If she will make a statement on EU aid programmes. [157642]

European Community aid programmes have underperformed badly for many years. They have been poorly focused, with unclear objectives. Unfortunately, the previous Government increased the proportion of British aid going through the European Union from 12 to 30 per cent. and took no action to improve effectiveness. We have, in contrast, worked to get agreement on a radical, poverty focused reform agenda. That is now in place and implementation has begun. We will maintain the pressure for more rapid progress.

The Blak report published by the European Parliament on 28 March, made a devastating critique of the delivery of aid by the EU. If the reforms are not working, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that member states can spend more aid more effectively themselves?

I do not believe that anyone has made a more devastating critique than I have. The difference between Conservative and Labour Members—especially myself—is that we are doing something about the problem. The record of the hon. Gentleman's Government was to increase the spend and do nothing about effectiveness. Disgraceful!

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the European Union is giving sufficient importance to delivering primary education to all school children throughout the world, which is one of the main objectives of the British Government?

In the renegotiation of the Lomé agreement, now the Cotonou agreement, we obtained a commitment to the international development targets which includes the objective of achieving universal primary education. We have been involved with the EC in reforming its delivery mechanisms so that it can put its money behind such objectives. Progress is being made, but much more is needed much faster. However, I am pleased that the EU is moving on its objectives.

I thank the Secretary of State for her response on Myanmar. Is it the case that the United Kingdom is co-operating in and leading the work there? Is France involved in work in Thailand to create employment opportunities to rescue youngsters and others from prostitution?

My ministerial colleagues with responsibility for European Union development work would say that the UK has been leading the pressure and the effort that is put into such work. We published a reform agenda, much of which has been delivered. It is agreed and has to be rolled out across the world. No one should give up on their efforts. The situation is bad and reforming something that is malfunctioning takes time and effort. However, that is moving forward with, of course, the agreement of member states.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that 28 April is workers memorial day. This year's theme is the worldwide tragedy caused by the use of asbestos. Will she use her office to press to ensure that EU aid is not used to fund capital projects that use asbestos? Will she also press for the sensible implementation over time of a worldwide ban on asbestos?

I certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. I do not know whether the EU has rules about the use of asbestos in capital projects. I hope that it does, but I shall check and we will do all we can to deliver on a worldwide agreement not to use asbestos. I was in Sverdlovsk in Russia fairly recently. It produces asbestos and people there boasted about the large amounts that it could produce. I firmly pointed out the danger of that material. I shall look into the issues that he raises and get back to him.

In the Secretary of State's first year of office, she said that she was taking action on the EU aid budget and that she was

"determined to ensure that this is spent more effectively."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 91W.]

The hon. Lady gets worse, which is sad because one would think that in four years she would have learned something. I can tell her that 1999 was the second year, and anyone working in the field throughout the world who receives EU aid knows that major reform is in place. The situation has started to get better but it is very bad, and rather like her dreadful party it will take a long time to get better.

What outcomes she will aim to achieve from the special General Assembly of the United Nations on HIV/AIDS. [157643]

Our aim at the United Nations General Assembly special session on HIV/AIDS is for a short, tightly focused and action-oriented political declaration that implements across the world effective programmes for prevention and care, building on the successful reduction of infection levels in countries such as Uganda and Thailand. As my hon. Friend knows, we have invited a representative of the British voluntary sector to join the UK delegation at UNGASS, and I would like to now invite my hon. Friend, as chairman of the all-party AIDS group, to join the delegation on behalf of parliamentarians.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she join me in welcoming the withdrawal by pharmaceutical companies of their court action in South Africa? Does she agree that it creates an opportunity for the UN to reaffirm the right of developing countries compulsorily to license patents where there is a national emergency so that they can have improved access to drugs, particularly to deal with opportunistic infections? However, that should be done in the context of dealing with the social and economic consequences of HIV, and not just providing medical care.

I certainly welcome the withdrawal of that court action, which was always ill advised, but it does not mean that we suddenly have an answer to the problem. Even at cost price, anti-retroviral drugs are more expensive than most African countries can afford. They might cost only $1 a day, but most countries in sub-Saharan Africa spend less than $5 a head per year on health care and most poor, infected people are not in touch with any health care system, as my hon. Friend knows. We need international co-operation between the pharmaceutical companies, the Governments of developing countries and the international community to put in place basic health care systems and deliver treatment for opportunistic infections, such as TB, which is killing more people than many other illnesses. I hope now that the court case is out of the way, we can make progress, but I hope also that no one will pretend that anti-retrovirals are the answer, because they are not.

I welcome what the Secretary of State has just said. There is indeed a great danger that drugs could be seen as the answer to the AIDS pandemic, but they could make it worse if they are not used properly. Does the right hon. Lady agree that while education and condom use are the only real answer in the short term, a vaccine against AIDS is the only long-term solution? The international AIDS vaccine initiative needs $1 billion to further its trials and continue research, so when she goes to the United Nations in June, will she persuade other Governments and our own to increase their contributions to ensure that the vaccine becomes a reality?

I agree with the hon. Lady. One thing that everyone should know is that infection rates are dropping in many countries. Uganda has led the way with public education and prevention work. Infection rates among young people in Uganda have gone down, and the same is happening in Kenya and Zambia. Things can be done if countries get organised, inform their people, supply condoms and so on. We have been supporting a lot of that work, and there is hope. We should implement all the lessons of success.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that this week 50 African heads of state and ex-President Bill Clinton are meeting in Nigeria to set the scene for the UN conference in June. She will be aware also of the remarks of the Minister of Health in Nigeria, who said that no one will escape the devastation in Africa, not least the 50 million who will die in the next decade as a result of HIV and AIDS. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights voted yesterday to support a Brazilian resolution for universal help for everyone with HIV and AIDS, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that the British Government give practical expression to that resolution?

