HC Deb 28 November 2001 vol 375 cc1063-84

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]

9.6 pm

Mr. George Osborne (Tatton)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the ongoing hardship and distress that the aftermath of foot and mouth disease continues to cause to so many of the people I represent. I make no apologies for choosing a narrow subject tonight—the impact of the disease in my constituency—although if I had known that I would have an hour and 24 minutes to talk about the impact of FMD, I might have broadened the scope of the debate to allow more of my hon. Friends to join in the debate. However, I would welcome any contributions that they might wish to make.

The issues that I shall raise affect all rural constituencies, both those that were particularly badly hit in Devon and Cumbria and those that never had a case of FMD. Tatton was not the worst affected area, but it did suffer from the effects of FMD. The first outbreak occurred at Little Leigh in the west of the constituency on 25 March. Outbreaks at Over Peover and Sproston followed, and the last outbreak was identified at Crowley on 29 May. During those two months, there were seven confirmed cases in the Tatton constituency, out of a total of 17 cases in Cheshire. I should say that I checked the Department website today and it listed only 16 cases, but I am reliably informed by the county council that the correct figure is 17. My constituency had the largest number of any one of the county's constituencies.

Given that I have a little more time to cover the issues, I shall briefly break—as I willingly concede—the agreement I made with the Minister's private secretary a couple of days ago and touch on some of the issues surrounding the Government's handling of the disease, although I hope to do so in a non-partisan spirit. I certainly do not wish to repeat the extremely heated exchanges that I read about between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in the debate in Westminster Hall some days ago.

The issues that I hope any inquiry—I shall deal later with the question of a public inquiry—will cover include the Government's immediate reaction to the outbreak in the first few days of receiving news of the disease. We need to know how those crucial hours were handled by Government Ministers. We need to know whether those three days in which livestock movements were allowed to continue were crucial to the spread of the disease. I hope that the inquiries will also examine the epidemiological evidence that might show that the outbreak would have been much smaller—as some have suggested—if the Government had imposed movement restrictions immediately, rather than waiting for those crucial three days.

I hope also that the inquiries, when they are conducted, will look at the way in which animals were disposed of. There is great concern in farming communities that the large funeral pyres used at the beginning of the outbreak contributed to the spread of the disease. It was felt that thermal currents from large pyres spread the virus over large areas.

Moreover, there is concern in my constituency, especially in the western part, about the way in which the animals were transported by road through uninfected areas. The first outbreak in my constituency was very close to one of the main A roads used for the transport of a large number of animal carcases to the rendering plants near Runcorn. I hope that the inquiries will also consider that issue.

I hope, too, that the inquiries will consider whether the Government need to adopt the draconian new powers proposed in the Animal Health Bill. There is little understanding in farming circles of why the Government believe that they have to act in that way now, when the great many other matters arising out of the foot and mouth outbreak will not be attended to until lengthy inquiries have been conducted.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which will be rather longer than he expected, in prime time. Was there any evidence in his constituency of the Department's officials breaking their own very strict biosecurity rules and entering clean premises after working at infected ones?

Mr. Osborne

There were no such cases in my constituency. We were lucky, if that is the right word, in that the disease had been raging for several weeks before an outbreak was reported in my area. As a consequence, by the time the disease occurred there, the Army had been involved and the Government had sorted out their methods of culling and disposal. The culling in my constituency was well handled by the Army, but I know that that is a real issue in many other areas. Again, I hope that the inquiries that will be held will look at that matter.

The question of when the Army should be brought in is crucial to future consideration of how such outbreaks should be handled. I believe that the Northumberland report—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)

Order. This is not a general debate on foot and mouth disease. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would confine his remarks to the impact of the disease on his constituency.

Mr. Osborne

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall briefly round off my remarks by saying that none of the matters that I have set out can be dealt with by the various inquiries that the Government have set up. People in my constituency do not understand why a full and independent public inquiry will not be held. Such inquiries have been held to investigate rail disasters and the bovine spongiform encephalopathy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is rather a long rounding off.

Mr. Osborne

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I shall now focus on the present, and on the future. There are four issues that directly affect my constituency, and which cause great distress and hardship for my farmers and rural business.

The first matter is the heavy financial losses suffered by many of my farmers. Although the disease did not break out on their farms, their businesses were all but destroyed by the Government's movement restrictions. I shall give one example out of dozens in my constituency. In June, I went to see Mr. Ken Gee on his farm in Mobberley. Those who know my constituency will know that Mobberley is some distance from the locations where outbreaks of the disease occurred, but Mr. Gee was as badly hit as almost any farmer in the constituency. When I visited his farm, he showed me two prize cows. In early February, he had agreed to sell them for a couple of thousand pounds. However, the Government's movement restrictions came into force a few days before they were due to be sold, and the animals could not be moved anywhere. By the time of my visit, the cows were more than 30 months old, and therefore unsellable under the Government's BSE regulations. They were good only for the over-30-months scheme. They were worth a fraction of what Mr. Gee had budgeted for and, as a result, his farm suffered a financial loss which was, for him, considerable. The reason has nothing to do with the way in which Mr. Gee runs his farm or conducts his biosecurity arrangements. It has everything to do with the combination of two, quite understandable, Government regulations. One prevented cattle movements in the midst of the epidemic and the other, for good human health reasons, prevented the sale for consumption of cattle over 30 months of age

In a written question last week, I asked the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), whether farmers like Ken Gee, who have suffered heavy losses solely because of the Government's regulations, would receive any compensation. I received this answer: The Government have considered very carefully whether it would be appropriate to pay compensation for losses incurred on cattle which went beyond the 30 month age limit because of movement restrictions imposed during the earlier part of the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. We have concluded that it would not … The Government do not compensate farmers, or businesses, for other, indirect losses."—[Official Report, 21 November 2001; Vol. 375. c.315 W.] In other words, the Government have, by deliberate—albeit understandable—action made someone's property all but worthless, and they will not provide compensation. Why not? Why have they reached this conclusion? I should be grateful for the Minister's explanation.

