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

MONDAY 30 APRIL—Second Reading of the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Will she give the House some indication as to when we might expect the dates for the Whit recess to be announced? I am sure that Members on both sides will be interested in receiving those.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the next Treasury questions, scheduled for Thursday 10 May, will actually take place? The reason I ask is that if there is any question that that session will not take place on 10 May, the House will be looking for an opportunity next week for the Chancellor to come here to share with us the concerns that he shared with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In his speech to that bank, he clearly expressed anxiety about the way in which the British economy might be affected by the fall-out from the American downturn. That is of particular interest to the House, because during the past four years we understood that the Chancellor had abolished the economic cycle. However, clearly, the economic cycle is back and the Dispatch Box would be the appropriate place for the Chancellor to explain why, having abolished it, it is back.

We also note that next week, on 1 May, the House will consider the remaining stages of the Social Security Fraud Bill. Will the Leader of the House identify whether there will be time for the House to look at another matter regarding social security? I realise the constraints and the narrowness of the debate on remaining stages, but as the appropriate Ministers will be on the Treasury Bench that day, I am sure that the House would like the opportunity to question them about the £3.5 million the Government have spent on advertising benefit fraud, especially when it turns out that the advertising merely resulted in a distance learning package for those who want to learn how to do it.

Finally, we note today, from our monitors, that the announcement has been made of the 15 so-called people's peers. The right hon. Lady is deeply involved in this procedure and will be aware that when the Government axed the hereditary peers, they promised that, during this Parliament, they would set up a cross-party Committee of both Houses to address future reforms of another place. Despite our pressing them to do so, and our willingness to serve on it, they have not done so, but have announced the people's peers. Surprisingly, we note that the 15, chosen from 3,000 applicants, include three professors and seven knights—people who I am sure will make a valuable contribution, but who would otherwise have been obvious candidates under the normal procedures. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady could tell us what exactly the Government's definition of the people is these days.

The hon. Lady asked me for an indication of the dates of the Whitsun recess, which slightly surprises me as I have observed during the time that I have been in this post that every time that we announce the dates of a recess, someone on the Conservative Benches complains that we have only just come back from one. As we have only just come back from the Easter recess, I will bear the hon. Lady's observations in mind, but I am not in a position to give her the dates today.

The hon. Lady asked me about the Chancellor finding an opportunity to come to the House. I was really quite surprised by her remarks because my right hon. Friend has never ever suggested that the Government had abolished the business cycle. Indeed, it is precisely because we know mat the business cycle continues to exist, and will always continue to exist, that he has placed such emphasis on so managing the economy that we can have economic stability and stable economic policy, even as the business cycle proceeds. So, far from ever having suggested that there was no such thing as the economic or business cycle, my right hon. Friend has clearly always understood the opposite, but understood also that it is the duty of Government to try to mitigate the ups and downs of the business cycle. The Conservative party signally failed to do that in all the years in which it was in power.

The hon. Lady asked me about the new list of peers—of course those appointments were made by the Appointments Commission—and she appeared to suggest that in some way the current procedures are defective. I have not had much time to scrutinise the list, but I understand that significantly more women and more people from the ethnic minorities have been appointed than was the case under the previous system. That seems to me to he evidence of good judgment on the commission's part. However, the principal difference is that this procedure is open and transparent, and that it is not a matter of peers being appointed simply on the decision and the judgment of the Prime Minister, which had always been the case under previous Prime Ministers. It is time that the Conservative party gave my right hon. Friend credit for being the first Prime Minister ever to give away patronage.

The hon. Lady then asked me about the issue of social security advertising—

What about the joint Committee?

I beg her pardon; I must have lost that question in my notes. Yes, the Government intend to pursue joint discussions about how we handle the future development of the upper House. I recognise, and am pleased that the hon. Lady has placed it on the record, that the Conservative party is not unwilling to take part in such discussions. We shall certainly bear that in mind and we hope that we shall be able, over time, to get some agreement on how the further reform of the upper House should work.

The final issue that the hon. Lady raised with me was that of Government advertising, and she suggested in particular that Ministers from the Department of Social Security should be discussing the issue of DSS advertising. I thought that she gave the impression that she believed that this was misplaced spending on the Government's part. It may be slightly unfortunate for the hon. Lady that it is the case, as I am sure that she must now be aware, that, in real terms, the expenditure on Government advertising in this year is very close to the expenditure undertaken by the Government of her party in 1987. Of course, what is particularly unfortunate is that the hon. Lady chose the example of social security, because if the previous Conservative Government had been prepared to spend a little more on advertising the consequences of their policies in 1987, perhaps many people would have understood that they were taking away their rights to widows' pensions.

May I thank my right hon. Friend and you, too, Mr. Speaker, for the motion which is on the Order Paper for next Wednesday to set up a working group on the problems of ex-MPs—a proposal that is long overdue? It is not intended to provide any financial assistance and it will not cost the taxpayer any money. In the past, no inquiry has been held into what happens when MPs lose their seats or when they retire.

Declare your interest.

The right hon. Gentleman can jeer as much as he likes, but this is a serious business. More than 600 MPs have left the House—half of them have retired—since about 1987. No one knows what has happened to them, about their jobs or their problems, or about what advice they might need.

We all know where Jonathan Aitken has been.

Well, we expect silly jokes from people who have a good job, and who will have a good job after the election, but the fact is that after the previous election many people lost their jobs, including friends of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

The Data Protection Act 1998 has made it virtually impossible to find out such information on a voluntary basis because it is not possible to gain the relevant names and addresses. Those are the things that we should debate seriously next Wednesday.

I am sure that the motion has the support of the Chief Whips of every party. You have done a great deal of work on the issue, Mr. Speaker, so has the Leader of the House, and I should like to thank you both for that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. He makes a very important point: there is cross-party support for a discussion to find out whether a voluntary organisation could be set up. He also makes the important point, which I certainly had not properly taken on board in the past and which may not be familiar to all Members, that partly because of the Data Protection Act 1998, there is no record of what has happened to former MPs or, indeed, to their spouses, or widows or widowers. It is extremely difficult for people to make contact.

Of course people are occasionally in touch with the welfare organisations, but there are many more with whom no one is in touch, some of whom are in considerable difficulties. My hon. Friend and others—literally, on all sides of the House—are interested in finding out whether it is possible to form some sort of voluntary organisation of former Members, which can keep in touch so that people can gain advice and support from others in similar circumstances.

Presumably, Phoenix the calf cannot now qualify to be a people's peer, but will the Leader of the House assure us that that great national asset can be used in future Government advertising? Clearly, that would be a great deal more effective than some recent Government advertising.

May we have a statement on the role of the Electoral Commission? Clearly, the commission has a very important responsibility, and perhaps it should be involved in assessing the role of Government advertising in the 12 months before a general election. That is but one of the many questions now being asked about the forthcoming election. Many other important issues do not seem to have been properly tackled by the commission. Before any possible date for Dissolution, can we have a report on the commission's role in adjudicating on such matters? Obviously, some regulation is required if only because the taxpayer is getting very bad value for money in relation to Government advertising.

The right hon. Lady has referred to the 1987 advertising expenditure of more than £104 million by the then Thatcher Government, most of which was spent on selling privatisation. The public are concerned not just in case there is an attempt to skew the electoral process, but because such advertising represents very bad value for money. May I also draw her attention to the obvious necessity to review the fact that we should have fixed-term Parliaments? Several of her colleagues believe that greater attention should be given to that proposal. Fixed terms would enable the Electoral Commission to adjudicate more effectively on such matters as advertising.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's main point about Government advertising, I point out that it is not a matter for the Electoral Commission. However, the issue is already under scrutiny by the National Audit Office, which always monitors the effectiveness and value of any Central Office of Information advertising campaign.

As for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that, in some way, the advertising is unsuitable, unnecessary and totally ineffective, I point out that much of the advertising has been on police recruitment, and he may have noticed that there has been a substantial increase in recruits. Advertising has also led to an increase in teacher recruitment, and it has also encouraged people to join or to return to the health service, and there has been a huge take-up on that.

There has been advertising on issues—such as the working families tax credit, the national minimum wage, the children's tax credit and the minimum income guarantee—in which we think it is important for people to claim their entitlements. Sadly—to some extent, I suppose it is inevitable—if we wait for the news media to communicate to people that there is a new entitlement to, say, the children's tax credit that will start at the beginning of April, we would have to wait a very long time. The only way to ensure that people are aware of their entitlements is through Government advertising.

