What progress she has made in securing reform of the common fisheries policy. [29536]

The Government are committed to securing fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy with the aim of achieving an economically and environmentally sustainable CFP. The Government submitted a formal response last September to the European Commission's Green Paper on the forthcoming review of the CFP. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. We have to be optimistic because, after all, even the Commission would be hard pressed to produce a policy more disastrous than the present one. The Minister and I share a commitment to achieving effective devolution in any future plan. In that spirit, will the Minister agree to replace the funds that his Department has taken from Cornwall's objective 1 programme to fund its decommissioning scheme? If he permits objective 1 funds to be used for decommissioning, will he allow Cornwall to run its own decommissioning scheme to ensure real economic benefits to Cornwall rather than to Spanish quota hoppers?

That was an ingenious way of working in a local issue on the back of a national question. On the wider issue, the Commission's Green Paper on CFP reform points in the right direction. It acknowledges the issues that our fishing industry wants to be included in that reform, and we will be pressing for that.

On decommissioning and objective 1 funds in Cornwall, the £6 million fund available for decommissioning covers the cost of that decommissioning through objective 1 funding in Cornwall. About £1 million has been paid through objective 1 to cover decommissioning bids. Although it is true that one of those vessels is Spanish-owned, it is Cornish-registered, and has a record of landing in Cornwall. Therefore, whether we like it or not, the vessel is eligible under the rules.

I am glad to say that the measures that we introduced on the economic link conditions have led to a fundamental change in the number of quota hoppers. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we inherited the situation, we did not create it.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen the controversial debate on commercial fish stocks on the pages of the Grimsby Telegraph. That debates centres around seals and their effect on fishing stocks. What evidence does he have to show that seals are having a detrimental impact on commercial fish stocks? Does he have any opinion on the support expressed in some parts of Grimsby for culling seals to increase fish stocks?

I am reluctant to get involved in a dispute between my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), not least because the headline in the Grimsby Telegraph was "Clubber versus Cuddler".

The research carried out so far illustrates that the connection between seals and the food chain is complex. There is no clear evidence that seals seriously affect commercial fish stocks. We are, however, continuing to undertake further research to obtain a clear understanding of the role of seals within the marine ecosystem.

In line with the first question on devolving a reformed common fisheries policy, can the Minister tell the House what weight the Government are giving to moves to establish zonal management as part of the reform of the CFP and what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on this subject?

We keep in close touch with the Scottish Executive. Our position on the CFP is agreed between ourselves and the devolved Administrations, which have been involved at every stage of formulating policy.

I support the concept of regional management and, indeed, zonal management. However, the concept of zonal management and enlargement is much more advanced within our country, as is discussion of how we can have regional, devolved fisheries management. Those arguments are new to many European countries, but we are engaging them to demonstrate that devolving the CFP is the best way forward in order to make it more flexible and responsive. We must recognise the enormous differences in fishing patterns in our own country, let alone the rest of Europe.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success at the December Fisheries Council meeting in securing the quotas that our fishermen asked for, thus proving the value of good dialogue with the fishing industry. Does he agree that in the context of CFP reform and annual quota negotiations, we need a long-term view of where the UK fishing industry is going. Will he establish a Government industry taskforce, like the oil and gas industry taskforce, to work out where we want to be and how we can get there?

My hon. Friend puts forward an interesting idea and I know that he is in close contact with his local fishing industry. We have set up a high-level group to engage the fishing industry, from catching to processing, and it has valued the chance to have such a forum. There will be opportunities to develop that and I will give it some thought. The last Fisheries Council had a good outcome for the United Kingdom fishing industry because we stuck to the science and the industry accepted the scientific case. We obtained changes where the Commission went beyond science without justification and where the case for our bids was backed up by firm scientific evidence based on sustainability.

Does the proposed cod and hake recovery programme, which will presumably be applicable before the end of the year, override the current western waters effort limitation scheme as set out in its entirety in European Union regulation 650/95? Will the programme be directly applicable to all member states?

The cod and hake recovery programmes will apply to all member states. The western waters effort management regime is in place, but the cod and hake programmes will take precedence. Indeed, the point of those programmes is conservation management. Western hake is in serious difficulty and we must take firm action. I am pleased that our industry's argument for the use of increased mesh sizes in the bay of Biscay has been accepted.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will ban the use of the pesticide lindane. [29537]

The use of all lindane-based products is being phased out. No products may be sold or supplied in the United Kingdom and all products intended for agricultural use must be used up and disposed of by 20 June 2002.

The approvals for the use of lindane wood preservatives have already been revoked and stock must be disposed of by November 2002. Some insecticides remain approved for storage and use until January 2003, but must then be disposed of by January 2004.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware of the link that has been made between the use of lindane and the worrying increase in the incidence of breast cancer. Can she assure me that, as well as being phased out for commercial, agricultural and horticultural use, lindane will be phased out for domestic use throughout Europe?

Obviously, what happens throughout Europe is a matter for other authorities, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep closely under review issues relating to lindane. I am aware that concern has been expressed about a link between its use and breast cancer, but my hon. Friend will also know that reservations have been expressed about the strength of that link and whether there is a risk. It remains the case, however, that lindane is on the way to being phased out for the uses listed by my hon. Friend.

As the Secretary of State will be aware, the steering group that oversees the voluntary package of measures designed to reduce the use of pesticides in farming in general is due to produce a report on its progress this week. Has she received such a report and, if so, will she publish it?

I have not yet received it. When it is received, the consideration for which the hon. Gentleman asks will be given. As he knows, as and when we can, we put as much information as possible in the public domain.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the resumption of local agricultural shows. [29538]

Agricultural shows are very important to rural communities and we hope that they will be able to go ahead later this year, but those shows will need to be licensed and meet strict biosecurity standards. We will announce the details as soon as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the resumption of agricultural shows will be a great boost to the morale of the agricultural community and that such shows play an important role in the calendar of rural areas? Also, they bring together rural areas and towns. Will he join me in commending all those who work so hard to organise the annual Monmouth, Chepstow and Usk agricultural shows?

If I may stray back over the border for a minute, I am happy to pay tribute to all the work that goes on. As a Government, we want to put as much confidence as possible back into rural communities. That is why, earlier this week, we launched the campaign "Your countryside, you're welcome"—not as a Government campaign but as Government support for 50 organisations, ranging from farming to tourism and voluntary groups such as the Women's Institute. Like the people who put effort into organising the shows, such partnerships make the countryside work and it is important that they are given every confidence for the future.

In December, I asked the Minister a question on behalf of the Devon county show about the movement of livestock. He was good enough to say that he would try to give us a reply by the end of January. Today is the last day of January: has the right hon. Gentleman any news that I can pass on to the organisers of the Devon county show? Will they be able to show livestock this year?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we must be extremely sensitive and that we must not take risks, even at this point when it appears that foot and mouth disease has been eradicated. That is why great care is being taken in drawing up regulations on animal movements and associated activities. We need to be very careful. However, we hope, within a few days, to be able to respond in respect of the agricultural show about which he asked. On a previous occasion, I said that as I had visited the Devon show last year, when no animals were shown, I appreciated the show's importance in the hon. Gentleman's county. We hope very much that it will be able to go ahead without constraints this year. We shall get back to the hon. Gentleman very soon.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that agricultural shows are about much more than rural affairs and agriculture? They are a celebration of allotment holders, gardeners and a multitude of skills. Certainly, the Keighley agricultural show is a rare celebration of town and country combining in the various ways that I mentioned. It is a wonderful occasion for the people of Keighley and the surrounding area.