I am not familiar with the Brazilian resolution. However, I repeat that most poor and infected people in Africa are not in touch with any health care system; if drugs were free, they would not get them. Since 1997, we have committed £1 billion to help support the building of primary health care systems across the world. That is what we need, along with prevention, care for those who are infected and treatment of opportunistic infections. We must then take up pharmaceutical companies' offer of cheap, anti-retroviral drugs, when that can be done responsibly. We are working on that strongly in the international community. I am glad that there is now a much bigger commitment from African heads of state than previously, so I hope that we can make faster progress.

Order. There is far too much private conversation in the Chamber.

Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on International Development on HIV/AIDS? Hon. Members may not be aware that 2.8 million people died of HIV/AIDS last year, three times the number of people who died as a result of murder, violence and war; we are therefore dealing with an important question.

I have read a summary of the report, and I am afraid that the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted are, unusually, wrong. My Department spent £100 million last year, not £1 million. We shall respond in the normal way; there is obviously some confusion. However, I am happy to confirm that those figures are wrong. We are a leading player in the international system, spend considerably and the budget has been growing. I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding.

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of calls from some of the large pharmaceutical companies for a Marshall plan to combat HIV/AIDS?

I have had considerable talks with the pharmaceutical companies and their embarrassment about the court case may have been helpful. Those who call for an end to all intellectual property rules are not being helpful, as we need a global agreement to provide drugs and basic health care systems in the poorest countries. We can then provide drugs cheaply at cost or even less, but that has to be in return for a deal involving higher prices in developed countries so that pharmaceutical companies can get some return on their investment, particularly their massive research budgets. Otherwise, we will not get new cures for things like malaria and other diseases of poverty.

May I strongly agree with the Secretary of State in her tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who has chaired the Select Committee magnificently for the past four years? On that point, will she reconsider her response to the report, of which she has read the summary, but not the main body? Whether the figures are, or are not, correct, does she not accept that the carefully considered report shows that there has been a dramatic decline in the United Kingdom's bilateral aid spend on HIV/AIDS in Africa over the past three years? Given the importance of the HIV/AIDS epidemic to people in many African countries, will she reconsider and make sure that that decline in spending is reversed in the next few years?

No. My respect for the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford is second to none. There will be the proper and normal response to the Select Committee's report. The Committee has produced many high-quality reports. However, the figures are false, as are the claims that are based on them. We shall provide full details so that the hon. Gentleman and others who read them will be persuaded that the figures are wrong.

I shall make one further point before the Secretary of State goes to the United Nations to discuss HIV/AIDS in Africa. Does the right hon. Lady agree that partly the success in Uganda is because donor Governments have worked closely with the Government of Uganda in agreeing a strategy for that country? There has been more success in Uganda because of the acceptance of that strategy by the Ugandan Government, who are working with bilateral donors? Does the right hon. Lady accept that, as is so often the case, our bilateral spend is much more effective than much of the money that is spent through multilateral agencies? Will she not take the route of giving more to the UN and spending less bilaterally, and ensure that we are at the forefront of the attack on HIV/AIDS in Africa? We are looking forward to seeing the strategy document, which I hope will put the UK at the forefront in tackling a dreadful disease that is killing so many people in Africa.

If the hon. Gentleman discusses these matters with those who are working on them in the international community, I am happy to say that I think he will find that the UK is seen to be at the forefront. I agree that when Governments give the lead, from president through to every village in public education, there is behaviour change, of the sort that we have seen among young people in Uganda. When Governments give the lead—more are doing so in Africa now—we can be more effective.

When my right hon. Friend goes to the UN General Assembly, will she say that when the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product was set for aid, that was pre-AIDS? We now need much more than a contribution of 0.7 per cent to tackle the problems in southern Africa. If we are to put in the basic services, every country that is in a position to do so will have massively to increase its aid.

As my hon. Friend will know, the world is going in the opposite direction. We have recently had the new preliminary figures from the Development Assistance committee in Paris, which monitors the world's performance. I am pleased to say that the UK is contributing 0.31 per cent. and is the world's fourth largest donor. That is a record for our country. However, overall international contributions are declining. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is terrible, especially in the face of the scourge of HIV/AIDS. We must do more to mobilise international public opinion. Public opinion is changing in the UK, and so we must make our contribution to the international effort. I agree with my hon. Friend.

What recent assessment she has made of the transport infrastructure needs of the island of St. Helena. [157645]

We are currently awaiting the results of a comparative study of air and sea access which will identify the least-cost solution to the island's future international passenger and cargo transport needs. The final report is expected shortly and its recommendations will then need to be discussed with the St. Helena Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed, subject to the outcome of the study, that the Department for International Development would provide funding equal to the least capital cost option—that is either the cost of replacing RMS St. Helena or the estimated capital cost of an airport and related infrastructure.

In the Secretary of State's written reply to me on 27 March, I was told that the Department would be responding to the report that was available then within a week. The governor of St. Helena, David Hollamby, is in London this week. Surely there is an opportunity to make more rapid progress. What timetable can the Minister produce so that the matter can be resolved as soon as possible?

In the written reply, the hon. Gentleman was told that we would comment on a draft of the report within a week. I understand that that happened. We expect the report to be delivered shortly. The matter will then need to be discussed with the Government of St. Helena. When we have done that, we will reach a conclusion.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1999, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association annual conference was held in Trinidad and Tobago? Most delegates were able to get home quite quickly, even those who lived in some of the Pacific archipelagos, whereas the St. Helena delegate said that it would take him three and a half weeks to get home. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not assist the viability of St. Helena?

The problem is under careful consideration. We must take full account of the costs involved. St. Helena is second among the overseas territories in terms of the amount of aid that we already give. There must, of course, be limits, which is why we say that we will fund the least cost option. The matter is being carefully thought about. Watch this space.

Does not the Minister recognise that hon. Members from all parts of the House who have met St. Helena delegates at Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences over the years consider it outrageous that people should have to travel three and a half weeks by sea from a Commonwealth country to Cardiff to exercise their democratic rights? At the beginning of a new century, is it not right that the Government should recognise their responsibilities to democratic representatives in Commonwealth countries, by ensuring proper air connections?

