HC Deb 26 March 1999 vol 328 cc649-61

11 am

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown)

With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the pet movement scheme. When we came to office, we saw that the quarantine laws were in need of review. Since the quarantine system began nearly 100 years ago, veterinary science has advanced, and travel patterns have changed. To provide a modern response to those challenges, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), set up an expert group, chaired by Professor Ian Kennedy of University college London, to look at whether we should modernise the system.

Professor Kennedy's group reported in September 1998. It recommended radical changes. The Government said that they were sympathetic to change, and sought views from the public.

There has been a big response to the Government's consultation letter. The overwhelming majority of the more than 3,700 replies supported the Kennedy proposals. I am placing a list of the respondents, and a summary of responses, in the Library of the House.

The Government believe that, in the light of the Kennedy group's analysis, it is desirable to move as quickly as possible to a system under which dogs and cats coming from European Union, certain other European countries and rabies-free islands could enter the United Kingdom without quarantine. The system would also cover UK-resident dogs and cats which had been abroad temporarily in those countries. Pets from other countries would continue to be subject to quarantine, although we are looking again at the position for the United States of America and Canada, as recommended by Professor Kennedy. The responses to our consultation have shown that most people would support change on those lines.

Our objective is to bring new arrangements into operation throughout the United Kingdom by April 2001. That respects the Kennedy group recommendation that there should be a sufficient lead-in time to allow a smooth and orderly transition to new arrangements. We also plan to launch a pilot scheme—or schemes—within the next 12 months. I remain determined that the UK should be properly protected against rabies. The new arrangements are being designed with that in the forefront of our minds.

We are pushing ahead with the technical work necessary to put in place an alterative to quarantine. We have approached other countries about providing the necessary health certificates for dogs and cats, and about which islands outside Europe we could safely regard as rabies free. We are pressing for international standardisation of rabies blood tests and have invited laboratories in Europe to participate in a testing scheme.

Essentially, the plan is as recommended by Kennedy. Animals resident in a qualifying country and whose owners want them to travel, will need to have been microchipped with an electronic chip, vaccinated against rabies using an inactivated vaccine, blood-tested at an approved laboratory and issued with an official health certificate recording details of the animal, its chip, its vaccination and its blood test. Animals will also need to have been treated against exotic infections not present in the UK.

Transport operators are being asked to carry out pre-entry checks on pets to ensure that they meet those conditions. There will also be random spot checks on animals after they arrive in the UK.

We are looking at the practicalities of identifying pets by means of electronic microchipping. Department of Health experts are considering what measures need to be taken against certain dog and cat parasites exotic to the UK, which can infect humans or transmit infections to humans.

The new arrangements for checking dogs and cats whose owners wish to bring them into the UK from abroad will have a cost. The Government believe that, in principle, the cost should be met by pet owners, as the cost of quarantine is now.

We believe that the way forward is for ferry companies, train operators and airlines to carry out pre-entry checks on pets. The Government would approve companies transporting pets and would audit and inspect their operations to ensure that the pre-entry checks continued to be carried out properly and with 100 per cent. coverage. The arrangements could in principle be put into effect by means of a statutory instrument.

There will be no compulsion on transport operators to carry pets under the new arrangements. We believe that many will want to take up the opportunity to provide a new service to their customers. We have begun discussions with the companies and trade associations concerned. We shall, in addition, make a thorough assessment of the legal and practical aspects and the impact on business. The new schemes will be required to provide a level of protection against rabies that matches that of the current quarantine system.

There is still work to be done to make sure that the new system operates smoothly. We are now set on a course to implement Kennedy-style arrangements, and hope to have pilot schemes in place within 12 months. As soon as the specific arrangements for the schemes have been established, I will report again to the House, because I know there is a high level of interest in the subject.