My hon. Friend makes her point well. During the period of devastation by foot and mouth disease last year, many people in towns and cities came to appreciate what was put in danger as a result. It is thus extremely important that shows are supported by people in towns and cities as well as by those in the countryside. They help us to get over what is perceived in some places as a divide, but which should not be a divide.

The Minister's comment that he would be able to announce a decision within the next few days will be warmly welcomed by all those involved in agricultural shows. As the House is aware, the cancellation of many of those shows cost a large number of people a great deal of money. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) said, there are effects not only on the farming community but on the wider rural community. About 300 agricultural shows are held every year and they attract 8 million visitors. Which shows do the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial team intend to visit this year to demonstrate that they have full confidence in them and that they are welcome in the countryside?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be equally enthusiastic. As I pointed out, I went to the Devon show last year. Wherever possible, we intend to visit shows, but their importance lies in what they do for town and country and for the individuals and communities that they represent. We must give people the certainty to go ahead. They need to know which qualifications they should meet as soon as possible. We shall do that.

Will my right hon. Friend visit the Royal Lancashire show—the oldest show in the country? If he does so, he might be able to ensure that there is an exhibition from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to put the case about what we are doing as a Government for rural society. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that at those events country and town come together to show the best of rural affairs.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for demonstrating that DEFRA Ministers are popular on both sides of the House and that our visits are anticipated with enthusiasm. I assure him that whether or not we attend particular shows, we strongly support their importance to their local communities, as he described.

Will the Minister bear in mind that some shows, such as the Surrey show, had to be cancelled last year? It is now a matter of urgency that the shows are able to put in place arrangements for their exhibitors, particularly those who bring animals along as part of their exhibit. There will be extra costs for cleaning and disinfection, and extra paperwork. Will the Minister be able to provide any assistance to the organisers of county shows, which provide such a wonderful showcase for our agricultural community?

The problems to which the hon. Lady refers are well understood. We have to be realistic; we have just been through the most devastating and unprecedented outbreak of animal disease and, while we all want to look to the future, we must ensure that we take no risks in so doing. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that. As soon as possible, we want to give the shows certainty about what they need to do to be able to go ahead, and then to provide them with the enthusiasm and support that she and other hon. Members have suggested that they need. The shows need customers—the public—along with certainty as to what they need to do to attract them.

If he will make a statement on the cost to (a) local councils and (b) individuals of implementing the EU Directive on the recycling of refrigerators and freezers. [29539]

I understand that the current charges levied by waste management companies for the storage and processing of fridges are in the range of £22 to £35 per unit, but that these are likely to fall once additional recycling facilities are operational. There should be no significant increase in costs to members of the public.

Will the Minister confirm that in the UK we dispose of some 3 million fridges a year, and that the fridge mountain is reckoned to be growing at a rate of 6,500 a day? Does he also accept that the funding currently available to local authorities is woefully inadequate? Why should my local council have to raid other budgets to find the estimated £700,000 of new costs to deal with this problem in East Sussex?

The hon. Gentleman is approximately right: about 2.5 million—perhaps up to 3 million—fridges enter the waste stream each year, either for scrapping and decommissioning or for refurbishment and selling on to the domestic market. On funding, in December we announced a £6 million package to cover the cost to the end of the current fiscal year. We made it perfectly clear then that we are urgently considering what further funding might be necessary for the storage and processing of fridges in the next fiscal year. We believe that that is perfectly adequate. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the current three-year spending period—spending review 2000—we have provided for an increase of £1.1 billion for environmental protection and cultural services, which includes waste management.

Will the Minister tell us when he expects the new capacity to be on stream to deal with the problem of removing the chlorofluorocarbons from the insulation material in fridges? The longer we have to wait for that, the more the costs will grow. Does he acknowledge that we are in this situation because the Government have been led by the nose by the EU directive rather than initiating their own programmes, and failed to recognise that the directive had a mandatory requirement, which they discovered only three weeks before it came into effect? Is not the same problem going to arise with the disposal of cars? Does the Minister not recognise that it is not the job of the EU to tell us what to do? [Interruption.] It is our job—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the hon. Gentleman finish.

Hon. Members should contain themselves. What the EU is telling us to do is highly desirable, but we should not be waiting for it to pass directives. We should be implementing our own policy and shaping EU policy, rather than being the late followers-on behind initiatives that have been taken by other countries. Does the Minister admit that we have left it too late in this instance, and that that is why it is costing us so much?

The hon. Gentleman's first point is perfectly sensible, and he is right to say that storage costs will continue to mount up until we can get the recycling plant in place. We have made every possible effort to obtain that technology, which is not currently available in this country, since we realised in June 2001 that it would be necessary in order to extract CFCs from insulating foam. A number of companies are investing in new plant; I am aware of up to a dozen which have expressed a strong interest, and I expect some of them to introduce it shortly. I certainly expect a number to be operational in the spring.

On the second point, the hon. Gentleman should not get so excited about being led by EU directives, which are introduced by member states as a result of agreement between them all. In this case, an EC regulation drafted in 1998 required the extraction of CFCs from the coolant gases in fridge motors, but not from insulation foam. However, just before the regulation came to the Environment Council in 1999, a change to article 15 caused uncertainty as to whether it applied to insulation foam.

From that point, late in 1999, my officials made repeated requests to the Commission for formal clarification of that article, and I have a record of every such instance. We did not get a formal reply until June 2001. We were badly let down by the Commission, and that is not the way in which EU legislation should be passed. However, since we finally found out about insulation foam in June 2001, we have taken every step to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

After speaking to local authorities, I can tell the Minister that it is clear that, due to Government incompetence, the extra costs are £30 to collect an old fridge, £30 to store it and at least £10 a fridge for bulk delivery to a recycler—that is, when they start to operate. For 3 million fridges a year, that is an unnecessary and unbudgeted cost of more than £200 million.

On 14 January, the Minister said:

"We are … taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed"—

on local authorities—

"they should be reasonably funded. That is the Government's policy."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]

Will the Minister confirm that central Government will pay that £200 million? When will local authorities get the bulk of that money?

First, as I thought I had made perfectly clear—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening—the incompetence is nothing to do with the UK Government; it is entirely the responsibility of the Commission. Secondly, I do not accept the figures that he produced. The cost will not be £200 million a year, or anything like it. I have made clear, and I repeat, that the reasonable costs of local authorities will be met by the £6 million available until the end of March, and we will make a further announcement in due course on what we believe are the reasonable costs that need to be met beyond that.

The most appropriate way to distribute the £6 million to the local authorities is through the rate support grant mechanism, so they will receive it in their standard spending assessments, as they have generally made clear that they want grant aid paid in that way. Local authorities should have their reasonable costs covered; we are trying to minimise those costs by securing investment in new technology and new plant as soon as possible, and we have protected householders from any interruption in the buying and selling of fridges.

What financial support her Department is giving to local councils in order to help them meet their waste recycling targets. [29540]

The Government are increasing funding for the environmental protection and cultural services block, which includes waste management. by £1.1 billion over the SR 2000 period. There is also a ring-fenced fund of £140 million for local authority recycling and £220 million for the private finance initiative waste projects over the same period. Councils will also benefit from the £40 million that the Government have given to the waste resources action programme to overcome market barriers to re-use and the recycling of waste.

I thank the Minister for that response. Given that Britain has just nine years to triple the amount of waste that it recycles, or face stiff EU penalties, and that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Waste Watch have criticised the Government for the amount of assistance that they are giving to councils compared to what those organisations believe is required—something like £375 million a year—can the Minister now respond to Greenpeace's accusation that Labour is the party of incineration?