St. Helena is a very remote island. That is a fact with which we all have to cope. The time taken to get there is the same under this Government as it was under the previous Government. [Interruption.]

Order. The House must come to order. The disruption is unfair.

We are carefully considering the options. We are doing that along with the Government of St. Helena, but there is no magic solution to the problem. It is a matter of geographical location, which not even the Government whom the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) supported were able to resolve.

When she will next meet the Development Committee of the European Parliament to discuss the World Bank's business partnership for development. [157646]

We have met on a number of occasions with the European Parliament development committee to try to encourage stronger support for the reform of EC development efforts. In particular, we need to change EC financial regulations so that the Commission is able to collaborate with other international development institutions without first undertaking an audit. It seems fairly shocking that the EC of all bodies audits all other international organisations, whose performance is probably rather better, before it gives any money through them.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the excellent support given by her Department to the World Bank's new business partnership for development, and the great success that many such projects are having, including the one that I will chair from June this year. As my right hon. Friend knows, by 2010 6 million people in the developing world will die not of AIDS, but because of traffic accidents, and 60 million will be seriously injured. I hope that she will speak straightforwardly to the European Parliament and the European Commission so that they can play an active part in supporting those innovations to stop such unnecessary loss of life and serious injury, and do that in partnership with business.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being selected as chair of the global road safety partnership. He is right: 10 million people a year throughout the world are badly injured in road accidents, 70 per cent. of them in developing countries. In developing countries, that does not mean just disability; it often throws families into poverty. It is an issue that we need to take more seriously. Numbers will rise and we must all co-operate with the important World Bank work. I wish my hon. Friend well with his efforts.

Does the right hon. Lady nevertheless agree that the World Bank partnerships are extremely valuable, and that they deserve support, commitment and, above all, time to be made to work?

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. All such partnerships are about working with the private sector to promote development—for example, water, sanitation and better transport systems. The public sector cannot afford what the developing world needs in all those areas, but with collaboration, proper regulation and help with feasibility studies, we can get much greater investment into developing countries and improve people's lives. Such ways of working are helping to produce results.

If she will make a statement on Government aid to Somalia. [157647]

Somalia has had no Government since 1991 and is therefore suffering great poverty and instability. There is a growing demand among the people for the re-establishment of government. We support the recent establishment of the transitional Government and hope that they will secure order and development. We are providing assistance in Somalia through NGOs and stand ready to support UN peace-building programmes.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's response. The transitional Government are making some progress, but as there has been no direct British aid since 1993–94, does she now believe that there is a greater case for support of the transitional Government and of the Somali people?

I am afraid that the transitional Government are based on an agreement to bring order and government, but that has not yet been achieved. We need to support this effort. David Stevens, the United Nations Secretary General's special representative in Somalia, is hopeful about the new arrangements. Through the UN, we need to support the transitional Government in creating order, and then some co-operation with Puntland, to move forward development in Somalia. I agree with my hon. Friend's objective, but we need a bit more progress before we can have full-blooded development.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 April.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

I have given notice of this question.

The issue of closure is a matter for the Environment Agency. It has suspended the waste management licence, and it will remain suspended until the agency is satisfied that it no longer needs to be. If I can turn to the issue of a public inquiry—I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his question—this was, of course, a private company. We asked the chairman of the Environment Agency to take personal responsibility for producing the initial report, and he did so. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it was a very hard-hitting report on the lessons to be learned. We understand the concerns and calls for a public inquiry. A further agency report is due shortly. As soon as we receive that report, we will then make a determination as to whether there should be a full public inquiry.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is great concern in my constituency about street crime and youth vandalism, especially on local buses? Will he give the highest priority to continuing the drive to improve police recruitment and retention?

I am delighted to say that the number of recruits is up by some 77 per cent. There is the largest increase in police numbers for more than a decade. As I gather that some Opposition Members have been criticising the Government for spending money on advertising campaigns, I point out that this money is being used to get more teachers, nurses and police in our public services. That is the difference between a party that is investing in our public services and a party that is committed to cutting them.

Given that the Government have now spent more than £62 million of taxpayers' money on advertising themselves and their schemes in the first three months of this year—more in three months than ever before in history—how much have they allocated to the British Tourist Authority to promote tourism overseas in the light of the foot and mouth crisis?

We have already allocated, as was described the other day, some £6 million to the tourist councils. There is, however, more money that will be allocated to them, which we will be announcing in the next few days. As for the money that is being spent on Government advertising, let me repeat again that the vast bulk of this is for campaigns that either ensure that we recruit the people we need for our public services, or that we are making sure that, for example, people entitled to the children's tax credit get it. I might just remind the right hon. Gentleman that, a few months ago, the Conservatives were complaining about recruitment in the public sector and saying that we had to do something about it.

The Government spent £3.5 million on the anti-benefit fraud campaign, which, according to their evaluation, led to no increase in reporting benefit fraud. The Government's report stated:

"the result of the campaign was that respondents … perceived benefit fraud as easier to commit"

"missed … 500,000 pensioners who are entitled to MIG but do not claim it."

Although it is true that some people have yet to take up the minimum income guarantee for pensioners—which, of course, Conservatives oppose—hundreds of thousands of pensioners throughout the country have that guarantee for the first time, thanks to the Government.

It is no good agreeing with what we say but doing nothing about it. The Prime Minister does not appear to understand the urgency of the problem. Five weeks ago, I proposed to him an emergency interest-free loan scheme—an emergency loan scheme to help rural businesses—yet the Government have responded with an interest-charging scheme that would plunge more into difficulty. After five weeks of dithering, will he introduce an interest-free loan scheme and realise that there is a difference between spinning and delivering?

