What money is being made available to improve flood defences. [80342]

Following the comprehensive spending review, the Ministry is making £230 million of funding available over the next three years for flood defence and coast protection capital works. This represents an increase of £23 million over previous plans.

I welcome the Government's initiative in providing increased funding in this important area. Perhaps the Minister recalls his visit to my constituency and to Scratby and the California Cliffs area, where he witnessed the benefits provided by the extra money spent on coastal defence in that region. We will endeavour to extend that work further south this summer to Caister-on-Sea. Will the Minister outline the progress that is being made with the Bye report, which was commissioned after the Northampton floods last year?

I enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. It was useful to see the coastal problems at first hand and to consider how the Ministry can work with local authorities to address them. I am pleased to report to the House that substantial progress has been made with the Bye report. We are on target in terms of the objectives agreed with the Environment Agency in relation to reviewing flood warning dissemination and flood risk planning.

Yesterday I had a constructive meeting with the Local Government Association, the Association of Drainage Authorities and the Environment Agency to agree high-level targets for achieving progress in reviewing flood defence procedures. Those targets were agreed, and we are on course to review flood defence and coastal protection provisions in this country.

I thank the Minister for the interest that he has shown in the recent flooding in the Derwent valley, particularly in Malton and Norton in my constituency. I thank the Minister for his visit to my area, which was much appreciated. He may be surprised to learn that another flood warning was issued last night—if this keeps up, we will be applying for fishing quotas.

On a serious note, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that many people were disappointed by his decision yesterday not to allow a public inquiry,even though I understand the reasons for that decision. Will the Minister confirm today that the integrated review that he has mentioned will take place and will provide a mechanism to deal independently, within the review process, with genuine concerns about drainage in the Derwent basin and allegations that flood defences were not maintained? Will some of the money that the Minister has announced to the House today be made available for strengthening flood defences in the Derwent valley region?

It was a useful meeting. I appreciated the assistance of the hon. Gentleman when I visited his constituency and talked to those who had been affected. I pay tribute to the emergency services, the local council and the Environment Agency, which worked around the clock dealing with the emergency at Malton and in other parts of the region.

I considered carefully the request for a public inquiry into the Malton floods, and I understand the reasonable points that the hon. Gentleman makes. The difficulty with public inquiries is that they deflect time and resources that could be used to rectify the problems. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are reviewing the national flood warning system. As to problems in Malton, if the hon. Gentleman considers it appropriate, I shall ensure that his constituents are able to feed through issues to the national review. If there are lessons to be learned from Malton and improvements to be made, they will be identified in the overall review.

I welcome the interest that the Minister has taken in flooding, particularly the Easter floods last year. He will be aware that the floods on Christmas day and on the day after Boxing day also affected many homes in Sileby in my constituency—after we were told that floods like those at Easter occurred only once every hundred years. I welcome the extra money, but the schemes proposed to alleviate future flooding problems will cost £4 million or £5 million.

Is the Minister aware of the problems faced by smaller local authorities such as Charnwood and Melton, which have yearly budgets of only £5 million? Will the Minister consider providing assistance to those authorities in Leicestershire in order to alleviate those recurring problems? Every time it rains, many residents fear that their houses will be flooded again.

My hon. Friend has been very active in this area on behalf of his constituents. Smaller local authorities face particular problems, especially where there are non-mains water courses and when different agencies have different responsibilities. I am prepared to look sympathetically at my hon. Friend's request regarding the overall strategy and the way in which we prioritise schemes.

If he will make a statement on the factors relating to the common fisheries policy which currently affect fishing opportunities in the Irish sea. [80343]

The Government will continue to press for improvements to the common fisheries policy to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks in the Irish sea and elsewhere.

Does the Minister agree that the Irish sea presents an opportunity for the creation of a new mechanism to help fishermen have more input into and control over their future opportunities? Will he consider setting up a fisheries forum for the Irish sea area, comprising Government and industry representatives from Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, to formulate a report on fishing possibilities and management in that area which could go to the Fisheries Council in December further to inform its decision making?

That is a very constructive suggestion. A number of regional committees have already been set up, and the Government are keen to develop them. There is merit in the concept of a forum to consider Irish sea management. Other member states traditionally have fishing interests in the Irish sea, and we must bear those in mind. Nevertheless, those are measures in which we can involve the fishing industry and develop a more regional dimension of fisheries management, which will be welcomed not only by the industry and by this country but by other European Union countries. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is certainly more rational than some of those made by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome, as I do, the late conversion of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to a more positive involvement in fisheries policy.

