, we aim to stop the spread of the disease in the north of England and south-west Scotland. We are increasingly seeing localised spread from sheep flock to sheep flock in Scotland and from cattle to cattle in Cumbria. Fourthly, we want to minimise the spread of the disease from Longtown, Welshpool and Northampton markets, where it has been identified that infection has been present. The fifth aim is to eliminate infection in flocks that have passed through dealers known to have handled infected flocks. Of course, we will keep that strategy under constant review.

Taking each of those issues in turn, I shall set out the action that the Government are taking. In areas that are currently disease free, we will establish a new type of controlled area within which we hope eventually to allow a more normal level of activity both in agriculture and the rural community. But in the short term, the priority will be to avoid the risk of importing the disease into those clean areas by movements of animals from areas where there is infection. In addition, we will identify any high-risk movements of sheep that took place before 23 February. Those sheep will be destroyed to ensure that any possibility of infection is removed.

In Devon, the disease has been spreading from farm to farm due to the nature of agriculture, which means that there are many small farms, dense animal populations and movements of people and equipment. The strategy there will be to have an intensive patrol to all farms within 3 km of the infected farm. Each farm will be visited and inspected by veterinary or trained lay staff to ensure that cases of foot and mouth disease are identified as soon as possible to prevent onward spread.

The large focus on infection in the north of England and southern Scotland has been mostly concentrated in the sheep flock, although there is now cattle-to-cattle spread in Cumbria. There are a considerable number of cases in that area, with the potential for rapid spread to adjacent farms and even further afield. In this case, we must still ensure that infected animals are removed as quickly as possible, and to do that it will be necessary to destroy animals within the 3 km zones on a precautionary basis.

We now have clear evidence that sheep from markets in the Welshpool, Northampton and Longtown areas were exposed to disease and there is reason to suspect that, with the passage of time, a number of flocks into which they were imported may become infected. Those flocks will be removed as dangerous contacts. The same approach will be taken to sheep handled during the high-risk period by two major dealers associated with movements of infected sheep.

That is a policy of safety first. We are intensifying the slaughter of animals at risk in areas of the country—thankfully, still limited—where the disease has spread. Provided other areas remain disease free, we can, over the next week to 10 days, consider modifying restrictions in areas that have remained clear. We are deeply conscious of the animal welfare problems posed by the movement restrictions that we had to put in place for disease control reasons. We made arrangements last week for a number of localised licensed movements that, I hope, have alleviated a proportion of those problems. We were not, however, then able to provide for long-distance movements of animals caught in the wrong place, such as sheep on tack on dairy farms in England.

I shall publish later today the principles of a scheme for moving such animals, necessarily under very tight restrictions. The general principle will be that animals can be moved within a currently controlled area, or within currently disease-free areas, or into an area of higher disease risk, but not the other way round. It is my intention that farmers will be able to apply for licences for such movement over the weekend.

Those arrangements will not, of course, deal with all the welfare problems that animals face. Some animals will be unable to move because of their condition; others will be unable to move because they are in infected areas. Where animal welfare problems cannot be alleviated by local action—meaning husbandry—we shall put in place arrangements for their disposal at public expense. That scheme will apply across the United Kingdom. Payments will be made for such animals, broadly on the lines of those adopted by the Government in East Anglia last autumn for the pig welfare disposal scheme.

I should emphasise that that is a voluntary scheme. It will be for individual farmers to decide whether to offer livestock to the scheme; acceptances will depend on certification by a vet that a welfare problem exists or is about to emerge. The licence to slaughter scheme introduced on 2 March has allowed the meat trade to begin operating again, although on a necessarily limited basis. The latest estimate of the Meat and Livestock Commission is that the pig sector is back to 78 per cent. of normal production, beef is at 68 per cent. and lamb at 30 per cent. of normal production. Veterinary advice does not recommend setting up a system of collection centres, although the option is being kept under review.

The control of foot and mouth disease is a major logistical exercise. In that task, we are drawing on the expertise of many public sector organisations, particularly those with field organisations or specialist knowledge and expertise, including the Ministry of Defence, the Environment Agency, the Meat and Livestock Commission and my Ministry's agencies. The Ministry of Defence is deploying a logistic planning team, drawn from Land Command, to provide advice on the planning and management of civil and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food resources. We have also been offered support by a wider range of private organisations. In addition, there has been international support, particularly in the provision of veterinary staff to help with the disease control programme. I am enormously grateful for all that support.

Disease control measures have had a major impact on non-farm businesses in rural areas, particularly the tourism industry. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport explained to the House what the Government are doing to help those sectors. A new taskforce has met to take that work forward. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will make further announcements next week. MAFF will continue to provide targeted advice and guidance from the chief veterinary officer on the risks associated with a range of activities in the countryside.

Movement control measures are keeping the spread of the disease to an absolute minimum. Slaughtering the disease out of infected farms and dangerous contacts is bearing down on it where it exists. An intensified slaughter policy in respect of animals thought to be at risk of developing the disease will add to this effort. As further cases emerge, we will learn more about the way in which the outbreak has developed, and that will inform any further refinements of the control policy as necessary. Of course, I will continue to keep the House informed.

Foot and mouth disease is a personal tragedy for those affected, and a body blow to the livestock industry as a whole. Again, I express the Government's deepest sympathy for those affected. I also express my support and appreciation of the state veterinary service, the farming organisations and all the others who are involved in combating the disease and dealing with its consequences. I continue to appeal to the public for their co-operation. It is important to remember that the key risk is contact with susceptible livestock. The precautionary measures should be focused on bearing down on that risk. There is no need to bring all aspects of rural activity to a standstill. While the disease is still with us, I renew my appeal to the public to avoid unnecessary visits to livestock farms, and where visits are unavoidable, to take the precautions advised.

I am grateful for the support of the House for the Government's actions. It is important that we set aside party politics in dealing with this outbreak. If the whole country works together and works constructively, we will get through this.

I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, and for making it available to me about half an hour ago. I start by expressing our appreciation of the work of his Ministry's officials, the vets and the others who are in the front line of the efforts being made to curb the spread of foot and mouth disease.

I reiterate our general support for the Minister and our backing for most of the specific actions that he has taken so far. On a personal note, I offer him my genuine sympathy for the substantial burden that he is carrying. The Opposition hope that the crisis is brought to a speedy and successful conclusion.