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Minister for his statement, for his courtesy of letting me have foresight of it and for the way in which he delivered it. May I also express the Opposition's concern, however, that time is being taken out of private Members' legislation for a Government statement? There was no need for the statement today; it could easily have been made on another day, especially as the leaks syndrome has now infected the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The article in The Times on Monday seems to have been entirely accurate and this morning on the "Today" programme we heard a clear explanation of what was to be announced. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Speaker's will has been thwarted yet again.

The Opposition support the thrust of the Kennedy report. As we said during the debate at the time of its publication, it is time to move forward. There appears to be evidence from elsewhere, including New Zealand, that vaccination can be as effective as quarantine. Any regular cross-channel traveller will be well aware of how easy it is to evade the current restrictions. We know that people have great emotional attachments to their pets which can lead them to overreact to constraints. A simpler, cheaper system, which would remove the problems of separation, is more likely to be heeded. However, we have a number of questions for the Minister because not all our previous concerns have yet been addressed.

I welcome the idea of pilot schemes, and the fact that the Minister anticipates that the scheme could be up and running by 2001. Does he expect animal entry eventually to be allowed at every air, sea and rail port or only at selected ports? I accept that carriers will have to make decisions about that, but how widespread does he expect the facility will be? Will there be a national database at least of United Kingdom animals that have been through the required processes that he described?

Professor Kennedy said that animals should have been in a qualifying country for some six months. How will that be verified? How is it possible to ascertain how long an animal that has been out of this country has been in a qualifying country rather than somewhere else?

If the Minister is expecting pilot schemes to be established within 12 months, why do we not yet know which countries are on the list other than EU countries? Which are the rabies-free islands? What about EU enlargement—will the candidate countries, some of which we know have endemic rabies, be excluded for ever and a day until that changes, or will they have second-tier status in their relationship with the EU?

Will the present requirement for a veterinary certificate—which is currently required before moving a dog out of the United Kingdom—be abolished? If the Minister is happy about veterinary standards across the qualifying countries—not just within the EU—why was the Bendixon-Dexter report, on precisely that issue, never published?

The statement makes no reference to Northern Ireland, which is our only land boundary. What discussions has the Minister had with the Irish Government, or will Northern Ireland have to be excluded from the changes?

What does the Minister anticipate that the cost will be? We welcome the fact that it will be borne by the pet owner, not by other pet owners or even the taxpayer. Does he agree with the British Veterinary Association's estimate of £150?

Finally, I should like to ask about the impact on the owners of quarantine kennels. The Minister did not refer to them in his statement, but he knows that they have expressed concerns because they saw him about the issue last week. The impact on them will start now because, as a result of the statement, pet owners will delay travel, if possible, to avoid quarantine. The kennel owners anticipate that 50 per cent. of their business will be lost when the new scheme is fully operational. The only alternative is to operate as boarding kennels, but many quarantine kennels are near ports, whereas pet owners want boarding kennels to be near their home. In any case, the demand for boarding kennels will almost certainly reduce as more people are able to take their pets on holiday. What is the right hon. Gentleman's response to the kennel owners' request for recompense—I believe that they are using the word decommissioning—particularly bearing in mind his decision on fur farming?

We are pleased that the Government have moved forward on the issue and welcome the timetable that the right hon. Gentleman has announced, but there are still questions. I hope that he can answer them.

Mr. Brown

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his charitable welcome, although his introduction was slightly grudging. He protested that I am making the statement on a Friday and felt that it was somehow a discourtesy to the Speaker. Of course I intend no discourtesy. He will be aware that my opening words were "With permission", because the Speaker consents to me making the statement. I did not notice the new-found concern for the time of private Members pervading the Conservative party in the previous Parliament.

This is a situation in which Ministers are damned if they do and damned if they do not. I was denounced on "Breakfast with Frost" on the Sunday after the Agriculture Council by no less a personage than the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), for not making a statement to the House, when I had done so—again on a Friday. The Conservatives protest when statements are made and the former Prime Minister protests that one was not made, even when it was. It is difficult to get it right.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred to an article in The Times. It was wrong. We are not insisting on a charge of £150. I was careful to concentrate my remarks on the "Today" programme on the Kennedy recommendations and the Government's response to them—information that was already in the public domain—and not to pre-empt my statement. Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that the House of Commons should be told first.