As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman, we believe that it is better to build on existing schemes rather than introducing an entirely new scheme, which costs £500 million according to his figures. Doubtless the shadow Chancellor has told him where he will get the money—Or perhaps not. So far, more than £32 million has been allocated in rate relief and extending the small firms loan guarantee scheme has meant another £22 million and there is additional support for regional development agencies. There is £90 million of direct Government support and, as I have said, up to £200 million of benefit to businesses.

Does the Prime Minister know about the new millennium clinic in Montagu hospital in Mexborough? Its waiting time for hernia and other minor operations is only four to eight weeks. Will he join me in congratulating all the staff, who have recently been awarded beacon status? Does not that underline what can be achieved under a Government who are firmly committed to the future of the NHS, unlike the Conservative party? [Interruption.]

Opposition Members are being a trifle hopeful vis-à-vis my hon. Friend.

Given one of today's reports, will the Prime Minister clarify the situation in respect of the future of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Does he intend to scrap it, reform it, restructure it or change it in due course? What is he going to do?

The report in this morning's newspaper was nonsense.

May I, therefore, say to the Prime Minister that one of the lessons of the present foot and mouth difficulties that the country has been confronting is that a rural affairs ministry in the Scottish context has proved to give a more co-ordinated and integrated approach than the best efforts of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Whitehall level? May I recommend to him that, if he is looking at the future of MAFF, he should look at that model?

Although I am pleased at the progress that has been made in Scotland, it has to be pointed out that in Scotland the disease is effectively only in one part of the country. In England, the disease has been in many different parts of the country, and has therefore involved a far bigger logistical and practical exercise.

This morning, 3,100 skilled and productive Motorola workers and their families woke to the grim reality of redundancy. What immediate Government support is proposed for them? Will my right hon. Friend reassure them that they are not to be sacrificed because it is cheaper and easier to sack Scottish workers than their continental European equivalents? As Motorola will continue to be a very important manufacturer in Scotland, even after the Bathgate plant is closed, what commitment has it given to a continued presence in Scotland and to future investment?

First, I totally understand the concern in my hon. Friend's constituency and in many others at the loss of jobs at Motorola. In relation to the response of the Government, we are obviously working now with the Scottish Executive to see what we can do to help the workers affected. I would also like to quote William Dunn of West Lothian council, who said last night:

"However, in the last 12 months, we have created over 7,000 jobs within West Lothian and we see that we can at least take some of these people into our economy … straight away."

Is the Prime Minister aware of the great surprise outside in the country at his reported proposal to supply free CDs to habitual young offenders? He is used to turning the meaning of the English language on its head. Does he not agree that this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "He's got a record"?

I can only guess that it took the hon. Gentleman a very long time to think that one up.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to figures published this month by the employment unit on the new deal for under-25s? They show that 380,000 people passing through the new deal have found jobs, rather than the 250,000 figure that we said that we would achieve at the last general election. Moreover, there has been an 80 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment in my constituency.

Order. I think that the Prime Minister can answer the hon. Gentleman.

We have not yet extended the new deal to Leaders of the Opposition, but I note my hon. Friend's representation.

When, after the thousands of job losses that took place yesterday—not just at Motorola—the Prime Minister says, "No more boom or bust", how does he define an economic bust?

If that was a leadership bid, it was unfortunate. I can define a bust: it happened when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Conservative Government. It happened not when debt was under control, unemployment was falling and interest rates were low, as is the case under this Government, but in the early 1990s when interest rates were at 15 per cent., debt was soaring, taxes were going up and public spending was being cut.

Is the Prime Minister aware of a project in my constituency, where the area police team has established a mobile unit that it calls "the pod"? It is funded by the local authority and the Guinness Trust housing association. The pod can be moved rapidly from problem area to problem area. It provides a focal point for the community, raises the profile of the police and is working well. Will the Prime Minister consider using the same initiative in other areas? Will he also confirm that 13 additional police officers are on the way to Rochdale's Heywood and Middleton division this year?

I am sure that the extra police officers are well worth it.

Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised not to increase taxes at all. Will he now repeat his promise?

What I promised before the last election was that we would not increase the basic or the top rate of tax. We have not done that. As for any commitments we give at the next election, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the manifesto.

The Prime Minister knows that he did not just promise no increase in tax rates. On 21 September 1995, he said:

"We have no plans to increase tax at all".

"Our proposals do not involve raising taxes."

"does not imply any tax increases at all."

I have already said what promises we gave at the last election. The right hon. Gentleman says that we said that nothing would change at all, but he forgets that we promised a utility tax to fund the new deal, and we implemented it. In fact, the tax burden rose in the period in which he was a member of the Cabinet. In the first part of this Parliament, it is true that tax revenues rose, because we had to deal with the huge deficit and doubled national debt that we inherited, but the other reason why the overall amount of revenue is higher now is that vastly more people are now in work than in the Tory years.

The Prime Minister will not repeat his promise because the truth is that he broke it and he knows that he broke it. He said that there would be no tax increases at all, but he has levied higher taxes on marriages, mortgages, petrol, pensions, savings, charities, insurance policies, house buying, cars, small businesses, large businesses and self-employment. Is not it the case that whether he makes yet another bogus pledge on income tax rates or not, the British people know that taxes have gone up under Labour and will always go up under Labour?

That would be slightly more credible were it not for the fact that the actual tax burden is lower than in six out of the 10 years under Mrs. Thatcher—if I can mention that person to the right hon. Gentleman. I have just explained to him how the tax burden went up in the last two years of the Government of whom he was a member. If the children's tax credit, the working families tax credit, the cut in the basic rate of income tax, and the lower national insurance charges—especially for those at the lower end of the income scale—are taken into account, many people have had substantial reductions in income tax.

Will my right hon. Friend give a warm welcome to the observations of the shadow Health Secretary who, after his visit to Kettering general hospital earlier this week, said that it seemed that hospitals in the area were not doing badly? In the past four years we have had massive investment, including a new endoscope suite, a new orthopaedic theatre, a new ophthalmic unit and a new CAT scanner. I could go on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we carry on at the present rate, the Conservatives might some day recognise that we are doing very well in Kettering?