I have used Mr. Gee's two cows as a simple and single example of one of the many thousands of ways in which the Government's foot and mouth regulations have caused huge losses to farmers in my constituency and across the country who are not directly touched by the epidemic. Indeed, it is commonplace in farming circles these days to remark that in many ways it was better to have the disease than not to have it. I heard that myself when I visited the National Farmers Union in Chelford a couple of weeks ago. The farms that were infected went through the trauma and shock, which I do not underestimate, of seeing their livestock destroyed, but at least they received full compensation, their business was kept afloat and cash flow was maintained. Those who did not have the disease on their farm but were next to areas being culled may have suffered almost as much trauma and loss of business but they have received nothing, and many of them in my constituency face ruin.

The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael)

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but he said one thing that could be open to misinterpretation. He is right that farmers whose animals were culled received compensation. He then referred to cash flow. Compensation was not paid for loss of income for farmers, any more than it was for other businesses that were affected. That is a clear dividing line.

Mr. Osborne

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. What I meant by cash flow was that they had money going through their bank account. Many other farmers who did not have the epidemic on their property have had no money flowing through their bank account: on the contrary, money has been flowing out of their bank account.

The first issue relating to the impact of foot and mouth in my constituency is the large indirect loss that so many of my farmers incurred as a result of the Government's emergency regulations. What do the Government propose to do to help them? Without help, some of them will simply go to the wall.

The second issue is support for rural businesses and tourism in my constituency, which continue to suffer great hardship. I am grateful to the English Tourism Council, which sent me a letter when it saw that I had secured this Adjournment debate. It makes it clear that the problems in my constituency are shared by many other constituencies, with a projected overall loss in England of £5.2 billion. However, this is not the place to go into the broader effects of the foot and mouth epidemic on the English tourism industry. I will concentrate instead on Tatton.

I am not sure whether the Minister has ever been to Stockley working farm at Arley in the course of his duties. If he has not, I invite him to do so. This summer, I visited Mark Walton, who runs the working farm with his family. Mark Walton has done everything that every Agriculture Minister for the past decade has been urging farmers to do.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Diversify.

Mr. Osborne

He has diversified, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) says from a sedentary position. This May, after two years of preparing to go organic, he finally did so. He has sought to break down the barriers between town and country and to increase our understanding of agriculture. He has established a thriving tourism business on a working farm. So successful has he been that each year, from Easter onwards, 50,000 visitors come from the towns and the cities to his farm. A visit costs £4 for adults and £3 for children, and I venture to suggest that it is about the best value for money that one can get for a day out in Cheshire. Many of the visitors are in school groups from inner-city Manchester and Liverpool who have never seen a farm before.

The farm has 50,000 visitors a year, but not this year. This year, not a single visitor has come to Stockley working farm and not a single pound of income has been earned by this once thriving rural tourist attraction. It has been closed to the public since February as a result of the foot and mouth restrictions.

I am delighted to say—this may be an opportunity for the Minister to put it in his diary—that Stockley will open its doors for three special weekends in the run-up to Christmas. They will be fantastic days out for children and adults alike, and I hope that many thousands of people will come to enjoy them. None the less, however successful those Christmas specials are, they will not come close to making up for the £200,000 of income lost this year. They will be of little comfort to the 50 or so people who would have worked part time at Stockley this summer, but none of whom the farm has been able to employ this year. Losing 50 jobs in a rural area such as Arley is a huge blow to the local economy. It is a tragedy in human terms to the families who rely on that summer work.

Since foot and mouth hit, Mark Walton has done everything by the book at Stockley. He has applied for special grants from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; he has sought advice from business links; and he has spent hours putting together an application to Cheshire county council's rural recovery taskforce. He has not asked for large sums of money or for massive compensation. All he wants is a little help to enable him to promote the special Christmas weekends at Stockley.

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh)

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is parallel between what happened in his constituency of Tatton and what happened in my constituency of Rayleigh? If I can explain briefly, Marsh Farm country park which was very much orientated towards children—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not dealing with the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Osborne

I am sure that my hon. Friend's point about the many rural tourist attractions and working farms across the country that have been hit would have been a good one. What happened at Stockley working farm has no doubt been repeated all over the country. I would have drawn the terms of the debate a little more widely if I had known that I would have been able to detain the House for so long. However, I did not know that, so I shall proceed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

I must inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my constituency is adjacent to Tatton and it is in the same borough.

My hon. Friend waxes lyrical about a particular farm and its activities. Is he aware that a member of that worthy farming family, which has taken such initiatives, appeared at a seminar that I attended in my hon. Friend's constituency at Quarry Bank mill in Styal. It was promoted by Macclesfield borough council and was about healthy eating and healthy food sourced locally. The farm and farming family to which my hon. Friend referred have done everything possible in their power to help themselves and to serve the public.

Mr. Osborne

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to the House's attention the excellent meeting at Quarry Bank mill about which I have heard good reports. The mill is another excellent tourist attraction and I encourage the Minister to visit it if he is ever in Cheshire.

My hon. Friend's point about the Walton family and Stockley is the one that I made. They have done everything by the book. In a previous incarnation, I was a special adviser at the late lamented Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I remember helping to write speeches for NFU annual conferences.

We advised farmers to diversify and to go organic, but all that happened at Stockley working farm. All it wants is a little bit of money to promote its special Christmas openings, but it is not getting a penny. It is receiving no support from the Government and nothing from the county council's rural recovery taskforce, which is sad because we are friendly with the council. The only help that Stockley working farm received throughout the entire year was some welcome emergency rate relief from Macclesfield borough council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I know so well. The farm also received a £200 cheque front a member of the public who felt more sympathy for its plight than the Government do.

The Government talk of a rural recovery and helping rural communities to help themselves. Ministers from the Prime Minister down talk of encouraging diversification, but for many rural farm businesses in my constituency it has been just that this year—all talk. I want to know when we can expect to see some action and obtain some help for businesses such as Stockley farm.