In developing a regional method of organising fisheries, will my hon. Friend consider using designated ports such as Fleetwood as regional centres for co-ordinating such a strategy, so that fishermen will have a genuine say in the development of fisheries policy?

I shall consider that. I know that my hon. Friend, her local authority, Associated British Ports and the local fishermen have been campaigning hard to make Fleetwood a centre of excellence for fishing port facilities in the Irish sea, and there are good arguments for doing so. On designated ports, fishing vessels have been landing at Liverpool, but it would surely be more logical for them to land at a dedicated fishing port where there are market and support facilities.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Fleetwood has a great deal to offer the fishing industry and has certainly been progressive in the way that it has marketed and projected itself.

Welcome though the Minister's response might be in some respects, his position on fisheries policy would carry a little more credibility if he had not already made it clear that he is not even discussing a zonal plan with his opposite numbers in Europe. He believes that the industry should develop that plan.

Is not national control the key issue? The Conservative party has pledged to secure the return of national control, whereas the hon. Gentleman has pledged to ensure that control remains in Brussels. Does not he ever feel slightly ill at ease in having nailed his colours so firmly to the mast of common fisheries policy, with minor tinkering here and there, when that policy has failed on conservation and has failed this country?

The problem with the hon. Gentleman's comments is that we do not know exactly what the Conservative party means by a return of national control. We have no idea how the Conservatives intend to achieve it. To make any progress, they would need the support of the European Union, and their past record reveals that they made no progress whatever in getting the beef ban lifted or dealing with quota hoppers.

It is clear to us that some of our current problems, including charges in slaughterhouses, which were agreed under the previous Administration, and the ending of duty free, are due to the fact that the European Union took no notice of the Conservative party because of its negative, destructive and divided attitude to Europe. There is no possibility of the Conservatives achieving their policy unless they are prepared to say that they would leave the EU altogether, because that would be the consequence of their position. They ought to be honest and say where they stand on that point.

I remind my hon. Friend that a Conservative Government betrayed our fisheries and fishing communities in their eagerness to join the then European Economic Community. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has come up with a good idea for the management of Irish sea fisheries. I hope that the issue is dealt with at the Council of the Isles when it gets under way. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to manage those fishing stocks on a regional basis, with preferences for our local fishermen. Nomadic fishermen from France, Spain and elsewhere should be given the bum's rush.

My hon. Friend is quite right. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is a former fisheries Minister, which is why he has had no truck with the nonsense that we have just heard expressed from the Opposition Front Bench. What is being urged by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is just not achievable. However, there is certainly a strong case for reform of the common fisheries policy, and the right hon. Gentleman has made some sensible suggestions for doing that, as has my hon. Friend. Those are the sort of issues on which I think we can make progress. We certainly cannot make progress with a xenophobic position that would result in complete withdrawal from the European Union.

What steps he is taking to ensure that British farmers compete on even terms with countries that operate to lower food hygiene and animal welfare standards. [80344]

Food imports from third counties must meet the same or equivalent hygiene standards as food produced within the European Union. Common minimum EU welfare standards for farm animals come into effect at the end of this year. There is no animal welfare component to the World Trade Organisation agreements. WTO rules do not therefore allow discrimination against third country imports on animal welfare grounds.

So much for common minimum standards. After all the talk about animal welfare standards before the election, when will the Minister put his money where his mouth is and at least test the water by imposing a ban on the import of animal products that do not match up to the rigorous food hygiene and animal welfare standards that we demand and expect of farmers in this country?

There are already effective laws in place to protect British consumers on food hygiene and food safety issues. I cannot unilaterally introduce rules on animal welfare restrictions—

Why not?

Because it would be illegal to do so. We debated this matter at some length last night, when the point made by the hon. Gentleman was advanced from the Opposition Front Bench. The simple response is this: it is illegal to do as he asks.

While I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said, we have always had problems with imports from some third countries outside the European Union. Do we not have to find some way within the World Trade Organisation of taking steps to ensure that there are better welfare and hygiene standards in other countries from which we import via some EU member states?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I have already said at the Council of Ministers, and repeated in last night's debate, that I am seeking an animal welfare component to the WTO rules as they apply to agriculture.