I am sure that the local people will recognise that. The investment in the health service is matched by the record investment in schools. I am sure that my hon. Friend could have read out a list of schools receiving capital investment, and I know that Kettering will receive extra police as a result of our investment.

Does the Prime Minister recall my asking him at Prime Minister's Question Time on 2 December 1998 whether he stood by his party's commitment before the last election to legislate on age discrimination? His answer was:

"Yes, we stand by it."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 879.]

I take it that that is a commitment from the Opposition to introduce such legislation—not that they did anything about it during their 18 years in office. In a series of agreements with employers, we have set out codes of practice to be followed by them in relation to age discrimination. We have not ruled out age discrimination legislation, but we thought it right to try the voluntary approach first, because that is what large parts of business wished us to do. I have no doubt that, had we introduced age discrimination legislation, he would have accused us of over-regulating industry.

What measures does my right hon. Friend have in mind for continuing the drop in unemployment, which has already resulted in the lowest unemployment rates in Wales for 25 years? In my constituency, it has resulted in a decline in youth unemployment of 70 per cent., and a drop of 90 per cent. in long-term unemployment.

What we will do, of course, is continue with the new deal, which helps into work those who are especially vulnerable in the labour market, such as long-term unemployed young people, lone parents, and so on. However, the single most important thing for the Government to do is to carry on running a strong and well-disciplined economy. The difficulty with the Conservative party's plans is that, because they mean that we would go back to the policies pursued in the early 1990s, very many fewer people would be in work and mortgages would be far higher. The only way that we are going to make sure that we keep the number of jobs in the economy that we have at present is by running a strong economy, with low inflation and low interest rates, with the national debt under control and with big investment in the public services that guarantees jobs in the future.

This week, the Government granted a permit for an incinerator in Guildford that is 10 years out of date. Until Ministers get to grips with the health risks of such incinerators—and the strategic need for them—should not we have a moratorium on them?

I am sure that this is a problem that Governments of all political colours have had to deal with for years. It is a difficult matter, but there is a need for such facilities, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. Of course such decisions are difficult, because people never want such facilities in their local patch. However, any Government in power would have to decide that such incinerators have to go somewhere. I am sure that we will listen to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the truth is that, irrespective of which party is in government, this is something that has to be done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cammell Laird shipyard in my Jarrow constituency is the last working yard on the south bank of the Tyne? May I urge him to make every effort to ensure that the successful bidder for the yard continues the Tyneside tradition of shipbuilding and ship repair? Will he make extra efforts to ensure that the City spivs now circulating do not get their hands on the yard, which they will flog off and strip of its assets so that they can build yuppie houses for their friends?

I will deal with the Cammell Laird aspect of that question. Of course, I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents. Given Cammell Laird's continuing interest in Ministry of Defence work, it is important that we do everything that we can to help the company. In that connection, I know that my hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a huge boost in the number of apprentices at the yard, and elsewhere in the shipbuilding industry. However, it is obviously important that the yard competes for work on the same basis as other yards.

Following the Government's humiliating defeat in another place last night, will the Prime Minister finally agree with the views of medical charities, the British Medical Association and the Opposition and withdraw his mad plans to abolish community health councils?

No, we will not, because the replacement of community health councils by patient forums and patient councils is, we believe, and as the College of Health made clear earlier, a better way to make sure that patients' interests are represented. There has been a debate about community health councils for many years, but patient forums and patient councils will bring patients better into the machinery of decision making in the health service than anything before, which is why this move has been welcomed by the NHS Federation and the College of Health.

The Prime Minister is experienced in the terrible consequences that follow when foot and mouth occurs in a locality. Will he translate that experience to Northern Ireland, a small geographical area which is totally dependent on agriculture? Some 75 per cent. of its livestock has to be exported, and the tourist industry is devastated. We will not be able to afford to pay consequential loss compensation out of our block grant, which is insufficient for those purposes. Given the £37 billion surplus in the Treasury, will he give an assurance that extra funding will be made available to Northern Ireland for the financial fallout of foot and mouth?

We are looking to see what we can do to help businesses that are suffering as a result of foot and mouth disease. However, I go back to the point that I made a short time ago. The only way to help tourist businesses is by bringing tourism to them. In respect of the overall situation, we have to ensure that the disease is eradicated. The measures that we have taken over the past few weeks, difficult and ghastly though they have been, with the number of animals that have had to be slaughtered, are the only way that we are able, and have been able, to bring the disease under control. Unless we can eradicate the disease quickly, there will be no swift return to normality for the areas affected. We will look at the help that we can give and some measures will be announced in the next few days, but the single best thing that we can do is to eradicate the disease as swiftly as possible so that life gets back to normal.

We now come to the main business today. The Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the current foot and mouth crisis has impacted upon a wide range of rural businesses and services, affecting almost every aspect of rural life; further notes that foot and mouth has hit a countryside already in decline as a result of years of neglect under successive Governments; urges Her Majesty's Government to provide realistic emergency support to the whole range of businesses affected to enable them to withstand this crisis; and calls on the Government to put in place long-term policies to regenerate British agriculture and to revitalise the rural economy as a whole.

Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents should not have to bear the brunt of digging the Government out of the appalling mess that they have made of dealing with the foot and mouth crisis? Does he also agree that the burden should be shared and that unburied carcases should be disposed of in the numerous landfill sites up and down the country, not in pyres and huge burial grounds?

We all recognise the considerable problems faced by people in Devon. They bear a huge burden, given the enormous numbers of animals that have to be buried or burned. An enormous backlog remains. I suspect that Devon could not take all the animals involved. There must be different and quicker ways in which dispose of them: I do not believe that we can wait three or four weeks to deal with perhaps 100,000 animals.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is another question to be asked? Would not it be appropriate to consider easing the movement of animals in areas that are free from foot and mouth disease, but not unaffected by it? I am referring particularly to the movement of cattle from winter quarters to summer pastures, which at present is not possible. Does my hon. Friend also accept that cattle are being moved from my constituency for slaughter in places as far away as Somerset and Essex? Would not opening up local abattoirs make it easier to deal with those animals, and minimise the risk of spreading the disease?