Anyway, the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the scheme. He asked whether the eventual scheme would cover every point of entry. Of course, the pilot project will not and it may be that, under the eventual scheme, people will not be able to bring pets in at every point of entry. Schemes will be approved on a case-by-case basis and may operate slightly differently for air travel, rail travel and seaborne points of entry. We are discussing the details. The Government are concerned that each scheme must be 100 per cent. effective and must provide the safeguards set out in the Kennedy report. There must be no weakening of this country's protection against rabies.

A national database is not necessary. We need a foolproof way of checking that the veterinary certificate—which is what people mean by a pet passport—matches the animal travelling with it. Our method is to microchip the animal. There will scanners to read the microchip. The information on the microchip must also be on the veterinary certificate.

The hon. Gentleman asked about qualifying countries and islands. The islands that are being considered—the decision depends on their rabies-free status; there is no right—include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, the Seychelles and Singapore. There is a longer list which I could read—I am happy to put it in the public domain if that would help.

The scheme is for the current member states of the EU. Other countries currently excluded by the scheme will not gain an automatic right with EU enlargement. They will be treated on a case-by-case basis.

I am afraid that I do not know why the veterinary standards report has not been published. I promise to look into that and write to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our common land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish republic. That is an important matter. Ireland has similar quarantine arrangements to ours and they are under examination just as ours are. There is close co-operation between my Ministry and Joe Walsh's Department of Agriculture and Food in Ireland. We are trying to move at the same pace and co-ordinate our activities. In any case, there is no question of Northern Ireland being excluded from the scheme.

The costs should be met through travel arrangements and should form part of the charging. That is a commercial matter for operators on which the Government have no view, but we shall not provide a public subsidy and we shall set parameters for the operators. There must be 100 per cent. foolproof checks. We shall inspect the checks from time to time to ensure that the system is working properly.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about kennel owners. I met representatives from their trade organisations recently and I shall be meeting them again this afternoon. Today's announcement will have a significant impact on their business. It is not possible to diversify from quarantine work to boarding kennel work because they are different operations. The owners will clearly want to make representations to me about their loss of business. The hon. Gentleman is right to observe that they are seeking compensation. I have absolutely no money in the Ministry's budget to pay compensation, but I accept that it is not unreasonable for them to ask me for it. I have not closed the door, but I cannot promise anything.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

My right hon. Friend has referred to the imposition of blood tests. Can he assure the House that vaccination is 100 per cent. effective in all cases? If it is not, the change will be the thin end of the wedge for the entry of rabies to this country, which has been mercifully free from that baneful, unspeakably painful and invariably fatal disease. Does he agree that, if the disease came here, with the spread of feral foxes it would be very difficult to contain and almost impossible to stop? Will he assure the House that the scheme will not allow rabies to be introduced to this country?

Mr. Brown

I am determined that the new way of operating will not undermine our current protection against rabies. I believe that, if the new scheme is properly operated—I am determined that it will be—it will provide extra protection for two reasons. First, it will enable us to treat animals against other parasites as well before they come in. Secondly, it will provide a disincentive to smuggling that we do not have. We suspect—it is difficult to tell—that people drug their animals and bring them in in the boot of a car, avoiding the quarantine arrangements of six months' separation from their pet and the possible bill of £1,600 to £2,000. That is a criminal activity, but people do it. By providing a reasonable alternative, we believe that we shall have a higher level of public protection than is currently afforded.

Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Liberal Democrats support the Kennedy recommendations and passports for pets. My support is based on personal experience. We moved to France when I was eight and left the family dog at home. When we decided that we wanted to bring the dog over to France, the family looking after her decided that they wanted to keep her, so we lost our family dog because of the move. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] And I have not forgotten 27 years on.