As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Phoenix the calf, at least the one thing that we can be fairly confident about is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will not be photographed sitting in a field cuddling it.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend shared my misfortune last week. Although I know that she was in this country, I was in Turkey where I turned on the television and watched CNN. I had the misfortune of viewing the shadow Secretary of State for Defence talking about foot and mouth in the United Kingdom. Members on both sides are rightly concerned about its impact on the tourism industry, but they would have heard him saying that foot and mouth was out of control. He referred to funeral pyres and to all the matters that have turned tourists off coming to this country. Will my right hon. Friend advise the House as to what we should do with the Tories who continually talk Britain down?

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I was not able to watch CNN, so I did not see the interview to which she refers. Given that I understand that we are all anxious about the impact on tourism and the economy generally of the knock-on effects of the crisis, it is most unfortunate if any hon. Member, in whatever position or circumstance, acts in a way that causes greater alarm and despondency to be spread in what is an important market. I wish that I could say that it was uncharacteristic behaviour on the part of the hon. Gentleman to whom my hon. Friend referred, but I fear that I cannot.

Does the Leader of the House recall that at the last business questions she said, following my encouragement, that she would consider scheduling a debate on the decisions concerning parliamentary pay and other associated matters? She has not done so, but I would be grateful if she would explain why. Does she not recall that, in the final weeks of the previous Parliament, she and her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench were extremely keen that the then Government should table such matters for decision on the basis that existing Members would be better able to judge needs and that those who were leaving the House—either voluntarily or involuntarily—would receive pension help as a consequence? In the light of that and her own past behaviour, will she reflect further and schedule such a debate for next week?

As the right hon. Gentleman said, I heard the point that he made and I have given the matter consideration. He attends business questions, so he will be aware of the enormous pressure and the requests for many issues to be debated. It has not been possible to find time for this issue to be aired at this time.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the preparations in South Africa for the Rio plus 10 conference in September next year to mark the 10th anniversary of the 1992 Earth summit, set up to establish greater international co-operation on environmental policy? In view of the crisis in international environmental policy caused by the decision of the United States Government to oppose the Kyoto protocol, will she find time in the near future for a debate so that we can consider the response of all relevant Departments to that conference?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He takes a keen interest in the issue, which he assiduously pursues. However, I cannot find time to have such a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, although he might consider the opportunities offered by Westminster Hall. It strikes me that although the debate on the international development White Paper will focus on globalisation and its impact on the poor, other aspects of world development also impinge on the poor, and the environment is one of them. Far be it from me to impinge on the prerogatives of the Chair, but my hon. Friend might try to fit the matter into the context of that debate.

The whole House will have been disappointed with the right hon. Lady's response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) about the Senior Salaries Review Board report, especially as it relates to information technology. She has announced a debate on former Members, but seems to have ignored the SSRB's recommendation that future Members need the relevant decision to be made before the general election. Most decisions on information technology in this place occur without a debate on the Floor of the House, but will she at least table a motion—perhaps also for debate on Wednesday—to set up a group to ensure that all Members of Parliament are entitled to a supplied computer when they arrive? They would receive such equipment in any other job. That would save hundreds of thousands of pounds that will be wasted if the decision to supply that equipment is not taken before the election.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am aware that he has a keen interest in such issues and is a campaigning member of the Information Committee. However, I must explain two things. First, it is clear from the SSRB report and many other discussions that a considerable amount of work and planning needs to be done before the new systems are fully operational. I understand his anxiety about newly elected Members and about making decisions in a changing context. However, I am not clear that hon. Members will be satisfied with the service available to them if the kit from central supply is provided in the immediate aftermath of the election, as he suggests. The SSRB report makes it clear that a substantial transitional period is needed.

Secondly, next week, the Modernisation Committee is taking evidence from hon. Friends who have been involved in such matters. That is, in part, because of concern expressed about the adequacy of IT support and how it will need to be developed substantially to implement the SSRB report recommendations.

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to allow MPs a free vote on hunting and that that will be held in Government time?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Hunting Bill is in the upper House. The Government's approach has always been to allow a free vote on it. I have no reason to suppose that that stance is likely to change.

Will the Leader of the House comment on the state of the approach roads to the Palace of Westminster on Tuesday, especially as those people who intend to protest in my constituency on that day have not sought the approval of the Metropolitan police for that line of route?

I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, although I am not sure that the protesters have a line of route. He will appreciate that it is not wholly a matter for me. However, I am aware that the House authorities have been in discussion with the Metropolitan police who are mindful of their responsibilities to the citizens of London and the House.

The Government have made many good efforts to help tourism over the past few weeks, and my right hon. Friend will be aware that Calderdale has a thriving tourism industry. However, is she aware that Tory-controlled Calderdale council, in a cost-cutting exercise, has closed almost all the public toilets in Calderdale, thus sending a message that if people come to Halifax and the Calder valley, they cannot spend a penny? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the effects that that is having on tourism and, obviously, on public hygiene?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was not aware of the serious impact of that decision, and I can perfectly understand her concern on behalf of her constituents, let alone potential visitors to her constituency. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the Floor of the House, but it sounds to me like a classic for Westminster Hall.

It is disappointing that even in what appear to be the dying days of this Parliament the Government have not introduced a debate in their time on the national drugs strategy. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the impact and seriousness of the problem facing the country, the effect on crime figures and on expense on education, health and social services, and the fact that in the past four years there has been only one debate on the subject in Government time, and introduce a debate as soon as she can?

Of course I take the hon. Lady's point that those are important issues, but as she, too, regularly attends business questions she will be aware that it is only one of many subjects of substance which the House likes to debate from time to time, and it is not always easy to find time for debates on the Floor. However, I recommend to her, as I have done to others, the attractions of the extra debating time available in Westminster Hall.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem of term-time workers? Thousands of workers, mainly women, in educational establishments throughout the country, particularly universities, are laid off during the holidays. They receive no pay and are denied benefits during that time, so for about 20 weeks of the year they have absolutely nothing to live on. Many women took the job on the basis that they were told by the Benefits Agency that they would qualify for benefits, and those benefits have now been stopped. During the time that they are off work, they receive no national insurance contributions, which will obviously have a detrimental effect on their pensions.

The problem has gone on for nearly five years and is being considered by the Law Lords in the other place. Will my right hon. Friend provide for a statement to be made to the House on how long it will take for a judgment to be made, bearing it in mind that many of these women basically have nothing to live on?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As far as I can recall, this is a problem of considerable standing. I seem to remember it being raised some 15 or more years ago. He is right to express concern about the possibility that people have been given advice that has turned out not to be accurate. I fear that I cannot assure him that there will be a statement on the matter because the court case will continue in the near future, but I can certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in case there is any information that he can give him.

The Leader of the House has not announced time in the next two weeks for consideration of Commons amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, leaving it inevitably vulnerable to an early Dissolution of the House. She will know that the Bill contains a measure that has all-party support, namely the introduction of free nursing care in nursing homes. She will also have heard the Prime Minister yesterday commit the Government to overturning a decision on the future of community health councils. Are the Government seriously considering holding up a measure that is popular so that they can proceed with a measure that is unpopular?

With respect, there is no question of the Government holding that up. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the Bill is still in the House of Lords and, indeed, that the Lords have not yet finished their consideration. He makes an important point about the further consideration needed in this House at some stage, but it is not usual to schedule that before the Bill has finished its proceedings in another place, as he will appreciate.

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been in correspondence with the trustees of the pension fund on several occasions regarding the need to deal with the financial position of Members of or near retirement age who retired mainly in 1987 and before? Because of their salary at the time they almost certainly receive a pittance of a pension. As there is a substantial surplus in the pension fund, would it not be right for us to look carefully at what can be done to assist Members who, through no fault of their own, retired on such a small pension?

I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. Indeed, when I recently made inquiries, I was astonished to discover that only 8 per cent. of retired Members who now draw pensions from the parliamentary pension fund are entitled to the full retirement pension, whatever its level. However, I fear that my hon. Friend is wrong to believe that there is a surplus in the pension fund; there was a fairly substantial surplus but decisions taken by the Opposition when in government resulted in that surplus disappearing. Indeed, according to the Government Actuary, there is a potential for the fund to go into deficit.

I therefore fear that I cannot undertake to do as my hon. Friend suggests, but I acknowledge the point that he made. This is a matter for the House and if it decides to set up a voluntary organisation for Members who have retired from the House, voluntarily or otherwise, I hope that it will be handled more expeditiously in future.

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to examine documents from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that were released on 19 April under the 30-year rule? In one of those documents, the British ambassador to Ireland, Mr. John Peck, wrote to the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home on 16 December and commented on the aftermath of the 1970 arms trial in the Republic. He said:

"whatever the verdict, if Mr. Haughey was not part of a conspiracy, he was at any rate up to the neck in a scheme to import arms illegally."

Today's edition of the Irish Independent reports:

"Senior Garda officers reported on a meeting between Charles Haughey and a senior IRA man months before the arms crisis rocked the Government, according to documents held in the Dail."

