To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the Government's priorities are with regard to animal welfare. [2890]

We have already acted to update the rules on welfare in transit in line with European Union requirements. We have also commissioned an urgent review of the procedures for checking animals and clearing them as fit before export. We are planning action on a further range of animal welfare issues which we shall announce in due course, including the conclusions of the report of Professor Krebs on badgers and bovine tuberculosis.

I am grateful to the Minister for the generality of his response. He will be aware that my constituency contains the important port of Shoreham, which made the headlines for all the wrong reasons during the veal calf export saga. What assurances can he give my many constituents who were involved in the demonstrations that this Government will continue the good work of the last Government, who banned veal crates in this country and secured European agreement on transport times; that he will try to shorten transport times even further; and that the restrictions imposed on the continent will be enforced?

We are putting increasing emphasis on the need to export meat rather than live animals. There is no question of veal crates returning to use in this country. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the European Union, the order that I announced about two weeks ago had been lying on the table in the Ministry for several months, presumably because the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and his colleagues, when they were in government, did not have the nerve to bring it to the House in case it caused a row among their Euro-sceptics. We have implemented that order very quickly.

I welcome the Minister and his team to the Front Bench.

Permit me a wry smile, Madam Speaker, at that preposterous nonsense. If I had not made inquiries about what was happening on Forestry Commission land in respect of all hunting—not just fox hunting—I would presumably have been criticised. Whether the Forestry Commission licenses or does not license hunting on its land is a matter for it, and for it alone.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the largest payment made to a single landowner under the set-aside regime for the latest year for which figures are available. [2891]

The precise answer to my hon. Friend's question about the set-aside land is £230,082, which formed part of a larger payment—in 1996, under the arable area payments scheme—of £2,007,993.

Does not that answer simply illustrate how grotesque and indefensible the set-aside scheme is? Farmers—grain barons—can receive thousands of pounds for not growing crops, while hill farmers, for example, struggle to eke out a living. Is there not a compelling case for getting rid of set-aside and production subsidies, and putting the money where it is needed—into environmental schemes and rural communities, and rebuilding our countryside?

My right hon. Friend the Minister will be pressing next week for precisely that. I repeat that the amount paid for set-aside, for not using land, was some 10 per cent. of the total payment to the landowners concerned.

Does the Minister agree that there are many large estates and that much of this money supports employment which might not otherwise be retained? May we have an assurance right at the beginning of the Government's term of office that in the common agricultural policy reform negotiations the Government will have nothing whatever to do with arguments about modulation and that there will be no discrimination against British farmers because of the size of those farms?

We are not in favour of modulation, but no one can convince me that spending more than £1.1 billion on the arable area system is a job creation scheme. I reject that. Only £138 million of that amount is in respect of land that is set aside and not used.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what goals he has for the reform of the common agricultural policy; what strategy he will follow to achieve those goals; and if he will make a statement. [2892]

I will take every opportunity with my European colleagues to press for the redirection of the CAP away from high prices and production controls towards a market-oriented policy which will benefit consumers and the environment and enable our farmers to compete effectively in world markets.

First, I welcome the members of the Front-Bench team to their places. I suspect that that welcome is shared by many Opposition Members. Do my right hon. Friend's objectives for reform encompass the goal of achieving a free market in agricultural products throughout the world? That goal would be greatly favoured by many south Derbyshire farmers and other progressive farmers in this country.

Yes, we want the realities of the global market to bear down on the common agricultural policy, and we want British farmers to take advantage of expanding world markets. Many aspects of the current common agricultural policy prevent them from doing that.

I also welcome the Minister to his job. Does he agree that many farmers, not only in the beef sector but in the sheep sector are considerably worried about their prospects over the next couple of years? The CAP reforms could have a direct material effect on their well-being. Does he further agree that it is important to ensure that farmers are able to continue to be custodians of the countryside and that any settlement must ensure the maintenance of the ability of small and medium-sized farms to remain in business and not lead to amalgamation, which would drive them out of business?