The statement leaves a few questions unanswered. When does the Minister expect to make a decision on whether the United States or Canada will be part of the scheme? Does he have plans for a fast track for the visually impaired, who depend on their guide dogs? Finally, does the Minister estimate that cost to each family for the vaccinations and the other things that will be required will be about £60?

Mr. Brown

I am not making a final estimate of the cost, although the figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred for the vaccine is about right. Other costs will be subsumed into the ticket price; effectively, that will cover the cost of the employee who must check that the veterinary certificate matches the animal. That is a necessary safeguard for the scheme on which the Government have insisted. How the individual operators absorb that cost, and what premium they charge, will depend on commercial considerations, which are for them to decide and not for me.

I cannot set a timetable for the announcement of the United States-Canada scheme, although we are looking hard at that. The way in which the scheme works will be informed by the pilot schemes for the EU and the island countries that are rabies free. Briefly, the problem is that, although veterinary standards are high in the United States and Canada, rabies is endemic in the wildlife, so there is a risk to the UK.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for the proposals, and I will keep the House informed of details of the schemes.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement, but I wish to ask about the technology. How far has it advanced, and on what basis is it being produced? If we are not to have a set database, who will do the work and on what basis will the Government say whether the work is acceptable?

Mr. Brown

That is a good question, because more than one brand of microchip is available in the UK, and they all require separate checkers. Different countries have their own microprocessors, and those will be used by people wishing to bring their pets to the UK. We are trying to get agreement on international standards. Before the individual schemes are put in place, we will state clearly which microchips will be workable under the scheme. However, it is probably not possible to provide for every item of technology that is available.

It is not necessary for the scheme to have a central database of all animals, but it is necessary to be able to check that the veterinary certificate pertains to the individual animal. If it does not, or if that cannot be checked, the scope for fraud is considerable. That would not be tolerable to the Government.

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

The Minister will be aware that most of the veterinary profession believes that the science and technology is achievable and will be effective. However, there will be deep concern about the enforcement regime proposed by the Minister. If I heard him correctly, there is a glaring loophole. It seems that the obligation for checking and for making the scheme 100 per cent. effective, as he said, will lie with the private operators, the ferry companies and others, and that MAFF, or the Government, will do an audit or check only "from time to time". That is not good enough. If the full might of Her Majesty's immigration service cannot prevent massive numbers of illegal immigrants from coming into this country—the subject of another Bill—how does the Minister think that, by his Department, or the Government, opting out of the responsibility for checking all animals, the scheme can be enforced properly in future?

Mr. Brown

The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, although I understand his concern. He is right to be concerned that the public protection measures work; I am not quarrelling with him on that. However, it is not necessary to employ directly a person to check that the certificate pertains to the animal. As long as the person who is trained to do that knows what he is looking for, it is perfectly possible for that to be done with integrity by the private sector, as much as by the public sector. However, that procedure is only one part of the safeguard.

The essential part of the safeguard is that a professionally qualified, authorised person—in short, a vet—has checked the animal for its vaccine, and has made sure that the vaccine has been followed up by a blood test confirming that the vaccine has taken. If it has not taken, the vaccine will have to be given again. That information is recorded on the certificate, and we will then rely on the professional standards of the vet to make sure that that is recorded correctly. We do not require another professional to check; we require someone to check that the document pertains to the animal.

Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire)

I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, the terms of which are almost exactly the same as the recommendations made five years ago by the Select Committee on Agriculture. I recall that the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for South—West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), told us that we had no chance of ever implementing them. In the intervening years, a lot of work has been done on the necessary technology and a lot of experience has been gained from other countries which employ parts of that technology. Is it not a long time until April 2001 for the full implementation? Is there any chance of that long wait being shortened, as people have waited a long time for the scheme?