Can the Minister be more specific when he says that he is seeking an animal welfare component? Who is seeking that on behalf of the Government? Is it the right hon. Gentleman? Is the Chancellor backing the proposal? What active steps are the Government taking?

Will the Minister acknowledge that this is not only an outside-the-European-Union issue? We know for certain that there are standards in other member states that do not meet those that we apply to ourselves. We must be robust about this. I return, therefore, to the issue that I raised with the Minister last night. Rather than waiting for ever and a day for Europe to get its act together on labelling, could the Government not take pre-emptive action in a domestic context and be far more forward thinking on accurate labelling where animal welfare standards are concerned?

The farm assured scheme, which is in place, is a labelling scheme. There is a pigmeat welfare component to the scheme. I urge the House to get behind that scheme and to support it in the marketplace. That is where we shall get a premium for the United Kingdom pig industry.

The question of how to negotiate the welfare component to the WTO agreements is being discussed among Ministers at European Union level. Agriculture Ministers have already had one session on the issue. The Government are preparing their own stance. I shall have some input, as will other Ministers, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that at the very time our major competitors are beginning to become increasingly interested in welfare and environmental standards—especially the Danes, the Dutch and the French—we would send just the wrong signal if we started lowering ours?

No one is advocating lowering the standards. Indeed, consumers are looking for proper information—not only about food standards, but about ethical methods of production—so that they can consume in a discerning way. People look for the animal welfare component in the marketplace. I think that they are right to do so, and the Government should stand their corner.

Government policy seems to be based on the proposition that if goods are of better quality and produced to higher welfare standards, British consumers will buy them. What assessment has been made to prove that proposition correct? Is it not a fact that people may buy on the basis of price rather than of quality?

At least in part because of the work that I have undertaken with the Meat and Livestock Commission, we have secured a premium for United Kingdom pigmeat, for example, in the marketplace. The prices are about 20 or 25 per cent. higher than the European Union average in the UK market at the moment, and it is up to all of us to work hard to ensure that we are able to maintain that price differential, which advantages producers. My effort is directed to getting the industry back to profitability so that producers can face the future with some certainty. I will be in Northern Ireland tomorrow and hope to have an opportunity to discuss those matters with Northern Ireland farm leaders.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit cheeky of the Tories to come into the Chamber and apparently show concern for food safety when their policies created, one after the other, the food scandals that lowered confidence in British food to such an extent that we cannot compete in our own country, never mind outside it? I congratulate him on the work that he is putting in to rebuild confidence in British food so that we in the United Kingdom can believe in it and, more important, so that we can again export it abroad.

The only way through those issues is to work in co-operation and partnership with our partners in the European Union. We have made substantial progress so far. There is much more to be done. I commend to the House the United Kingdom's policy of constructive engagement with our European partners, and absolutely reject the policies that were pursued by the previous Conservative Government.

Will the Minister give wholehearted support to any efforts made by the European Commission to block the payment by the French Government of illegal subsidies to French pig farmers who do not meet the same high animal welfare standards as British pig farmers observe?

The hon. Gentleman must give me his evidence of illegal payments by any other national Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on."] He is making the allegation, and it is incumbent on him to substantiate it. I invite him to give me his evidence; if it is hard evidence of illegal activities within the EU, I will take it up at once with the Commission. I cannot assert higher UK animal welfare standards where the EU has already legislated for its own common standards. The Commission will defend EU common standards, not higher standards asserted by the UK Parliament—under the Conservative Government.

If he will make a statement on his proposals for the reform of the food hygiene regulations. [80345]

We have made no proposals for reform of food hygiene regulations. The European Commission—this is a harmonised subject—is expected to make a comprehensive proposal later this year, consolidating existing European Union hygiene legislation. We are fully behind that initiative.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to toughening up food hygiene regulations. What contribution will the new Food Standards Agency make to improving the food hygiene regulations? Will my hon. Friend undertake to meet my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to explore the role that local authorities have in prosecuting those who breach the regulations?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the proposed Food Standards Agency. Setting up the agency presents an opportunity for a full review of our own regulations to make sure that they are fair, practical, proportionate and not onerous, and that they underpin our prime public health objective of making sure that our food is safe. Nevertheless, we have the opportunity to consolidate 14 European Union directives in one to achieve better clarity in the regulations, which will be a great advantage. Prosecution policy is a matter for local authorities. We do not order them to prosecute; they have a duty, in policing the food system, to prosecute when they consider that to be the right course.

