What representations he has received concerning designated ports status. [39107]

Interested parties have until 15 May to comment on the Government's proposals to establish a system of designated ports for landings of fish made by vessels over 20 m. We shall then consider the representations received before any final decisions are taken.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that in this, as in many other areas of European regulation, it is not so much the Commission's policy as the enforcement of policy by member states that is the real issue at stake? The present Government recognise that distinction. The previous Tory Government's failure to do so left them and the British fishing industry up the creek without a paddle.

My hon. Friend is right to say that, although we are pressing for stronger Europewide enforcement, we have a responsibility in our country to ensure that our fleets abide by the regulations. We have had difficulties on the black fish issue. The proposals on designated ports demonstrate that the Government intend to take the issue seriously.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In Fleetwood in my constituency, the idea of designated ports has been widely welcomed, but there is concern that the restrictions will apply to the British fleet, but not to European vessels fishing in the area. Can the Minister give cause for hope by reassuring me that the scheme may be extended to include foreign vessels?

My hon. Friend makes a very serious point. The creation of a system of designated ports is a national measure, taken by us as an individual member state, to deal with a national issue of enforcement. United Kingdom vessels are free to land abroad, as they always have been. However, we are pressing for increased and more effective Europewide fisheries enforcement, and we know that our proposals for designated ports are attracting the interest of other European member states. That measure may well be taken forward across the Community.

Will the Minister acknowledge the general unease in the fishing industry? Every problem in the fishing industry is answered with increasing bureaucracy, and there is a failure to tackle the industry's fundamental underlying problems, associated with the common fisheries policy and the drive to make British fishing waters part of a common resource, to be shared with all other nations on the basis of equal access.

We have debated common access previously, and the hon. Gentleman knows that, in our view, the principle of relative stability takes precedence over the issue of common access. On bureaucracy, unfortunately, in an industry where regulation is inescapable, and where there have been enforcement problems—problems within our own UK fleet—we must have regulations that are enforced fairly and properly.

Will my hon. Friend accept our assurances that the creation of a system of designated ports is an effective way in which to tackle the pressing problem of black fish? However, will he remember that it would be iniquitous if the hours of landing at those designated ports—of which Grimsby will be, I hope, the foremost and the prestige designated port—were restricted by the hours of work of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials? Fishermen need to be able to land whenever they have to, and if they are buffeted by weather and bound by very difficult conditions, they need the opportunity to land 24 hours a day.

I can confirm that Grimsby is one of the ports that has been designated. The hours of landing are designed to reflect traditional landing patterns in those ports and, I acknowledge, to ensure that sea fish inspectors are available when boats unload. However, consultation is continuing, and my hon. Friend's arguments can certainly be considered.

If he will make a statement on the procedures for the (a) accountability to Parliament of the Food Standards Agency and (b) authorisation of its funding. [39108]

The Food Standards Agency will be accountable to the House through Health Ministers, and will be required to lay its annual report and accounts before Parliament. Its chief executive will be the accounting officer, who may be called before the Public Accounts Committee.

May I preface my question by thanking the Minister for ringing me this morning to apologise for answering one of my written questions about the agency late? Does he agree that the paramount duty of the Food Standards Agency will be to reassure the British public that British food is among the safest in the world, if not the safest in the world? is it not, therefore, important to get the structure right from its inception? As I understand it, the agency's remit will include both enforcement and policy making with respect to the safety of British food. That could become oppressive in the absence of proper democratic accountability.

Will the Minister consider setting up a separate part of the organisation to deal with enforcement, possibly along the lines of an enlarged Meat Hygiene Service? There could then be a separate policy-making section as well. As the agency will primarily be responsible for food safety, does the Minister agree that its funding should come mainly from the public purse?

On the latter point, we said in the White Paper that we would issue a separate consultation document on funding. I intend to issue the consultation paper at about the same time as we publish a draft Bill, which I hope will be well before the summer recess.

The hon. Gentleman's first point was covered in many of the consultation responses—well over 1,100 of them—that we have received. His points are valid; we shall debate them in the House, in the Select Committee and in the Standing Committee. Ultimately, the House must be in control. The legislation, approved by the House, will set out the guiding principles to which the agency will work; it will not be able to create its own agenda.