Mr. Brown

The Select Committee report was valuable. It informed our decision making in opposition and in government and was one of the reasons why we commissioned the original Kennedy report. On the time scale, I am not setting time limits; I am saying that we will get on with it. I want to get the pilot schemes up and running as soon as I can, but there are technical matters to be addressed, such as whether we have pre-entry checks or point-of-entry checks. The answers to such questions may be different for different transport sectors—the answer for air travel may be different from that for the channel tunnel or for ferry operators. Once those matters are sorted out, I will put the terms of the scheme into the public domain so that people will know with what they have to comply.

Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea)

There will be broad support for what the Minister has said, and appreciation of the patience and lack of prejudice that he has exercised since taking office—against, I suspect, some of the recommendations of senior officials within the Department.

The question of delay continues to arouse anxiety in some. In particular, will the pilot schemes be comprehensive, and will he accelerate them? Regarding his second meeting this afternoon with the kennel owners, I do not take the charitable view that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) articulated about that bunch of people. The Minister should bear in mind that, once their days are numbered, the already horrendous conditions that prevail in most of their establishments will continue as they are run down. He has a statutory responsibility to inspect those establishments, and that is not rigorously applied in many cases. Will he tell the kennel owners that there will be no fall in the frequency and intensity of the inspections during that running-down period, and that everyone expects them to live up to the obligations inherent in that responsibility?

Mr. Brown

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I plan no change in the inspection regimes, which will continue as now. It is to the credit of the kennel owners' trade associations that they made the same point to me as he has made; although not in the same terms. They said that, if trade became more competitive, they would not want the standards in the sector to be driven down so that those with lower standards gained a competitive advantage.

There is no compulsion for different operators to take part in the pilot schemes—if those in one sector do not want to, that is a matter for them—but, at the meeting that I had with carriers yesterday, there was a great deal of interest in what the Government intended, and people asked questions, some of which were searching, but all along the lines of how they could participate. Officials are holding discussions with each sector, and we intend to proceed. I am more than happy to have pilot schemes for each sector, to avoid any competitive advantage. If they want it, there will be schemes for the rail operators, the port operators and the airlines.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the broad welcome for his statement? One of the exotic infections that worries the country is the rabid anti-Europeanism that infects the Conservative party. Does he agree that children, in particular, will welcome the announcement, because 14 million British people travel to the continent for holidays each year, and many families have to leave their pets behind? As we have seen, people who are separated from their pets could well grow up to be Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, and we certainly do not want that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme is very good news for the British tourist industry? In the rest of the continent, people can travel with pets, with proper vaccination, but they are discouraged from coming here. I expect that we will have many more visitors from the continent to our wonderful tourist areas, including Rotherham in South Yorkshire, when they can bring their pets with them.

Mr. Brown

I am pleased that the delights of Rotherham will be open to even more people than at present. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are a number of horrors to be avoided, and I will not list them all. He is also right to say that the pattern of family holiday taking on the continent includes the family pet, and I think that that will develop in this country as our citizens go abroad and as people come to visit us with their pets. If that can give a boost to the tourist industry, I welcome it.

Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet)

The Minister will be aware that the all-party animal welfare group has long pressed for the implementation of the Agriculture Committee's original recommendations. In that, we have been given tremendous support by Passports for Pets and various animal welfare organisations. I broadly welcome all that the right hon. Gentleman has said. Clearly, there are details that have yet to be tied up. We want the scheme to be implemented as soon as possible, but we accept that the welfare of the animals concerned, and broader animal welfare issues, are paramount.

I have just returned, within the past hour, from other parliamentary business in Canada, where considerable interest was expressed in the scheme that the Minister was obviously about to announce. The Canadians want to be included as swiftly as possible.

Will the Minister consider the very special circumstances of British diplomats serving abroad, and try to find a way of incorporating them in the scheme, wherever they are? Will he also consider special provision for hearing dogs for the deaf and guide dogs for the blind?