As I have already said, now and on many previous occasions, the amount of extra funding that has been provided to reach the statutory recycling targets for local authorities is generous by any standard. Let me make it clear that this is not just a question of resources. Although the recycling record of some local authorities is abysmal—at 3 or 5 per cent.—many local authorities are in the 15 to 20 per cent. bracket, and some are meeting targets of more than 25 per cent. and even up to 30 per cent.

It is a matter of local political will and of providing the appropriate local facilities—notably, kerbside collection. I do not accept that the suggested funding is necessary.

I find the hon. Gentleman's last point extraordinary. Under the previous Government, there were about 20 or 30 incinerators in this country; there are now 11. There are no plans for any further increase in incineration, provided that we can meet the EU landfill directive targets and achieve the statutory recycling targets. The Conservative party presided over a much larger number of incinerators than we are conceivably planning.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement of extra money for recycling will be warmly welcomed in the north-east, especially as local authorities in the county of Durham have had a very poor settlement this year, despite Government protestations to the contrary? But I warmly welcome his statement that this is not just a matter of money. Is he also aware that, in the Bishop Auckland area, all kinds of voluntary groups and, indeed, the business community are bubbling up with imaginative ideas for recycling, but the local authorities seem to be unable to respond supportively?

My right hon. Friend is right because, let me I repeat, this is not simply a question of resources—those resources must be adequate. We are sure that we are providing adequate resources. Three things are required: first, the targets to drive the programme; secondly, the money to finance it; and, thirdly, the all-important markets, to which he referred. There is no point in recycling large amounts of paper, glass, tin, aluminium or whatever unless it can be sold on. The purpose of setting up WRAP—the waste resources action programme, which is business-led and chaired by Vic Cocker, who is a water industry chief executive—is to provide local authorities with good business sense, at arm's length from Government, on the markets for recycling. We think that that is very important. There are many innovative ideas, and there is no excuse for local authorities not to adopt them.

Is the Minister aware that Bexley council has a good recycling record? However, as well as encouraging such councils, is he aware that in places such as Welling the recycling site is located close to residential properties, so the local authority spends considerable amounts trying to protect residents from the inevitable noise generated in pursuit of what is unquestionably a very good cause? Recyling also has human consequences and local authorities need support from the Minister to deal with them.

Of course I accept that any industrial process, including an integrated waste management facility, involves a certain amount of noise and lorry journeys, and I am well aware that it can cause dust and nuisance. Obviously, this is matter for local authorities. In the past such facilities have been re-sited as a result of planning applications, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's local planning authority has taken account of the wider environmental impacts.

I repeat that integrated waste management facilities may be required in the future, and I believe that the necessary finance is available. However, it is a matter for local authorities to locate such facilities sensibly.

I congratulate the Government on their record on recycling and praise my right hon. Friend for his personal commitment to this issue. Will he consider assisting local authorities to deal with a particular item of domestic waste: used domestic batteries? He will know that, except for an excellent scheme in Lancashire, there are hardly any schemes that allow for their recycling. Will he consider ways of encouraging local authorities to recycle domestic batteries and to work with industry to achieve that?

That is a useful point. [Laughter.] I do not think that it was amusing.

If batteries are thrown away and collected by local authorities to end up in landfill, that is not the most environmentally sensible way of handling them. There needs to be kerbside collection and separation at source. There is an EU proposal for a producer responsibility directive for batteries. Obviously, in the light of experience of other matters, we shall need to examine the proposal's drafting and we shall consider it carefully. However, the concept is sensible.

It is already possible for local authorities to put in place arrangements for kerbside collection. We believe that statutory recycling targets will require virtually all local authorities to do that. However, there is nothing to stop them doing that now. I therefore urge local authorities to put in place arrangements for the kerbside collection of products, such as batteries, that should not go into landfill. Landfill is not the most environmentally sustainable way of handling them, and kerbside collection will enable them to be collected and reused in a better way.

I was intrigued by the Minister's scathing remarks about local authorities that achieve recycling rates of only 3 to 5 per cent., which he described as abysmal. Does that apply to the authority in Oldham in his constituency, which achieves 4.5 per cent. recycling? Will he compare and contrast that with the position in Tandridge council in my constituency, which achieves 21 per cent. recycling? Will he congratulate Tandridge on that?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that none of the £140 million to which he alluded—it has been ring-fenced to help local authorities—has yet been spent? It is no good boasting about the money, because none of it has been spent. Will not robbing environmental trusts of funds in a desperate bid to bolster the Government's failing recycling strategy deprive many environmental projects of much-needed funding while still failing to save the Government's face over the shambles that they have made of recycling? Their own performance is abysmal.

The hon. Gentleman is getting better, but he still has some way to go.

I congratulate those local authorities, such as his, that have a good recycling record. I am delighted about that. I do not know what Oldham's exact position is, but it is certainly in one of the lowest groups. I am targeting precisely such authorities through the £140 million recycling fund in an attempt to help them raise their performance. I point out, however, that Oldham is a Lib-Dem controlled council.

The £140 million recycling fund is, indeed, ring-fenced and it can be used only for waste-management purposes. We have just completed a consultation about how it will be distributed and we shall make a statement, I hope, very soon, on our conclusions. However, I cannot, of course, at this moment say how much will go to any individual local authority.

It was a bit rich of the hon. Gentleman to talk about robbing environmental trusts because he is actually referring to the fact that we are reconsidering the landfill tax credit scheme. We want to use that scheme, which we of course inherited from the previous Government, to support sustainable waste management objectives. It has by no means been focused on that. That is why we are reviewing it. We have published indicative guidelines saying that 65 per cent. of the spend should be towards such schemes, including one third of it specifically on recycling. In the next few weeks, we shall issue a consultation paper on the full range of options, from the status quo to full replacement via a public expenditure programme.

I have said repeatedly to the Wildlife Trust and the other environmental bodies that I am keen that the amount of money that they receive—valuably—for the important projects over which they preside should not be reduced in any redistribution that might be achieved. That remains my position.

The Minister has referred several times to the importance of recycling in cutting incineration, but is recycling not also an important way to cut the number of landfill sites? Is he troubled by the fact that Rhondda, Cynon, Taff council, which, to inform my right hon. Friend, is run by the Welsh nationalists, has only now begun a pilot recycling scheme? Will he undertake on the next occasion that he speaks to his counterpart in the Welsh Assembly to raise his concerns on that matter?

I am certainly happy to do that, although we have made very clear over a long period the need for a fundamental transformation in the way in which this country handles waste. We are driven by the EU landfill directive. At the moment, we landfill probably more than any other member state—around 85 per cent. of household waste. We must reduce that to no more than 35 per cent. of the 1995 level, which is of course much lower than today's.

On our reckoning, if we continued current practices all the way to 2016, by which time the change must occur, which of course we certainly shall not, we would in that year have to shift about 33 million tonnes away from landfill. That is why there must be action now on a significant scale.

The first requirement is waste minimisation—not creating the waste in the first place. Secondly, if the waste is generated, it should be—

Order. I very gently say to the Minister that I have to get through the Order Paper, and the answers are too long.

What the (a) timetable and (b) mechanics are of opening livestock markets. [29524]

The Government plan to allow the reopening of some livestock markets from 11 February, subject to biosecurity conditions. Further details will be announced shortly and placed in the Library of the House, published on DEFRA's website and made more generally available.