My hon. Friend has suggested when the draft Bill may be published. Will he assure the House that there will be adequate time for the Select Committee and others fully to discuss the proposals?

As there have been some criticisms in respect of the funding arrangements, can the Minister assure us that there will also be adequate time for people to express their feelings about the part of the Bill dealing with funding?

The answer to both questions is yes. There will be adequate time to debate this important policy initiative. We must get it right from day one. Given the problems that this country has experienced in the past with food safety policy and enforcement, we cannot afford to get it wrong this time: too many people are watching what we are doing.

We welcome the Minister's assurances, but does he recognise that there is a major transitional problem? There is continuing controversy over issues such as antibiotics in food and beef on the bone, and Ministers and their advisers still do not enjoy the public confidence that they should, largely as a result of their predecessors' behaviour. Would it not be possible to set up the agency now on a non-statutory, advisory basis? That might at least give it the credibility of some independence from Ministers.

That is not the right way to go. I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says about a lack of confidence. However, in the past 12 months, we have made decisions and issued announcements to the effect that, from now on, brand names will be used in the results of surveys on pesticides residues and veterinary medicines residues. We are also publishing brand names for the results of the programme of chemical surveillance of food contaminants; and we are publishing every month the hygiene assessment scores of every red and white meat abattoir in the country. In short, we are becoming much more open and transparent about food policy than Governments have ever been. We hope that that will help to restore confidence.

What assessment he has made of the impact on consumers of the current CAP reforms. [39109]

We estimate that the lower support prices proposed by the European Commission would mean that UK consumers would save around £1 billion a year, equivalent to a 2 per cent. reduction in retail food bills.

I thank my right hon. Friend. I also congratulate the Government on their work to reform the CAP. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the net effect of the CAP over many years has been to cut jobs in rural areas, to reduce the diversification of wildlife and to encourage the dangerous intensification of agriculture? Can he assure the House that the Government will continue to press for reforms that adopt an integrated approach to rural areas, stressing rural development, the rural economy and environmental protection? What plans does he have, in particular, to encourage more farmers to switch to organic farming?

On the latter point, I have already announced an interim package of measures to bring more assistance to organic farming, and to fund more research. That has been welcomed by the Soil Association and others. I had the pleasure to be the first Agriculture Minister in this country ever to address the Soil Association's annual conference, which was one of the many omissions of the previous Administration over 18 years.

As for wider reform of the CAP, I agree with my hon. Friend that we must seek to free our farmers from some of the worst restrictions imposed on them by the CAP, to enable them to be more competitive and to take advantage of global markets. We must also transfer resources away from such things as headage payments, and towards environmental support and investment in rural economies.

I congratulate the Minister on 12 years of occupancy—[Laughter.] I mean 12 months. I have obviously been listening too much to the Foreign Secretary. Let me congratulate the Minister on his 12 months in office.

Will the Minister confirm that in those 12 months, the prices of nearly every agricultural product have fallen considerably—beef by 10 per cent., sheep by 34 per cent., milk by about 20 per cent. and wheat by 21 per cent.? Next week's threatened further 2.5 per cent. revaluation of the green pound will cost the industry another £70 million or £80 million. How much of that has been of real benefit to the consumer? Will the Minister admit that his first 12 months of stewardship of agriculture have led to the biggest agricultural crisis for decades?

I am overwhelmed by the hon. Gentleman's prognosis, but underwhelmed by his inaccuracy about what has happened. As the Select Committee on Agriculture has confirmed to the House, the biggest crisis to hit agriculture this century was the BSE crisis bequeathed to the Government and the country by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that consumers will, more than anything, welcome greater localised supply, particularly of organic products? Will he join me in condemning the United States Department of Agriculture's redefinition of organic food? Will he ensure that the European Union, as part of its reforms, sets its own standards in this area?

Yes. We shall certainly safeguard the very high standards required of organic produce in this country. We shall do much more than the previous Administration to promote the growth of organic farming. We inherited from that Administration a contribution of only 0.3 per cent. of organic farming in this country, the worst record of any Government in the European Union. We shall do much better than that.