Will the Leader of the House agree to provide time for a debate on the content of those FCO documents and any additional information that is made available by the Irish Republic, bearing in mind the strong suspicion in Northern Ireland that some Ministers in the Irish Government at that time played a big part in assisting in the creation of the Provisional IRA, which then gave us 30 years of murder and terror in Northern Ireland?

Order. I think that the Leader of the House will be able to reply.

I was not aware of the issue in the 30-year-old documents to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I have no doubt that those documents will be the subject of much analysis and discussion. Although he raised substantial and weighty issues, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future. I believe that Northern Ireland questions will be held the week after next, and he may find an opportunity to raise the matter then. I suspect, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will decline to take responsibility for something that happened 30 years ago.

I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that people suffering from multiple sclerosis are concerned about the non-availability of the drug beta interferon for certain forms of the illness. I have a number of constituents who are anxiously awaiting the decision of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Can my right hon. Friend suggest anything that would cause NICE to make an early decision, as my constituents and many other MS sufferers and their families are awaiting that decision with anxiety and are currently in limbo?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I too, have constituents who are concerned about the matter, as I expect most hon. Members do. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We all understand the anxiety of those who hope and believe that they might benefit from the availability of such treatment. One of the reasons that it is being considered by NICE is that not everyone does benefit, although of obviously people hope that they will benefit. Everyone wants the consideration by NICE to be thorough and scientifically sound.

As the right hon. Lady knows, Sunday 29 April is census day. Will she join me in thanking the teams of volunteers who have been delivering forms throughout the country? Can she assure the House that every precaution has been taken in the delivery and collection of forms to ensure that there will be no threat of the spread of foot and mouth disease? Can she also give me an assurance that every property that is occupied has been registered on the electoral roll for census purposes and will receive a form, so that we can have a full census of rural as well as urban areas?

As far as I am aware, it is believed that every property has been included, but I shall draw the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. A great deal of thought and discussion has gone into the handling of the census, in order to make sure that nothing is done that might exacerbate matters related to foot and mouth disease. The hon. Lady may recall that some time ago, the person who is the overall head of the census operation made it plain that careful thought had been given to that, and that every effort would be made to ensure that there were no problems.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while it has been a pretty good day for Lady Quango and the other 14 people's peers, it has also been a relatively good day for 1,500 women canteen workers who have been battling for 18 years to get equal pay? Will there be a statement about the fact that now, a meeting with some unreconstructed socialists like myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and other members of the miners group has finally resulted in a meeting with the brand-new Minister for Energy? The issue has been resolved and the canteen women will get an average of £10,000 apiece. Some of them will receive up to £40,000. They have struggled for 18 years, and have been bailed out by a combination of Labour Members and a Minister in the new Labour team.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to a very welcome decision. I congratulate both of my hon. Friends, who have campaigned over a long period and assisted in putting the case, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who made the relevant decision.

I endorse entirely the comments of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), and I am delighted that the debate is taking place.

My question relates indirectly to foot and mouth disease and the measures introduced by the Government to give business rate relief to certain rural areas affected by the outbreak. I have had some support and I have had the ear of the Minister for the Environment, who heads the rural taskforce. It is extraordinary that Macclesfield, which has a huge, sparsely populated rural area in which livestock is the major agricultural occupation, is not eligible for assistance under the scheme. My constituency is not the only area affected. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Minister to make a statement on the issue, so that he can explain what action he is taking to include within the scheme Macclesfield and other areas that are currently omitted?

I fear that I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend to come to the House again in the very near future, but I can certainly draw to his attention the hon. Gentleman's perfectly proper concerns. I am confident that he will want to inform the hon. Gentleman about the discussions that have been taking place on the issue that he raises.

Now that British Steel has admitted that it lied to the work force of H. H. Robertson for business reasons, I have written to all of the 28 other hon. Members whose constituents are affected by the closure. In view of the very important issue that the decision raises and the fact that it could bring into disrepute the actions of many honourable company directors throughout the country, will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the subject, so that the same outrage cannot happen again?

I know that my hon. Friend's concern will be shared by the other hon. Members whose constituents are affected, although I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate or statement on the matter in the near future. I remind him of next week's DTI questions, as he might find an opportunity to raise the matter then.

The Leader of the House should be aware that we are now halfway through the Committee stage of the International Criminal Court Bill, which she has listed for completion on 9 May. The Committee is considering an 80-something clause Bill, but we are now debating clause 2 stand part. Before she says that our progress is the result of an Opposition filibuster, I point out that we are discussing immensely important matters. I made a speech during which 41 interventions were made, mostly by Labour Members. We were discussing the operation of the statute of Rome and its important consequences. We must have further debates about universal jurisdiction and diplomatic immunity, and provide an opportunity for the Government to explain to Amnesty International and others why there is no such provision. It is immensely important that the crucial issues that are involved continue to be fully and properly debated. Will she reconsider the timetabling of the final stages of the Bill for 9 May, so that we can extend the Committee stage and have a proper debate on them? That may also create an opportunity to discuss the office costs allowance and other matters.

I have not been following closely the progress of the Bill in Committee, but I shall make some inquiries about the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Sadly, there is often difference of opinion among hon. Members about the time that is required to consider different aspects of proposed legislation, and I cannot undertake to take the decision that he suggests. Indeed, the House is bound by the programme motion that it carried. I shall, however, draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister who is in charge of the Bill.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Saturday 28 April is workers' memorial day, which draws attention to the fact that 335,000 workers worldwide lose their lives each year as a result of their work. Will she give some thought to the possibility of erecting a plaque to commemorate the workers in British industry who have lost their lives? I think that that would focus wonderfully the attention of this place on the need for appropriate health and safety legislation.

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the lives that are lost every year as a result of accidents and errors in the workplace. It is not for me to decide whether the House considers erecting a plaque, but he is right to draw our attention to the extent to which the issue should be of concern to hon. Members from all parties, as I am sure that it is.

Will the right hon. Lady consider with her ministerial colleagues the problem of unannounced visits by Ministers to other hon. Members' constituencies, which I fear might be a growing practice? She will remember our correspondence on the fact that she found herself at the canal museum in my constituency just before Easter without having let me know of her visit. I am sure that she inadvertently failed to do so, and when I remonstrated with her about the visit, I received a full and sufficient apology. Of course, I am not trying to pursue that. However, the incident gave rise to concern because the press and local councillors knew of the visit, but the Member of Parliament did not. My secretary tells me that it is possible for hon. Members to find out the postcode of any place on the parliamentary database in seconds or minutes. It is essential that Ministers take the point seriously.

The hon. Gentleman is right, and Ministers take the point seriously. He said that he was sure that I visited his constituency without notifying him inadvertently. He knows that that is the case because that formed part of the explanation that I sent him. Unfortunately, my office, which is most assiduous and conscientious about such matters, was misinformed.

However, I fear that the hon. Gentleman's secretary is not wholly correct. I know from experience—not of the visit that we are considering—correspondence and advice given to constituents by advice bureaux that the postcode is not always an adequate identifier of constituencies. All Ministers' private offices always take steps to ensure that local Members of Parliament are notified of visits. I hope that the offices of Opposition Front-Bench Members take the same steps; I am not sure whether that is always the case. We shall continue to pursue the policy.

I ask my right hon. Friend to seek assurances from Opposition Members about holding sensible debate on asylum issues, including during a pending general election campaign. In a council by-election that took place in my constituency last week, we retained a seat on a 4 per cent. swing to us. The Conservative candidate, whose name is Richard, but he likes to be called Dick, put out literature, which states:

"Elderly people are blocking vital beds in our hospitals because of the closure of local homes for them to be transferred to. Yet people who come to this country and have paid nothing get put up at the best hotels for free".

Can we have an assurance from Opposition Members that they will not use gutter politics when debating such a sensitive issue?

Order. That is not a matter for the Leader of the House.

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the foot and mouth outbreak.

As I did on eight occasions before the Easter break, and have done once already this week in a session with the Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I wish to update the House on the latest position on the disease, set out the measures that the Government are taking and give hon. Members the opportunity to raise points with me. I also wish to inform the House about the outcome of the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg this week and of my bilateral discussions there with the Dutch Agriculture Minister.

As of 11 am today, there had been 1,481 confirmed cases of foot and mouth disease. For ease of reference, the House will wish to know that I am putting details of the number of cases in each constituency in the Library today. They will be updated daily. I am also making available to individual Members full details of the cases in their own constituencies, to supplement the early warning system that has been in place for some weeks.

More than 2 million animals have now been slaughtered for disease control purposes. Around three quarters are sheep, 20 per cent. are cattle and 5 per cent. are pigs. A further 475,000 animals have been slaughtered under the welfare slaughter scheme.