Does the Minister realise just what problems there are in trying to get cattle and sheep off places such as Exmoor? One market now serves that area. The market at Bridgwater has gone completely and there is trouble opening Taunton. Will he ensure that the decision to reopen is made—I am glad to hear the date of 11 February and hope that there will be a full opening on that day—and that DEFRA does not impose licences or put other obstructions in the way of that? If it does so, social deprivation on Exmoor will continue, and it is getting desperate.

We are not interested in putting obstructions in the way of the livestock sector but in bringing it back to normality without taking a risk, for example, with latent disease in some of the sheep flocks. We made our proposals available to the livestock industry on 18 January. We have had extensive consultation with the sector because we are trying to strike a balance between ensuring proper biosecurity and minimising risk, and recognising the needs of the sector. We have had tremendous co-operation from the livestock sector on that point, and that is why 11 February is the very latest stage of the process. As soon as we can bring the proposals forward, we will do so.

Despite the excellent impact of the market towns initiative on Leek, is my hon. Friend aware how anxious communities and farmers are to reopen the livestock market in Leek when the necessary biosecurity measures have been implemented? That would have a huge impact on the morale of farmers and everyone involved in the rural economy. I urge him to ensure that such markets can open as soon as possible.

I understand the case that my hon. Friend makes and how important livestock markets are to the local and regional economy. For that reason, we are in the final stages of our proposals and I am sure that a workable scheme will be in place to achieve the balance that I have outlined.

Is the Minister aware that livestock markets are the only method by which livestock farmers can get a fair and transparent price for their animals? It is a matter of the greatest urgency that livestock markets, such as Chelford, which lies within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and also serves my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), can operate fully at the earliest opportunity. Will he ensure that costs associated with licensing and all other safety measures are kept to an absolute minimum so that those markets, which are at the centre of rural agricultural activity, can open again to serve the livestock producers of this country?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that administration costs will be kept as low as possible. I emphasise again the risks of spreading disease. We need to think carefully about that, and it is not an issue of contention between us and the livestock industry. I accept what he says about the importance of livestock markets and their social function in communities, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). However, a range of innovative ways to market livestock have been developed and we should not rule them out. We want to encourage all sorts of innovation and enterprise, wherever that may be, while recognising the role of livestock markets.

If she will make a statement on the issues discussed with the Polish Government on her recent visit to Poland. [29543]

I visited Poland on 13 and 14 January and had one-to-one meetings with the Agriculture Minister and the Environment Minister. I encouraged Poland to play an active and constructive part in preparing itself for European Union membership, congratulated the Government on reaching a conclusion on the environment chapter and stressed the importance of maintaining the implementation and enforcement programme.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. I am sure that she will agree that EU enlargement, including Polish membership, cannot wait until we reform the common agricultural policy. Does she also agree that the development strategy is extremely important post-enlargement and that there is already a great deal of common ground between the Polish Government and the British Government?

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. The UK Government have always taken the view and approach that CAP reform should be pursued, and we strongly support enlargement. We wish to pursue those separate developments in parallel, but I agree that one is not conditional on the other. I also agree that it is important to do what we can to support rural development. He is right to identify from our discussions that the Polish Government see eye to eye with us on a number of issues.

During the Secretary of State's discussions with her Polish counterpart, did she have an opportunity to discuss the role of good administration in a representative democracy? I wrote to her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), the right hon. Lady herself and each of her Front-Bench companions. Since March, I have sent no fewer than nine letters on matters concerning their Department. I tabled a written parliamentary question in November which was not answered, nor were any of my other letters—

Order. That is nothing to do with Poland. Can the Minister answer the question?

In so far as I followed it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has written to my Department and not received a reply, I offer him the most profound apology. He will know, because we have written to every hon. Member—I hope that that letter at least has arrived—that there have been enormous problems with handling correspondence in my Department. Strenuous attempts have been made to overcome that. We are under the impression that a great deal has been done to tackle the backlog, but I shall look at once into his complaint.

If she will make a statement on the recent discussions about rural strategy she has had with parish and town councils and their representative body. [29544]

The Government are breaking new ground in engaging with the work of parish and town councils. I am very encouraged by the response to the quality local scheme on which we are consulting at present. The National Association of Local Councils is represented on the national rural affairs forum, and will therefore be able to put concerns directly to Ministers.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging news and declare an interest as a town councillor.

There is much to be done. I know that liaison with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is very good, but this first and important level of government often relies on the work of parish clerks in terms of capacity. In the past week, I received a letter from one of my best parish clerks, Jane Roberts of Kings Stanley parish council. The council is under a great deal of pressure. It is pleased to have been brought into this aspect of government, but we need to ensure that both clerks and councillors can handle that pressure. How could that be done?

My hon. Friend is right. I have met parish clerks who act as a powerhouse, enabling parish council members to do a great deal. That is why we have established support for training parish clerks, as we have for training town and parish councillors. We want to give these organisations the capacity not just to represent but to act as a driving force in their communities.

When will I receive an answer to the parliamentary question that I tabled on 15 January, which in turn asked when I would receive an answer to my letter of 3 December asking for a meeting between Upton-on-Severn town council and the Government to discuss matters connected with rural development?

The hon. Gentleman will receive an answer very quickly, having asked his question today.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, she recently wrote to every Member explaining that we had discovered a basic systems failure in the correspondence arrangements. Ministers and officials at the Department are putting considerable effort into dealing with the enormous backlog—not a surprising backlog, because of the tremendous problems resulting from foot and mouth disease, which had an impact on Members' postbags and hence on the number of letters to the Department. We will catch up as soon as possible, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the specific example that he gave will be dealt with quickly.

My constituency contains three excellent councils, Askern, Stainforth, and Thorne and Moorends. Does my right hon. Friend agree that town councils are a fundamental part of our local democracy? Will he confirm that the Government's policy is to strengthen and enhance their role?

We certainly want to strengthen and enhance their role. I was encouraged the other day in the Forest of Dean when my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) invited parish council members along to discuss the consultative document that I mentioned earlier. More than 100 parish and town council members turned up, and were enthusiastic, engaged, questioning and responsive. I think that the potential exists throughout the country for lifting the game of town and parish councils, and we want to encourage that.

If she will make a statement on the progress her Department has made in reforming the regulations governing meat imports. [29545]

Controls on the import of meat into the United Kingdom from non-EU countries are covered by EU legislation. In the light of the foot and mouth outbreak, we have strengthened the enforcement powers of local authorities in respect of meat that could not have been imported legally, but is found on sale in the UK. We have also taken a number of steps, working with other Departments involved, to improve our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports. We are continuing to keep all measures under review, and are developing other options for further action.

Is the right hon. Lady aware of a case about which I have written to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the context of his responsibility for Customs, concerning my constituent Sue Parke, who travelled from Gatwick on 14 September, three days after the New York outrage? She observed a man—who had reached the train untroubled by Customs—loading some eight 4 ft-square containers into the passenger carriage. She wrote to me

"The smell of either rotting fish or meat was so strong we immediately stood up to move further up the carriage … The smell was so vile it reached half way down the carriage. The lady next to me felt sick. She apologised for opening the window and letting in the cold night air but I too was glad of some relief from the stench. We travelled for 35 minutes like this."

My constituent asks me, and I ask the right hon. Lady, why—

Order. I think that the Secretary of State can answer the question now.

rose—

Order. I told the hon. Gentleman that he had finished asking his question; he must sit down.

The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) knows that we are a trading nation. We export and we also allow imports, which must be properly controlled and handled according to the rules. I shall certainly see whether we can discover any information, and should be grateful if he would let us have as much detail as possible about his constituent's case, which seems extraordinary. While we encourage the speedy and effective detection and pursuit of such issues, I must admit that, at first glance, such a case appears inexplicable.