What measures he is pursuing to promote the sale of British beef. [39110]

The Government have continued to support various initiatives to help restore confidence in beef and, therefore, promote consumption. As a result, the latest figures show that household consumption is back to 85 per cent. of the 1995 level.

May I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that I was asking about British beef, not beef consumption in general? I welcome efforts to promote British beef, but butchers in my constituency are complaining that in order to label beef British, they must pay a fee to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Moreover, and unfairly, a family butcher has to pay the same fee as a supermarket does. When will the Ministry bring fairness and reasonableness to that situation?

If the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the beef labelling scheme, he should stand up and say so. That scheme is a major European initiative, and we want people to be accredited. Some 8,000 retailers have been accredited by 80 separate independent organisations. If the scheme is to work and the consumer is to believe that the information on the label is accurate—it includes the age of the animal, sometimes its tag number, the sex, method of slaughter and where the animal was reared and slaughtered—there must be independent accreditation. That independent accreditation will come not from my Ministry, but from the independent accreditation authorities.

Is the Minister aware that there is one sure way in which to assist British beef producers, and that is by taking advantage of the succulent British beef steak that is being served in our Terrace Cafeteria today? I assure him that it is beautiful. If, however, he wishes to avail himself of some wonderful fresh fish, lightly battered, which was brought in by British trawlers, he should visit the Dining Room tonight where he may also have some golden chips and lovely mushy peas.

Like the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), my hon. Friend refers to a particular aspect of British beef. He understands the position in terms of the Government's promoting a product in line with the guidelines set out by the European Union. We are unique in our publication of the hygiene assessment scores of abattoirs and meat-cutting plants in this country. That does not occur anywhere else in Europe. I encourage retailers and retail butchers to make it clear to customers that they are purchasing beef and other meat that comes only from abattoirs with high hygiene scores. That is how the customer knows that it is British beef.

In view of the fact that the Government fell flat on their face in the Selkirk sheriff court—and it was a very welcome ruling—would it not make sense, politically, commercially and in terms of public health and the consumption of beef generally, to pull the plug on the outstanding legal case that the Government are pursuing south of the border? In so doing, they would enable people to make their own assessment of the billion-to-one risk associated with eating beef on the bone. Every register of public opinion on the matter has revealed that people believe that the Government are wrong and that the courts, increasingly, are correct.

For two days running this week, I have seen letters in the Scottish press supporting the Government's position.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, to date, 24 people have died from new variant CJD? Will he confirm also that we are not yet aware of the incubation period of the disease, and therefore we cannot at present identify how many cases there might be—it could be hundreds, tens of thousands or even more? Therefore, will my hon. Friend assure the House today that the Government have no intention of being deflected from their purpose of maintaining the ban on infectivity in meat by the stupidity of the Opposition or other political parties, or by the mendacity of the press?

I have not forgotten—and I have received letters from the general public that confirm it—that the night we debated the beef on the bone regulations and I read to the House the clinical symptoms of new variant CJD, I was laughed down by the Opposition.

Is the Minister aware that Airtours, one of the leading package holiday firms in this country, has a policy of serving only Argentinian beef for its in-flight meals? Is that not a scandal at a time when the beef industry is under severe pressure? Will the Minister make urgent representations to Airtours to lift its ban on British beef?

Yes, it is a disgrace. There is no justification for that policy and if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me, I shall follow up the matter.

Is it not the case that any course of action other than banning beef on the bone would have meant repeating the same old mistakes that the previous Government made? We have seen what happens when reports from medical officers are swept under the carpet or dismissed. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it were left to the public, various experts would appear on the media, week after week, arguing that beef on the bone was or was not dangerous, and there would be a protracted period in which confidence in beef would dramatically fall? The Government's swift action did not dent confidence in beef, and beef sales did not fall significantly.

I agree with my hon. Friend—any sensible person would. The House should think about what the headlines would have been had we been the first Government knowingly to allow BSE infectivity into the food chain.