When considering the application to food hygiene of fair and proportionate regulations, will the Minister also consider the proposed cost of the Meat Hygiene Service? Will he take into account the position of a constituent of mine, Mr. Joseph Morris of South Kilworth, whose charges will rise fivefold and who will have to employ three inspectors to look after a work force of five? Will he also consider the position of Mr. Marcus Stevens of Ullesthorpe, whose charges will rise by 1,000 per cent.? What does the Minister intend to tell those people, who will be driven out of business? Will he please not blame the last Government? It may have escaped his notice that the present Government have been in power for two years.

I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman give the advice that we suggested about a month ago, and tell his constituents to check the invoices. So far we have proposed no charges and consulted on no charges; no one has had an invoice involving a 1 per cent. increase, a 1,000 per cent. increase or any increase. At present the figures are pure guesstimates, and until the invoices arrive no one can be certain about the truth of the wild allegations made by the hon. Gentleman.

What assessment he has made of the level of enforcement and charging for meat inspection in other European Union countries. [80346]

Information on the level of veterinary inspections in meat plants in other member states was placed in the Library of the House in November last year. Similar information about meat inspection charges will be deposited shortly—and I can reveal that "shortly" means later today.

I welcome last night's announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about matters affecting inspection charges, and his announcement of an investigation of the dynamics of the abattoir industry; but is it not imperative for the Government to find hard evidence proving that other European Union countries are complying with the directives involved?

May I follow up a point that the Minister made to the Conservative spokesman about the provision of hard evidence? Does he accept the hard evidence—photographic evidence—that I showed Ministers last night, which proves that meat inspection standards simply are not being followed in other countries? Unless and until they are followed, it is grossly unfair for the British industry to go on being pilloried as it feels it is being pilloried now.

I saw the photographs, but I cannot comment on the details. What I can say is that the information that will be placed in the Library later today—which we have obtained from our own sources abroad, through the embassies—tends to show, in regard to Meat Hygiene Service inspections as with veterinary inspections, that the arrangements for most member states are in line with the relevant directive; but it is not possible to conclude from the information provided that all the rules are being followed. The information that we have obtained will, of course, be given to the European Commission.

Last night's announcement is particularly welcome to the farming community in Monmouthshire—especially to those in the small family abattoir in Raglan, run by Bill James, which I was invited to visit last year, where I was heavily lobbied and from which I felt mightily relieved to come away alive.

I think that, by and large, that was a thank you for my right hon. Friend's announcement. Obviously more decisions must be announced about veterinary and meat inspection charges. Last night's decision related exclusively to the proposal for special risk material charges, which we have said will not be levied or collected during the current financial year.

What the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last night constituted a positive response to the representations of an industry that is under great pressure. Given the pressure that is being imposed on small and medium-sized abattoirs, will the Minister look again at the level of charges? It is spinning out of control, making small and medium-sized abattoirs uncompetitive. There is only one abattoir in my constituency—a large agricultural constituency—whose viability is now in question as a direct result of meat inspection charges. I urge the Minister to look again at the whole system.

Yes, we look at the system continually, so that Ministers can make considered decisions and announcements. We are duty bound to collect the charges incurred by the Meat Hygiene Service. I completely reject the contention that matters are out of control.

However, I take the point. There are not that many abattoirs in Wales, although what will be the largest abattoir in Europe is under construction there, so the situation is bound to change. We have not yet announced the proposed charges, on which we are duty bound to consult. We will do that as quickly as possible.

What steps his Department has taken to assist farmers to diversify their businesses. [80348]

Funding to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including farm diversification, is available in the six areas designated under the English objective 5b structural fund programmes. The Ministry has also produced a series of advisory booklets on diversification.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The work done under objective 5b is very welcome, especially in my area. However, changes in structural funding are on the way. I urge my hon. Friend to do everything in his power, when he talks to colleagues in both Whitehall and Europe, to make sure that the rural communities that rely so much on that help to diversify their business continue to get the assistance in the future. When objective 2 and the rural strand are under consideration, will he ensure that agricultural communities get their fair share of the money that is available?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Objective 5b has been a great success in supporting the rural economy, and in fostering partnership between the public and the private sector and between various rural organisations. I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the need to take account of the needs of rural areas in the forthcoming changes to objective 2 funding.