Last Sunday, the Minister said on television that the situation was under control. Since then, the number of confirmed foot and mouth cases has doubled. New cases are being confirmed this week at a much faster rate than in either of the two previous weeks. Disease has entered Cheshire for the first time, causing alarm and fear among farmers in that important livestock area. The first case is strongly suspected in my constituency in Suffolk, on the farm of Richard Easton, who today, like many others in a similar position, is extremely distressed.

Tens of thousands of diseased animals still await slaughter around the country, and tens of thousands of carcases of slaughtered animals are lying around in the open, awaiting disposal. Whatever the reason for the Minister's claim last Sunday that matters were under control, events have quickly shown how unfounded it was.

On the measures that the Minister announced, we support the Government's decision to embark on the slaughter of sheep that may have been infected through contact at the markets to which he referred. Further large-scale slaughter will clearly put huge extra strain on resources that are already stretched. I urge the Minister again to make wider use of the Army to assist the task than is currently proposed by the Government. The Army's skills and disciplines could be put to good use in the difficult task of laughter and disposal.

The Minister will be aware of the concern about the lengthy journeys involved in sending carcases for rendering. There are persistent reports that some of the lorries used are not properly sealed, and that that method of disposal therefore runs the risk of spreading infection further. Bearing in mind the backlog of carcases that is still building up, will he examine the possible use of burial on farms as an additional form of carcase disposal? That method was widely and successfully used in 1967. It is quicker and, in many respects, easier. The Army could be used immediately. Of course, I recognise that in some areas the water table may pose a problem. Will he ask the Environment Agency today to identify specific areas where burial might be dangerous on grounds of human or animal health? Will he then permit burial on farms as a means of disposal in areas that are not proscribed by the Environment Agency?

Does the Minister acknowledge that large-scale slaughter is distressing, especially for farmers who have reared their animals, but also for the wider public? Will the Government undertake a public information programme to explain more clearly the reasons for the slaughter, and why vaccination, which is widely canvassed, is not an acceptable alternative?

Will the Minister give greater discretion to vets who suspect the presence of foot and mouth disease in a herd to authorise immediate slaughter to reduce the risk of spreading infection posed by large and increasing numbers of diseased animals awaiting slaughter? Does he agree that time is of the essence in responding to all aspects of the crisis? Delays between suspecting and confirming a case, and between confirmation and slaughter, can mean that diseased animals are not slaughtered as quickly as is desirable for effective control of the outbreak.

Last week, the Minister asked me to suggest ways in which to extend existing compensation measures. I am sorry that I have not yet written to him. I warmly welcome his announcement about the pig welfare disposal scheme or a similar arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) recommended such action when he wound up the debate on 28 February. How quickly will the new arrangements become operational? How much money will be available for them?

I shall make two more specific suggestions on compensation; I may make others later. First, farmers whose cattle pass the age of 30 months suffer a sharp, unrecoverable loss of value. They are a definable, fairly small group, and they should be compensated for their loss. I stress that the suggestion is not intended to apply to farmers who can obtain licences to send their stock for slaughter. Help should be given to those who are unable to obtain or even apply for a licence.

Secondly, I recognise that industries other than farming are badly affected by the crisis. Tourism is the prime—but by no means the only—example. Cash flow problems are immediate and acute. As I said in a previous debate, many people who work in the public sector and receive their salary cheque on the 28th day of every month have no concept of the anxiety and agony of business men who simply do not know when they will receive their next income. The only permanent solution for such businesses is the control of foot and mouth disease. In the meantime, will the Government instruct local councils to grant businesses that have been hit by the crisis immediate relief from business rates?

The Minister knows that we have supported his efforts through his licensing scheme to facilitate the movement of ewes that are in the wrong place for lambing. I welcome the further measures that he has announced today. I share his anxiety that efforts to facilitate movement should not jeopardise other efforts to prevent the spread of the disease. I accept that, in some cases, requests for licences may have to be refused. Doubtless he, like me, has received reports of local administrative difficulties. Will his officials make every effort to ensure that issuing licences is not delayed by bureaucratic problems rather than veterinary advice?

I apologise for the length of my response, but much has happened in the seven days since Parliament last had the opportunity to question the Minister. There is some conflict between statements from the Minister for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Neither is present today. That conflict has caused confusion about the Government's policy on the countryside. Are people encouraged to visit it to support businesses there or discouraged from visiting it to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease? The Minister for the Environment called some parts of the countryside safe. How can any part be so described when foot and mouth disease may be incubating there? Will the Minister therefore clarify the Government's priorities, so that the public understand what is expected of them?

I agree with the Minister's statement about the gravity of the crisis. Its consequences go far beyond the livestock sector. He ended with an appeal to the whole country to work together, which I wholeheartedly endorse. I hope that that will be accompanied by a real effort in all Departments to work together and a willingness to use resources available from outside agencies and industries. I also hope that the Government will be willing to apply any lessons learned from the policy adopted in France and Ireland, if it appears that those measures are effective, and from reports written in the aftermath of the 1967 outbreak.

The whole nation has a deep interest in the urgent and successful resolution of this crisis. It rightly expects that no other considerations will be allowed to impede progress towards that outcome.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about public officials, who are working extremely hard to exterminate and resolve this terrible disease outbreak and to get everything back to normal. He is right that we should learn from the experience of others and previous episodes. I am guided, of course, by the key conclusions of the Phillips report. There are lessons to be learned from that in the management of animal disease. I am following very closely Lord Phillips' recommendations on managing the disease outbreak.

I want to do justice to the hon. Gentleman's range of perfectly proper questions. First, should people visit the countryside? Everybody wants to do what is right to help bring this outbreak to an end, and it is clear from what the tourist industry is saying to the Government that overseas visitors are not coming to our country because we have foot and mouth disease; they are even not coming to London. The domestic tourist market, which is about twice the size of the overseas one, is also constrained in the countryside. I think that that is largely because people want to try to help, so they are staying away. They are going much further than Government advice suggests.

The advice from Government is very clear: the public should stay away from farmed livestock. The risk is that the virus will be transferred from the livestock to the person, and that the person, unwittingly, will then transfer it in a sufficient amount to spread the disease. That does not mean that people should not visit market towns, or go to events in villages, or cannot admire the landscape or walk in the country where there is no livestock. The advice is very clear: stay away from farmed livestock.