My third issue relates to the assistance—or, indeed, the lack of assistance—that the Government are providing to Macclesfield borough council. Earlier this summer, under Special Grant Report (No. 86), Ministers decided to help the local authorities that they said had been particularly affected by foot and mouth. As the Minister knows, that help comes in the form of a rebate for emergency rate relief that is provided by local authorities for hard-hit rural businesses, exactly the kind of emergency rate relief that Macclesfield borough council was able to provide to Stockley working farm.

I was fortunate to be on the Standing Committee that considered the special grant in July. Indeed, it was my first Standing Committee. I said that I welcomed the valuable support for local councils that were dealing with the impact of the disease. What I could not understand then, and cannot understand now, is why Macclesfield borough council alone among the six borough councils of Cheshire does not qualify for the support. It is nonsensical. Of the 16 or 17 outbreaks in Cheshire, four occurred within the borough council area and a further five occurred within a mile or two of the administrative boundary. In other words, nine of the 16 cases in Cheshire, which have had a huge impact on the farmers and rural businesses in the Macclesfield borough council area, do not qualify for help because the council does not qualify for help.

By contrast, Chester City council and Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council—neither of which have had to cope with a single outbreak—have been designated as foot and mouth affected areas and receive Government support. The Minister explained in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on 26 July that unlike Ellesmere Port and Chester, Macclesfield borough council did not qualify because it was not rural enough. He said: These arrangements have been designed to target help in those areas where it is most needed. The additional funding is available to the English authorities that are wholly or mainly rural". That has to be one of the most bizarre and illogical decisions ever taken in Whitehall. I implore the Minister to visit Cheshire and see with his own eyes the difference between the miles of farmland in the Macclesfield borough council area and the miles of petrochemical works in the Ellesmere Port area, which is not, by anyone's definition, a rural area.

Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk)

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I am interested in what lie says about Ellesmere Port and its vistas of petrochemical plants. Does he agree that the main criterion for financial assistance should not be the degree of ruralness, if there is such a word, but the degree of the impact of foot and mouth?

Mr. Osborne

My hon. Friend is correct. The Minister's letter also said that 151 English rural borough councils had been provided with financial support, but there is no distinction between those which have been hit by foot and mouth and those which have not, and those parts of the country where there was no outbreak and those were there were heavy outbreaks. That is illogical. If my hon. Friend has not been to Ellesmere Port, I am happy for him to visit my constituency, from where we can get in the car and drive to Ellesmere Port to see that it is not a rural area. It could not possibly be a rural area as there are no green fields. It has a good shopping centre and many petrochemical works.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Will he emphasise to the Minister that his constituency and part of the borough of Macclesfield make up the most heavily livestocked area in Cheshire? It is extraordinary that an area that is overwhelmingly rural and agricultural should not qualify for business assistance under rate relief, whereas, as my hon. Friend said, huge urban areas such as Chester and Ellesmere Port do. That is nonsense, but the Minister was not prepared to do anything about it.

Mr. Osborne

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember that we both sought, but were unable to secure, meetings with the Minister and the chief executive of Macclesfield borough council to put our case. The situation is crazy, and it confirms the worst suspicions of many of those who live in my borough council area that some people in Whitehall have never left the M25 area and know about no other part of the country than that just a few hundred metres from this place.

I commend Macclesfield borough council for the sterling job that it has done in providing emergency rate relief for hard-hit rural businesses out of its own pocket. However, with the proper Government support that it deserves, it could be doing even more, and that is a great tragedy. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to reconsider the council's status under Special Grant Report (No. 86) because it just does not make sense.

The fourth and final issue, and perhaps the most important and pressing, arises from the impact of foot and mouth disease on livestock markets. Again, I shall illustrate my point with an example from Tatton. Chelford, in the south of the constituency, is one of the largest livestock markets in the country. The last sale of real livestock to be held at Chelford took place on 22 February, nine months ago. Since then the auctioneers have lost, at the very least, more than £500,000 in lost commission on sales. Five full-time people have been made redundant, and 19 part-time people, almost all from low-income families, have also lost their jobs. Many other small businesses, which relied on the market trade for their income, have closed, including the country clothing stall, the fencing supplier, the hedging man and the small Land Rover dealer. I am not overstating the case when I say that the closure of the livestock auction at Chelford has torn the heart out of the rural community in that part of Cheshire.

We all understand why markets in England had to be closed immediately the disease was discovered. Indeed, as I have already argued, they should have been closed a couple of days earlier. We understand also why they had to remain closed while the epidemic raged, but no one can understand why English and Welsh livestock markets are still closed today, two months after the last confirmed foot and mouth case in the whole country and long after similar livestock markets in Scotland and Northern Ireland have reopened.

As Mr. Rodney Bacon of the north-west NFU said in a letter to me last week: Cheshire farmers retained their stock and have gone through a lengthy period of restrictions on stock movements … The key must be the re-opening of livestock markets. They are an essential element of the chain, especially for farm to farm movements. Alan Gardiner, the chairman of the Cheshire county NFU, phoned me today because he knew that I was leading this debate and emphasised that the reopening of the livestock markets is now the most important issue facing local farmers.

To an extent, Chelford market has taken matters into its own hands. Last month it began holding digital auctions in which sellers could look at digital photographs of the stock. I am happy to pay tribute to the fact that one of the Government's rural recovery schemes even contributed a couple of hundred pounds to provide the digital camera. I am glad to say that the auctions have been a moderate success, but I have to tell the Minister that they may pose a much greater risk to biosecurity than live auctions.

According to farmers to whom I have spoken in preparation for this debate, buyers do not, of course, rely on the digital photograph but go from farm to farm to check out the stock. That poses enormous risks of cross-farm contamination. If everyone went to Chelford market, they would be registered and disinfected together and be able to be traced if there were ever a problem. None of those measures applies to a digital auction.