Will the Minister and the House share some good news with me, and join me in congratulating a company in my constituency called Pure Organics? The company was almost put out of business by BSE, but has come good. In Brighton recently, it won the organic award at the Brighton natural products show with its magnificent and innovative products—"Meaty Hoolas", "Barmy Bangers" and "Veggie Beanies". It has become a winning company, which illustrates how British food producers can adapt from crisis to success.

I am more than happy to join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating the undoubted success of that company in his constituency. Perhaps an early visit is called for.

What progress he is making on ending the export ban on British beef. [39113]

The European Union Agriculture Council agreed in March to allow exports from Northern Ireland to resume under the export certified herd scheme. The Commission is now preparing a proposal for a date-based export scheme, which would apply across the whole of the United Kingdom and permit the export of beef and beef products from animals born after 1 August 1996.

Although I welcome the approval of the export certified herd scheme for Northern Ireland, has our presidency of the European Union led to any indication of exactly when the total ban on UK exports will be lifted? Once the new cattle traceability scheme has been introduced in September this year, can we expect the ban to be lifted before the end of the year?

I hope that the Commission, which is in charge of the timetable on this matter, will bring a proposal before the Standing Veterinary Committee of the European Commission next month. It will then be for that committee to determine whether the scheme is acceptable. If it decides that it is not, the matter may then come to the Council of Agriculture Ministers for a final decision. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that my ministerial colleagues, officials in the Ministry and I are making every possible effort to expedite those decisions. The cattle traceability scheme will be operational later this year. The important point about the date-based scheme is that it would apply to all animals throughout the United Kingdom born after 1 August 1996. However, existing restrictions, such as the over-30-months scheme and other schemes to safeguard the public, would remain in place, at least for the moment.

The Minister will recall that when we met him a few weeks ago, we pressed for a date-based scheme. To that extent, we welcome the progress that has been made. When the matter is considered in the Standing Veterinary Committee towards the end of May, will he know whether all our partners in Europe agree with that procedure? If that committee gives the go-ahead, will that mean that, by the autumn, the ban could be lifted?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. That is the accepted procedure and there can be no deviation from it. Whether every member state is happy with the proposal remains to be seen. If the scheme is approved, it will be the beginning of the end of the ban on exports of British beef.

At Question Time yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), and at Question Time the previous Wednesday, the Prime Minister struck a note of cautious optimism. He said that there was a reasonable prospect of success at the May standing committee. Will my right hon. Friend throw a little more light on that?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to be cautious, because it is difficult to predict the outcome as we have to convince a qualified majority of the member states of the European Union to support the scheme. We are doing everything we can to maximise that support. Like the Prime Minister, I am cautiously optimistic. In the meantime, we shall do everything possible to persuade our partners to support the scheme.

In the past 12 months, whenever I have raised the issue of extra help for Britain's beef farmers, the Minister has chastised me for making such an overgenerous suggestion. He prays in aid the size of the public spending limits that he inherited. Will the right hon. Gentleman assist me and the House by telling us what the public spending limit was that he inherited, what the outturn was, and what his plans are for the current year?

Notwithstanding what we said when we came into office, we have provided an extra £155 million for the livestock industry.

The Minister does not know what public spending limit he inherited and cannot tell us what the outturn was. Let me help him. He should have spent £139 million more than he has done. His target for next year is an underspend of £46 million compared with the figures that he inherited. Does he agree that farmers will regard that as a rip-off, and will feel that the Ministry has failed in its duty to support fanning at such a difficult time? Will he reconsider spending for the current financial year and ensure that he spends up to the public spending limit that he inherited to make certain that the help we left for farmers reaches them?

That is total and absolute rubbish. The right hon. Gentleman is comparing estimates. From the little that we can glean from his almost incoherent presentation of the facts, he is referring to Intervention Board expenditure, not to MAFF's budget. That is further evidence of his failure to grasp the reality of what is going on.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the co-ordination between his Ministry and other relevant Departments on tree-planting initiatives. [39114]

The Forestry Commission is the department for forestry in Great Britain. I am satisfied that it co-ordinates effectively with other relevant departments on tree-planting initiatives.