In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained a very good settlement in relation to the Rome agreement. It included objective 1 status for parts of this country, and safety nets for areas which, because of the changes, may lose their assisted area status. Regardless of the type of structural fund regime that is introduced, we want to ensure that it benefits as wide a rural area as possible.

Many sheep farmers in this country have diversified by developing their own export business. Last night, the Parliamentary Secretary repeated his view that live exports do not help sheep prices, yet in an answer on 5 March, the Minister of State said that

"it is likely that market prices would have been further depressed in the absence of competition from the live export trade."—[Official Report, 5 March 1999; Vol. 326,c.947.]

Who is right?

When my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met the directors of Farmers Ferry, they accepted that live exports, by themselves, had not increased the price of lamb. That is a fact of life. Their argument was that such exports put a floor to the price of lamb, and that that had stopped the price falling further. That is somewhat different.

The Government would prefer meat exports to be exports of meat rather than of live animals. We want value to be added in this country. The export of live animals means that jobs in our meat industry are exported too. That does not benefit the rural economy. We want there to be a strong export trade, because we have a good product to export. However, we want the benefits to go back to the rural economy through added value. That is good for welfare and for rural jobs.

At a consultation meeting that I held recently in my constituency on the forthcoming rural White Paper, the overwhelming consensus was that more employment must be created in rural areas and that an important and desirable way to achieve that was to enable farmers to diversify into other businesses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that would bring about a far more prosperous and sustainable countryside than the policies of the Conservative party, which are seemingly designed to freeze it in time?

I agree. There has been much diversification in rural areas, and it is the Government's policy to encourage and support it.

When the Government intend to respond to the report of the Food Standards Committee. [80349]

We are considering the Committee's report on the Food Standards Agency Bill and we will respond to it, in line with its request, before Second Reading—of course, I am not in a position to say on what date that will be.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Will he join me in congratulating the Committee on having uncovered the fact that the levy will rise from £90 to £600 after three years? Does he accept the unanimous verdict of the Committee that the flat-rate levy is contrary to natural justice?

What will the Minister do to counter the lack of proportionality? The four major supermarkets, which have a joint turnover of £40 billion a year, will pay £1 million in levy while all the other retailers, bed-and-breakfasts, corner shops, voluntary organisations, schools and charities will pay £300 million. Is not that unfair?

On behalf of the Government, I am prepared to congratulate the Committee on producing a first-class report in a very short time. We find it of great assistance as part of the third stage of consultation on the Food Standards Agency.

The idea that the Committee uncovered anything is nonsense. The Committee asked me whether, if the Government collected all the costs of safeguarding food safety and food standards from the industry—and we have no intention of doing so—the levy would be not £90, but £600. The honest answer is yes, but as we propose to collect only £90, the taxpayer will pay the other £510 towards food safety surveillance and work. The idea that the industry is being asked to pay the majority of the cost is absolute nonsense.

We are consulting on the charge separately to the consultations on the draft Bill. We are actively looking at the alternatives that were put to us both before the consultation started and during the consultation. We have taken on board the views of the Select Committee on Agriculture. I cannot be more sincere than that. We seek an accommodation and a method of charging that is seen to be fair and acceptable to the industry and to the wider public.

Obviously the final part of the Minister's answer is welcome. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise that the Government are moving in response to what the Food Standards Committee has said, but may I ask the Minister to go a step further? Does he accept the major argument of the Committee that a flat-rate levy—a food poll tax just like the poll tax introduced by the Conservative party—is inappropriate, unfair and against natural justice?

Is the Minister prepared to say that that applies also to the proposed Meat Hygiene Service charges, which were also initially introduced by the previous Government? Again, it seems that a flat-rate levy is to be imposed, rather than one that relates to headage.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Meat Hygiene Service. There is no comparison between the charging system for the Meat Hygiene Service and the proposed levy for the Food Standards Agency.