Despite the overwhelming case for reopening livestock markets such as Chelford, they are still closed. What is more, they have been given no idea from the Government about when they might open. As Gwyn Williams, partner of Chelford market, said in a letter to me last week: A great many farmers in your constituency will, in normal times, market their livestock through our auction sales at Chelford Agricultural Centre. He then says, as I have pointed out, that the market has not been held since February. He continues: Despite regular meetings being held with DEFRA, we are now no nearer finding out when we will be able to reopen livestock markets nationally, or, indeed, under what conditions we will be expected to operate. All businesses have to plan for the future and we are no different. We need to investigate possible further investment, decide upon employment issues including staff requirements and possibly reorganise the way in which we run some of our non agricultural auction sales … To date, despite a multitude of proposals having been put to DEFRA by our National Livestock Auctioneers' Association and despite several promises having been received from DEFRA, we have received no draft conditions for the reopening of markets post FMD, nor have we received any clear signal as to when, provided there are no further cases, we will be able to reopen. With the indulgence of the House, I should like to read more of the letter. It is extremely well written and makes the points more elegantly than I could. It continues: All this is extremely frustrating. Very few businesses can survive for this period of time when approximately 70 per cent. of their turnover has been removed. As you may be aware, we have made several redundancies and laid off quite a number of full time and part time staff, a situation which is common to most livestock markets throughout the UK. The auctioneering industry is under greater pressure now than ever, not only for economic reasons, but also, it would appear, from several vociferous pressure groups who are against the reopening of livestock auctions. Mr. Williams makes a good point; there is a strong rumour afoot in the farming community that not reopening livestock auctions is part of a secret DEFRA plan to restructure the industry. The Minister might use this opportunity to quash such stories, which I am sure are untrue.

Mr. Williams goes on: I would be grateful if you could take up the cudgels upon our behalf. There appears to be a concerted move within government and DEFRA to pass the blame for the foot and mouth disease epidemic onto the farming and livestock market industry. Every utterance about livestock markets concerns some reference to the part which they played in the spread of the disease. It would be helpful if it could be pointed out quite clearly to all those in authority that neither the farming industry nor the livestock market industry played any part whatsoever in the introduction of foot and mouth disease into the UK. Mr. Williams is of course referring to an entirely separate debate about food import controls. Many people in this country do not understand why the Government do not introduce them.

The letter ends: As you can tell from the tone of this letter, I, along with other livestock auctioneers throughout England and Wales, am becoming increasingly frustrated at what appear to be delaying tactics by DEFRA concerning the reopening of markets, for whatever motives they may have. Markets are already up and running in Scotland and in Northern Ireland and obviously the longer we are shut, the more difficult it will be for us to regain levels of trade previously enjoyed. In the interests of promoting and protecting the whole rural business community, it is essential that livestock auctions are reopened as soon as possible and, through our National Livestock Auctioneers' Association, we are attempting to garner support from all the major farming organisations. I would be grateful if you could do what you can in order to assist in putting pressure upon Ministers and DEFRA to make some positive contribution to promoting the reopening of markets. I read that letter at length because it raises such important points. I should be very grateful if the Minister responded to Mr. Gwyn Williams' points.

Mr. Francois

My hon. Friend has done well to secure this debate on behalf of his constituents. He paints a sombre picture of conditions in his constituency resulting from the outbreak. Will he remind the House how long it has been since an outbreak of foot and mouth has been recorded in his constituency? That would reinforce his message about the time that has elapsed since the last outbreak while Ministers continue to insist that the facilities should not be reopened.

Mr. Osborne

As I said earlier, the last outbreak of foot and mouth in my constituency occurred on 29 May—a full six months ago—yet Chelford market remains closed, as does every other livestock market in England and Wales, even though livestock markets in Scotland and Northern Ireland are open. I recall that Scotland had a large number of cases of foot and mouth. Will the Minister, who has experience of both English and Welsh agriculture, explain why English and Welsh livestock markets are being treated differently from livestock markets in other parts of the United Kingdom? He must end the damaging uncertainty and give a clear signal as to when livestock markets in England and Wales will reopen, because businesses cannot continue in such uncertainty.

Mr. Bacon

In speaking about livestock markets, my hon. Friend paints a picture of administration by DEFRA that inspires confidence in no one. In the light of that, does it surprise him that farmers have little confidence in either DEFRA or the proposals now being introduced, which many regard as draconian, in the Animal Health Bill? If DEFRA had a track record of greater administrative competence, it might have gained more trust than it currently has.

Mr. Osborne

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In my constituency, DEFRA is regarded with great suspicion—although I recall from my time at MAFF that that Department was not highly regarded by the farming community either. There is an extraordinarily high degree of suspicion among farmers in my constituency about what DEFRA is up to.

There is also great frustration because of the delays that many of my local farmers have encountered in their dealings with DEFRA. I have sent several letters to the Department to which no replies have been received, and I believe that I have not received replies to several written questions, but my experience pales into insignificance compared with that of farmers I have met throughout the period. They tell me of hours spent on the phone, hitting the redial button, trying to get through on engaged lines, trying to get livestock movement permits, and so on.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

There is one point that my hon. Friend has not yet raised in his excellent speech on behalf of his constituents: it is the current Government's unfortunate record on payments to farmers. If the payments were made on time, farmers would at least have some cash flow, however limited. Will he urge the Minister to make prompt payments to livestock farmers whose life at the moment is hell?

Mr. Osborne

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I have been told—I do not know whether it is true; perhaps the Minister can clear up the issue—by my local NFU branch that there are now administrative delays in getting payments to farmers because of bureaucratic problems at DEFRA—

Mr. Winterton

Strikes.

Mr. Osborne

Whatever the cause, it is creating further hardship for our farmers, so I urge the Minister to sort out the problems. When farmers are expecting a cheque from the Department, there is nothing more frustrating after all the hardship that they have experienced than the failure of the cheque to arrive, owing to simple administrative reasons or industrial action. It is inexcusable that delays continue.

We had a rather pathetic letter from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who explained that the delays in dealing with correspondence and written questions were due to administrative problems caused by winding up MAFF and creating DEFRA. That begs the question why that was done in the middle of a foot and mouth epidemic. It was a crazy bureaucratic rearrangement. Whatever the arguments are for whether there should be a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it was a crazy thing to do in the middle of a foot and mouth epidemic. Farmers in my constituency are paying a price for those Whitehall shenanigans and rearrangements.