Does the Minister agree that a good way in which to celebrate the millennium would be to encourage people, families and organisations to plant trees in co-ordination with local authorities and community forest projects? Does he also agree that now would be an opportune time to start planting? This year marks the 25th anniversary of the "Plant a Tree in '73" campaign, in which some of us played a modest part. Will he give a special message of encouragement to the Tree Council, which was established to maintain the impetus for tree planting given by the 1973 campaign?

I am happy to support the Tree Council. I agree that planting trees would be an appropriate way in which to mark the millennium. In my home village of Winterton, a millennium wood has been planted by the local community. MAFF has asked for an English forestry initiative to expand forestry in England.

Will my hon. Friend encourage more tree planting in derelict mine areas, which contain contaminated land? If those vast areas of dereliction could sustain tree planting, it would do the communities a power of good. They lost so much when the Tory Government devastated the mining industry.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I can give him the assurance that we are having discussions with the Forestry Commission to establish how we can plant on those very areas.

When the Minister is considering co-ordination, will he look at the co-ordination between his Ministry and its regional offices? Farmers wishing to submit applications for aid schemes—including tree planting—sometimes approach a regional office and, if they have made a mistake, are given informal advice. They are sometimes invited to fill in a new form. On occasion, however, when the forms come to the central department and are checked, the advice is repudiated, and the farmer is not given what he was led to believe he could have.

Will the Minister consider issuing a code of guidance for regional offices, so that they react similarly to similar circumstances, and so that farmers know that, if they make an informal approach, what they are told—in good faith and with the best of intentions—will stick? This is a small but persistently irritating point.

I was in the Nottingham regional office yesterday, talking to staff. I am confident that the advice farmers receive—they very much appreciate the devolved system of regional advice centres—is accurate and generally works. If the right hon. Gentleman can give examples of apparent failure, and wishes to write to me, I shall be only too pleased to look into the matter.

What steps he is taking to ensure that CAP reform increases job opportunities in rural areas. [39115]

Increasing job opportunities in all areas, including rural areas, is a key priority for the Government. We will take account of that priority in the negotiations on CAP reform.

Is not the most effective way of creating new jobs in rural areas to ensure that Departments work together? Will that not ensure that planning, training and support for small businesses are used effectively? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the present departmental structures and agencies are not necessarily organised in the best possible way?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's first point. That is why the Government have instituted reviews across Departments, including a review of countryside and rural policy. As for matters involving reorganisation and responsibilities in Whitehall, some of those are under discussion. The Select Committee on Agriculture also had some recommendations to make, but it is too soon for us to announce any conclusions.

Does the Minister agree that, by cutting hill livestock compensatory allowances by £35 million this year, he has damaged job prospects in upland areas? Can he explain why the British presidency has not yet done more to reform the common agricultural policy during the six-month period?

I was delighted to see that even the hon. Lady smiled when asking the second part of her question. She must know that the detailed proposals for reform of the CAP were published only last month, and that I immediately called a special additional Council meeting for Agriculture Ministers to begin discussing those proposals straight away. Moreover, we had already prepared detailed official working parties, so the proposals went straight into detailed consideration by member states. I assure the hon. Lady that there has been no delay on our part.

As for the first part of the hon. Lady's question, she will recall that in December we announced an additional £85 million of support over and above last year's level for farmers, particularly those in less-favoured areas. Since that decision, we have announced that the Government will fund, with an additional £70 million, items including the start-up costs and the first year's running costs of the cattle traceability scheme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the new jobs in rural areas will undoubtedly be in tourism and that tourism, especially in the hill country, will mean that we have to preserve the present balance and not destroy those things that attract people to such areas?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we must look increasingly for additional opportunities to improve farm incomes, which means providing farmers with help and support for a variety of developments, including, where possible and where farmers wish it, involvement in tourism. If, as my hon. Friend says, we as a nation wish to preserve the nature, heritage and environment in our countryside and environmentally sensitive areas, we as a nation must find better ways to pay for that preservation than we have found hitherto.