As I said to the Select Committee when I appeared before it over five hours, some new money must be raised, otherwise there will be no Food Standards Agency. The question is how we collect that extra money—it is currently estimated that the total required will be less than £50 million at £41 million—as cheaply and as practically as possible without creating an army of bureaucrats. The intention, as expressed in a separate consultation paper, is to use that money fairly for food safety.

I have made it clear to the Select Committee and to anyone who has asked outside that we are considering the alternatives and, as I have said, the Government considered such alternatives before we published our paper. I even offered my own alternatives. There is no magic solution to the issue. We have to find one that is fair and perceived to be fair and acceptable to the industry and to the wider public. We do not want to spoil what will be one of the Government's most popular policies for a ha'p'orth of tar on the Food Standards Agency's charging system.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the universal praise for the Government's decision to use the pre-legislative inquiry process on the FSA? As someone who is heavily involved in the other pre-legislative inquiry into the other FSA—the Financial Services Authority—may I say that such an approach to legislation, with high-level consultation and scrutiny of a Bill before it is considered in Standing Committee, is universally admired. It is the way in which legislation should be introduced. Such an approach will also ensure that the respective legislation receives much broader support across the food and financial services industries. Is it not the fact that, for years, the previous Government imposed bad legislation on us and that, now that we have introduced this new procedure, the Conservatives do not like it?

In my 25 years' experience in the House, any fair assessment of the quality of our past legislative output—using industry's techniques to measure quality of output and performance—would classify it as abysmal. We are trying to modernise the processes of creating laws, to ensure quality for the British people. A draft Bill, with draft notes on clauses, was considered not only by a special Select Committee but subject to regional consultation. That was the third stage of consultation on that Bill—publication of the James report was the first stage, and the White Paper was the second. We have also received more than 1,000 submissions on the Bill.

It would be preposterous to say that, having gone through that process, the Food Standards Agency will be a surprise to anyone in the United Kingdom. We intend to produce a quality organisation, to provide a quality service to the British people.

Does the Minister understand that if he is not able to announce before the Bill's Second Reading the scrapping of that monstrous flat-rate charge and explain what will replace it, the Government's consultation exercise will be exposed as a farce? That charge will inflict a massive blow on thousands of small businesses, and irreparable damage will be done to many rural communities, where the village shop is an absolute cornerstone of life.

I realise that the idea of charging registered food premises the sum of £ 1.73 a week is very onerous to many such businesses—[Interruption.] I am making a statement; perhaps, when I spell out the charge—£1.73 a week—it does not have the right ring about it. Nevertheless, as I have said more than once, we intend to make our proposals and to reply to the Food Standards Committee before the Bill's Second Reading.

If he will make a statement on progress with the establishment of a Food Standards Agency. [80351]

I obviously cannot be precise on the matter. However, we have received a large response to the public consultation, and shall introduce the Bill in this Session if time is available. Everyone understands the position that the Government are in, as we have made it absolutely clear. One of the reasons why we had a short consultation period, and why the special Select Committee had a short time to consider the Food Standards Agency Bill, is that—depending on progress in reform of the other place—we shall seek an early legislative slot, before the end of this Session, for the Bill's Second Reading and Royal Assent.

I welcome that answer, and tell my hon. Friend that many hon. Members are delighted at the way in which, in less than two years, the Government—the Ministry and the Department of Health—have worked to restore public confidence in food in the United Kingdom. However, may I ask him please to talk to his colleagues in Government, to ensure that the Bill is introduced as soon as possible so that that process may continue?

Yes. We have talked to colleagues in Government throughout the process, but, as I said in my initial answer, colleagues in the other place who are not part of the Government have the matter in their hands. We are dependent largely on the time that the other place takes to decide on its own reform. Nevertheless, as we have made it abundantly clear, progress on the matter is not being hindered because we lack a Bill. Since September 1997, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food no longer has total control over United Kingdom food standards and safety. The setting up of the Joint Food Standards and Safety Group was important, as it provided a unified management structure across two Departments—the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As time goes on, we will build on that development. The premises that the group will move into—as we announced in March— are being converted, so the practicalities of the work will progress.

Does the Minister understand that he would make rapid and consensual progress with the establishment of the Food Standards Agency if he abandoned his plans for the poll tax on food, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has referred? I can take the Minister to village shops in my constituency which have already taken the decision to stop selling food. They make little money on it, and they fear a hike in charges. Does he understand the fear of farmers in my constituency who, perhaps, run bed-and-breakfasts, and farm food shops and attend farmers' markets, and who thus may be eligible not once, but three times for that charge? Does he understand that the progress of the Bill and the agency would be smoother if he abandoned the charging proposal?