On bureaucratic issues, the hon. Gentleman said that there were individual delays and anomalies. In a very fast-moving situation such as this, where control measures are having to be implemented and necessarily operated locally, there will be issues of dispute from time to time. He was right in our previous exchange when he referred to the micro-management of some of these issues. That is the correct approach. By and large, however, we have received an enormous amount of praise from farmers for the work of veterinarians and those in support. In these difficult circumstances, that speaks very well for both the farming industry and public services.

The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about the over-30-months scheme. I cannot say anything about that today, but I promise to keep the matter under review. He also asked about the cash flow of other industries and countryside businesses that are not directly agricultural. That is being examined by the taskforce that has just been set up.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the welfare disposal scheme. Having set up the scheme in the circumstances of the classical swine fever outbreak, I envisaged right from the beginning of this outbreak that we might want to use such a scheme, as it was necessary for movement restrictions to endure and to deal with the problem of sheep on winter grazing. So it has turned out. I emphasise again that the scheme is voluntary, but it is intended to help very hard-pressed farmers and to prevent unnecessary cruelty to and suffering of animals.

Starting when?

The hon. Gentleman heckles me about when the measures will start. They will all be under way as quickly as possible. I am reporting to the House the on-going work that the Government are undertaking. We are getting on with it.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred to the immediate slaughter of animals that a veterinarian believes have the clinical signs of foot and mouth disease. In the case of almost all the cattle and some 80 per cent. of animals that have been slaughtered, the request to slaughter was submitted on the advice of the veterinarian who made the clinical examination. We do not wait for the tests to confirm the virus, although they are undertaken. If a professional veterinarian identifies the disease on clinical examination, the request to slaughter is made straight away.

On alternative strategies, I shall explain why it is necessary to slaughter the animals as soon as the disease is found, which comes as a shock to people who are not familiar with the industry. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have repeatedly explained that the animal breathes out the virus, and once it is dead the problem is of a different order. Thus it is necessary to kill the animal as soon as the disease is discovered.

The hon. Gentleman and I have a similar view on the vaccination strategy, because we are following the same professional advice. The view in the industry is unanimous. I am trying to arrange a short presentation on vaccination strategies for the media representatives who attend my daily press briefings so that the issues can be set out and those who report these matters are exposed to the same advice that Ministers receive. If parliamentarians would find it helpful to have such a presentation next week, I am willing to arrange it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I take that as assent, so we shall do that.

I appreciate that it is one of the most harrowing things for a farmer to see his flock or herd slaughtered, even if it is for understandable disease control purposes. It is incredibly harrowing to experience on-farm slaughter, and having the animals remain on the farm to await removal only adds to the misery. We are examining further disposal routes, and we intend to make use of burial. The hon. Gentleman was right to ask me about burial. We are also looking into the possibility of opening further rendering plants specifically for this purpose. I understand that we are about to have a plant up and running in Devon, so the movement of animals from Devon up to the north will no longer be necessary. We are in discussions with the Environment Agency about what would affect the water table and what would be safe. We are also considering other routes of disposal.

There is much concern about the movement of carcases in wagons. It is not the journey that poses the risk. However, if the hon. Gentleman knows of a lorry that has not been sheeted properly or is not as it should be, I urge him or anyone else to take the lorry's licence number and report it. A Member of Parliament can report it to me.

We have received help from the armed services for veterinary and logistical purposes. We have arrangements with the Ministry of Defence, and can call on the Army for other help if it is needed.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman now has a case near his constituency in Suffolk, because that area has thankfully been free up till now. The disease must have been incubating in an animal for a fortnight or so before it emerged. He will have heard me say that it is our intention to pursue dangerous contacts that have gone into areas that we believe to be clear, which may include his constituency, and to take the precautionary measure of purchasing the animals for destruction. Our deliberate strategy is to try to keep the clear areas free of the disease.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the outbreak was under control. I do not want to get into a semantic quarrel, but when I say that it is absolutely under control, I mean precisely that. The movement controls that are in place are very severe indeed. The fact that more disease emerges does not mean that the outbreak is not under control.

There are two factors about which no one can be certain. The first is the extent of the infectivity that is still out there, and the measures that I have announced today are designed to bear down on that on a precautionary basis. The second is the geographical location of infectivity. However, we know that there are specific problems in three areas—on the English-Welsh border, in Devon and in Cumbria. What I have announced today is intended to bear down on those specific problems.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, to date, Norfolk has not suffered an outbreak of the disease. However, I was pleased to hear him state the precautionary principle,

because the lessons of BSE must be learned. I understand the commercial pressures on the tourist industry, and the despair being felt in my constituency, where we rely very much on the weekend visitor. I hope that he will affirm that he will make it his first, second and third priority to ensure that areas that currently are free of the disease remain so.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the first priority is to bear down on the disease and eliminate it, and to avoid anything that risks spreading it. I am especially concerned to ensure that the disease-free areas stay disease free. That is why we are tracing the movement into those areas of animals that are suspected of being at risk. We are purchasing those animals for destruction. It is the Government's clear intention to keep disease-free areas disease free.

I thank the Minister for his statement, and for his customary courtesy in providing an early copy of it.

The Minister has announced plans for the slaughter of overwintering ewes in restricted areas. Will he confirm that that policy will be implemented only as a last resort and that, if possible, other measures will be introduced to avoid taking what is clearly a drastic measure?

Is the Minister aware that sheep prices in the north of England are collapsing because of the sheer number of sheep being moved under licence to abattoirs? It is possible that the low prices will mean that there is little benefit to farmers in sending sheep there. Is he also aware of scare stories to the effect that even grain cannot be exported because of the possibility of spreading the disease? I hope that we can put such stories into perspective.

What assurances can the Minister give the House about the contingency planning measures that were in place prior to the outbreak? For instance, after the 1967 outbreak, it was recommended that epidemiological teams comprising personnel from various bodies should be set up. The teams were to have two main functions. The relevant report stated:

"In an outbreak they would collect information by studying the outbreak from the start, predicting its probable development and so provide information which would help in formulating measures to control it. They would also collect data for the purpose of future epidemiological studies. The teams should gain experience in working together before outbreaks occur so that they would be fully prepared when their services were required."

Will the Minister confirm that those teams were put in place, and that some of the information now available stems from their formation?