The latest figures show that 152,000 animals await slaughter and 218,000 carcases await disposal in Great Britain. The backlog of data not entered on the database that holds those figures has been greatly reduced. None the less, the figures still tend to overstate the position. There is a disposal backlog in Devon of around 85,000 animals and we are addressing that as a top priority. There are no significant disposal backlogs in other areas of the country.

We continue to work closely with the Department of Health on the public health issues surrounding the various disposal routes. There are no completely risk-free options. Updated and consolidated guidelines were published on Tuesday. The method of disposal in each case is the safest and most effective in the circumstances. The House will be aware that the numbers of confirmed cases continue to fall, week on week. From the highest point of 43 cases a day, on average, in the week ending 1 April, the average number of cases has fallen to 16 in the week to 22 April.

We have been able to lift restrictions in nine different areas where there have been no new cases for 30 days and thorough veterinary and serological testing has taken place. As a result, the tighter movement restrictions associated with infected areas have been lifted from some 5,000 sq km—1.25, million acres—of the country, affecting about 12,500 farms.

These figures show that we are continuing to bear down on the outbreak. We can be cautiously optimistic about the future course of the epidemic. The scientific advice was that the single most important action we should take against the spread of the disease was to reduce the time between report and slaughter to 24 hours. That has been our policy and it has been shown to be the right one.

The Government's policies for slaughter on infected premises within 24 hours, and on contiguous premises within 48 hours, have been crucial to the control of the epidemic. Following formal advice from the chief scientific adviser and the chief veterinary officer, I can today announce for England a broadening of the existing areas of discretion for local veterinary judgment in the light of the developing disease situation. The devolved Administrations will be making their own statements.

The joint advice from the chief scientist and the chief vet follows detailed consultation with the veterinary profession and with the expert scientific group advising the Government on the course of the disease. This development is not, as some have reported, a relaxation; its purpose is to improve the achievement of the policy by refining the instructions given to staff in the field.

The key points are as follows: we will continue to kill all animals that are dangerous contacts, which will include animals on a significant number of neighbouring farms and beyond; on other contiguous premises, susceptible animals will be killed. Cattle may, however, be spared if there is adequate biosecurity. This will be a matter for local veterinary judgment, taking account of all the circumstances. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already published guidance—agreed with the veterinary profession—on the biosecurity measures that farmers can take to help protect their animals from infection. When cattle are not culled, they will be subject to regular veterinary patrols.

These refinements can be expected to provide some relief from automatic slaughter of cattle. They will not lead to a change in the policy of culling of pigs and sheep on contiguous premises. Pigs pose a high disease risk and can spread the virus. Sheep can carry the disease without showing symptoms, thereby causing further undetected spread.

Following consultation with interested parties, we shall be providing for the special circumstances of rare breeds of sheep, and of moorland and hefted flocks, based on tight biosecurity coupled with serological testing. Guidance on this will be issued to staff on the ground very shortly. These are complex matters of scientific and veterinary judgment. The new arrangements have to be right, to ensure that they meet real needs and contribute to, rather than hinder, disease control.

I would also like to update the House on the position regarding vaccination. The Government have given serious consideration to a cattle vaccination strategy in north Cumbria and possibly Devon, given the particular issues in those regions and, especially, the intensity of infection in certain areas and the forthcoming turnout of cattle from indoor housing to outdoor grazing. The Government accept the case for vaccinating cattle in those areas, but only if the vaccination programme is supported by a substantial majority of the farming community, by veterinarians, by the wider food industry and—I believe this to be crucial—by consumers.

As I told the Agriculture Committee on Monday, that level of support is simply not there, and the signs are that it will not now be achieved. Without that support, a vaccination programme would be very difficult to implement on the ground. We continue our discussions with all those who would be affected, but the case for a vaccination programme becomes less compelling as the number of daily confirmed cases and the weight of infection in the hotspot areas continues to fall.

I turn now to the livestock welfare disposal scheme. In the first week of April, 53,000 animals were slaughtered under the scheme, rising to 143,000 in the second week of April and more than 150,000 last week. Opening the scheme generated a great many applications, at one stage apparently totalling close to 2 million animals. All applications have now been checked. This process has removed many of the duplicated applications—one particular producer put in 14 separate applications for the same animals. There are now applications covering some 1.3 million animals. Well over half a million of those animals have now been dealt with—either slaughtered and disposed of or withdrawn voluntarily, or because there was no welfare case to answer. By the end of today the backlog in Great Britain will stand at less than three quarters of a million animals, and we are on course to have completely removed the backlog by mid-May.

The welfare disposal scheme has been established to deal with severe welfare problems arising from the FMD movement restrictions that cannot be dealt with by other means. I am glad that we have been able to extend progressively the options available to farmers to deal with welfare issues, and to re-establish routes for their perfectly healthy livestock to be sold into the food chain.

As of Monday of this week farmers within infected areas, but outside the 3 km protection zones surrounding infected premises, have been able to enter healthy livestock into the food chain. As a result of those changes, the vast majority of farmers have practicable alternatives to the welfare disposal scheme. I am confident that the rate of withdrawals from the welfare scheme backlog will accelerate as a result.

In the re-establishment of routes into the food chain across Great Britain as whole, it is imperative for the payment rates for the livestock welfare disposal scheme not to act as a disincentive to farmers by providing more attractive financial options than the market itself. In order to ensure that, I am announcing today that payment rates for categories of livestock normally slaughtered for meat or meat products have been revised. All animals collected for slaughter or slaughtered on-farm from Monday 30 April will receive the new payment rates.

The rates for cull and draft ewes, new season lamb, clean cattle, and pigs are being revised to a level that represents about 70 per cent. of current market prices. For hoggets and cull sows, a higher rate of 80 per cent. is being established. Arrangements have been put in hand to ensure that all who have animals killed under the scheme are aware of the financial returns they will receive before they formally hand over their animals. I still intend the scheme to be reviewed on 22 May; meanwhile, I shall discuss with the industry the separate market-related issues in respect of light lambs and cull sows that would normally have gone for export. It would be misleading to expect an early resumption of export markets, but taxpayers cannot be expected to buy out the problem.

In my statement on 27 March, I outlined a number of actions flowing from our initial assessment of the origins and spread of the disease. The consultation on the proposed ban on pigswill closed on 10 April. We received about 150 responses, nearly all of which favoured a ban. A number of detailed issues were raised; we are considering them as a matter of urgency, and I expect to make an announcement next week. We have also received a good many comments on our proposed 20-day standstill period, after movements on farms, for sheep, goats and cattle. Again, most representations are in favour, but a number of highly technical issues have emerged. Because of the considerable interest that has been expressed, I have decided—in response to an explicit request from the National Farmers Union—to extend the consultation period for a further month from the initial deadline of 11 May. Cross-departmental examination of the controls on commercial and personal imports of meat and meat products is well under way, and I shall have more to say about the matter in the near future.

At this week's meeting of the Agriculture Council, I reported in full to EU colleagues the progress that we have made to combat FMD, and acknowledged the help given us by the Commission and other member states. As before, there was strong support for our efforts and those of my Dutch colleague, and for our determination to eradicate FMD. At my instigation and that of Laurens Brinkhorst, the EU will convene a conference later in the year to examine all aspects of our experience of this disease—in particular, that of the UK and the Netherlands—to help shape policy for the future, including vaccination policy.

Combating foot and mouth disease remains the Government's top priority, but as the disease is brought under control questions arise from farmers and others in the rural economy about options for the future. We therefore intend to work in partnership with farmers and others to identify ways of assisting the recovery of the farming sector. We shall focus in particular on farmers directly affected by FMD who face choices about their futures, and on the regions of the United Kingdom that have been hit hardest by FMD—especially, of course, Cumbria and Devon. As a first stage, the Government will concentrate on the need to provide high-quality, targeted business and agronomic advice to individual farmers, and will explore ways of improving marketing in the livestock sector, to the benefit of the whole food chain. The Government also intend to help livestock farmers to decide the optimum basis on which restocking should take place, taking into account the desirability of rebuilding flocks and herds that are high quality, disease-free, extensively reared and farmed in environmentally sustainable ways. As a further component of our recovery strategy, we shall work with the industry to develop insurance options against both animal disease and the economic consequences that disease brings, and we will share our thinking on that with our partners in the European Union.

Work to help farmers emerge from the crisis has begun, and will form part of the Government's long-term strategy for helping UK farming to restructure in sustainable, market-orientated and environmentally responsible ways; at the same time, it will take forward our policy for bringing about common agricultural policy reform.