I understand the hon. Gentlemen's points, and it would be quite ludicrous if market traders were charged more than one sum for visiting different markets. I openly accept that such issues have been raised during the consultation. Without the required extra money, there will be no Food Standards Agency. We still have to find a way of raising the sufficient sum, which will, as I have said, at maximum, be £50 million—our current estimate is about £41 million. I understand that progress on reaching a decision could be considerably improved, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), we will make our decisions known—particularly our views on the recommendations of the special Select Committee—before Second Reading so that the House is fully aware of the proposals.

What recent representations he has received about the efficiency of the CPS. [80373]

There is a continuing interest in the restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Attorney-General and I regularly receive inquiries from people—including hon. Members—about the service. The Glidewell report on the CPS made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency of the service. Additionally, the Government decided to restructure the CPS into 42 geographical areas to improve efficiency and accountability. The CPS is making good progress in considering and implementing the recommendations. Additionally, recently, the new 42 chief Crown prosecutors were appointed to take forward the changes.

Although I readily accept that there is much praise for the work of the Crown Prosecution Service from certain quarters, is the Solicitor-General aware that an increasing number of my constituents are complaining about the time that the CPS is taking to examine cases? In addition, there is no information as to how investigations are proceeding. Is the Solicitor-General prepared to say that when many of the cases are ultimately dropped, justice is being sacrificed because Her Majesty's Government simply are not putting enough money into the staffing of the bureaucracy that is necessary to deliver the services offered by the CPS?

On the whole, cases moves quickly through the CPS. However, the hon. Gentleman has a valid point in relation to the handling of victims and the relations of victims. Sir lain Glidewell made a specific recommendation about that—one of a handful of recommendations on which we have not yet reached a final decision. We have accepted the principle that the matter must be dealt with much more thoroughly.

The Government's paper "Speaking up for Justice" contains a number of recommendations about how victims, relatives of victims and witnesses should be better informed. The legislative aspects of that are being taken forward in the Access to Justice Bill.

The new chief Crown prosecutor for the Staffordshire office has introduced himself to me, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss the work of his office. Now that we have the aligned boundaries between the CPS and the police, can the Solicitor-General tell me what improvements in performance my constituents and I can expect?

All hon. Members should have received letters from chief Crown prosecutors in their area, and I would encourage them to make contact with them. CCPs now have greater autonomy in their areas. In addition, the areas are coterminous with the police authorities, so there should be more efficient operation of both the CPS and the police.

We, too, welcome the 42 new chief Crown prosecutors. Does the Solicitor-General recognise that the business of putting them in post has taken almost twice as long as was first announced in May 1997, when the Attorney-General came to office?

Is there not a further example of the sluggishness that affects so many Departments in what is happening with electronic mail? I saw successful e-mail pilots in Ipswich three years ago. The new strategic plan for the criminal justice system proudly mentions that Stockport is the first police force to have such a pilot and that it is hoped in due course to have pilots working between courts, the CPS and the police. As we had successful pilots so long ago, is not that yet another example of sluggishness, as opposed to the Government's hype? When will all CPS areas be in e-mail contact with their courts and police stations, which is not a very complicated matter?

We have been in power for less than two years. We have acted quickly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office for a long time. As soon as we took office we appointed Sir lain Glidewell to review the CPS. It was only proper that he should consider it carefully, and his report has been widely commended. We are now acting on it. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) a moment ago, a decision has been reached on all but a handful of the recommendations.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the use of electronic sources to further efficiency. That is being implemented. He has seen the operation of e-mail pilots in Stockport; I have seen it in Durham, and I know that it exists in other places as well.

What steps he is taking regarding the appointment of counsel to undertake civil law work for the Government. [80374]

Following the implementation of his new appointment procedures, in accordance with which the vacancies are widely advertised, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has recently appointed 48 junior counsel to the Crown C panel. An advertisement inviting applications for the London A and B panels was placed last month, and he will make new appointments to those panels in the summer. Appointments to the provincial panel are expected before the end of the year.