Mr. Bacon

On the question of payments, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the issues that exacerbates the problem is the marked contrast between the slowness of the Ministry in paying and the rapid payments that farmers used to secure at livestock markets?

Mr. Osborne

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.

I am happy to say that farmers receive pretty prompt payments from Macclesfield borough council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and I know so well. Livestock markets provide immediate income. Indeed, they are vital. A market such as Chelford in my constituency is essential to farm-to-farm sales that keep the cash flow of farms going.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister, in the many minutes that are available to him, whether the 21-day restriction that has been imposed on moving animals to markets and then moving them off farms back to markets, and so on, was introduced only for the foot and mouth epidemic. Once the Government finally decide that they can reopen livestock markets, will the 21-day limit go? If it is a more permanent feature, it will remove—I am not sure whether this is the correct agricultural term—liquidity from the market. It will prevent many farmers who move stock to and from livestock markets such as Chelford from carrying on their trade.

Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham)

My hon. Friend mentions livestock markets, and has referred to the lost commissions of the proprietors of the Chelford market, which amount to about £500,000. Has any estimate been made in my hon. Friend's constituency of the loss suffered by farmers in other rural businesses as a result of the foot and mouth epidemic?

Mr. Osborne

I have not seen any figures, but I imagine that they are considerable. The £500,000 that the Chelford market estimates it has lost relates only to lost auction sale commissions. The market proprietors were expecting commissions and sales to be much improved this year, had it been a normal agricultural year. They have also lost money because stallholders are no longer there, and the same applies to other passing trade.

A separate problem has been created because the proprietors have had to open a car boot sale on Sundays, which causes great distress to people who live close to the livestock market. There are many direct and indirect costs.

I shall bring my remarks to an end so that the Minister has plenty of time to respond to them.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

I have not spoken yet.

Mr. Osborne

Indeed. If other Members wish to contribute to the debate, they are more than welcome to do so.

I hope that the Minister will appreciate that I have tried to be as reasonable as possible in putting the case for my constituents. I have not resorted to party political point scoring—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) laughs, but I have not engaged in an attack on Labour's understanding of the countryside. I have not referred to many of the things that I used to write when preparing the Agriculture Minister's party conference speech, as opposed to his NFU annual conference speech.

I have tried to bring home to the House, through a series of specific examples from my constituency, the real hardship that foot and mouth continues to cause in the area which I represent six months over the last outbreak, and two months after the last outbreak in the country generally.

I have not gone on at great length about the recent past—I have not sought to betray entirely the agreement that I made with the Minister's private secretary. Instead, I have spoken of the hardship that farmers who escaped the virus but have not escaped the consequences of it now face. I have talked of the crippling losses to rural businesses, such as Stockley working farm, and made a plea for support for my local council. If any council in Cheshire is rural, it is my borough council. Most important, I have urged the Government to reopen the livestock markets that are vital to the revival of agriculture in Britain. In the remaining 40 minutes, I look forward to hearing about my constituency from my colleagues and to hearing the Minister's response.

9.50 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you represent a rural area. While in the Chair, inevitably you have to be impartial, but I am sure that you will have recognised many of the problems of your own constituency in what my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, even though Cheshire is much more livestock-oriented than the east of the country.

I support entirely the case advanced by my hon. Friend. I must emphasise both to him and the Minister the fact that I have represented an agricultural rural constituency for 30 years in this place. In addition, I come from a family that has been closely associated with fanning for more than 150 years, so I speak with understanding and knowledge of the countryside, rural communities, farming and agriculture. I used to accompany my late father onto farms when I was only three or four years old, so I have a great and close affinity with farmers. What my hon. Friend said about the farmers of Tatton and their present position is accurate to the word, the letter, the crossed t and the dotted i.

From time to time, I fear, the Minister seems to believe that Opposition Members are making up stories about the problems faced by their farmers. As I understand it, he represents a central Cardiff constituency; if there is a farmer in it, I should be surprised. Perhaps he will say that there is but, as far as I know, there is not. I hope, therefore, that he will listen to those of us who speak on behalf of farmers and support the case that my hon. Friend made on behalf of his farmers.

The Macclesfield and district branch of the NFU and all the associated NFU branches in the area support 100 per cent. the views expressed by my hon. Friend. I want to emphasise that because we are not here, as he said, to make party political points. We are lobbying and making representations on behalf of farmers and those who work in the countryside. Perhaps it is only in times of crisis and war that the countryside and those who work in it to maintain it and produce food are properly appreciated. The farmers of Tatton, like those in many other parts of the country, have gone through a war—the foot and mouth epidemic, which hit them horribly.

Like my hon. Friend, I shall refer to Chelford market. I hope that he will not mind me saying that, for 25 years, the market, which he described in detail, along with the valuable role that it fulfils—was part of my constituency. I know Marshall's—Frank R. Marshall as it used to be called—in Chelford market well. Even now, with the permission of my hon. Friend, I frequently visit the market because, of course, it is important not only to the farmers of Tatton, but the farmers of my Macclesfield constituency as well.

On the importance of Chelford market, not only does it pay regularly and promptly the farmers who bring in their stock to sell at the agricultural centre in Chelford, but it gives them a fair and transparent price for their stock. They are not held over a barrel by the large superstores, which have done so much damage to farmers, particularly in recent times to the farmers in Tatton and in Cheshire as a whole.

I hope that the Minister for Rural Affairs, who is to reply to the debate, will respond positively to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton that the Government announce the opening of cattle markets and auctions in the immediate future, if we are to save many of them from liquidation and going out of business.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who is the shadow agriculture spokesman, told me tonight that, regrettably, there is talk that two important cattle auction markets may be closing. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton asks me from a sedentary position not to name them, but they are important auction markets with an excellent reputation, and they may well close. That must not happen to Chelford, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton.