I am grateful to the Minister for making his lengthy statement available to me a little while before he made it in the House. I warmly welcome the improving picture that he has been able to paint of the state of the crisis and the spread of foot and mouth disease. I would like to take this opportunity to express again our warm appreciation of the work of all those service personnel, vets and others whose efforts on the ground, in the front line of tackling the crisis, have helped to reduce the spread of foot and mouth disease. I shall start with the improvement in the figures, because that is crucial in assessing the progress that has been made and also, perhaps, in judging the merits of the other policy changes that the Minister has announced. The Minister will recall that before the Easter recess I asked twice for his assurance that daily figures for slaughter and disposal would continue to be published throughout the recess. In fact, the daily publication of the figures ceased and was resumed only after a substantial public outcry.

It is important now to know whether the basis on which the daily figures for slaughter and disposal are calculated has been changed. For example, let us consider the problem of carcase disposal in Devon. The NFU advised on Tuesday that the sudden fall in the number of carcases awaiting disposal in Devon was not because more carcases had actually been disposed of but because the Ministry changed the definition of disposal. Now, apparently, the Minster counts a carcase as disposed of once it has been moved to a disposal site. Few people who live or work within the sight or smell of such disposal sites would agree with that definition.

If the improvement that the Minister claims is partly achieved by redefining disposal, it casts doubt on some of his other claims too. If one set of figures is manipulated, are others any more trustworthy? The fact that the Minister prevented me from talking to vets in the Ministry's regional office in Exeter last week does not inspire confidence that the Government are being entirely open. Will the Minister therefore tell the House exactly what changes have been made to the way in which those figures are calculated? Since his Ministry now—rightly—makes use of independent epidemiologists, will he allow an independent statistician to audit the figures that have been published since the outbreak started?

The Minister announced a change of policy today and he will understand that many people, including farmers, will be surprised by the suddenness of a change, which, despite his description of it, most people will see as a relaxation. A few days ago, the Government wanted to start vaccinating, which suggests that they believed that existing policies to control foot and mouth disease were inadequate. Now the Minister proposes to relax those same policies. When was the new formal advice from the chief scientist and the chief veterinary officer, to which the Minister referred, given to him? Will the Minister publish that advice today? Since this change of policy was announced by No. 10 Downing street just in time for the 10 o'clock news last night, can the Minister tell us when the decision was actually made?

No one wants a single healthy animal to be killed if that animal can be saved, but the surest way to minimise the incidence of animals being slaughtered is to stop the spread of foot and mouth disease. It is important that no risks should be run; policy must not be relaxed until it is safe to do so. Ending slaughter on contiguous farms now raises the question of why that policy has been maintained for so long. Have thousands of healthy animals been sacrificed in vain? We support any steps that save healthy animals from slaughter, provided those steps do not risk the further spread of the disease.

As culling on contiguous farms will apparently continue for sheep and pigs, can the Minister say whether the legal basis of such culls is clear? Will he confirm that his Ministry withdrew a court application to cull uninfected animals on contiguous farms in Anglesey recently? If cattle are not to be automatically culled on contiguous farms, will tests be carried out promptly and regularly on those cattle instead? If such tests are not carried out on farms adjacent to infected premises, is there not a risk that foot and mouth disease could start to spread?

Have the Government ruled out the use of vaccination entirely? Does the Minister accept that the three tests that I have repeatedly set out, including yesterday in the House, are the right ones to assess whether vaccination should be used?

On the welfare disposal scheme, how long are farmers having to wait while their animals suffer before slaughter under this scheme occurs? The Minister will be aware of the public concern about the distress that some animals experience. If the backlog under the scheme is not cleared until the middle of May, is it true that some animals may by then have been waiting for six weeks?

As this crisis starts to pass its peak, does the Minister agree that attention must be paid to the origin of the outbreak? Is he aware that 15 parliamentary questions that I asked about this in March remain unanswered four weeks later? Will he undertake to answer all parliamentary questions that have been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members before any Dissolution of Parliament? Will he also assure us that, in the event of a Dissolution, the information that he promised today about the constituency spread of new cases will continue to be available to parliamentary candidates on a constituency basis throughout an election campaign?

Is the Minister aware that the Government's handling of foot and mouth disease is giving rise to more and more concern? Stories of muddle, delay and incompetence are still commonplace—telephones are not answered, faxes are ignored and contradictory advice and instructions are given. In many places, there is still a sense that no one is in charge. For example, can the Minister tell us who is in charge in Devon this morning?

The same muddle exists at a national level. Who is making the policy now—the Minister, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence? Last week, the chief scientist said that vaccination should be introduced to support the slaughter policy. The Minister agreed but the president of the National Farmers Union said no, so the policy was dropped. This week, the Minister and his advisers said that the cull of animals on contiguous farms was necessary to curb the spread of the disease. Then No. 10 spin doctors saw newspaper pictures of Phoenix, and the policy was changed.

When this crisis is finally resolved—and I repeated yesterday the four criteria by which that should be judged—there will have to be a full inquiry. Does the Minister agree that one key aspect of that inquiry will be to establish whether the spread of foot and mouth disease would have been very much less if the Government had learned the lessons of the 1967 outbreak and if they had acted on the timely advice that I and other Conservative Members have offered, on the record, at every stage during the past nine weeks?

This crisis has crippled our livestock industry, disfigured our environment and wrecked our tourist trade. It is costing families, businesses and taxpayers billions of pounds. It is a crisis that need not and should not have reached its present level. It is the Government's incompetence that allowed it to do so.

As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for his help and support. His statement about the public officials dealing with the disease outbreak is genuinely welcome. He is right to thank officials working in a civilian capacity for different Government Departments, and the service personnel and the professional veterinary personnel in the private and public sectors who are helping to bear down on the disease. The whole House should thank those hard-working public servants who are all working for the common purpose of bringing this terrible outbreak of disease to an end, and to help the country get beyond it. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks in that regard.

I am less grateful for what the hon. Gentleman had to say about muddle and delay, and for his stories about telephones not being answered, and so on. In my experience, one only hears part of the story when such reports are put into the public domain. I do not think it sensible for anyone holding a responsible position in public life to go around attacking those who are trying to bring to an end this outbreak of disease as quickly as possible. Hard-working public servants are entitled to our support, not our condemnation. I am willing to meet individual Members of Parliament who want to raise particular issues with me. I have done my best to do so, as have other Ministers in the Department.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the figures for slaughterings and disposals. It is true that those figures were removed from the Department's website for a few days, but that was to ensure that they were accurate and consistent. The full set of figures was returned to the website on Good Friday, and the figures have continued to be updated ever since. We did not respond to pressure from anyone in that regard: our aim was simply to make sure that the information being provided was accurate.

I freely say to the hon. Gentleman that he is right to identify a problem in Devon. In my statement, I told the House that there is a difficulty with the backlog of carcase disposal in that county, but I strongly dispute that we are trying to deal with it by putting into the public domain figures that are not correct. We are trying to deal with the problem by clearing the backlog.

The hon. Gentleman alleges that I have prevented him from talking to vets. I do not know how I could do that. I can stop him going into Government buildings around the country to talk to civil servants who are trying to control the disease for the benefit of the country—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) must calm down.

I will not encourage publicity stunts—[Interruption.]

Order. I instructed the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton to calm down. She must calm herself.

The rules have not been made especially for the hon. Member for South Suffolk. I am taking the same line with all hon. Members. Of course I will agree to requests by hon. Members with regard to visits to Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food premises for purposes that relate to their constituencies. It is right to continue with that policy, but I am not going to facilitate wholesale visits to Ministry premises all around the country in the middle of a disease outbreak.

I turn now to vaccination. The crucial issue in determining vaccination policy is consumer acceptance of such a policy. It is the consideration of consumer acceptance that drives the views of retailers, processors and farmers. I welcome the fact that other Ministers in the European Union have taken a similar view. The question of vaccination needs to be discussed in a rational and scientifically based manner once the outbreak has been brought to a conclusion.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk asked how we are prioritising our work under the welfare scheme, and talked about the backlog. We have asked the RSPCA to help us prioritise cases so that we get to the most needy ones first. The hon. Gentleman asked about scientific advice to me. It is based on the advice of the chief scientist and chief vet. The change in emphasis on the contiguous cull results from a conference that the chief vet held last Friday, where he consulted private sector and public sector veterinarians across the regions and in particular from affected regions. It is not surprising that a disease outbreak that has moved rapidly should require rapid responses in policy to deal with it. This is the response that, after consideration, the chief vet and chief scientist are recommending to me. I am more than willing to put their formal advice and the guidance given to veterinarians locally in the public domain.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would continue to update the information on constituency cases. Yes, I will place it on an updated basis in the House of Commons Library and will endeavour to place it elsewhere, so that all those with an interest can have continuing access to it, whether or not Parliament is sitting.