There is clearly a case for lifting some of the restrictions, and for redrawing some of the maps to allow some animals to be moved. That would relieve the pressure on the welfare disposal scheme, although there must be no compromise when it comes to ensuring that the disease is not spread. I hope that the Minister for the Environment will deal with that when he responds to the debate, as many farmers find themselves in the situation that my hon. Friend has described.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the £200 million support package announced by the Government, reinforced two days ago by the Minister for the Environment, seems rather disproportionate given that we expect losses of billions of pounds in trade for tourism and small businesses?

The Government have said that that package is a start, and we hope that there will be further proposals, with perhaps some announcements today. The amount of money currently spent will be dwarfed by the cost of the problem: businesses that fail will lead to unemployment, resulting in more unemployment and social security benefits to be paid. If money is paid out to enable those businesses to continue, the Government will not have to find the money to pay for those benefits.

The hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned reform of the common agricultural policy. He knows as well as everyone in the House that to reform the CAP in any meaningful way requires unanimity among the 15 nations. How is he going to get that?

I was just about to suggest why we may get that co-operation.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

'notes that the current foot and mouth crisis has impacted upon a wide range of rural businesses and services, affecting many aspects of rural life; further notes that foot and mouth has hit a countryside that has suffered from lack of investment under previous governments; agrees that the first priority must be the isolation, control and eradication of foot and mouth disease; endorses the Government's commitment to rural communities as set out in the Rural White Paper and the England Rural Development Programme; welcomes the extra financial help the Government has made available to farmers and rural businesses affected by foot and mouth, including agrimonetary compensation for livestock farmers and the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme; welcomes the work of the Rural Task Force including its work to open up the countryside and business relief, deferral of tax and national insurance contributions, extension of the small firms loan guarantee scheme and new grants to Regional Development Agencies and tourism authorities; and calls on the Government to continue putting in place the long-term policies needed to regenerate British agriculture and revitalise the rural economy as a whole.'.

As the right hon. Lady looks around the Chamber, she sees Members with urban and rural constituencies, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) made the very good point that the businesses that have suffered are not necessarily in what the Government call rural constituencies. Will she extend the rate relief scheme to all the businesses that are suffering, regardless of the arbitrary authority in which they happen to be?

The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who heads the rural taskforce, will respond to the debate. He made a statement in answer to a private notice question earlier in the week, and he will pick up the points made in this debate. However, the rural taskforce is doing a good job not only in the measures that it has already announced, but because it is taking stock of the situation as it develops. One point that has come home to us strongly is that, although some of the earlier predictions have come true, some of them were unfounded. Some attractions have done better than expected while others have done worse. For that reason, it is important continually to monitor the position and to be prepared to take measures as and when appropriate.

On that point, will the right hon. Lady clarify the position in Scotland and in England? Is she aware that in Scotland the insane policy of slaughtering the hefted Cheviot flock will result, if it continues at the present rate, in the destruction of the entire flock? It is an irreplaceable asset in the Scottish economy. However, I understand that a different method is being used in, for example, Northumberland. Will she clarify the position and explain whether it is the same north and south of the border?

The hon. Gentleman said, "On that point", but his intervention raised an entirely different one. None the less, it is an important issue. As a Northumbrian, I am keen to ensure that the flocks of Cheviots on both sides of the border have the best possible chance of survival. That is why I support the measures that the Government have taken. He overstates the differences between north and south of the border. Discussions are taking place between the Administrations to try to ensure that we approach the problem in as co-ordinated a fashion as possible. However, we are conscious of the important issue that he has raised.

Will the Minister explain—perhaps later in her speech—the criteria for lifting the restrictions in certain areas? I have been told that restrictions have been lifted in certain counties that have had outbreaks but not in others. There seems to be inconsistency in the way in which the Government are lifting movement restrictions.

I am not aware of an inconsistency in approach. Guidance is available, and information is available on the MAFF website. Information has also been published about how restricted area status can be lifted. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples, I would be grateful if he would draw them to my attention or that of another Minister so that we can respond to him. An overall framework is in place—it is partly a European as well as a UK framework—and I have seen the clear advice that farmers have received.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is no cause for complacency and that we still face a crisis. In that context, when will the Government come to a decision on vaccination? Does she accept that the president of the National Farmers Union does not speak for all farmers and that the view that he advances is hotly contested by many in rural communities? The Government are there to lead; when will we have some leadership?

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must not be complacent in dealing with the disease. Indeed, one of the lessons of the 1967 outbreak of which we are very conscious is the fact that, during that outbreak, there was a lull and guard was relaxed. The disease broke out again, so we must be careful that that does not happen in this case.

Will the Department seriously consider the vaccination of specialist breed sheep, in particular the herdwick sheep that will secure the survival of the breed? Many people in the Lakeland whom I respect have told me that that is possible without compromising our position on vaccination.

That is an important aspect of the debate. However, other measures and guidance are being made available on rare and specialist breeds. In particular, we want to provide adequate bio-security measures so that the animals are kept separate from possible infectivity.

Not hefted sheep.

That could include hefted sheep if they are kept on their territory and separate from infectivity.

The Minister will be aware that Ben Gill, the president of the NFU, is worried about the apparent inconsistency in the Government's policy on vaccination. That causes great stress in the countryside, especially among farmers. Will she seriously consider ensuring that a clear statement is sent to all farmers to explain the Government's position and the rationale behind it? I am sure that farmers would be grateful for that because the uncertainty is posing a considerable challenge to mental well-being in the countryside.

That is either being done or about to be done. We are conscious of the need to communicate with individual farmers directly on this important issue.