When I held a joint consultation with the Women's Farming and Food Union, it raised this issue. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is asking why, when millions of us pass in and out of the country, we never see any evidence that the Government think that this is a serious issue.

I share my hon. Friend's view that we do not have sufficiently effective publicity—but there is work in hand—to highlight the issue to people as they land in the UK. British travellers would not come into contact with this, but when people make arrangements to come to the UK, they are given advice and information about what is, and is not, legal by travel agents and, for those who require visas, by consulates and embassies; they are told firmly what they are, and are not, allowed to do by those outlets. I share my hon. Friend's view that more should be done as people arrive at the port of entry, and we are working on that.

This afternoon, two Ministers have warned that we need to be on our guard against future outbreaks of foot and mouth. Does not the biggest single risk of another outbreak of foot and mouth come from the fact that we could import it again, simply because our import controls are slack?

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised a constituency case, but the right hon. Lady should know about recent reports that on one flight arriving at Gatwick airport from Africa, 110 people were found to be carrying illegal imports. That was a spot check. How many imports are coming in that are not found? There are reports of suitcases dripping with blood and covered with maggots or packed with bush rats, antelope meat and monkeys. Who on earth eats that stuff, I cannot imagine. When will the Government begin to take the issue seriously? Is it not the case that as things stand, we could re-import foot and mouth again tomorrow?

It is not the case that our import controls are lax—[Interruption.] Let me remind Opposition Members that we have strengthened the import controls that we inherited from them. Our import control procedures have been in existence for many years. I take the hon. Gentleman's point; all of us are dismayed when we read the stories about the amount of meat that some individuals bring in. However, the reason why he knows about those stories—[Interruption.] He says that there should not be any, but people are allowed to bring in such material under European Union rules.

I have raised the issue with the relevant Commissioner, and pressed him to look again at that aspect of the rules. The reason why the hon. Gentleman can cite such cases is that the meat has been identified, detected and found. Many of the stories that are used to create concern and alarm are evidence of the effectiveness of our import controls.

The Secretary of State made it clear that she has already strengthened controls, but needs to do more. However, any campaign on import controls could lose an important focus if it does not heed the lesson of the foot and mouth crisis that we need strong biosecurity measures in our own country. Any campaign that does not recognise that will fail.

My hon. Friend is correct. We cannot afford to neglect any aspect of preventing such disease or its spread. He is right to identify that point, however the foot and mouth outbreak started; we do not yet know, and perhaps will never be absolutely certain how it began. It could have been caused by an import that had come into the country via another member state, but however it came here, biosecurity issues, farming practices, movement of animals and so on are all matters that must be handled and are part of prevention and control.

If she will make an assessment of the impact of conservation measures for cod stocks in (a) Icelandic and Norwegian waters and (b) waters under the aegis of the EU common fisheries policy. [29546]

Assessment of cod stocks in Icelandic and Norwegian waters is a matter for those Governments. The package of technical measures for rebuilding certain cod stocks in EU waters that came into operation on 1 January 2002 is designed to make a contribution to bringing stocks back to within safe biological limits, but it will be some time before fisheries scientists will be able to assess the results.

Is not the assessment of cod stocks in Icelandic and Norwegian waters essential for proper evaluation of the total potential catch of Atlantic cod? Is it not a fact that the common fisheries policy has been an economic and ecological disaster of the first magnitude? If we were a free independent country and conserved our stocks as well as the Norwegians and Icelanders do, the cod stocks in the north Atlantic would not be under such threat.

Both Norway and Iceland have had their problems with fisheries management and indeed with fisheries conservation. I might remind the hon. Gentleman that this country managed to wipe out its herring stocks before it joined the common fisheries policy. Although the CFP of course has its failings and weaknesses, which we want to address from the UK, whatever the arguments about it, we must have a Europe-wide fisheries conservation measure. That is essential. We must also have such co-operation on the international front in relation to fish conservation.

Before I call business questions, may I indicate that I am extremely disappointed that we have reached only Question 10 on the Order Paper? The House can co-operate by making sure that we have only brief questions and, of course, brief replies.

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—

'(IA) In section 94(1) of the Transport Act 1985 (administration of schemes: reimbursement, etc), after paragraph (a), there is inserted—

"(aa) the method by which the authority is to be reimbursed, whether through the Revenue Support Grant or otherwise, in respect of any expenditure arising from the operation of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002.".'.

The Bill is narrowly drafted and it was with only some ingenuity that we managed to table an acceptable amendment. A layman may find its purpose more clearly set out in new clause 1, which states:

The Secretary of State shall reimburse each local authority for the full and actual cost of any concessionary fares scheme by special or specific grant rather than through the Standard Spending Assessment."

The Bill provides for additional costs to be reimbursed through the normal SSA mechanism. The full compliance cost has been subject to debate. It was originally estimated to be £50 million. On receiving better particulars, however, the Government increased it to about £54 million, and I hope that that is the full cost.

The problem is that some small local authorities—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will raise the case of his particular authority—receive no reimbursement through the SSA system. The Government are inflicting an imposition that is one of a long list of impositions that they have placed on local authorities that are not being fully funded. The best value initiative is the most expensive, but others, such as the increased cost of pensions as a result of the abolition of additional advance corporation tax requirements, are also a problem.

The Bill imposes a requirement on local authorities and not all of them will be fully reimbursed for implementing it. That is not true of some larger metropolitan authorities. Under the SSA, a global figure is calculated for each authority and included in the rate support grant settlement each year. Whereas a large chunk of money will be allocated to the larger metropolitan authorities, a small amount, or none at all, will be allocated to smaller authorities.

Is that not the story of local government across the board? Broadbrush figures are produced, as in this case; no effort is made afterwards to discover whether they are fair; and smaller and typically rural authorities almost always lose out.

My hon. Friend is right: smaller and largely rural authorities are likely to lose out.

Having outlined the problem, let me turn to the solution. The amendment would ensure that local authorities are specifically reimbursed for the actual costs that they incur. That is a simple requirement. If the Government are to fund the scheme in full, it should be largely revenue neutral. Some larger metropolitan authorities will be overcompensated and other authorities will be undercompensated, so the net cost should be little, if any.

The Government have increased a number of special grants. Surely it would be very simple either to allocate a block of money through the SSA system and make a reimbursement afterwards, or to let authorities make an estimate at the beginning of each financial year, in which case an adjustment could be made before the next financial year on production of properly audited records of the scheme's costs.

We consider the amendment to be eminently fair and eminently workable. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says.

As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), my purpose in tabling the amendment was to draw attention to a gross and unjust anomaly affecting the two district councils in my constituency, Christchurch and East Dorset. The concessionary fares legislation in the Transport Act 2000, implemented last year, has required them to incur additional costs that are some £250,000 higher than the Government's so-called reimbursement. That is very unsatisfactory.

The amendment would add to the list of matters in respect of which regulations can be made under section 94(1) of the Transport Act 1985, and would enable the Secretary of State to produce regulations relating to the method by which an authority responsible for the administration of a travel concession scheme is reimbursed in respect of any expenditure arising from the operation of the Bill.

We cannot do anything in this Bill about what has happened as a result of the earlier legislation. What we can do is try to prevent the Government from making the same mistake again. Obviously, extending the scheme to cover men aged between 60 and 65 as well as those over 65 will involve an additional cost. It was estimated for the purposes of the 2000 Act that local authorities' total costs would be £54 million. At the time, the Government said that they thought it fair for Government to pick up the tab—for the national taxpayer to pay; because this was Government policy, they would reimburse local authorities.