I declare an interest as a former practising barrister who is still a door tenant in chambers, although my duties in the House and to my constituents prevent my practising. Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise the advances that have been made in the legal world, and especially in the Bar outside London, in the past 15 years? Will he ensure that the new openness, which is extremely welcome, will be reflected in the appointment of more barristers to do Government legal work outside the Inns of Court and the hallowed Temple, who live perhaps more in the real world, in Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds?

It is a pity that my hon. Friend was not able to apply for a position on the panel. The new procedure attracted a large number of exceptionally good applicants, and we have made some very good appointment. It was important to open up the procedure and make it transparent.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the appointments of counsel in the provinces. As I said, we are in the process of advertising for that panel as well.

Can the Solicitor-General confirm that all appointments of counsel to undertake civil law work for the Government are determined strictly by market testing, overseen by officials, and that, beyond giving the formal seal of approval or imprimatur to the winners, there is no other ministerial involvement?

I can certainly give that assurance. The decisions were made by a panel appointed by the Attorney-General, but neither he nor I had any involvement in the process.

If he will ensure that debriefing sessions take place between the CPS and the barristers it instructs following acquittals where the pre-trial assessment by the CPS pointed to a high likelihood of conviction. [80376]

Such cases should always be considered carefully so that the reasons for the acquittal can be established. In some cases the reasons are clear. Where they are not, the Crown Prosecution Service is sympathetic to holding such meetings. The CPS routinely conducts an analysis of all acquittals in the Crown court. A report is prepared by the caseworker who has attended court with counsel, and the report is subsequently discussed with the police. In such circumstances, debriefing sessions with counsel are arranged in order to discuss the issues that have arisen.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but debriefing sessions should happen as a matter of course when a case comes to court and the police, the CPS and everyone else have a clear expectation that the jury will bring in a verdict of guilty. The Solicitor-General knows of the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, whose son Lee was killed in a road accident in Staffordshire in 1997. Seven young men were packed into a car that went whizzing down the motorway at 120 mph. The driver was inexplicably found not guilty by the jury. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, cannot fathom why the CPS in Stafford did not hold a debriefing session with the prosecuting counsel. If that were done as a matter of course, it would inform research into why juries bring in the verdicts that they do.

I am aware of the very sad case to which my hon. Friend referred. Juries sometimes come to inexplicable conclusions, as anyone who has been involved with jury trials knows. That does not mean that the jury was wrong, or that it was wrong for the CPS to bring the case. It is simply the nature of the process. Juries can come to unexpected conclusions.

There is a good case for debriefing on a regular basis. The CPS has entered into discussions with the Bar Council about how that can be done routinely so as to provide key information to the people involved.

I support the comments of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), especially with regard to the quality of the prosecution barristers. A constituent of mine who was a witness in a case feels that she was ripped apart with irrelevant questions about her personal life when she was giving evidence against someone. She was not defended by the prosecution lawyer, and the case was subsequently lost. The quality of the people employed seems to be appalling. What does the Solicitor-General intend to do about it?

I am not aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If he writes to me, I shall look into it. The CPS receives reports of adverse performance by particular counsel, as a result of which such counsel might not be briefed in the future. Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) have raised a serious matter, and I shall look into it.

If he will make a statement on the cost of the intervention in the Hamilton v. Al Fayed case in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the House of Commons. [80377]

Treasury Counsel's fees and the costs of the Treasury Solicitors Department in that case came to a combined total of £13,451.

£13,000?

That did not involve any fee on my part.

We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for not having charged an additional fee for his appearance. Does he accept the verdict in the Court of Appeal? What steps are being taken to recover the wasted costs from Mr. Al Fayed, at whose suggestion that intervention was made?

We entered as a neutral party. That was accepted in the Court of Appeal decision. We were not taking sides on behalf of Mr. Hamilton or on behalf of the defendant. We were putting the important arguments raised with us by the House authorities on the parliamentary privilege point. The Court of Appeal accepted the important point that we made about the courts respecting the procedures of the House. You, Madam Speaker, were intimately concerned in this matter. At the end of the day we did not appeal because we thought that the Court of Appeal had got it right. It did not accept all our arguments—in particular our argument about the exclusive jurisdiction of the House over the conduct of Members. On the whole we were satisfied with the way in which the Court of Appeal said that the trial judge had been wrong about querying the procedures of the House.