Sadly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said, the Minister for Rural Affairs was not prepared to meet a delegation from Macclesfield about the second matter that I shall discuss—the business rate relief scheme resulting from the foot and mouth epidemic. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will announce promptly that the auction markets, particularly Chelford, will be opened at an early date, to prevent further financial hardship for those who run that excellent auction market, which is so important to Cheshire and a much wider area, and also for the benefit of the livestock farmers of Tatton and the adjoining constituencies.

I am happy to give way if the Minister wishes to intervene. If not, I shall move on to the matter which probably prompted him almost to rise: his reluctance and that of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, myself and the chief executive of the borough council when we requested a meeting to express our concern about Macclesfield borough's ineligibility for assistance under the scheme.

Alun Michael

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is a little repetitious on that topic. Will he acknowledge that it was courteously explained to him on a number of occasions that the topic does not fall within my portfolio of responsibilities, and that he was directed instead to the Minister with that responsibility, who responded to him exhaustively and conclusively on the topic?

Mr. Winterton

I am afraid that the Minister did not reply exhaustively, and certainly not to my satisfaction. The Minister for Rural Affairs is aware that the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), when there was a slightly different departmental structure in Government, had agreed to meet me, even during the general election campaign. Unfortunately, that did not prove convenient for the Minister for the Environment or me. When I sought to follow up the matter immediately after the election, it was initially dealt with by the Minister for Rural Affairs, but perhaps conveniently for him, the responsibility was transferred to the Minister in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I must repeat that I am afraid that, as a senior Member of the House, I would have expected a Minister to meet me at my request—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Mr. Winterton

I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have now regained my breath in my ferocious attack on the Minister. When I rightly had to resume my seat, so that you could carry out the procedures of the House, I was saying that, although the responsibility for meeting me and dealing with the matter was passed to a more junior Minister in another Department, that Minister was not prepared to meet me—a senior Member of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and the chief executive of the borough council. I believe that, if Ministers are seriously requested to meet Members of Parliament who have an important issue to raise on behalf of their constituents, they are beholden to find time to do so. I say to the Minister that even the Prime Minister of our country, speaking today from the Dispatch Box, agreed to meet me on a matter that relates to my constituency. I must say that if the Prime Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, is prepared to meet me, I should have thought that a junior Minister would be prepared to meet any Member of the House.

Alun Michael

I can answer robustly for the reason why I referred the hon. Gentleman to another Department: it was not merely another Department, but the correct one. The Minister whom he says declined to meet him did so on reasonable grounds, but is not present to respond to his remarks. I suggest that he should take up the matter with that colleague rather than in this debate, which is, as I understand it, about the impact of foot and mouth disease in Tatton.

Mr. Winterton

I am afraid that that is the very matter that I am now discussing, as I am dealing with the impact of the foot and mouth epidemic on Macclesfield borough council, whose area includes the constituency of Tatton. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, who has advanced a brilliant case in this debate, myself and the chief executive of the borough council, who could have given an accurate breakdown of the costs in the Macclesfield borough under rate relief, wanted to present the case on behalf of the borough of which Tatton is a part.

Mr. Bacon

I, too, have read on my Order Paper that this debate is about the impact of foot and mouth disease in Tatton. I am wondering, therefore, whether the right Minister is present to respond. Is it correct for the Minister who is present to respond to the debate, or is this another DEFRA cock-up?

Mr. Winterton

It is a governmental cock-up. Unfortunately, responsibilities for dealing with this matter lie—I shall give the Minister credit for this—with two Departments. There is no doubt that the impact of foot and mouth on Tatton relates also to the Government's ability or willingness to assist an area that has been badly hit because of restrictions on movement imposed as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak.

Alun Michael

The hon. Gentleman is paying a lot of attention and giving a lot of time to one specific topic. He referred a moment ago to the wish of the chief executive of the borough council to provide knowledge and expertise to the Minister at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and that that Department was losing out by not taking up his invitation. Can he therefore explain why the borough council did not respond to the request made by the Local Government Association for information on the number and extent of applications for hardship rate relief in relation to foot and mouth disease when those matters were being discussed between the Local Government Association and that Department?

Mr. Winterton

I can explain that very simply. My borough council and its chief executive, Mr. David Parr, were dealing at the time with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and me. The borough council believed—wrongly, it now appears—that we had more direct access to Ministers than local government organisations did. As the information that would have been given to the local authority concerned had been provided to my hon. Friend and me, why would there be any wish to duplicate it? I believe that I have given the right answer.

I still hope to this day that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will be prepared to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, the chief executive of Macclesfield borough council, Mr. David Parr, and me to discuss this matter, even at this late stage. Perhaps, when the Minister replies, he will tell us that he will request the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to arrange a meeting with us.

I hope that the Minister has heard the last part of my speech, and I hope that he will deal with it when he replies. I want to give him sufficient time to reply on this important matter relating to the Tatton constituency and other areas of our countryside, so I shall say only that this is an important issue. Farmers are still suffering, and in Tatton, they still have severe cash flow problems. As my hon. Friend rightly said, those few farmers who had their herds of livestock culled are in a much better position than those who did not, and who have had no cash flow at all because of the restriction on livestock movements. That relates not only to the Tatton constituency but to many others, and particularly to the adjoining constituency of Macclesfield, which I have the honour to represent.

Please will the Minister accept that, although there may not have been an outbreak in this country for some two months, the financial problems and the trauma of what those farmers have experienced still face the farming industry, particularly the livestock sector that dominates the constituencies of Tatton and Macclesfield? At this late stage, will the Minister be understanding of that, and positive in what he is about to say in response to this debate?

10.7 pm

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh)

I shall be brief, to allow the Minister the maximum time to reply to the large number of serious points that have been made. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on his speech. He spoke for more than 45 minutes on the plight of farmers in his constituency, and expressed polite but firm frustration at the situation there. Having heard him, I must say that that situation sounds very difficult, not just for the farmers, but for the other businesses which rely directly or indirectly on the farming community for their livelihood. My hon. Friend performed a good service on behalf of his constituents this evening, and I hope that when the Minister replies, he will do so in a manner that fully and properly acknowledges that.