Last year, farmers producing lambs did very well. It is too early to say what the circumstances will be this year, but we have taken action to maintain confidence in United Kingdom lamb and we shall continue to do that. It is a premium product and we want farmers to be well rewarded for producing it. The hon. Gentleman knows that, as a consequence of mismanagement by the previous Administration in respect of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, the beef sector is in serious circumstances. As I have said before, we have inherited grave difficulties, and I am almost daily in contact or in discussion with people in Europe and with my officials to see what we can do to try to get the ban lifted.

I also welcome my right hon. and hon. Friends to the Government Front Bench. Does my right hon. Friend accept that farming is an important element of prosperity in rural communities? Does he also accept that, despite the enormous sums that have been devoted to the common agricultural policy, particularly over the past 25 years, rural communities have had real problems and job losses as a result? Is not the time long overdue for a study into how we can integrate support for agriculture to provide for the well-being and benefit of rural communities?

I have represented a large rural constituency for 27 years, so I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have effective policies for rural communities and economies as well as for farmers. Of course, agriculture is the backbone of many rural economies and we must ensure that it remains a vibrant and efficient sector of industry. I would like the CAP to be transformed from a policy of simply supporting and controlling production to one that is more market oriented, and I would like us to use some of the resources from the CAP to invest in rural economies for the long term.

The right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the immediate concern of many farmers is not CAP reform, but the lifting of the export ban on beef and beef products. Before the general election, he fairly said that that matter was an urgent priority. Today, he talks about daily discussions. I think that everyone would be interested to know what his realistic assessment is of the time scale that will be necessary for him to make progress on the lifting of the beef ban and what the conditions are for the beef ban being lifted.

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is an urgent matter, but I am not going to get into the boastful claims of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends, who, as everyone recalls, came here and told us that the beef ban would be lifted by last November. That was an absolutely bogus claim. What is more, as they had not even begun to activate the selective cull until February and March this year—that is on the record—it is clear that there was no hope of the beef ban ever being lifted. I am not going to make predictions about dates for the lifting of the ban. It would be foolish to do so. The previous Administration made an idle boast and I am not going to make the same mistake.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to require mechanically recovered meat material to be separately and specifically labelled in food products. [2894]

United Kingdom regulators already believe that existing food labelling rules require that mechanically recovered meat products should be labelled separately. If there is any doubt about that, there has already been one successful prosecution, so the matter has been upheld by the British courts. Recently, we have succeeded in getting the rest of Europe to go along with us, so we are in the lead on this.

I cheerfully welcome my hon. Friend to his new position.

"a highly coloured slurry or emulsion"?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is why the regulations and the guidance to them are not only being reviewed, but will be reinforced, certainly by the end of this year.

Can the Minister tell us how a consumer knows that a product does not come from meat, particularly beef, being produced in other countries, which import into this country material that could contain traces of BSE, defeating the things that we are already doing to ensure that BSE is kept out of the food chain?

We cannot do that at the moment because the previous Government did not take any action to end the problem. This Government are taking action. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if action is not agreed by the European Union by 22 July, the regulations and orders will be brought to the House forthwith.

While my hon. Friend is considering the labelling of food products, will he consider the labelling of products that contain genetically modified ingredients and ensure that the consumer is given the choice as to whether to consume such ingredients?

It has already been done and negotiators in Brussels have received new instructions from the Government and this Department. If a food product may contain genetically modified material, the label will have to say so because producers refuse to separate the crop ingredients.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage the organic farming sector. [2895]

We want to encourage an expansion of organic production and are considering the best ways of achieving that.

I am grateful to the Minister for his encouragement. Is he aware that, according to the House of Commons Library, only 0.1 per cent. of land in England is farmed organically, which compares unfavourably with other European countries—for example, in Austria, the figure is 8 per cent.—and that the previous Government's investment to promote organic farming was lamentable in the extreme?