This is a serious disease outbreak. It is now moving towards its conclusion, but we will have to respond to further incidents. There will be outbreaks. It is not possible to say where they will occur or how many there will be, but advice to me is that there will be further outbreaks. We have to be ready to stamp on them where they occur and cull them out quickly. We will be able to achieve that far more easily if we have public backing for our policies, in particular the backing of the livestock industry, farmers and the broader rural community. Frankly, if the House can show some unity of purpose, it will reflect better on all of us in the days to come.

My right hon. Friend has said that the vaccination of cattle is not feasible in present conditions. What about the vaccination of Herdwick sheep and other special sheep breeds as an addition or alternative to his policy of tight biosecurity and serum testing? Could we not have both policies introduced?

This is an important issue and we have given it substantial consideration and examination. The professional advice to me from the chief vet and others who advise him is that vaccinating sheep is not an option. The advice from John Thorley is that the National Sheep Association is opposed to vaccination, and there is a range of reasons for that. Even for rare sheep breeds and special sheep breeds it would not be right to try to cull out the disease in hefted sheep as an automatic response. For that reason the proposal that I have explained to the House today is to manage them where they are and to test them in the autumn when they are brought down from the areas where they are extensively farmed.

I thank the Minister for his statement and his usual courtesy in providing an early copy. This is welcome news and, indeed, a common sense approach to the situation. I should like to raise a number of points.

It is still disappointing that there is no news whatever about compensation for the over-30-months scheme. That has become quite an issue. Do I take it that the Government are not intending to give compensation for that particular problem? Surely it must be one of the easiest schemes to implement.

Will the Minister look at the situation concerning pedigree animals, particularly in respect of welfare disposal? Clearly, pedigree animals are not valued highly enough if entered into the welfare disposal scheme, although they suffer the same welfare problems as other animals, their value notwithstanding.

What assessment has the Minister made in respect of the percentage of infected animals that have been part of the contiguous cull? Bearing in mind the substantial number of animals that have been killed, it would be useful to know what he believes the actual number of infected animals to have been.

Will the Minister confirm that, today, there are still some new cases that are not in the existing infected zones—in areas that are somewhat remote from them? That is, of course, worrying.

Finally, on the pigswill consultations, I am sure that the Minister has received representations from those who will be substantially affected as regards whey feeding. There will be a major effect on cheese making—an important industry in many parts of the affected rural areas.

The hon. Gentleman is right; I have received representations about whey feeding and the proposed pigswill ban. I am looking closely at that and other issues related to the brewing industry, as part of a broader consideration—although, clearly, it is a discrete issue.

On new cases, I have already referred to the fact that we could expect sporadic outbreaks in different parts of the country. I understand that they occur for three main reasons: the movement of vehicles; the movement of people; and the movement of animals. I have placed advertisements in the farming press about biosecurity. In all my meetings with farmers, I emphasise the importance of biosecurity, farm by farm. The hon. Gentleman is right: if we are to defeat the disease, we must all work together and focus on the measures that are necessary—farm by farm—to prevent the disease from getting on to a farm and spreading from it.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the percentage of infected animals in the contiguous cull policy. The purpose of the policy is to get to the animals as quickly as possible so that the number of infected animals is relatively low. We know that if we do not get there quickly, the number of animals infected will rise remorselessly and will then spread the disease. I know that it is hard, because individual farmers—although they understand the general reason for the policy—always argue that their particular animals, especially the high-value animals, should be given a chance. That is a perfectly understandable and human response. However, it is my painful duty to have to assert the broader public interest; it is in the interest of the rural community, the livestock industry and individual farmers that we cull the disease out and return to normality as quickly as we possibly can.

I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about pedigree animals. However, I have to beware of creating an alternative market for livestock through the welfare schemes. I will consider his representations—they are fair. As I said in my statement, I want to look at the other two sectors—lightweight sheep and sows—where the market is compromised, at least in part, by the export ban. The circumstances are specific and I want to discuss them further with the leadership of the farmers' unions and others with a particular interest. However, there is no easy solution. The worst thing I could do, through trying to be helpful, would be to create a false market that would, in turn, merely suck in imports and, frankly, do medium and long-term damage to the livestock industry.

I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of people with over-30-months animals. I am keeping the issue under review. It is not fair to say that a conclusion has been reached, but I know that he understands the difficulties as well as the obvious merits of the case that he presents.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I thank him for his tireless hard work during the past few weeks. Does he agree that there is a need for better contingency planning and for an increase in contingency funding for his Department? Specifically, will the independent review, which is referred to on page 25 of the MAFF departmental plan, where there is an overview of the business planning process, incorporate the lessons that should be learned from the foot and mouth outbreak? The question is not if, but when, we shall be faced with a third outbreak, but of a different disease—whether it be BSE, foot and mouth or swine fever.

My hon. Friend is right. The Department will need to reflect on its contingency planning arrangements, not just within the Department but across Government, in the light of this unusual, indeed unique, disease outbreak—at least the pattern that it has taken is unique. There are other things that Government can do to prevent such an occurrence happening again, and I have discussed them in my statement: the re-examination of our rules on personal food imports, on commercial food imports, on pigswill, and on the issue of the standover of animals that have been moved for commercial purposes. All this is being looked at very hard at the moment, and I hope to have something to say to the House on some of it shortly.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I asked him, in a written question on 9 April, whether he would release vaccine to zoos that may need it to vaccinate endangered species that are susceptible to foot and mouth disease. He also knows that Whipsnade zoo is in my constituency. Apart from the welfare of the animals there, it is an extremely important part of the local economy. Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether vaccine can be released to Whipsnade zoo, so that it may have the option to vaccinate if it considers it necessary?

There is a vaccine strategy for zoos; I am sorry if I have not let the hon. Gentleman have a copy of it. I will ensure that he has a copy; in fact, I will send him two, so that he can give one to his zoo. The circumstances in which vaccination of animals could be permitted by Government are clearly set out, and there has been discussion with organisations representing those who operate zoological premises.

One thing that has characterised the last two or three months has been the movement in scientific opinion, which has confused many of my constituents and, I believe, other people in the country. Members in the House and in the country recognise, against the background of that moving scientific opinion, the determined and measured way in which these issues have been addressed by my right hon. Friend, but may I raise with him the issue of information to Members of Parliament?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that decisions taken be communicated accurately? Does he have a fast-track system for dealing with questions? Most of the questions that Members are currently asking are real questions, which have been raised by constituents who have real problems, and we need real answers. Does my right hon. Friend have a fast-track system for dealing with those; if he does, could he have a faster-track system for dealing with them?

There is a fast-track system for Members of Parliament; there is an established helpline for Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend asks whether we could have an even faster track, presumably for Members for Newcastle, and of course I am very sympathetic to that—so if he has a word with me afterwards, I will sort out his problem, whatever it is.

Will the Minister clarify the advice given as to the effects of pyres on grazing land? As he is aware, this week restrictions were lifted from my constituency; but farmers are concerned about the advice which, as far as we understand it, sought to minimise the risks. There was a suggestion that any particulates and other noxious substances would quickly dissipate in a matter of months, but stock is now being moved in my constituency and farmers really want to know whether they should be putting their stock out to grass. What advice will be available, given that one of the first pyres was lit in my constituency at a time when there was quite a lot of wind and the smoke spread throughout my constituency and changed direction? What advice will be given to those on farms close to the pyre and close to the fallout of the pyre? Should stock be put out to graze, and if so, when?

The prospect of the foot and mouth disease virus being spread by the fires is very remote indeed, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a need for human health advice. The chief medical officer has just revised and updated his advice, and that is in the public domain. There is a need for advice from the Environment Agency, dealing with any environmental contamination, and above all there is a need for advice to farmers on restocking protocols. If the hon. Gentleman cares to contact my office after this exchange, I will ensure that he is given clear-cut advice to pass on to his constituents.

In a similar vein, I should like to ask what environmental study of the pyres and landfill sites will take place to ensure that the people who live in the surrounding areas feel safe. The long-term monitoring of landfill sites, as well as pyre sites, is very important. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take on board the importance of the Intervention Board and the fact that the farming community still has difficulties—everything seems to be going ahead, but when it comes to the final signature on the letter, things do not happen as speedily as the farmers expect. What encouragement, help and assistance can be given to the Intervention Board to ease the pain that farmers are suffering at the moment?

Finally, I believe that the Chamber was at its best when both sides worked together to try to eradicate the diseases, instead of which we are degenerating into scoring cheap political points, which does no parliamentarian any good whatever. I hope that the true credit will go to those involved in fighting the disease—those in MAFF and the armed forces, and obviously those working for the NFU who are not getting the thanks that they deserve.