Mr. Brown

Of course a special case can be made out for those dogs—that is at the forefront of my mind—but it may well be that we have the schemes up and running so quickly that there is no need to limit the pilots by category of dog owner. The needs of the blind or people with hearing dogs will be at the forefront of our consideration should there be any need to limit the schemes.

If we can get a workable scheme that meets the Kennedy tests and ensures that we do not increase the risk of bringing in rabies, of course I would want to include Canada. We are working on that already, and I expect that the arrangements will be informed by the trial scheme in the EU. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome. He is absolutely right to encourage us to keep animal welfare considerations at the forefront of our mind.

Jane Griffiths (Reading, East)

I welcome the statement. Will any pilot scheme or future arrangement apply to animals other than dogs and cats? The Kennedy report makes only passing reference to other animals, which are usually smaller and easier to smuggle. I declare an interest as a keeper and sometime breeder of fancy rats, which are delightful, friendly and intelligent animals. I recommend them to any Member of Parliament who wants an animal companion.

Mr. Brown

The scheme would cover other animals that are susceptible to rabies, but clearly we expect the majority to be dogs and cats.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister must be aware that there will be widespread unease at what he has announced. Many people have come to rely on, and feel confident in, the present arrangements, which have served us so well, and will be nervous about the introduction of something new.

Will the Minister keep an open mind on the pilot schemes? If they prove that the proposed system is bureaucratic, unreliable and full of loopholes, will he be prepared to reconsider the whole approach and examine how workable and reliable is the element of the Kennedy proposals concerning what happens overseas, and in particular the practicality of asking people to seek out an approved laboratory to complete that part of the procedure before they re-enter the country with their animals? I have grave suspicions that that simply will not work.

I hope that the Minister will use the pilot schemes to demonstrate to his absolute satisfaction that the proposed scheme will be as reliable as the existing, well-proven system, if not more so.

Mr. Brown

The right hon. Gentleman is right about one thing: if people seek out a laboratory or practitioner not approved for the scheme, the animal will not get in. People either operate within the terms of the scheme or they are excluded from it. If people turn up in this country with an animal that does not pass the tests, it will go into quarantine. No hard-luck stories will get round that. People cannot go and purchase their own approval; they must get the approval authorised by the Ministry.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the scheme is bureaucratic and may be unworkable, but it seems pretty straightforward and clear-cut to me. In any event, the purpose of the pilots is to test it. I give him this assurance: we are conducting a test, we will watch closely how it works, and if it is not able to provide the same safeguard as quarantine, either we will reshape it so that it does, or we will have to discontinue it. That is the bottom line. I will not have our current protections undermined, but I do not believe that the new scheme will do that.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he is nervous about change. Some people are nervous about any change in anything, but the truth is that there have been major advances both in the technology and in veterinary medicine. This seems to me to be a workable way forward, and it seems so to most members of the public who have commented on the Kennedy report: 96 per cent. of those who responded welcomed the report as the right way forward.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover)

I, too, welcome the statement as promoting animal welfare and indeed the welfare of pet owners. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important and effective role played by the vast majority of kennel owners in past years, in contradiction to some assertions that we have heard today? They have fulfilled an important regulatory function. I thank him for his sympathy with their plight, at a time when 46 per cent. of the market might be lost and 60 small businesses, many of them in Dover, could be threatened. When he rubs shoulders with Ministers who have a budget, will he encourage them, too, to meet the kennel owners?

When considering the pre-entry checks, will my right hon. Friend take careful account of the representations from busy ports such as Dover, which will have to make special arrangements to make the regulations work effectively?