What assessment he has made of the EU Commission's proposals for national envelopes as part of the reform of the common agricultural policy. [39116]

We welcome the principle that member states should be allowed to target a proportion of agricultural support in accordance with national priorities. We need to ensure that the UK's share of moneys allocated to that exercise is fair and appropriate.

That is a slightly disappointing answer, because the danger of national envelopes is that the European Union will become an even less level playing field. Will the Minister assure us that, if that scheme were to come into existence, national envelopes would not be used as a substitute for existing national programmes of support, which would mean that farmers would not receive any additional support from those national envelopes and would leave British agriculture in an even less competitive position?

Conservative Members face a dichotomy on issues of that sort: on the one hand, they argue for maximum subsidiarity and, on the other, when there is an opportunity for member states to have more flexibility and autonomy in the way in which European funding is spent, that causes them concern. We are aware of the danger of the approach in terms of distortion of competition and we shall take that danger seriously.

Will not national envelopes encourage the farming industry to accept the realities of life which they are so reluctant to accept, which are that the markets for many existing products are diminishing and that farmers must diversify into areas for which there are better markets and which will employ more people? Those areas are organic farming—we currently import most products—flax growing, coppicing and the growing of fuel crops.

My hon. Friend makes the important point that the idea behind national envelopes is to move away from direct production support, which is one of our objectives as a Government, and instead redirect money toward environmental and socio-economic support and support for alternative crops of the sorts which he mentions.

Given that previous CAP reforms have often served to increase both the volume and complexity of the forms that British farmers have to fill in, will the Minister have a word with his officials and tell them that farmers who openly admit errors, honestly committed and arising from simple misunderstanding, should not be penalised when they make representations to Ministers to ask for the facts to be corrected? In that way, farmers will not lose out, as happens time and again when they honestly admit having made a mistake.

The rules on penalties for farmers who make a mistake in filling in forms are European Union rules, so we have limited flexibility in that respect. However, we are giving consideration to the issue.

When he will provide agrimoney compensation for British farmers. [39118]

As already announced, the Government have decided to draw down some £85 million of agrimonetary compensation to the beef and sheep sectors. To date, 95 per cent. of that aid has been paid. This is the first occasion on which a UK Government have paid such aid.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the current strength of the pound is having a disastrous effect on agriculture. What discussions has he had with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the EU Commission to obtain agrimoney compensation, especially as there is to be a revaluation shortly? If he is not prepared to secure that, what will he do to prevent the imminent bankruptcy of many livestock farmers in the west and north of Britain?

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has conceded, we recognise that the strength of sterling is causing problems in the economy. However, having taken the decision, which the Liberal Democrats welcomed, to establish the Monetary Policy Committee, we must await its decisions on such matters.

As for agrimonetary compensation, I shall set out the figures which the hon. Gentleman, with his distinguished record in farm management, probably already knows: we have already used 75 per cent. of the agrimonetary aid we could pay to beef producers this year and 95 per cent. of what we are allowed to pay to sheep farmers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now be honest and admit that more money was available for help in the past year? The Red Book shows, on page 49, that you underspent by £139 million—that is £139 million less than the Conservative Government budgeted for. Will you now be more accurate—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should say, "Will the Minister now be more accurate?"

Will the Minister now be more accurate than he was in answering the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)?

If the hon. Gentleman stayed calmer in posing his question, he would be able to reflect on the inaccuracy of what he says. He refers to Intervention Board figures, not MAFF figures.

How many appeals he made against sentences considered to be too lenient in 1996 and 1997; and if he will make a statement. [39138]

In 1996, the Law Officers referred the sentences imposed on 70 offenders to the Court of Appeal for their sentences to be reviewed under the provisions of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. All those references have been heard, and sentences were increased for 51 offenders. In 1997, the sentences of a further 70 offenders were referred to the Court of Appeal for their sentences to be reviewed. Of those references, sentences have been increased for 43 offenders; six references have yet to be heard.

What procedures are being adopted to take account of the views of the victims of crime? I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that that is an important component in ensuring that justice is seen to be done.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I can refer sentences that appear to me to be unduly lenient, but I take into account the impact on victims—I regard that as important—and the danger to the public. Those features can result in sentences being increased—indeed, very long terms of imprisonment can be imposed under the Act.