The public service has received help and support from NFU officials, who have worked alongside those at our regional centres, liaising with the farming community and performing an invaluable role in this difficult situation. The Intervention Board has been given extra resources to deal with the schemes that it is administering on the Government's behalf throughout Great Britain, but the right way to deal with the animals constrained by the movement restrictions is to bear down on the disease and to find a market-oriented approach, rather than looking to emergency state schemes. Environmental monitoring will continue, and we shall bear in mind the long-term effects of the disposal routes, not just the short-term ones.

The Minister has said that the backlog in Devon is now 85,000 animals—a considerable reduction and a considerable improvement. Today, and every day, many thousands of carcases are being moved to rendering plants and, probably, to landfill sites. Fortunately, there has been a significant diminution in Devon of confirmed cases in the past week. The Minister has announced a change in the contiguous cull policy. Taking all those factors together, will there be an end to the pyres and to the necessity for the huge burial grounds?

I know that it is painful, but the policy of culling out the disease must continue until we have removed the disease. There is no medicine that I can give to the animals, nor other intervention that I can take, that will get rid of the disease. Unless we stop the disease, it will spread remorselessly, so we cannot relax our guard. As I said in my opening statement, I acknowledge that we have had a problem with disposal routes in Devon.

As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has raised the issue with me—there is no universally accepted disposal route. I understand what he says about the resistance to the pyres. They disfigure the landscape and people worry about the consequences, so I assure him that we will try to find disposal routes that are acceptable to local people, but I cannot confidently say that I am certain that we will be able to do so in all circumstances, because arguments can be made against, as well as for, each disposal route. I am afraid that that is the best I can do for the hon. Gentleman.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being the calm, rational centre of the storm that has been swirling around him—unlike the cynical opportunism that we have seen from the Tory party?

Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the excessive movements of cattle, which he has mentioned? The House has been told of a farmer who was shocked to discover that a flock of sheep that he had bought had been on 11 different holdings in the past two months. In some parts of the country, it is claimed that 10 per cent. of sheep disappear. Some of them die, but we believe that some are counted several times to increase subsidies.

Can we ensure that we identify the reason for the spread of the disease, which has been far greater than in the past in this or any other country? The main reason has been the illegal movements of sheep and other animals around the country to increase subsidies.

My hon. Friend is right to this extent: we have all been surprised at the number of sheep movements that result from the patterns of trade. There is a range of reasons for that, but they have implications for disease control. That is why I am consulting about a standstill period before sheep that have been traded can be moved again.

The implications for the current support regimes of the European Union—particularly the headage-based ones—have not been lost on anyone. I am clear in my own mind that, in future, we shall move away from headage-based schemes—for hill farmers specifically and, more generally, under the sheep premium regime—when the Commission puts its reform proposals forward. We shall move much more closely towards schemes that support farmers' incomes through a series of agreed criteria and away from supporting just the volume of livestock. That is the future of public support for the industry, and the Government need to discuss it carefully with those interested in the industry.

Does the Minister accept that he would better create unity in the House and confidence in his policies if he allowed my hon. Friend the shadow Minister access, on behalf of the Conservative party to vets, officials and others? The Minister's attitude on that has frankly been reprehensible.

Does the Minister also accept that the policy that he has presented is hardly a joined-up one? The changes that he has announced today, the vacillation on vaccination and the Phoenix factor suggest that we have had the needless slaughter of many animals over the past six weeks.

I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. I cannot deny the Opposition spokesman access to vets and I am not seeking to do so. My responsibility is for the work of the Ministry and of public officials. I want them to focus their full-time attention on eradicating the disease. As I have said very carefully, a special rule has not been devised for the Opposition spokesman; we are applying it equally and consistently to Members on both sides of the House.

On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the pattern of the disease has changed as it has spread, as we have borne down on it and as the number of cases has declined. Throughout, I have followed the scientific and veterinary advice available to Government and—to be candid about it—I have done more than that. I have put the advice into the public domain and, more than that, I have done what in my understanding no other Minister has done before. I have arranged presentations for hon. Members—I understand that the hon. Gentleman in attended one of them—to explain the epidemiology and to explain the case for vaccination. We have allowed the issues to be set out, so that we all could consider them. As I have said on a number of occasions—I repeat it now—whenever I make a decision based on scientific advice, I am willing to share that advice and to explain very carefully why I have arrived at the decision that I have. That is precisely what I have done today.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, not least because it will take the pressure off the livestock disposal welfare scheme.

However, I wish to raise a livestock welfare issue of which my right hon. Friend's officials are aware. It does not seem able to be solved. My constituent, Mr. James Rotherham, runs a trout farm and, because anglers cannot get to the riverside, there is no demand for his trout to be put into rivers and lakes. Even if there were such demand, he would not be able to reach the rivers and lakes because of the travel restrictions. That means that thousands of trout on his farm are getting bigger and bigger in a very confined space. They are not suitable a for selling to the retail trade and the fact that he cannot get rid of them means that a welfare issue has arisen because of the travel restrictions on the land around the area where he stocks the fish. Will my right hon. Friend consider this issue as a matter of urgency because the problem is getting desperate?

My hon. Friend is tight to explain the dangers of creating a false market. Although I shall give detailed consideration to the special circumstances that he sets out to see what can be done, I cannot promise to resolve them.

The changes in the welfare scheme are sensible, but they leave farmers with cattle that have gone beyond the 30 months seriously adrift. The Minister must urgently address that problem. Is he aware that when the Government's chief scientific adviser met the Select Committee on Agriculture yesterday, he made no reference to a possible change of policy on contiguous culling? Indeed, he emphasised that the risk of infection from a farm with foot and mouth disease to a surrounding farm was 17 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that the change in policy follows science not sentiment, and that pictures in the newspapers of cuddly animals—however heart-rending—have not influenced that decision?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Veterinary consideration of how to handle the difficult issue of cattle in the contiguous cull was considered by the chief vet at his conference last Friday. He has received many representations specifically on that topic from the vets who have to do the difficult and distressing job of carrying out the policy in the regions. I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands that, in addition to policy issues, there is a range of practical difficulties to consider. However, the policy was under review well before any individual incident was reported in the papers. We would be wrong as policy makers to extrapolate public policy from individual cases that always involve very young animals such as Lucky the lamb and Phoenix the calf. I understand that they may serve as symbols, but there are special circumstances in both cases.

On the right hon. Gentleman's other concern, I understand that to be the case. However, we must not relax the policy because that will allow the disease to spread remorselessly. I take comfort from the fact that we are getting to it quickly enough for the number of animals that are showing signs of the disease to be relatively small. The crucial consideration is that things will not stay that way if we do not act firmly now.

This is a welcome statement in difficult circumstances. In Chinese mythology, Phoenix ushers in a new age, and these provisions might at least mean that we are at a new stage. How will the change in policy affect the number of slaughtered animals that are being put into landfill sites? As livestock is now going into the food chain, will we be able to lessen the amount of carcases that go into landfill sites and therefore reduce the 111 sites that are in England at the moment?

As the number of infected premises steadily declines, the number of dangerous contacts and contiguous culls are also remorselessly declining, which means that fewer animals will have to be disposed of by the differing routes. We are considering the most appropriate route for each set of circumstances, but we are going to have to use them all for the foreseeable future. There is no perfect solution. Arguments can be made against each route, but there are even more powerful arguments against doing nothing.

I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that when a veterinary surgeon discovers symptoms that he or she believes to be indicative of foot and mouth disease, the procedure is that the Ministry is notified and the case is either confirmed or, on the basis of the evidence, which may be insufficient, rejected. If it is rejected, I understand that the Ministry might, quite properly, authorise a precautionary cull. If that takes place, is it correct that a post-mortem examination and blood tests are carried out in every case and that where foot and mouth is subsequently confirmed, those cases are added into the outbreak figures? If that is so, at what stage are they included?

I promise to let the hon. Gentleman have a detailed written answer to that because I want to be certain that my response is correct. The principle that he enunciates is right. Veterinarians are allowed to exercise clinical judgment on the site and do not have to check in with the veterinary headquarters in Page street if the situation is clear. However, it is right to remind the House that for every three cases that are reported to us as suspected foot and mouth, two turn out to be false alarms.

I very much welcome the decision to allow farmers outside the 3 km protection zone to get their animals into the food chain. That will certainly help many of my farmers and butchers that source locally. Given the fact that the impact of foot and mouth goes far wider than the farming and agricultural communities, why is the compensation that is being allocated through Advantage West Midlands based on the percentage of the population involved in agriculture? That excludes Staffordshire, which is one of the worst affected areas outside the main hot spots.

I will have to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to respond to my hon. Friend's second concern. The formula is a matter for him. We decided to use regional development agencies as deliverers of support because of the idea that local people would best know local circumstances and be able to respond more easily to local demands. I welcome what my hon. Friend says about getting the supply chain moving. That is crucial for the medium and long-term future of the British livestock industry.