10.8 pm

The Minister for Rural affairs (Alun Michael)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing this debate, and on the style with which he introduced it and occupied the considerable amount of time that was rather unexpectedly available to him. I shall explain why I disagree with a great deal that he said, but I accept that he made his points reasonably, and I shall respond in a like manner. His approach obviously had a positive effect on the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), which made the debate—so far, at least—pleasurable as well.

The hon. Member for Tatton confessed to association with the farming policies and method of presentation of Ministers in a Conservative Administration, which took the edge off his more general criticisms. I had hoped that his experience would lead to restrained references to the officials who serve the Government and the public. I pay tribute to the enormous commitment and dedication shown by the hard-working staff who not only serve the farming communities in ordinary times, but put in immense extra effort during the foot and mouth period. Indeed, many civil servants from other Departments came, or were seconded, to contribute in the front line.

The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he questions the ethos of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As he served there, he is better placed than I to comment, but I hope that he agrees that that question mark does not hang over the dedication and hard work of individual civil servants or their willingness to serve the public.

Mr. George Osborne

I apologise to Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions officials if I strayed over the line in attacking them. I know from my time at MAFF that they are extremely hard working and that they have dealt with one crisis after another. Indeed, they are badly put upon by politicians and the wider community alike. They do not deserve that.

Alun Michael

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for responding. I had hoped that he would take that view and we have put the point on the record across parties.

Mr. Bacon

This evening, I received an e-mail from a solicitor who dealt with many foot and mouth outbreaks and the battle between the Ministry and farmers that resulted from them. She says that there are indeed some Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials who emerge with great credit, and they had to work hard in trying circumstances. However, she added, "But not many."

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This intervention is widening the issue. I would be grateful if the Minister did not respond in general terms.

Alun Michael

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have made the cross-party point about the dedication of officials. Many are developing their talents within the new ethos of DEFRA, and I hope that that continues to be the case.

The hon. Member for Tatton rightly commented on the fact that foot and mouth disease has devastated rural communities everywhere. There was particular pressure on areas with a large number of cases, such as Cumbria, Devon, North Yorkshire and so on, but the damage to farming communities and the rural economy applies everywhere. The example of Tatton is replicated in many constituencies across the country.

For that reason, there will be a warm welcome in Tatton and elsewhere for the news that the designation of the last remaining foot and mouth infected area in England will be lifted at midnight. That landmark move follows extensive blood testing of sheep and clinical examination of cattle in the Brough and Kirkby Stephen area of Cumbria. It marks the end of a massive blood testing programme in the 3 km protection zones.

The successful completion of serological testing in the remaining 3 km protection zones over the past few weeks led to the release of over 17,000 farms from infected area status. There are still restrictions and care needs to be taken, but that is good news, not just for Cumbria, but right across the country. I take care in making those comments, because we need to be sure that everything is done with care right to the end. We must ensure that foot and mouth disease does not return. In the 1960s outbreak, there were no additional cases for some 25 days, but the disease returned. We need to hesitate to celebrate, but there is good news, which will be welcomed across the House.

The impact of foot and mouth disease has been devastating in the way that I described, but that must be put in context. In October, unemployment in Tatton was 1.5 per cent., which is down 7.9 per cent. since October 2000. In Macclesfield, the figure in October was 1.3 per cent., which is down 12.5 per cent. since October 2000. Unemployment in England generally is more than double those levels.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

The Minister's figures are accurate, and reflect the ebullience of the area that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and I represent. Does the Minister accept, however, that many who work in the countryside are self-employed, and that their problems are therefore unlikely to be reflected in unemployment statistics?

Alun Michael

I certainly would not suggest that unemployment statistics show the whole picture, and I did not do so in this instance. I was trying to put in context the difficulties experienced in the rural economy. I feel that we should take account of the figures, and recognise that unemployment levels are low—which, I think, is testimony not just to the efforts of the constituents of the hon. Member for Tatton, but to the successes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government. Perhaps it was too much to expect the hon. Member for Macclesfield to join me in paying that tribute. We can achieve a certain amount of unity across the Floor of the House, but at some point it becomes unrealistic to hope for consensus.

The hon. Member for Tatton mentioned payment delays. Let me put the record straight. There were delays, particularly in April and May, owing to the sheer number of payments that had to be made. There was an enormous burden of work, but the resulting backlog was eliminated in May. The target for payments is three weeks, and is now mostly being met. All but about £170,000 of the estimated £l2 billion has now been paid. It should also be mentioned that farmers are allowed 14 days in which to decide whether they want to appeal against valuation of slaughtered animals: that in itself affects the time it takes to deal with payments.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the 21-day rule. The rule was introduced to combat foot and mouth disease, and will certainly apply until the disease is eradicated; what will happen after that is still being discussed. It is a powerful disease-control tool in the process of slowing the spread of the disease, but we are happy to examine counter-arguments carefully, especially as we reach a point at which we can progressively lift some of the restrictions.

When considering the way in which rural communities have responded to foot and mouth, we should bear in mind the unity of purpose that has emerged. That often happens during emergencies, or when there is particular pressure. I chaired the rural taskforce that examined the impact of the disease across the community—especially the economic impact and the impact on non-farming business, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I thought that by the time we started to draw up the report, the unity that had been achieved might well be dissipated: individual members might promote, for instance, the case for local government, the case for the National Farmers Union or the case for tourism. It was a genuinely positive experience to observe the unity of purpose and the attempt to secure consensus, and I think that that is reflected in the report that we published on 18 October.

Farmers have acknowledged the importance of tourism to the rural economy. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the impact on tourism in his constituency. I am not sure that, a year ago, we would have heard so much about the interdependence of different elements of the rural economy; certainly I did not hear such comments then, but they should be encouraged. The Department seeks to work with colleagues across Government—I have been working particularly with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in his capacity as tourism Minister—to find ways of helping the recovery of tourism in rural communities.