If we ascribe to the word "reimbursement" the meaning it is assumed to have in common English parlance, it means giving back to an individual or an organisation money that that individual or organisation has spent on a particular project or for a particular purpose.

Surely my hon. Friend does not wish to stretch the House's imagination by suggesting that the Government use English in the way in which most of us are accustomed to use it.

That is an excellent point.

It is interesting that the Minister for Transport is not replying to this debate, because he dealt with the issue in Committee. During the Committee's first sitting, he said

"The Government have to deal with a different dilemma—to decide the extent to which national minimum standards are set and to deal with the financial consequences of that and of ensuring that local councils do not lose money."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 26.]

If that is indeed the Government's objective, they manifestly failed to deliver on it in relation to the original scheme. They already have the power to change the reimbursement system—the amendment is not necessary in that regard—but they have decided not to do so. I do not understand why, but I suspect that the councils that are losing out as a result of this new Government imposition are largely Conservative-controlled, and those which will gain disproportionately, and have already done so, are Labour-controlled.

1.45 pm

That is not an academic or pedantic point of debate; it is one of substance and may significantly affect council tax payers in my area. At the moment, East Dorset district council is spending £160,000 a year on concessionary travel as a result of the Government's minimum statutory standard, in addition to the £97,000 that it has previously spent on its local discretionary targeted scheme. There are a lot of pensioners in East Dorset—22,740, representing more than 25 per cent. of the population. How much did East Dorset district council get back as a contribution to the additional cost of £160,000? The answer is a big round zero; it got nothing back at all because it does not get any revenue support grant, just redistributed business rates. The idea that the Government are going to reimburse East Dorset district council and its council tax payers for the cost of those concessionary fares is pie in the sky.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his small district council will be required by law to provide those schemes? The de facto situation is that it is not being fully reimbursed, so it will have to make up the difference with an even bigger increase in council tax. I believe that my hon. Friend's local authority is already proposing one of the larger rises in council tax in the country in any case.

My hon. Friend is right. East Dorset district council is not getting back any money at all from the Government to compensate for the additional statutory duty placed on it by concessionary fares legislation. Under the Bill, additional costs will be incurred and, again, the council will not receive any additional money from the Government. Ironically, the additional cost of £160,000 must be paid for by council tax payers, many of whom are pensioners. The Minister will know that the impact of council tax on pensioners is twice as severe as it is for people who have not yet reached pensionable age. As I said in the House the other day, as a result of Labour policies, more than 1 million pensioners now spend more than 10 per cent. of their disposable income on council tax. The position for East Dorset residents is getting worse as a result of those Government impositions.

The situation in Christchurch is a little better. The Minister may know that we have 14,287 pensioners, constituting 32 per cent. of our population. Christchurch borough council spent £74,000 on a targeted concessionary fares scheme before legislation was introduced. In the current year, it had to make an additional budget provision of £93,000 for the mandatory scheme, which was restricted to travel within the borough boundary. That limited and narrow scheme did not go down well with local people, who much preferred the previous scheme, which offered more generous concessions for those in greatest need. The consequence now is that Christchurch borough council is thinking about whether it can afford to introduce a Dorset-wide scheme. If it did so, however, the costs would increase from an additional £93,000 to an additional £150,000 a year. How much do you think the council received in reimbursement under the revenue support grant formula, Madam Deputy Speaker? It received £20,000 in respect of additional costs of £93,000—costs that will continue to increase as a result of the new statutory requirements in the Bill.

My concern is that council tax will have to be increased most in the areas where the largest number of pensioners live and that those who win on their bus passes will therefore lose when they get their council tax bill. Does my hon. Friend share that concern?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The largest proportion of my correspondence is currently from pensioners on fixed incomes who are again faced with the prospect of council tax increases that are significantly above the rate of inflation and far higher than their pension increases will be. That is happening at a time when the interest on their savings and investments is declining significantly as a result of low inflation. I enthusiastically support the policy of low inflation, but it has had a devastating impact on the budgetary arrangements of a number of pensioners who had planned on the basis that their investments would produce a rather higher yield than that which they are now receiving. In order to pay for these new impositions, such pensioners are having to cut back on other items of expenditure. Council taxes are, by definition, unavoidable, so they have the first call on the limited resources of the individuals concerned.

In Committee, the Minister for Transport said:

"We are committed to the new burdens principle, which means that we will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost that they face as a result of local authority concessionary fare schemes requiring action under the Bill."

He went on to say:

"If it is an existing scheme that must be amended to comply with the Bill, the Government will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 30]

Unfortunately, it does not appear that that will happen. The amendment gives us the opportunity to press the Under-Secretary for a commitment that she will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost. We all know that the House has a system whereby hon. Members are reimbursed out of taxpayers' money for the cost of stationery and office equipment. It would be extraordinary if, in pursuance of the principle of reimbursement, the House authorities said that some hon. Members were to receive more than they had spent and that others were to receive less or indeed nothing. If the word "reimbursement" means anything, surely it is putting the local authorities or individuals in the position in which they would have been before the new imposition. If the new burdens principle to which the Minister for Transport referred means anything, surely it should apply to each local authority on an equal basis. I cannot believe that that principle was intended to mean that the burden on one local authority would be reduced by imposing fresh burdens on another.

The Minister for Transport used opaque expressions in Committee to try to parry the probing questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He said:

"The mechanism will be that the extra costs will be fed into the rate support grant, at the lower end of the environment protection and cultural services block. All other things being equal, local authorities will broadly receive additional funding in proportion to their current share of the EPCS local tier."

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight asked:

"Is the Minister saying … that he will pay to authorities—broadly or otherwise—only the sum that enables them to pay for the minimum laid down by the Government?"

The Minister for Transport said:

"No. We are saying clearly that the change in legislation places an additional burden on local authorities. Accordingly, the Government will make money available to cover that additional cost."

I see the Under-Secretary nodding. I hope that that indicates that she will undertake on behalf of the Government to reimburse East Dorset district council and Christchurch borough council for the additional costs of the new statutory requirements imposed by the Government.

The Minister for Transport went on to say:

"We are in discussion with the local authorities as regards the methodology involved, following the well-established procedure for the rate support grant. If that procedure throws up significant anomalies, local authorities, as the hon. Gentleman will probably accept, will not be backward about raising the issue."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 27–29.]

I quote extensively from what the Minister for Transport said because I do not want the Under-Secretary to start using the same language. That language was no doubt designed to give the impression of reasonableness and to comfort the victims of unjust distribution, but effectively the words were a sham; indeed they were a confidence trick calculated to deceive. We know that the procedure for reimbursing local authorities under existing legislation has thrown up significant anomalies, some of which I have drawn to the House's attention already and which continue to be drawn to the Government's attention by local authorities and local authority associations. What are the Government doing about it? Absolutely nothing. That is totally unacceptable. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have some words of comfort for my local authorities and citizens in my area.

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for the amendment. Is he aware that the Minister for the Environment recently said that

"under the previous Government … more and more burdens were placed on local authorities and allegedly funded from efficiency savings."

This is the important bit:

"We"—

that is the Government—

"are abandoning that practice and taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed they should be reasonably funded. That is the Government's policy."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Minister for the Environment made that statement to the House, there is no reason why the Government should not accept the amendment?