I believe that no matter what the Government say, they will not persuade the NFU to accept vaccination. As an MP from one of the hot spots, I favour vaccination. Obviously we will try to keep cattle in sheds for as long as possible, but are the Government still considering a fodder policy?

We are certainly considering the problems of fodder supply to some farmers in areas where they are being encouraged to keep animals housed for longer than usual.

I acknowledge that there are different opinions on vaccination, but does the Minister accept that many farmers, such as Graham Gulliver, a prominent farmer in Preston Bissett in my constituency, are worried that their motives are being unfairly misrepresented? Will she acknowledge that many of those farmers who are hesitant, to put it mildly, about vaccination are not being awkward or cussed; rather they are concerned about the future saleability of their stock and the importance of ensuring compensation for consequential loss?

The hon. Gentleman's comments bear out my contact with farmers in different parts of the country. We have not been imputing particular motives to farmers. A genuine debate about vaccination is taking place. Many of the market-related concerns are, without question, important. They have been a factor in our consideration of the problem and our unwillingness to impose a policy about which there are so many severe doubts.

I was close to the Northumberland outbreak in 1967. Does the Minister agree that in that outbreak, immediate on-farm burial within 24 hours, rather than the use of mass burial sites, contained the disease? I have a huge problem on the uplands in my constituency, where 2,000 carcases were to be buried. That caused alarm, and there was a build-up of carcases when the spread of the disease could have been stopped.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and the concerns expressed by his constituents. None the less, we cannot make a straightforward comparison with 1967, when there were many outbreaks over a long period. When farms were smaller and we did not have the current environmental regulations, on-farm burial was a different option. We would be severely criticised if we allowed on-farm burial contrary to the environmental regulations that the House has adopted and which in many cases are part of European Union directives that we have freely and willingly entered into. For that reason, disposal routes are complex and giver rise to problems in many areas.

May I draw the Minister's attention to communities, which she knows, around Widdringon, Chevington and Cresswell in Northumberland that have seen thousands of animals burned in a beauty spot at Druridge bay and 100,000 carcases buried at Widdrington? Does she recognise that they need a break because they have been dealing with the problems of the whole region? There could also be some compensation, such as a council tax reduction for a year. There must be a mechanism by which we can recognise that those people have borne the brunt of the sacrifice.

I know the area well and I understand people's concerns, but I must say that the conditions under which animals were disposed of there were not unilaterally thought up by the Ministry of Agriculture but agreed by all the parties concerned, including the Environment Agency. Various requirements for siting were met, including those on wind conditions. Wind does change direction, but it is easier now than in 1967 to predict it, and we have used that knowledge very effectively.

As the Minister knows, there is a problem in my constituency and in Devon more widely. She said that we should not be complacent. It is reported today that her Ministry's director of operations for the south-west has moved. Who is the new south-west director of operations?

I have not seen that report, but the directors of operations, who have been working very hard, are entitled to a break in their activities. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the operations directorate in Devon is a crucial part of the fight against foot and mouth disease. The arrangements in Devon to co-ordinate the efforts of the Ministry, the Army and the veterinary service will be fully effective and his constituents will not lose out from any temporary changes in the occupancy of the regional director's office.

The right hon. Lady will agree that it is important to try to keep rural businesses going in the crisis. Hon. Members have mentioned rural abattoirs. Is she aware of the extent to which the welfare slaughter scheme is dislocating the market for slaughter of animals for human consumption? There are abattoirs in the north of England that cannot obtain stock for slaughter even under the Government's rules because the prices under the welfare slaughter scheme, in which animals are bulked up and priced deadweight, are much more advantageous than those offered for live weight in the marketplace. Small businesses will not be helped if they cannot get hold of the animals, even when encouraged to do so.

Thanks to the television in my office in the Ministry of Agriculture, I followed the interesting exchange on that subject earlier this week between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who explained our approach to the welfare scheme, and particularly the reason why we introduced a new complementary scheme to allow meat to go into the food chain from infected areas. My right hon. Friend outlined various ways in which he wanted to proceed with the welfare scheme, and I know that he may well have more to say about that in the next few days.

The Minister will realise that my island constituency has been free of foot and mouth so far, and we hope to keep it that way through rigid barrier controls at our ferry ports. However, there is a problem, as it costs at least £300 to take animals from farm to abattoir, irrespective of the number taken. A collection point proposal has been put to her office but. apparently, the response was that, so far, there has been no time to consider such a proposal. Will she look at the proposal because the issue is becoming a serious problem for my farmers?

I will look at that issue again and write to the hon. Gentleman. However, our earlier reservations about collection points were based largely on veterinary advice on disease control. I will check whether that advice has changed, but I am not aware that it has.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there have been great difficulties with the Intervention Board? I represent a Welsh area, and it is difficult to find an official who deals with Wales. I have had problems that involve one of my constituents, Mr. Barry Lewis. After two weeks, he found that his application form had been lost. Eventually he had his stock slaughtered, only to be told the next day that it would be slaughtered this coming week. There have been serious problems, so will my right hon. Friend undertake a serious review of the board's workings?

What I said was said sincerely. I was not trying to disguise the fact that there have been difficulties and problems. Problems have been referred to me and to other Ministers. I am prepared to consider lessons of organisation. None the less, Ministry and Intervention Board staff have had to operate many different schemes at short notice—for example, the short-term movement scheme, the long-distance movement scheme and the livestock welfare disposal scheme. They have had to deal also with the slaughtering and disposal of infected animals and the problems related to contiguous farms and premises. It has been difficult to deal with those issues.

I agree with the right hon. Lady when she pays tribute to those who are working so hard and who have answered our calls with great courtesy. However, on organisation, will she clarify the exact relationship between the Prime Minister, COBR—Cobra—the Ministry of Defence, MAFF and, above all, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which controls the Environment Agency? There seem to be conflicting claims and differences of opinion on who takes decisions.