The report from which I have quoted also recommended considerable additional research into foot and mouth disease, but we learned today that the last remaining independent research facility, CAMBAC, is about to close. It was supported by MAFF and the Meat and Livestock Commission, and was a very valuable source of research, especially into pigs. At a time when we need more research and information capable of being disseminated throughout the world, does the Minister agree that it is a great shame that that facility should be closing?

I will inquire into what the hon. Gentleman says about the research programme, as I do not have the answer to hand. I can assure him that epidemiological work is under way in the Ministry. In part, it is informing the decisions that I have announced today.

Although there is a dispute between the UK and Morocco over a shipment of grain, I assure the hon. Gentleman that grain poses no risk whatsoever of spreading foot and mouth disease. That is being explained to the Moroccan authorities.

On the movement of sheep in their winter quarters, there is an order of decision making. If we can safely move them, we will, but each case must be looked at very carefully. We must ensure that lorries are disinfected, that animals are not carrying the disease and that they will not move to areas where there is a risk of infectivity. All that must be considered case by case.

We are looking at providing advice and what other support we can, although it is necessarily limited, to aid husbandry on site, if that is possible. I know that the hon. Gentleman will understand why that is not always possible, but there may be local solutions that can be adopted, including temporary housing and the bringing in of specialists to assist with lambing. The third option—it is the last resort—is mercy killing.

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is a sombre statement, but I am sure that farmers in Cumbria will accept the new controls because they want to get ahead of the disease and to get it over with as quickly as possible. We still have a problem with slaughter and disposal. I have a constituent whose beasts were diagnosed three days ago and have still to be slaughtered.

Can the Minister put the outbreak in context? It is difficult in Cumbria to put it in context. What percentage of farms nationally are affected by the disease? I know that it is difficult—the Minister is very busy—but if he had the opportunity some time to come to speak to farmers in Cumbria, they would welcome the opportunity to tell him what the problems are.

I would like to meet farmers who are personally affected. I try to meet farmers to discuss their problems, but I must stay here and manage the disease outbreak first. However, I would like to visit farmers as soon as I can, including my hon. Friend's constituents, to hear from them at first hand. Although it is hard for the farmers who are affected, at the moment, less than 1 per cent. of all livestock farms are under restriction, or affected by the outbreak.

My officials are working now on ensuring that we can speed up the slaughter and disposal arrangements. There is a serious problem in Cumbria. I want to ensure that we have all the resources necessary to deal with what has emerged and with what we are trying to prevent from emerging.

What financial help will the Government offer to those whose livelihoods and lives are being devastated by the consequences of foot and mouth disease? When the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who has responsibility for tourism, came to the House yesterday, the best that he could do was to say that the Government would be

"looking sympathetically at … possible options."—[Official Report, 14 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 1036.]

I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that those living in the countryside want not sympathy from the Government, but some action now.

His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has appreciated how serious the situation is now and the need to get money to those who are affected. May we have some clear indication from the Government that they recognise that many in the countryside need financial help today?

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Prince of Wales. It was a kind and generous thing for the Prince to do. I appreciate it very much. I think that the whole House knows that he has extraordinary sympathy for and empathy with farming and the rural community. I met him yesterday and was able to thank him personally for what he has done.

I want to do what I can to help. For all the animals that the Government are purchasing for slaughter because of the need to control the disease, we will pay 100 per cent. compensation. We have drawn down the agrimonetary payments. Of course, the outbreak of foot and mouth disease has informed that. We are spending money on the welfare scheme that I have announced today. That will be at a cost—an unquantifiable cost—to the taxpayer. I am looking at what more I can do, but the hon. Gentleman should not overlook the substantial public expenditure implications of what I have announced today.

Tomorrow, I shall visit the Grannox rendering plant in my constituency, which is taking thousands of slaughtered animals for disposal. Will my right hon. Friend put on record his recognition of the efforts of the work force at Grannox in dealing with the problem, which, as hon. Members can imagine, is not one of the best jobs in the world at the moment? Does he also appreciate my constituents' concerns about the transportation through my constituency of so many thousands of slaughtered animals and the environmental impact of processing the carcases? Can he give my constituents assurances on those issues?

The operation poses no danger at all to my hon. Friend's constituents. I can give him that assurance. I should also like to place on the record my thanks to the work force in his constituency. As he will know, I visited the plant a few months ago, and took the Spanish Minister with me to see it. It is a very impressive operation.

The Minister touched on alternative strategies. Is he aware that there is very strong anecdotal evidence, but not the evidence of trials, that a homeopathic remedy called borax can protect animals from the threat of foot and mouth, that it was used extensively in the 1967 outbreak, and that 7,000 farmers are using it now? Will he undertake to conduct trials to establish whether it is effective, rather than simply relying on anecdotal evidence? Will he so instruct the chief veterinary officer? Is he aware that in the 1967 outbreak, a farmer near Chester unwittingly used borax in a feed, and that although the animals on every farm around had to be put down, that farmer's cows never caught the disease? The reason why that happened was a mystery to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials.

I listen to all views on the matter. The Phillips report says that Ministers should keep an open mind about alternative theories, and should not polarise debate between the professional and official view and other points of view. I shall therefore draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the chief veterinary officer, upon whose professional advice I am relying in handling the disease outbreak.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that six farms in my constituency in Newcastle—in the area where the infection probably began—have been affected, probably all by windborne infection. Has he discussed with his meteorological advisers the weather ahead of us, as the second two weeks in March are usually the windiest part of the year? Is there a potential extra risk because of the weather? If so, will he continue his tough measures, including keeping people out of the countryside wherever possible?

I assure my hon. Friend that windborne disease presents very little further risk to his constituents, because, of course, the animals that caused it were killed some time ago. The risk of windborne infectivity comes specifically from pigs. The disease is far more infectious in pigs than it is in cattle and sheep, and a large number of pigs can pump out enough virus for it to form an infective dose and be carried quite some distance by the wind if conditions are right—or wrong, depending on the point of view. Of course we are examining that issue, but it is specifically relevant to large concentrations of pigs. Fortunately—if then is anything fortunate in this—the main problem with which we have to cope now is predominantly, but not entirely, to do with sheep.