Is the Attorney-General aware of the consequences of lenient sentences on the many agencies that are trying to improve estates and make them safe? Lenient sentences can give rise to despair, and even cause more crime, as they lead people to believe that we are not serious about tackling crime. The Government must tackle lenient sentences as a key aspect in creating a safer Britain.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is of the utmost importance to ensure that life is made as safe as possible for all our people and that, in many estates, that poses an even greater problem for a whole host of reasons. He must know, however, that I cannot refer lenient sentences full stop; I can refer only unduly lenient sentences within the parameters laid down by the Court of Appeal in the decisions that it takes from time to time. I personally consider these matters and, if I do not, my noble and learned Friend the Solicitor-General does.

How many people in his office are currently working on matters relating to the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. [39139]

The conduct of the criminal investigation into the Lockerbie tragedy is in the hands of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, as is the conduct of the on-going litigation before the International Court of Justice. However, officials from my office are involved in consideration and discussion of the matter as appropriate.

In the light of yesterday's Adjournment debate, can the third most ancient Member of Parliament in parliamentary terms ask the second most ancient Member of Parliament in parliamentary terms whether, as a distinguished lawyer and Queen's Counsel, he is bothered that the investigation should have gone on for 10 long years? Are not crucial witnesses such as Vincent Cannistraro, Buck Revell and Oliver North naturally getting older and older? Would any trial be meaningful without their presence?

I do not think that I can accept my hon. Friend's comment that he and I are the most ancient Members of the House. I have known my hon. Friend for more years than anyone else in the House. He is the third most senior member and I am the second—perhaps that description would be more appropriate. I am aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in this subject and I have, in all seriousness, read the account of yesterday's debate in the House. However, the concern identified in my hon. Friend's question to me today is not one on which 1 can properly comment. It is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who has conduct of the prosecution and, ultimately, for the court that tries the case.

If he will make a statement on the failed prosecution in Leicester Crown court on 20 January of those charged with assaulting Mr. Alan O'Connor. [39140]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has received a helpful and full explanation from the Director of Public Prosecutions about this case, where the early handling of the investigation presented particular difficulties in relation to the identification evidence. These should have been addressed sooner than they were by the Crown Prosecution Service in this case. More generally, the CPS and Leicestershire police have set up a working party to consider such problems and to produce guidance to assist investigating officers.

I am grateful for that sensible response from the Attorney-General. Does he accept that a case such as this—where two defendants were apprehended at the scene of a serious assault, where 11 witnesses came forward at the time, having seen the defendants assault my constituent, and where the defendants had blood on their shoes from kicking my defendant—undermines public confidence in the whole legal system, not just in the CPS? Will he tell the CPS in Leicestershire to reopen the case, as it was never heard in court?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's great concern. I have read his letters to the DPP and I have also read the replies. I do not wish to become unduly involved in this or any other case, as that would be contrary to the procedure laid down by my predecessor, Lord Havers. These are matters for the DPP.

I can assist the hon. Gentleman by repeating what the DPP has told me, because I asked to be informed following the hon. Gentleman's representations. First, it was a group identification carried out by the security staff and no steps were taken to prevent witnesses from talking among themselves. As I understand it, no identification was made by the victims—they failed to do that. The Court of Appeal has laid down specifically, and warned, that there is a difficulty in relying on this type of group identification. Indeed, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, passed under the previous Administration, codes of practice were laid down and must be adhered to, to ensure that there is fairness.

What went wrong in this case was that the initial identification was carried out wrongly. It was pointed out by the CPS more than once that there could be some sort of failure. Unfortunately, the CPS did not pursue the matter and ensure that the police gave an opportunity to other witnesses to see a proper parade, which would be admissible in the court and which would form part of the evidence. That is a matter of deep regret and the DPP has made her position quite clear and apologised to the hon. Gentleman.

As regards the blood on the shoes, that was not a direct and unassailable piece of evidence. All it showed was that one of the defendants was in a position approximate to where the incident occurred, and no more.