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not find this difficult. Many Departments are involved when there is such an outbreak. He referred, for example, to health, environment, agriculture and Army issues. Given the Army's involvement, the co-ordination that COBR provides is important. Given the scale of the problem that we face, it would be astonishing if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were not personally fully engaged.

Will the Minister give way?

I am conscious of the need to make some progress. I will give way for the last time. If I continued to give way, I would be denying Members the chance to speak.

The right hon. Lady has been extremely generous in giving way and I am grateful to her.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not out to crucify the cheese-making industry. Knowing the excellence and variety of British cheeses, I am keen to see the industry expand. The consultation period on pig swill has expired, and we are considering the results. The issue that he mentioned has been raised, along with others, and an announcement will be made shortly about the results of the consultation and how we intend to proceed.

I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on holding this afternoon's debate. It is the first chance that the House has had to consider foot and mouth disease after a two and a half week gap, part of which was the Easter recess. It is disappointing that in the nine weeks since the crisis started, there has not yet been a single debate in the House in Government time. There have been two full days of debate provided by the Conservative Opposition, and now half a day provided by the Liberal Democrats. Whether, contrary to what the Minister of State said, that reflects some reluctance on the Government's part to deal with the issues in Parliament and to be accountable to Parliament, others will judge.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's comment is justified. He will know that there is on record a case of foot and mouth that occurred in a human in the 1967 outbreak. Thus, although such an occurrence is extremely rare, it is not impossible, and I do not think that anyone has said otherwise.

I am afraid that one of the mistakes that the Government have made almost throughout the crisis is to sound too optimistic and complacent about what is happening. Those of us who genuinely have the long-term interests of the tourism industry and rural businesses at heart know that nothing causes more damage than raising false expectations, which especially affect the tourism market, whether in north America or elsewhere. It was claimed frequently that the disease was under control when the number of cases was a tiny fraction of that which was reached at the end of March, but the fact that those claims were so patently unfounded at the time when they were made has reduced the effectiveness of the efforts of Ministers and other officials to try to rebuild confidence. Ignoring problems that are occurring, such as the one to which I have just referred, does nothing whatever to stimulate demand for visits to this country in places such as north America.

Does the hon. Gentleman now believe that the outbreak is under control? He talks about lifting movement restrictions. If he were Minister, under what circumstances would he lift restrictions completely? Would he wait until there were no further incidences, or for a period after the final outbreak? Under what circumstances would he deem that movement restrictions could be lifted and therefore that the outbreak was under control according to his definition?

I believe that most members of the public would judge whether the crisis had been resolved according to the criteria that I have set out. I share the Minister of State's view that it is impossible to lift all movement restrictions as quickly as some people would like because we rightly do not want to run any risk of a renewed spread of infection. However, it is impossible to say that the crisis has been resolved while those restrictions remain. A significant number of farmers are unable to operate their businesses as they normally would while such restrictions exist, and to claim that everything is back to normal when restrictions of that sort are still in place seems quite unreasonable.

rose—

rose—

I shall give way in a moment.

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about on-farm burial. The failure of the Government to implement that policy has landed my constituents near Throckmorton airfield with a mass burial site that will have to take upwards of a quarter of a million carcases, and possibly many more if the absolutely abhorrent proposal to bring carcases from Devon to Worcestershire is pursued by the Government. The Government are not making their task any easier by failing to answer my parliamentary questions on the subject. Before the recess, I tabled about 30 questions and I have had no substantial answers to any of them. My constituents adjacent to that site are extremely anxious.

Order. Interventions are meant to be brief.

My hon. Friend raises a most important point on parliamentary questions. I have checked, and I have 15 questions to the Minister outstanding, nearly all of which were tabled before the end of March. After the recess, it was quite reasonable for Members on both sides of the House to expect that the questions that they had tabled some time earlier would have been answered on Monday this week.

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that there have been huge changes since 1967? Furthermore, as far as I am aware, the Environment Agency scoured the countryside in the infected areas in Wales to find suitable burial points, and failed to do so. The hon. Gentleman has underlined just how difficult it is to deal with the problem, and he should admit that the Government have done a damned good job in very difficult circumstances.

I do not think that anyone looking at the piles of carcases in Devon could agree with that last sentiment. I understand that the chief executive of the Environment Agency has said that a number of sites that could be used are not being used at present.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) may be interested to know that I held a meeting with vets who had worked during 1967 and vets working currently. When large numbers of cattle were buried on-farm in Cheshire and north Shropshire, no detrimental effects on human health were recorded. My hon. Friend is right to ask for an investigation of whether any records were kept for those sites, and what the environmental consequences were. That was the clear recommendation of the 1967 report, and of the vets in Wem four weeks ago.

I entirely agree. I certainly do not consider it adequate, nine weeks into the current outbreak, simply to parrot the objection that on-farm burials involve environmental difficulties, unless it is backed up by proper studies and assessments that reveal risks of which we were not previously aware.

Slaughter on clinical signs—in other words, slaughter on suspicion—was taking place before the hon. Gentleman suggested it.

That statement will, I think, be disputed by a great many farmers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Professor David King, the chief scientific adviser who is advising the Prime Minister on vaccination, made it clear that he would only support vaccination were it to be supported by the vast majority of farmers? In his scientific advice, the consent of the farming community is crucial. Is it also crucial to the hon. Gentleman's decision making?

I find that an extraordinary way to make policy. A policy is either right or wrong. I have set out three straightforward tests by which the policy should be judged. If the Government think that those are the right tests, let them tell us what the advice is. If the tests are wrong, the Government should tell us what tests they are applying, but they should not have a policy that they are afraid to introduce if some people disagree with it. That sums up new Labour Government.

Who is the guilty Member?

My hon. Friend tempts me, but I shall not say. I wish to proceed courteously, so when I have had the chance to inform the Member concerned I may consider advising my hon. Friend.

rose—

Order. If those hon. Members wishing to contribute to the debate make their contributions brief, more will be able to catch my eye.

The House, and the country, will have noted that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) did not tell us whether he was for or against vaccination.