Is the Minister aware that tests on David and Caroline Gilder's animals at Bozard farm, Woolstone, near Tewkesbury, have proved negative and hundreds of animals have been unnecessarily slaughtered? Hundreds more on surrounding farms have also been unnecessarily slaughtered, and I shall table written questions on a similar situation on a farm near Whitby in Yorkshire. In cases of genuine misdiagnosis, it is reasonable that the Government pay compensation not only for the animals slaughtered, but for all consequential losses. Will he seriously consider that?

I cannot announce an alteration to the compensation arrangements. However, I will consider the individual case of the hon. Gentleman's constituents if he refers it to me. I am not certain of all the circumstances involved and it would be unwise to go further, other than to make the general point that it is incredibly hard for the farming community—in particular, individual farmers—to have their animals taken, especially under the contiguous cull policy. Of the animals that seem healthy, some might be healthy, some might be incubating the disease and many will almost certainly be dangerous contacts. The policy is for the general good, but the individual farmer always hopes that it will not be applied to him and wants us to wait and see. The hard truth is that we cannot wait and see. We must act for the general good, not for the specific good. The animals might not have the disease, but if we do nothing they will get it.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and inform him, with some relief, that we have not had an additional outbreak in Monmouthshire for more than two weeks. However, the 17 cases in my constituency have had a devastating effect. Does he agree that among the lessons to be learned are those relating to the long-term transportation of livestock, the practices of some livestock dealers and the need for sub-regional abattoirs? When he meets his colleagues in the European Council, will he assure them that some farmers will not want to get back into farming? They need an early retirement package and progress must be made on that.

I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. On the unresolved issues—in particular, whether more can be done to help those who have decided to retire from the industry—I am giving further thought to what can be done in these special circumstances.

The Minister will be aware that although we have not had an outbreak in my constituency, we have been badly affected by the restrictions on animal movements. He announced that from Monday 23 April, some restricted livestock has been allowed to enter the food chain. Is he aware that as of Thursday last week, no information had been provided to trading standards, so no movements can be made? Can he assure that House that that hurdle has been passed and the system is working smoothly?

The Minister also announced changes to the welfare disposal system. Is he aware of the severe consternation that the system is causing to pig producers in the Vale of York, especially since he gave a commitment that the original payments would run for eight weeks from 23 March? The cut in payments to £37, or probably less, for clean animals will cause grief to those producers.

I understand the second point that the hon. Lady makes, which is of course fair. However, I have to weigh up the danger of continuing with rates that I am advised risk creating an artificial market that is more attractive than the actual operation of the supply chain. If we did that, we would remorselessly suck imports into the food chain and perhaps permanently displace British products, which would not be in the interests of the livestock industry. In addition, the state, rather than the consumer, would be the purchaser of a great deal of livestock—much more livestock than we should purchase. That was a hard decision, but I believe it to be right. I gave an assurance that the scheme would continue to run; I gave no assurance about adjustments of the rates. Although the situation is tough, we would do far more harm than good by trying to keep the rates artificially high.

I understand the other point that the hon. Lady made, and perhaps she will allow me to write to her about it.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that contrary to what the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) keeps saying, if the current downward trend continues, this outbreak will have been contained far more successfully than that of 1967, which is remarkable given the present outbreak's much wider geographical spread?

How much truth is there in the reports that my local rendering plant in Exeter has been working at only 60 per cent, of capacity? Given the terrible problems that we have had with carcase disposal, surely that is totally unacceptable.

I do not think that the situation is exactly as my hon. Friend describes it, although I am aware of the reports. I have asked that the situation be examined, and if the plant is able to handle more work, which of course we have, we will send it to them. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the comparison of the current outbreak with that of 1967.

There will be a time to reflect when we have exterminated foot and mouth disease in this country. People will want to consider the way in which the two outbreaks were handled, but the 1967 outbreak had many different features and there was a point at which there were 90 new infected premises a day. We have not even got beyond half that rate.

The Minister may know that half of my constituency was declared an infected area because there was a suspected case over the border in Powys. That was six weeks ago. The case proved to be negative, but the infected area status still applies to half of my constituency. I understand that there will be movement on that within 24 hours. Will the Minister assure me that there will be better liaison between his officials and those of the devolved Administration in Cardiff? Will he assure me also that Intervention Board officials will have a better working relationship with officials of the devolved Administration, because these matters are very important?

The Intervention Board is of course shared between myself, acting as the Minister for England rather more than for the UK, and the Ministers in Wales and in Scotland, so it serves Wales just as it serves England and Scotland. The working relationships at ministerial and official levels between my Department and the devolved authorities have been very good, or at least that is my perception. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to consider a specific issue of communication or another matter, I will willingly do so, but I have to say that the implementation of the policy is wholly devolved and is a matter for my colleague the Secretary for Rural Affairs in the Welsh Assembly, not for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that at business questions before the Easter recess, I drew to the attention of the House the fact that Members were using written questions to seek information about other Members' constituencies when one could not clearly identify a reason for the question to be asked. I named the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who had engaged in that practice. Since then, it has been drawn to my attention that the hon. Gentleman—I gave him notice that I intended to name him—has tabled no fewer than nine questions to nine Departments about my constituency. So probing and wide-reaching are those questions that one Department has had to draw up an answer of four pages.

The cost to the public of answering such questions is enormous. Surely they are an abuse of parliamentary privilege by Members. As there is an election coming and these questions are clearly asked purely for party political purposes and the production of election literature, I wonder whether this is a matter in which you could intervene, Mr. Speaker.

I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's concerns. There is nothing in the rules of the House to prevent Members submitting questions that relate to another Member's constituency. However, if Members choose to ask such questions, I expect them as a matter of courtesy to give notice in advance to the colleague whose constituency is the subject of the question. If a question of that nature has been submitted without notification, I deprecate that. More generally, I hope that Members who are contemplating such action will consider carefully whether it sits well with the purpose and spirit of parliamentary questions and answers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I crave your indulgence briefly to make two separate points of order. The first is simply a matter of the record. Today, in relation to oral Question 9 to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which was about specialist schools, I, in a perhaps somewhat feline fashion, inserted the phrase "selective schools". The Secretary of State chose to suggest to the House that it was a Freudian slip. I gather that he now accepts that I meant what I said.

The second point of order is much more serious because it involves people's livelihoods. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this morning there was news of approximately 1,000 redundancies at the British works of Timken, manufacturers of bearings and related products, in Northampton. That will have a considerable effect because almost all those jobs will be lost by people in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) and in my constituency, where there is also a small Timken facility. That is a major blow to the economy of our area and severs a long-standing relationship with a well-respected United States-sourced firm. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any representations from Ministers to make a statement on the matter? If not, will those who are now on the Treasury Bench take note of what has been said and communicate it to their colleagues, because the matter is of concern in our area?

I am sorry to hear of men and women losing their jobs, but it is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pay tribute, through you, to the parliamentary clerk in the Ministry of Agriculture, who has assisted Ministers in producing, throughout a very busy time, many outstanding answers to written questions that I have tabled. However, a number remain unanswered, and I would like to reinforce, through you, the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for an opportunity for all questions to be answered in advance of any Dissolution or recess.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is still in his place. My experience is exactly the same: I had many priority written questions on matters of great importance to my constituents, relating to foot and mouth disease, down for answer before the recess. A week after the recess, I have still received only holding answers to all those questions. Is there anything that I can do to encourage the Ministry to give my constituents the information that they so desperately need?

I hope that the Minister has taken note of the concerns of both hon. Gentlemen.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the entire crisis we have not had a full day's debate in Government time on foot and mouth. We have had several statements but, Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed that today a considerable number of Conservative Members wished to ask a question when the statement came to an end. May I ask you to use your usual understanding so that, should we have another statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, you will give preference to those unable to ask a question today?

I heard some mutterings and it is understandable that those who were not called are disappointed. However, on several occasions, I have asked the Minister to come to the House to make a statement and, indeed, have kept him at the Dispatch Box for over an hour and a half. Today he was here for well over an hour, and I must give some consideration to other business before the House. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point, I assure him that notes are taken and those who were not called today and were disappointed will not he disappointed next time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take the matter a step further? You will recall that before the recess, I pointed out that the Prime Minister himself had indicated that he was taking personal charge of the foot and mouth crisis because it went across all Departments. Indeed, from the answers given by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon it is apparent that a number of issues are the responsibility of other Departments. Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, that you could make representations to ensure that the Prime Minister himself came to the House, not for a debate which, frankly, would be of lesser use, but simply to answer the questions that some of us want to ask about interdepartmental responsibilities?

Those matters are not for me, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, I am sure that someone will take note of what he has said.