I am grateful for the Minister's statement on the movement of in-lamb ewes back to their home farms, which is particularly important. However, as thousands of ewes from my constituency are now in Pembrokeshire, we have huge logistical problems. One haulier told me that he had to make at least 12 journeys. Will the Minister ensure that those journeys are expedited—under Army escort if necessary? Will he also define "movement into an area of higher risk"? What does that mean? As a vast part of Powys could be covered by that classification, could ewes be moved into an infected area? If lambs are killed in an infected area, what percentage of the market price will farmers receive for them? Will he also give us some evidence—I ask this on behalf of my, hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—of a link between Welshpool market and outbreaks in Cheshire and Shropshire?

We know that infectivity has been transferred through Welshpool market. There is the possibility of a link with the outbreak in Cheshire, and the veterinary authorities are looking at that now. I promise to convey the answer to the hon. Gentleman once we know it. At the moment there is a suspicion, not a confirmation.

The price for animals that the Government are slaughtering to control the disease is the animals' market value. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to give him indicative prices—and they are only indicative, because such matters can go to arbitration if there is a dispute—I will make sure that he gets that information.

It is vital that escorted journeys are strictly controlled. Nothing would be worse for the control of the outbreak than to allow people to start moving around in an uncontrolled way animals that might be carrying the infection.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today. He is fully aware that, as of this morning, the number of cases in my constituency has risen to 32. I am sure that he will want to place on record his thanks to the local authority, which is co-ordinating all the sterling work in that area.

I have been informed by the local authority that it is taking two days to move from slaughter to burning, but I am told by farmers that it takes considerably longer than that. Those at the sharp end—the farmers—believe that we do not have this fully under control and are not operating as efficiently as possible. If we are to move to wider-area slaughter, there is a need for more resources and for personnel to carry out that work. I hope that if we undertake that, additional resources will be put into the areas.

On the disinfection of vehicles, my area is at breaking point. Everyone is doing their best, but I believe that additional resources are needed now. We need to say how quickly we will get compensation to those who have lost their livelihood by losing their stock. Some of the financial institutions are not being as helpful as I had hoped.

Finally, farmers who have been told that their stock is infected need information that is easy to understand. At present, they are having to plough through tomes of paperwork to understand the process.

I have written to every farmer trying to give information about the workings of the helplines and the front-line advice. The Minister of State, Baroness Hayman, is meeting representatives of the main agricultural banks to urge them to do what they can to help, particularly with cash flow, in the present outbreak.

I have asked that where the state has purchased the animals and an agreement has been made, the payment be made to the farmer as quickly as it can be expedited. I have also asked to be told the average time it is currently taking to make payments, but I do not have that information yet.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that vehicles have to be disinfected for every journey. The extra resources that he pleads for are coming. He is right—but we must remember that our priority is to get the animals killed to prevent the spread of the disease. At the moment there is a delay between killing the animals and moving them. I am trying to shorten that delay, and I hope that it will be possible to prevent dead animals from remaining on farms for an inconvenient and distressing length of time.

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking local authorities, not just those employed by central Government, for their very hard work. I discussed the situation yesterday with Ross Finnie, the Minister responsible for agriculture in Scotland.

Does the Minister accept that there is a good degree of confusion, and perhaps even anger, among farmers and people in the tourist industry? Both occupations are immensely important in my constituency. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that the countryside was open for business, and the Minister has reiterated a similar message today. Does he accept that that is demonstrably not the case?

In my constituency, the Badminton three-day event, which is the largest single sporting event in the world, has been cancelled. Tomorrow's visit by Her Majesty the Queen to Chippenham, a town of 30,000 people, has been cancelled. The countryside march, involving 500,000 people coming to London, has been cancelled. Church services across my constituency have been cancelled, and schools are closed. It is simply not the case that the countryside is open for business.

If that were so, however, would the Minister really welcome it? Will not the tourist industry, for example, recover only when this appalling disease has been finally eradicated from the countryside? In the meantime, no one should try to pretend that it is perfectly acceptable for people to trudge all over the countryside—the roads, that is, not the fields; people know that they must not go near livestock farms.

As going anywhere in the countryside carries a strong risk of spreading the disease, no one wants to go to Chippenham. Surely the message ought to be that the countryside is closed for business until such time as this killer disease has been eradicated.

I agree with the final point, but not with the others. I do not think that we shall re-establish our tourist industries and other rural businesses properly until the outbreak has been exterminated and we can demonstrate that we can maintain that position, but there is no reason why people should not visit Chippenham. Indeed, there is no reason why people should not come to London, and no reason why church services should be cancelled. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the countryside march?"] That was not cancelled at the Government's request; nor have I, as the Minister, asked for racing events to be cancelled.

If schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have been closed as a result of foot and mouth, will he give me their addresses so that I can take up the closures with the Department for Education and Employment as a matter of urgency? There is no disease control reason why schools should be closed.

As my right hon. Friend will know, the discovery of foot and mouth disease in Cheshire has been a great blow, although there may be a direct link with the markets that he has mentioned. He will also know that the veterinary investigation service is anxious for culls to take place speedily when clinical signs of the disease are readily identifiable. Will he please do all he can to ensure that if a vet has identified clinical signs, the cull follows as quickly as possible—and that, preferably, disposal by some means follows before long?

When a veterinary inspector identifies clinical signs, killing of the animals can be authorised there and then. For 80 per cent. of all animals that are culled to control the disease, authorisation is given there and then on the basis of a clinical inspection by a vet.

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I am sorry that the outbreak has reached Cheshire; it must have been incubating there for a while, and now it has come to fruition. I hope that we shall be able to contain it, and then to exterminate it and keep as much of Cheshire as possible disease free.

People will be relieved to learn of today's announcement of the introduction of a voluntary welfare disposal scheme. Will the Minister confirm that it will cover all uninfected animals that come not only from uninfected farms but from the huge infected areas?

I cannot stress sufficiently the importance of introducing the scheme as soon as possible. There is a build-up of animals in farms in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the country. That applies especially to pig farms. Last week, about 2,000 pigs were born in my constituency. Nature does not stand still: inexorably, the numbers rise.

Will the Minister tell us when the scheme will be up and running? Will he also tell us that it will be as unbureaucratic as possible? Will he please assure my constituents, and constituents throughout the country, that it will apply to pigs, sheep and beef, and—I beg of him—that it will be introduced without delay?

The scheme will be introduced without delay, and it will apply to all infected species. The intervention board is working on the plan now, and I hope to have it up and running within days. As I have said, it will apply across the country and is open to all species, but a vet will have to certify that a real welfare risk exists and is being dealt with. I understand the special importance of the scheme to the pig sector because of the impact of movement restrictions on the sector. The model closely follows the first use of the scheme in East Anglia during the outbreak of classical swine fever.