There is a fine line to be drawn. We want to be confident that the disease has been eradicated and that we can plan for the future, but meanwhile we should send clear messages about the attractions of, for instance, working farms. We want people to feel that they can return to the countryside, and by enjoying themselves there, give financial support to those attractions. I hope that we judge that moment right and that we shall have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in seeking to send that positive message. Both farming and non-farming businesses need recovery and to get back to business as normal more than anything else. I hope that the House can unite on that point.

The hon. Member for Tatton also mentioned the creation of DEFRA. The change has created a strong major Department whose central pillar of responsibility is to promote the interests of rural communities in Tatton and elsewhere. That was not the situation before. The Department also links responsibility for environment and conservation with responsibility for farming and food, which is to the benefit of all rural communities. I also pay tribute, in the case of Tatton, to the North West Regional Development Agency for the way in which it has switched priorities and supported initiatives to help rural communities. I shall return to some of those points in more detail if time allows.

The hon. Gentleman, however, also referred to what he described as draconian new legislative measures. Those measures have recently been debated in this place and I shall not seek to go over old ground. I simply say that the measures are not draconian but practical. If we are so unfortunate as to have a fresh outbreak we need to be able to nip it in the bud. Let us hope that there is not a fresh outbreak. However, if there were one, I am sure that Opposition Members, including those who spoke in this debate, would be the first to castigate a Government who had failed to ensure that the necessary powers are available.

There were culling delays in some places, and the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the need for speed when culling is necessary. However, delays were caused in Brecon and elsewhere when culling was challenged, thereby extending the time in which the outbreak continued to spread. I simply ask Opposition Members to consider the alternative and what they would say if circumstances were to change. Let us hope, however, that they do not.

The hon. Gentleman also pondered whether foot and mouth disease could have been spread by the pyres which, as he said, proved to be such a dramatic symbol of the disease's impact in the early stages of the outbreak. A risk assessment was made of whether foot and mouth disease could be spread by pyres, and veterinary risk assessments of course look very carefully at the veterinary evidence, but that assessment concluded that the risk of transmission by that means was very small indeed. There has been no evidence whatsoever that transmission, or any individual case, was caused by it. I therefore hope that we can put that issue to one side, although I am sure that the inquiries examining the science and the procedures that were followed may well wish to look at the evidence and will reach their own conclusions.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned tourism. He also mentioned a working farm that had diversified and established a thriving tourism business. I have visited many such locations which were, as he said, devastated by foot and mouth disease. Their situation is one of the reasons why, in the business recovery fund, we have provided for help for marketing among the other forms of help available to businesses that have been affected by foot and mouth disease.

We have also taken very seriously the issue of food import controls. However, we need to examine the evidence carefully as there has sometimes been an inclination to generalise on that topic. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only DEFRA but the Government generally are taking a strong interest in ensuring that those controls are as strong as they should be.

The third of the four main points that the hon. Gentleman made—although, as my reply indicates, he managed to touch on an enormous number of other points too—concerned Macclesfield borough council. The hon. Member for Macclesfield also sought to make that point.

It is necessary to point out that rate relief is available to all businesses suffering hardship because of the outbreak of FMD, other than farms that are already fully exempt from rates. That includes rateable businesses in Macclesfield. Central Government funds at least 75 per cent. of the cost in all cases, so it would be wrong to suggest sweepingly that the Government have not done anything to help.

The hon. Gentleman is also aware of the debate that took place on the special grant report. Clearly, authorities that are not predominantly rural will have a wider spread of economic activity and so a lower proportion of businesses would be affected by FMD. The pressure on those authorities would be less, so those authorities should have proportionately fewer cases of hardship relief and should not face the same high costs as other authorities.

We agreed to consider the case for extending the scheme. Much additional information was provided, by the Local Government Association in particular, which went to the trouble of finding out the experiences of the member local authorities to assist with the review. That led to the second special grant report approved on 17 July which extended the scheme to all 151 rural authorities and provided additional help in 37 of those areas worst affected by the disease, based on the number of cases at county level. Both rurality and the specific impact in terms of the number of cases were considered.

The 151 authorities covered were all wholly or mainly rural areas in England, according to the standard definitions used more widely by the Countryside Agency. Of course, definitions can always be argued over, but much help was provided to Macclesfield, as to other authorities, by the Government. I repeat the point that the borough council did not respond to the LGA's request for information on the number and extent of applications for hardship rate relief related to FMD, even though it was made clear that the Government were willing to consider the case on the basis of that information.

Mr. Winterton

I actually provided that information to the Government. Do they want it from dozens of sources? I provided the information provided to me by the chief executive of the borough council.

Alun Michael

It was good of the hon. Gentleman to do that. I am not sure on what date he did that, but I make the point again that the case was considered by the Government in terms of the impact on individual local authorities that faced an especially heavy burden, as well as providing help to all local authorities.

I recognise that Tatton was hard hit by FMD in the context I described earlier.

Mr. George Osborne

I recognise that this has been a very short debate, but I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to the points made about the livestock markets in the last two minutes of the debate. My farmers would certainly appreciate his reply.

Alun Michael

I am happy to respond on that point. I was asked why markets in England and Wales are still closed when Scottish ones have re-opened. The last case in Scotland was on 30 May. The last case in Wales was on 12 August and the last case in England was on 30 September. Veterinary and scientific advice is that markets in England and Wales should not re-open until early next year. The timing and conditions for re-opening markets are under active discussion with the Livestock Auctioneers Association. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the issue seriously.

The association has received draft conditions and has commented on them. The discussion continues with those directly involved. The association is meeting DEFRA officials again tomorrow and stakeholders have been told that market re-opening is under consideration for early in 2002. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no secret plan to do down that or any other part of the rural economy.

There are many issues on which I could wax more eloquently if I had had the time to reply that the hon. Gentleman took in his introduction, but it is only fair to say that the Government have responded positively to the demands and pressures on the rural economy. We recognise that the impact on farmers and on non-farming businesses has been devastating. That is why we have sought to respond and why we have not—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.