Mr. Brown

Yes. Discussions with the big port operators are under way. We must ensure that the arrangements that we have in place are workable in all circumstances, including the difficult circumstances surrounding the arrival in this country of an animal that does not meet the new test and that must therefore be quarantined under the old rules. That will happen. We will still need kennels because the quarantine rules will still be in place for countries not covered by the scheme. I accept that the scheme will be a preferred route for those bringing animals into the country, because it is obviously preferable to quarantine, partly because it will not mean separation from the animal for six months and partly because the costs will be lower. That is bound to have an unwelcome impact on kennel owners' business and I understand that. Their trade associations and representatives have responded to the scheme in a mature way and put certain points to me, which I am considering.

Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden)

Most people will welcome the aim of the Minister's statement and wish him well with it. One of the major concerns must be that Poland and some of the other early-entry countries in the EU enlargement process have a high incidence of rabies. If I understand the Minister correctly, he proposes that the post-enlargement arrangements will involve an internal border within the EU for the transfer of animals. Why is he confident that such an internal border will be practical, immune from corruption and legal under European law?

Mr. Brown

I understand the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I do not think that our ambitions for European enlargement should be an insuperable obstacle to conducting a trial of a scheme that is likely to provide workable arrangements. I give no commitment today automatically to guarantee to candidate countries the same arrangements that will be put in place for EU countries and others, for example, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Andorra. The issues will have to be addressed further downstream and I or my successor will do that. Indeed, it would have been difficult to put those arrangements in place when rabies was still endemic in the wildlife of some EU countries, but that is not the case now. The Government's priority now and, I suspect, in the future is to ensure that our arrangements exclude rabies from this country. That is my priority and it will the priority of the next—

Mr. Davis

Tory Minister.

Mr. Brown

I do not think that it will be as far away as that. It will be the priority of the next Minister when he considers the case-by-case position of candidate countries.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

I welcome this sensible approach, but does the list of islands include Cyprus? On the assumption that it does, I pass on the thanks of hundreds of my constituents and thousands of British service families around the world, who will be much heartened by this news. I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the diplomatic service, which the Minister inadvertently failed to address in his reply to my hon. Friend. Will the Minister confirm that it will be included in the scheme?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the important question of decommissioning grants for quarantine kennels? It is unfair to tar them all with the same brush, and there is no excuse for bad kennels. If the state has established a regime that must be followed by the operators and then removes that regime, it has a responsibility. The Minister may not have any money in his budget now, but I hope that he will plan for such grants in a few years' time. Finally, I wish to pass on the thanks of my springer spaniel, Tigger, who, with a fair wind, will get a thousand new scents in France before she turns up her paws.

Mr. Brown

Please pass on my best wishes to Tigger. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any good news today on the subject of decommissioning grants because I do not have the money in the departmental budget and I have received legal advice on whether it would be appropriate to set a precedent. When other changes in the pattern of regulation of public service are made, we do not necessarily compensate operators for every adjustment.

I have a list of the islands that are under consideration, but unfortunately it does not include Cyprus because of the divide between Turkish Cyprus and the Greek part. Rabies is endemic in the Turkish part.

Mr. Maclean

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you consult with Madam Speaker on what protection can be given to private Members on Fridays? By my calculations, we have had a Government statement or private notice question on every private Members' Friday, bar one. That is unique in parliamentary Sessions of the past few years. We have never had so many statements before and the net result is, as we saw last week, that Bills that are listed second, third or fourth on the Order Paper are not reached. I would like to make a few comments today on the Hedges (Control) Bill and on the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill, but I suspect that those measures will not be reached because 45 minutes has been taken out of the time for private Members' Bills. The statement was interesting, but it was not urgent and there was no vital necessity for it to be delivered on a Friday morning. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to raise the issue with Madam Speaker and through the usual channels to ensure that private Members' Fridays are protected from unnecessary Government statements.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

The House will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's comments. Madam Speaker has discretion over private notice questions, but she does not have discretion over Government statements. The customary times for Government statements are 3.30 pm, 12.30 pm on Thursdays and 11 am on Fridays. It is entirely a matter for the Government whether they believe that they have business that must be brought before the House. We will now resume the debate on the Right to Roam Bill.