There have been no problems in my constituency so far, but people are concerned when they hear of the spread of the disease throughout the countryside. To be fair to business people in the countryside, however, they fully support all that the Government are doing.

Only this morning I received a call from a business man who said that he had lost 70 per cent. of his business on the day the outbreak was declared, but nevertheless he wanted all that the Government were doing to be carried through. His main concern was about the need to make clear where people may or may not go in the countryside. There is undoubtedly confusion about that, and he, like me, would like much more use to be made of local media. Would that not make the position plain, and maintain confidence in what the Government are doing? Let us hope that the outbreak could then be brought swiftly to an end.

rose—

Order. Before the Minister replies, let me say that I require short questions. Some hon. Members will be disappointed today, but the shorter the questions, the more hon. Members I can call.

My advice—my appeal—to the public is to stay away from farm livestock. That does not mean staying away from every market town or village; it means exactly what it says.

My hon. Friend's constituent has my sympathy. What we are doing is incredibly hard, but it is necessary. It is in everyone's best interests for us to ensure that this disease is extinguished.

The organisers of the countryside rally did not need to wait for the Government to ask them to postpone it. They postponed it themselves, because they are responsible, they love the countryside and they did not want the disease to spread.

Will the Minister ensure that the money he has announced so far will be available as speedily as possible, and that the taskforce knows of the urgent need of those involved in tourism" Some businesses have only one week left before they must close their doors and lay off staff. Rose County Foods, an abattoir in my constituency, had to lay off 100 workers for two weeks, and is only now starting to take them on again. Much of the meat that it kills and bones normally goes to Northern Ireland. What discussions has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister to ensure that food supplies are properly checked by hygiene specialists, so that it is clear that they are not diseased, can be packaged in Northern Ireland and distributed to a much wider market?

Those are all fair points. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is working with officials on the relationship between Great Britain's and Northern Ireland's trade. I can give the hon. Gentleman the other assurances that he seeks, including the one about work between Ministers in my Department and the agricultural banks on the cash flow problem that he correctly raised.

The only point that I make about the countryside march is that the Government did not formally ask for its cancellation. Let me express my support and gratitude to the organisers, who took what would have seemed to them to be a responsible approach, and tried to do what they could to help the countryside through these difficult times.

Farmers need precise information about the risks that they face. Concern has been expressed in my constituency—which is, in part, an infected area—about the movement of lorries from places where there is known to be infection towards livestock abattoirs that are currently operating. We need clarity about how the system works; we also need resources to deal with the strategy set out by my right hon. Friend. Thus far, there is doubt about whether such resources are available to a sufficient extent, and in the right places, to enable the job that my right hon. Friend described earlier to be done.

The resources are being gathered. Where we need more, we are getting more. There is no constraint: the Government intend to defeat this disease.

There are at present no unlicensed movements of livestock in the country—or there should not be. I am grateful to the police for stopping livestock vehicles to check that they are licensed, and that their arrangements are not unlawful. Nothing will perpetuate this disease outbreak longer than the unauthorised movements of livestock that might be at risk.

Notwithstanding the fact that some of the countryside may be open for business, the New Forest is most definitely closed. Indeed, the district council has written to several rural businesses specifically asking them to stop their operations. Will the Minister undertake to look at the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) at the Dispatch Box yesterday for providing relief to those businesses?

The Government are doing what they can to help. We have set up a taskforce to look at the broader issues. My advice is clear. We all have a part to play in explaining this clearly. The disease risk is from the public coming into contact with farmed livestock and spreading the disease. To avoid that risk I am appealing to everyone to stay away from farmed livestock.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about the licensed movement of tack animals, particularly from my constituency—a matter already raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). Large numbers of sheep are there and my farmers will much welcome it. If those animals have a definite welfare problem, what price will be paid in compensation? Will it be the market price, as if they had foot and mouth, or not? Will my right hon. Friend ensure full veterinary attendance before a movement takes place? It appears that at Llanidloes abattoir something went wrong and sheep with foot and mouth ended up there and caused serious problems. Finally, my right hon. Friend mentioned that he was going to pursue with two dealers the question of what stock they had distributed around the country. Is he willing to name them?

Too long.

Order. I know that this is a difficult time, but asking three questions is going over the ration.

The movements of animals that were at risk were unwitting. I am not allocating blame; I am explaining the problem and how the Government will deal with it. All current movements must be authorised by a vet. It strikes me as highly suspicious when 23 sheep showing symptoms of the disease turn up in one batch in one abattoir with a certificate from the farmer saying that they were disease free when they left.

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about movements from winter holdings. These are intractable problems. The order of dealing with them is to get movement, if we can; to manage them in their geographical location, if that can be done, which requires the co-operation of the dairy farmer; and, if that cannot be done, as an act of mercy the animals have to be killed.

Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to get a grip on the other Departments that should be helping rather than hindering him? Yesterday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told people that all the beaches were open. The National Trust has closed everything, including the beaches in my constituency that have no agricultural land adjoining them. People arriving at those beaches will probably go off and get access to the beaches over agricultural land. It is no good the Home Office saying that there is no need to make any changes to election arrangements. We have town council, district council and county council elections happening now. We need action and advice.

It is very important that our response to the disease outbreak is proportionate and targeted at the real actions that can spread the disease. We are all on the same side in this. It is important that we talk to each other across Government, with local authorities and across parties to ensure that advice is clear and sensible. If there is no farmed livestock on a beach, it is perfectly reasonable for people to visit it and walk along it. I understand how, when the disease broke out, people wanted to do everything that they could to help, which meant acting on the precautionary principle. I am grateful for that, but we need to make sure that the actions that we are taking now, all of which are designed to be helpful, are targeted at the real problems associated with the spread of the disease.

Will my right hon. Friend explain the criteria that are being used to select rendering plants to deal with infected carcases? Will he give some assurance to my local farmers, who are very concerned that a local rendering plant in Cheddleton will be taking infected carcases? I am delighted that he will allow farmers to bury carcases, as they did during the 1967 outbreak, so long as the water table makes that permissible.

Burial is a route of disposal that is being considered, but it would have to be used under strictly controlled conditions. I can announce that we shall make use of burial in Cumbria, because we have found a possible site. There will certainly not be a blanket presumption that that route can be used in all places. Where it can be used and where it is appropriate, it will be used, but under controlled circumstances.