I agree absolutely. The trouble with the Government is that they consistently say one thing and do another, and they use words ambiguously to give people a misleading impression. We are not talking about any additional costs to Government. All we are talking about is a fair distribution of the costs that are incurred by local authorities as a result of Government-imposed legislation and ending the two-tier system. Today the financial services ombudsman has had something to say about the two-tier system operating in the Halifax building society. The Government have been presiding over a multi-tier system for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of concessionary fares, which is totally unjust.

It is not as though we are asking the earth. There is already a system in place to reimburse London authorities for the actual costs of concessionary fares, rather than the notional or pooled costs, so there is no reason why the Government could not introduce a system that reimbursed local authorities for the actual costs of the statutory concessionary fare scheme, rather than using the formulaic system of distribution which is so unjust.

I had no quarrels with the old system, under which concessionary fares were regarded as a matter for local discretion. The local authority could decide how much money to spend on concessionary fares and what sort of scheme to operate. In so far as they were able to draw on resources in the environmental services block grant, they could do so.

2 pm

The Government changed the rules and there is now no option for local authorities but to comply with the new rigid and centrally imposed rules. It is right and proper that local authorities should be reimbursed accordingly. As I said at the outset, this gives the Government an opportunity to admit that they have made a mistake, that they are willing to learn from it, and that, from now on, they will reimburse all the local authority costs incurred as a result of the legislation. If they did so, it would enable councils such as Christchurch and East Dorset to impose much lower council tax increases next year than are currently in prospect.

During yesterday's debate on the revenue support grant and the level of the finance settlement, the Minister for Local Government said that the Government were being generous to local authorities. Some of us were left with the impression that the Minister was more generous to some local authorities than to others. Today, the Under-Secretary has an opportunity to demonstrate by her actions and words that she believes in justice and equity for local authorities and that she accepts that it is unfair that some local authorities should benefit by more than the costs they incur while others receive less than their costs. The amendment is a simple and equitable proposition and I hope that the Minister will accede to it.

I support the amendment and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). It would be perverse in the extreme if the Government did not reimburse local authorities. As my hon. Friend said, some local authorities have had to impose inflation-busting council tax increases over the past few years. In my area of west Norfolk we have consistently had council tax increases of about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. over the past five or six years.

This is not just a problem for Norfolk county council. My local borough council, King's Lynn and West Norfolk, has not been getting a fair deal from the Government. Interestingly, the Labour leader of the local borough council explained in a letter to the local press the other day that the council tax in our area will have to go up by so much because the Government have not given Norfolk a fair enough deal. That is why it is vital that the amendment is supported and that the Government reimburse local authorities.

Will the Minister look at the words of the Minister for the Environment, who said:

"under the previous Government … more and more burdens were placed on local authorities and allegedly funded from efficiency savings. We are abandoning that practice and taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed they should be reasonably funded. That is the Government's policy."— [Official Report, 14 January 2002: Vol. 378, c. 125.]

That is a good reason for the Under-Secretary to agree with what we are saying.

I support the amendment, as do many of my constituents. My constituency is similar in many ways to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in that there are many elderly retired people, especially along the Norfolk coast in villages and towns such as Brancaster, the Burnhams and Hunstanton. Many of them are retired couples from places such as London where they have enjoyed concessionary fares, often amounting to 100 per cent. They are disappointed to receive only a 50 per cent. reduction in my area. If they find that this Bill does not benefit them in the way that is intended because local authorities will not be reimbursed, they will be very disappointed.

Unfortunately, I say all that in the context of declining bus services—the picture throughout most rural counties. We all know that 15 or 20 years ago we saw double-decker buses trundling around country lanes with one or two people on board. Every village had a regular bus service. It is clear that those days could not continue, but unfortunately many bus companies have not shown enough imagination and have responded inadequately to the demands and requirements of local communities.

In west Norfolk, communities have been cut off as a result of reductions in bus services. I am thinking in particular of two cases that have arisen since my return to the House, one of which involves the hamlet of Gayton Thorpe, where the bus service has been abandoned completely. Only last week, I received a letter from a constituent who lives in the village of Tilney All Saints, which until recently enjoyed a reasonable bus service. Now, there are only two morning buses from Tilney All Saints to King's Lynn, and only one returning to the village in the evening, which leaves King's Lynn at 4.45 pm. The bus goes through the northern part of the village, but the constituent who wrote to me lives in the southern part. Her daughter attends the local College of West Anglia, where she is training to be a chef. On leaving the bus she has to walk more than half a mile, which is a long way for a student in the dark.

The Government are attempting to do what all of us feel is the right thing, but if they fail completely to reimburse local authorities and penalise constituents such as mine through higher council tax, they will be making a big mistake. I hope that the Minister will look at our amendment sympathetically and respond to the detailed and technical points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which I wholly endorse, and to some of my more general points.

I begin by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for arriving late for the start of this debate. Today has been rather frenetic because of the launch of the Select Committee report on the rail industry, but happily we will be discussing this afternoon another subject that is close to the hearts of me and my constituents.

Members will know that the constituency of Epsom and Ewell lies just beyond the London boundary to the south. My constituents and Surrey county council—our local transport authority—face real problems in the provision of bus transportation, which will be exacerbated if the Bill is enacted and fails to deliver full reimbursement to authorities throughout the country. It was particularly disturbing to discover in Committee that, despite being pressed to do so, the Government were unable to give a clear, unequivocal and categorical commitment that they will reimburse every local authority for all the costs associated with changing the scheme under the Bill.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to make such a commitment, because without it local authorities such as mine will have, in effect, two options—to cut other services or to increase council tax. That seems a wholly inappropriate burden to place on them at this time. In the case of Surrey county council, it is especially inappropriate, given the huge disparities in public support for Surrey and neighbouring London. Yesterday, the Minister kindly sent me a letter giving details on this issue. According to it, the Mayor is allocated £714 million a year for public transport, which will rise to just over £1 billion next year. In comparison, the sums allocated specifically to bus services in counties outside London are minuscule. Even wrapped together, all the transport budgets for all other authorities in the south-east will receive only £179 million for local transport projects in 2002–03.

In other words, under the Mayor's leadership local authorities across the border in London have a sum to distribute for transport support that is more than five times greater than that allocated to the home counties. The consequences of that disparity are becoming all too clear in the provision of concessionary fare schemes and of more general bus services.

Most particularly, the disparity's consequences are evident in the loss of a number of operators running services across the boundaries into London. They have been driven out of business by competitors in London that benefit from the substantial subsidy available to them.

The problem will get worse if the Minister goes ahead with the Bill as it stands. In effect, if the Government fail to deliver full reimbursement to local authorities for the cost of the scheme, more transport money will be taken away from authorities outside London. I believe that the Government should fulfil what I believe is their duty to reimburse, as local authorities outside London will be less able to deliver the support to bus services that their counterparts across the border in London can deliver.

As a consequence, services will continue to lose out financially. Operators will find it more difficult to make money on routes, and will tend to walk away from the business. The people to lose out will not be the vast majority of my constituents who use cars, but the schoolchildren and pensioners who depend on the buses for their daily transportation. They can ill afford to see the buses disappear.

It has been a matter of great concern to me that such a large disparity exists between the public support given to bus operators in London—and to local authorities there to enable them to support the operators—and the equivalent support given to counties just outside London. I hope that the Minister will not make the problem worse through an inappropriate application of the Bill.

The failure fully to reimburse local authorities for the cost of the scheme would have consequences that go beyond the nature of the services provided. Also affected would be the ability of local authorities to deliver any sort of proper concessionary fare scheme.

It is a cause of great grief to many of the elderly in the northern part of my constituency—those who live in places such as Stoneleigh, Worcester Park and Ewell—that their neighbours just across the boundary in London benefit from the free bus passes that are available to them under local authority schemes. Those local authorities are able to deliver those free bus passes because of the extra financial support that they receive.

