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.

26 Mar 1999 : Column 653

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

26 Mar 1999 : Column 654

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.