Nothing that is done with rendering plants will be done in such a way as to risk the spread of the disease. Our plan is to extinguish the disease, not perpetuate it. The considerations involved in selecting plants are wide ranging. We have to look at a number of aspects, but clearly the geographical location of the plant is one factor that we are bearing in mind.

Is the Minister totally satisfied that there is complete availability of disinfectant where it is required—at abattoirs, on farms and so on? Will he make it clear whether he now considers it necessary to have disinfectant used at exit and entry points from and into the United Kingdom as well as internally and domestically?

Very, very firm action has been taken by my Department to prevent the disease from leaving the United Kingdom now that we know that it is here. As for its being brought in, it is here already, and we are setting out to exterminate it. I have had the availability of disinfectant looked at closely. There is sufficient available. We have licensed for use new disinfectants that will serve our purpose in combating the disease. There were distribution problems, but I believe that the industry has overcome them.

May I commend my right hon. Friend for his solid principle of safety first, and urge him to continue to stick to it? May I ask him about the particular position of the small businesses of contractors who are excluded from farm premises and are of necessity losing all their livelihood? Will he ensure that the process of diagnosis, slaughter and disposal is made as speedy as possible, in the interests of all?

That is exactly what I am trying to do. We are working hard to overcome the logistical difficulties. As for the consequential effect on small businesses that would normally rely on working normally, by far the best step that I can take is to get the countryside back to completely normal working as soon as possible.

I should like to make a particular point about a slaughterhouse in my constituency that sends trailers to south Wales and Devon with sides of beef for Tesco, and naturally they have to return. There is a risk or fear of contamination. What steps are taken to ensure that the vehicles are properly disinfected?

If we are to have elections on 3 May, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Home Secretary that an application for a postal vote be sent to all farmers on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food lists?

I am very keen to make sure that we stay together as one country and one community, that everybody is treated fairly, and that if they face difficulties, in as much as they can be helped, they should be helped. Yes, we inspect vehicles to make sure they are disinfected. That is an obligation on the industry. I cannot be certain that every vehicle is inspected, but we are in no doubt of the importance of making sure that vehicles are cleaned out properly and thoroughly disinfected.

I do not know the circumstances that led to the appalling incident in Llanidloes in which a farmer took 23 sheep with suspected foot and mouth to the abattoir. However, will my right hon. Friend tell me what information farmers are given about the disease by way of leaflets, videos or whatever? They might not have encountered the disease before but they must be as vigilant as can be; early detection will mean that we can soon stamp out the disease.

My hon. Friend is right to appeal for vigilance. He is also right to say that many younger farmers will not have seen foot and mouth disease previously. I have written to every farmer in the country to explain the symptoms and to set out where advice can be found. I hope that is of some practical value.

Setting aside the strong rumours that officials were inquiring as to the availability of railway sleepers suitable for funeral pyres three weeks before the first outbreak, will the Minister now answer the question that I tabled last week? I asked him when he was first advised of a potential risk to animal health from imports from Africa.

If there can be a red herring in an animal disease outbreak, that is it. This is nothing to do with imports from Africa, as far as anyone in the Ministry knows. The strain of virus, which has, of course, now been typed, is found in about 23 regions right around the world. Work is going on to find out, first, how it got into our country—I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it must have come from abroad, as it could not possibly have been incubating here for 30 years or whatever. Secondly, we want to know how the disease got to the point of first infectivity, which we believe to be the farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall. We are all too familiar with the rest of the story. Work is being done in the Ministry. When it is complete, I shall consult on it. I promise that the hon. Gentleman will be among those who are consulted.

The business about railway sleepers being purchased because we knew the disease was there three weeks before anything was said is another red herring.

When the Minister looks at the map of the outbreaks in Cumbria and then applies the policy of killing everything within 3 km of every outbreak or suspected outbreak, he will know that nothing much will be left in between. I and my constituents will, with deep regret, support that policy of complete extermination, provided it can be done quickly.

In Cumbria, the story is that farmers spot definite foot and mouth, there are delays in having it confirmed—understandably—and vets do not have the authority on the spot to begin the slaughter. Please can they be given that authority? We trust Ministry vets to know what they are doing—let them bring in the slaughter teams and kill the animals immediately so that the disease is not spread.

May we please have the powers to close all the roads around the area? I know that MAFF is considering that. We need those powers this afternoon—Cumbria county council is begging for them.

Finally, I know that I should not bounce the Minister at the Dispatch Box but in view of the severity of his announcement for my constituency, I should be very grateful if he could spare 15 minutes later today or at any time tonight to meet me.

The situation is extraordinarily serious in Cumbria—including in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. I express my sorrow for what has happened to his constituents and also my solidarity with them. I give the right hon. Gentleman this commitment: if I visit Cumbria, as I am trying to do, to meet farmers' representatives—clearly, it will have to be their representatives—I shall do so on all-party basis, so I shall make sure that all the county's Members of Parliament have the opportunity to be present and to take part.

I am not advised that road closures are necessary for disease control reasons. On the question of veterinary authority, I am advised that in 80 per cent. of all the current cases, slaughter of the animals was carried out because of clinical examination by the vet, on the spot, there and then.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that when members of the public ask regional MAFF offices in north Wales for advice about the problem, they are referred to the offices of Members of Parliament? Surely that is not good enough. Will he ensure that people are given up-to-date advice? I realise that it is a fast-moving scene, but please can better advice be given to the offices and can they pass it on when necessary?

Finally, why was no Wales Office Minister formally invited to join the taskforce yesterday?

My understanding is that it is a United Kingdom taskforce and that the devolved authorities are represented on it. I met the Assembly's Minister for Rural Affairs yesterday to discuss the agricultural aspects of this matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we meet monthly to discuss the agenda for the Council of Ministers, but we also deal with other agriculture matters. Much of our time yesterday was taken up in discussing a co-ordinated approach on the foot and mouth outbreak. That is especially important because one of the centres of difficulty straddles the England-Wales border, while another straddles the England-Scotland border.

South Hams is mercifully free from foot and mouth all the area south of Dartmoor is also clear. Licences are the problem. Will the Minister ensure that licences for pig slaughter are speeded up for the local abattoir in the area that is free of foot and mouth—Henry Lang in Ashburton? It could be more fully used.