What responsibilities he has to ensure that criminal investigations are not unduly prolonged. [39141]

Neither the Director of Public Prosecutions nor I have any powers or responsibility for the investigation of alleged criminal offences. The conduct of criminal investigations is a matter for the police, who have a general duty to investigate allegations as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the interests of justice.

I thank the Attorney-General for that answer. However, he will know that, in some other common law jurisdictions, police investigations that have dragged on for a very long time are called in, perhaps after 12 months, for review by an independent body, to ascertain the reasons for that delay. Given the Attorney-General's responsibility for the Serious Fraud Office—where investigations can roll on for years and years—and the concerns expressed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others about police corruption, in which investigations may be put on the back burner by serving police officers, would not such an independent review body be a very useful safeguard?

This matter could well be considered. However, my hon. Friend—who I know has looked into the matter—will understand the difference between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The principle underlying establishment of the CPS was to separate the investigative process from prosecution. The situation is not the same in the SFO. Moreover, matters concerning the police are for the Home Secretary. Delay at any stage in investigating alleged criminal offences is a matter that can properly be taken into account by the CPS when considering a decision on whether to prosecute. Furthermore, the courts may take account of delay in all instances in which a case is made of abuse of process.

With regard to the Attorney-General's wider responsibilities for the enforcement of the law, does he agree that, in a civilised society, it is precisely when feelings are running very high that enforcement of the rule of law is at its most important? Although no one in the House would approve of the fact that someone who has committed an appalling crime should seek to profit from it, is it not the case that, when the court has made an order to seek to protect the innocent in those matters, everything should be done to ensure that that order of the court is not set at nought? Will the Attorney-General liaise with the Lord Chancellor and others involved in the matter to ensure that the innocent are protected when the courts intended them to be protected, and that they do not become the victims of either press frenzy or mob rule?

I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. I agree also that the rule of law is of paramount importance specifically when feelings and passions are running as high as they are in that specific instance. The official solicitor is the child's guardian ad litem and is responsible for taking whatever action is necessary in the child's interests. I shall certainly take into account the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments and draw them to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I share concern for the welfare of young people. Whenever anonymity is at stake, one must do what one can to ensure that it is preserved. I am sure that the official solicitor will take into account the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations.

What new proposals he has to increase the proportion of successful prosecutions of cases brought by the CPS; and if he will make a statement. [39142]

In the past six years, approximately 98 per cent. of defendants prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in the magistrates courts were convicted. That figure includes defendants who pleaded guilty. The corresponding figure for Crown court cases is just over 90 per cent. However, such statistics in themselves are not comprehensive indicators of performance. My hon. Friend will be aware that this Administration have established a review of the Crown Prosecution Service under the chairmanship of Sir Iain Glidewell whose terms of reference include scrutiny of these matters.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Will he advise the House what action his Department is taking in respect of co-ordination and co-operation between various prosecuting departments to prevent any errors and confusion that may arise due to the lack of co-ordination with prosecutors? Will he also take action to ensure that we speed up the rate at which outstanding cases are brought to court so that people can have the satisfaction of knowing that justice will be done?

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised this matter, because it is sometimes forgotten that there are a number of different prosecuting agencies. I became aware of and concerned about the issue not long after taking office. In the past, poor co-ordination may have occasionally caused a problem. However, in February, I introduced the prosecutors convention which promotes a closer working relationship between all major Government prosecutors who are signatories to the agreement. It provides a structured approach to co-ordinated decision making and, whenever possible, the timing of any joint public announcement of the final prosecution decisions. I regard that as a major improvement.

Is the Attorney-General concerned about the low rate of successful prosecutions in rape cases? Does he have any plans to work with the Home Secretary to improve the quality of evidence available to the Crown Prosecution Service through the use of specialist facilities for rape victims?

Rape cases have particular difficulties. They are not as easy as many other cases to prosecute so that there is a finding of guilt, particularly when the issue—as it frequently is—is consent. The Crown Prosecution Service is always deeply aware of the need to ensure that the best possible evidence is made available to the court so that the jury can reach a fair and proper verdict, but in my experience there are frequently difficulties in such cases.