Surrey county council does not receive the financial support that would enable it to provide free bus passes. It has tried extremely hard to deliver a concessionary scheme that goes some way at least towards relieving the burden of costs faced by our older travellers. The council has been able to help a little financially, but my elderly constituents are only human. They look up the road—sometimes only a few hundred yards—and wonder why they cannot have a bus-pass scheme such as exists in Sutton or Kingston. The reason is that the money for such a scheme is not available.

The Bill will make it more difficult still for my county council—and I suspect for many other authorities around the country—to introduce the schemes for bus passes and concessionary fares that benefit pensioners in higher-cost areas.

Has my hon. Friend concluded that there is a particular irony about the problem, in that the further that one gets away from London and the other major metropolitan areas, the worse the bus service tends to be? If the amendment is rejected, the effect will be that local authorities are likely to cut back on discretionary spending on bus services. That will further reduce the number of services, especially in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), and in my area of the Cotswolds?

My hon. Friend is right. Many services depend absolutely on local authority support to keep going. Such services are nowhere near the principle routes. They deliver more a social service than a commercial one, and they benefit from the support of local authorities. If local authorities get less money, there will be fewer of those services. That has to be a matter of great concern for hon. Members considering the Bill.

2.15 pm

Quite rightly, the Government have an aspiration to see concessionary fare schemes grow. Many parts of the country have nothing like the level of such schemes that are available in London. Many of the authorities in those areas would like to do more. My authority's aspiration is, at the very least, to charge pensioners a 50p flat fare for buses.

However, if the additional costs of concessionary schemes are placed, in whole or in part, on local authorities, it will be more difficult for those authorities to introduce improved schemes. Moreover, although no one could argue with the aims of the Bill, the irony is that it will make it more expensive for local authorities to introduce expanded schemes in the future. By definition, they will have to find budgets to cover people aged between 60 and 65, as well as those aged over 65. As a result, it is less likely that local authorities will be able to afford new schemes in the future.

I hope that the Minister will give the matter careful thought, and that she will consider the consequences of failing to fund local authorities in full. I hope that she will give us this afternoon a commitment to providing full funding, and that she will think about those areas in the country that do not have the sort of schemes that would be desirable. The Minister must look at the potential extra costs that will arise, as a result of the Bill, if local authorities try to improve their schemes. Moreover, I hope that the Minister, when she looks at her Department's financial planning for the future, will encourage local authorities to go ahead with fare schemes and, where appropriate, give them the financial support that they need.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill very much, and I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on the amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it. If she does not, I hope that she will at least accept the principle behind it, and give our local authorities the support that they undoubtedly need to implement the Bill.

I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) introduced the amendment. He clearly acknowledged that the form of words used is something of a device and that the intention behind the amendment is better expressed in new clause 1. I shall not talk about the new clause, but I will deal with some of the different ways to tackle the financial arrangements, as I think that that is the subject that most worries Opposition Members.

The question of funding has been a recurring theme in debates on this Bill in this House, in the other place and in Committee. I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) by telling him that I do not agree with his interpretation of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said. If I do not use the same words as my right hon. Friend, it is only because I cannot be as eloquent.

I appreciate the concerns about funding, and about the need to get the formula right. I shall therefore go through some of the arguments explaining why the Government chose the approach contained in the Bill.

The amendment would add another stage to the system of funds distribution. Given that the hon. Member for Cotswold admitted that it would also require an additional round of consultation, it would be inconceivable for us to get the scheme up and running even in time for the next financial year. I urge Opposition Members to think hard about that, especially as amendment No. 3 deals with commencement. In addition, the amendment could undermine the method of distribution of Government support for the expenditure of local authorities.

Before I move on to some of the other issues, I shall deal with the concerns raised by hon. Members, and make some general comments. The hon. Member for Christchurch talked about the new burdens principle and the discussions that took place in Committee. In adopting the new burdens and revenue support grant approach, the Government are utilising the usual channels for local authority financial arrangements. As a result, the scheme will be introduced in a manner that, if not super fast, is speedy and orderly. The Government's approach also allows for proper discussion of the distributive mechanism through the local government channels. That is important because of the two big issues in local government funding—the size of the cake and how it is shared out. There must be discussions with the local government associations about both issues, particularly the latter.

What system could be fairer than one which reimburses local authorities, on an individual basis, for the costs that they have incurred as a result of the legislation?

I was going to come to that point later. That would mean a ring-fenced grant, which one of the amendments suggests, but it would lead to delay. In contrast, the Bill provides for an orderly and fair distribution of the total costs between local authorities.

It is true that some time ago concerns were raised by local authorities about the fairness of the distribution. I understand that the discussions between officials and the local government associations have been successful and that the margins that were talked about, which were in multiples of a million, have been whittled down to a small amount.

The hon. Member for Christchurch, along with other Conservative Members, argues that his local authorities are losing out. All Members think that their local authority is losing out. In fact, the way in which the mechanism works means that local authorities that already have more generous concessionary fare schemes in place, such as Merseyside, Reading and the West Midlands, are more likely to be under pressure than the local authorities that started from scratch or from a lower base in introducing concessionary fare schemes. I do not accept that the hon. Gentleman's authorities have necessarily lost out, nor those of his hon. Friends. In checking with officials, they do not seem to have raised that concern with my Department. Therefore, I do not think that this system, which is the normal one, discriminates against the hon. Gentleman's local authorities.

Does the Minister accept that the two local authorities in my constituency have incurred additional costs as a result of her legislation of £250,000 a year and have got back, between them, £20,000 a year? Which local authorities have been getting the extra £230,000 that should be going to Christchurch and East Dorset? Why is that money going to the West Midlands and Merseyside which are already over-resourced?

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. Local authorities which are the most likely to find that they have unmet costs as a result of this mechanism have, in the past, had more generous concessionary fare schemes in place. The total cost of the new burdens are put into a general kitty and then carved up. Councils which have in the past had more generous schemes will have higher new burdens under the Bill. Authorities such as the West Midlands and Reading, rather than getting more money out of the scheme, are most likely to be under pressure.

rose—

I should like to continue, because I will come on to the concerns of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I should also like to deal with the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) about bus transport in rural areas, particularly for pensioners. He said that pensioners moving out of London would lose the valuable benefit of the free bus pass which London local authorities have had in place for many years. They kept the scheme going even when they were under acute financial pressure under the last Conservative Government. The decision to keep the free bus pass was made by Conservative and Labour councils in the teeth of considerable opposition. It was a recognition of local needs, and that is how local government should work.

We have recognised the problems of people in rural areas who need bus transport and have provided front-end support for them in the form of the rural bus challenge and a big increase in the subsidy for rural buses. We had the last round of the rural bus challenge last Friday. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's local authority, although it might not have been his constituency, benefited from that challenge.

rose—

I should like to finish this point about rural buses. We recognise that people in rural areas do not just want to go short distances. That is why we are looking at a fuel duty rebate for coaches in return for some concessionary fares. That will be an important step and will meet particular needs.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has raised his concerns a number of times. I have heard the exposition at least twice. His particular concern is that because his constituency is just over the border of London, people feel more strongly about not getting the free bus pass. Local authorities need to look at close working across local government boundaries. That is an issue right across the country. Local authorities have the discretion to make extra provision, as the authorities in London did, for the fact that people in their area may want to travel longer distances or go into London.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned schoolchildren. There is support for children in particular circumstances, depending on how far away from school they live and how old they are.