Secondly, will the Minister issue licences for farmers to move animals from one part of the constituency to another, where the distance is more than 6 km? Many farmers have animals stranded in various parts of my constituency that cannot be brought back to base.

I hope that the announcement I made today will deal with the second of the problems identified by the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, there is already some limited local movement—within a 5 km radius or for a 10 km road journey. Today's announcement is intended to help in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.

On the hon. Gentleman's first question, licensing is an issue for local authorities on the spot. However, I shall ensure that the constituency case he raises is drawn to the attention of the local supervising authorities.

The position of pigs is desperate and urgent. Welcome though the pig disposal scheme is, we cannot afford to wait a few days for its implementation. It really must happen immediately. Like the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), I have a farm in my constituency where there are 2,000 pigs. The farmer has no money at all; he has one day's feed left and by tomorrow night he will not know what to do. Can the Minister assure the House that the scheme will be implemented within 48 hours and that that farmer and others—simply as a result of a visit from a vet—can slaughter their animals in the knowledge that they will receive proper compensation?

The scheme about which the hon. Gentleman asks is voluntary; it is not one whereby we compulsorily purchase the animals. The scheme is voluntary, and application for it is a matter of commercial judgment for the farmer. I shall get it open as soon as I can. I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that officials are working on it now, both at MAFF and at the Intervention Board. To make use of the arrangements, a veterinary certificate is required to state that the welfare of animals is compromised or at risk of being compromised.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up a point that has been causing concern? He will recall that where a farmer is on a premium scheme and an animal is lost through force majeure, the farmer has to give notice to MAFF, and there is a great deal of attendant paperwork. When a farmer has had his animals slaughtered, would it be possible for MAFF to deem that due notice had been given, instead of the farmer having to sit down straight away and do the paperwork?

We are looking at how to protect the position of the premium scheme for farmers whose animals have been slaughtered. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the technical point that he raises, but I can state the principle: the Commission has allowed us to invoke the force majeure rules on the five principal livestock premium schemes. In principle, the case that he describes will receive the premium—unless there is some caveat that I do not know about. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the administration of the scheme.

As the Minister knows, the farming crisis also affects small businesses and tourism. Will the Government consider relief on rates, VAT and business rates? Councils would like to give business rate relief, but they do not have the money. Will he urge fellow Ministers to promote the marketing of tourism, both now and, especially, at the end of the crisis?

The taskforce led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is considering all those issues. I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's final point—about the need to get things moving again once we come through the crisis. Clearly, there is a role for marketing and for tourist promotion.

There is no foot and mouth in my constituency, but there are several sheep farmers whose ewes are now lambing. The lambs are dying at night because the farmers cannot move the ewes back to the lambing sheds, as they cannot get a response from MAFF to get licences. Will the Minister assure us that he will put more resources into the handling of those licence applications?

Yes, we are doing so as a matter of urgency.

As the Minister rightly wants to maintain the atmosphere of national unity, which has been prevalent in the House today, will he very gently talk to the Prime Minister and suggest that he heed the advice from the political leaders of parties in local government that it is not appropriate to hold the county council elections on 3 May?

The best that I can do for the hon. Gentleman is to forward the representations that he has made.

The Minister is absolutely right to respond to the dire situation by announcing today an enhanced, more proactive slaughter policy, but may I ask him a question somewhat the converse of that asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)? Will he assure the House that he has adequate legal cover for the extended slaughter programme as dangerous contact animals may be involved? In the interests of natural justice, will he tell the House what representations by farmers may be entertained in borderline cases? Clearly, farmers in such cases do not want to lose their stock, but, perhaps rightly, Ministry vets insist that the animals should be slaughtered.

That is a very difficult matter. I am satisfied that, on the basis of legal advice, I certainly have the powers to implement what I have announced to the House, because the overriding priority is, of course, the national interest and the Government's legal obligation to exterminate the disease. I am trying to deal as sympathetically as I can with the hard cases that inevitably occur in such circumstances, but I must tell everyone that the extermination of the disease has to be my first priority.

Does the Minister recognise that where ewes are trapped a long way from their holdings, they may be not on extensive farms but on small parcels of land? They may be on bare earth or stubble; and they may have been fed on turnip or beet tops, but now probably nothing more than big-bale straw. Many of those ewes and their lambs are dying, so the welfare problem is arising now. Will he ensure that the licence applications are attended to very quickly, that farmers to do not have to use a computer—80 per cent. of them in my constituency do not have one—and that transport arrangements are facilitated, because it is literally a matter of hours as to whether they can get their flocks back in time? If they cannot do so, the slaughter will be much more extensive than anyone would like, and rotting and bloated ewes and lambs in the field is the last thing that we want as it will create yet another major disposal problem.

Everything that the right hon. Gentleman says is true, and we shall do our best, where we can, to get the animals moved, but—he knows what the "but" is—that must be done consistently with the overriding importance of controlling the spread of the disease. With that very important caveat, I agree with all that he has said.

The chairman of my local NFU, Mr. Graham Clay, with whom I had a discussion this morning, is deeply concerned about the delays, which have been mentioned time and again today, especially as there is now foot and mouth in my constituency. Does the Minister accept that the delays represent one of the most critical features of the problem? They must be dealt with, and speed is of the essence in the slaughter and throughout the entire process. Does the Minister accept that there could be a problem with the importation of airline food, which is apparently now making its way commercially into the pigswill industry? Will he look into that matter because, apparently, it could be a source of further infection?

My understanding is that the food from airlines should not make its way into pigswill because there is a special regime for airline foodstuffs. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to give me chapter and verse of the allegation, I will have it looked at very quickly indeed.

I am sorry that there is foot and mouth disease in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I hope that he will pass on my sorrow and regret to his constituent. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is important that we get on top of the problem as quickly as we can. That is why I have come to the House today to announce these measures, and I know that I have the support of the House in seeing them through.

What does the Minister say to my constituents, Ian and Katrin Thompson of Crust Cottage, Snargate in Romney Marsh, whose applications for a licence to move their lambing ewes were twice lost by his Department? Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, who were already at their wits' end, had to fill in the same forms for the same animals on three different occasions. As Mrs. Thompson says in her letter, a copy of which I forwarded to the Minister yesterday,

"the consequences of foot and mouth are dire, but necessary; the consequences of bureaucratic bungling are not much less, but are so very unnecessary. Why, why, why?"