The actual figure for production is 0.3 per cent. Nevertheless, it is very low compared with the European average. The Government want to encourage organic production and we recognise that there is a market for organic products. However, the market in, for example, milk is currently being filled by imports because this country cannot meet the necessary production level. The Agriculture Select Committee has produced an excellent report and made a number of recommendations relating to the organic sector, to which this Government will be responding shortly.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Although the increase in organic farming is welcome, does it not still mean that the other type of farming—which could be correctly labelled chemical farming—is responsible for the majority of our farm products? When looking at the cost of products from organic farms, why do we not take into account the cost of products from chemical farms—which should be measured not just immediately in the marketplace, but over hundreds, if not thousands of years in the enormous damage that pesticides and other chemicals do to our environment?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. With intensive agriculture, the cost of inputs is important for both the long-term environmental consequences and the cost of production that farmers have to bear. The organic sector has an important role and we are encouraging a reduced use of inputs such as integrated crop management.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. Given the efforts of his hon. Friends, over a long time and through a characteristic drip feed, to belittle the real efforts made by Conservative Ministers to support organic farming, including expenditure of more than £1 million a year and the launch last year of the organic conversion information service, will the Minister tell the House how much extra funding his Department will make available for organic farming, where the money will be found and when?

The current year's budget for organic conversion is more than £800,000. There is also £1 million available for research and development in the organic sector. The amount available for conversion will increase in the next financial year—that is already in the Department's budget. It is an important matter.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the regulations governing the production of New York dressed poultry. [2896]

We have received a number of representations about the end of the three-year phase-out of the derogation from the regulations. The prohibition on the sale of uneviscerated poultry from licensed premises will stand. I have checked on the name—in Birmingham we call it, "Not yet dressed poultry."

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the ban on the sale of New York dressed poultry from licensed plants is anomalous, will diminish consumer choice and represents another blow to independent butchers struggling to compete with superstores? Will he reconsider his response and allow an extension of the previous derogation for a further three years?

There is absolutely no chance of a further derogation. If the hon. Gentleman reads column 219 of yesterday's Hansard, he will see that I am looking at the regulations on unlicensed premises. It is a health hazard and we need to check it out.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken by the Government to have the beef ban lifted as quickly as possible. [2897]

The Prime Minister and I have held discussions with the President of the European Commission and Commissioners Fischler and Bonino on how to have the export ban lifted as quickly as possible. They have been constructive and helpful. We are also considering, in consultation with the Commission, what other options the Florence agreement has to offer for resuming exports.

Does the Minister understand that the position is now desperate? Yesterday, prices in Oswestry and Market Drayton hit a 16-year low, bumping around the 90p mark. He cannot keep hiding behind the actions of the previous Government—[Interruption.] Can I ask on behalf of my constituents that the Minister takes responsibility and gives us a clear date by which that iniquitous ban will be lifted?

If the hon. Gentleman does not learn quickly that that type of nonsense is of no help to his constituents, he probably will not be an hon. Member after the next general election. Does he really expect that, in seven weeks, the Government could have undone the untold damage inflicted by previous Conservative Ministers on the British beef industry? If he believes that, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. We have attempted quickly to re-establish sensible working relationships with the Commission and the European Parliament, and we are pressing ahead as quickly as possible on the issue. Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent beef farmers, and I do not need any lessons from him about the damage that has been inflicted on them because of 18 years of Conservative government.

The Minister could be forgiven—although this is only his second outing at the Dispatch Box; yesterday he dealt with the quota hopping issue, and today he dealt with the question from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)—for thinking that he has already heard it all about his departmental administration. Given the on-going and inherited crisis in the beef industry, however, may I press him on one constructive point, which has found favour within the National Farmers Union—the position of calves born after 1 August 1996 and that are a minimum of six months old? Is there some mechanism for proceeding in at least that sector, so that we can establish some practical and political momentum and find a way in which to achieve an eventual overall lifting of the ban?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his much more rational contribution to a serious problem. He and the NFU are correct on that point, about which I have had discussions with Sir David Naish. I have had discussions on the same point with Commissioner Fischler—with whom, only today, I once again discussed the issues on the telephone. We are pressing ahead with talks about a born-after scheme, as we are pressing ahead with the selective cull—which the previous Administration neglected to do. Moreover, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is expediting a cattle traceability scheme. All those actions must be taken to satisfy European Union legislation before there is any hope of having the ban lifted. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on his principal point, and we are working on it.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that, during the past 18 months, I was much criticised for not securing a timetable. Will he confirm that he has had many discussions with the Commissioners and with his fellow Ministers in Europe? Will he also confirm that he himself has achieved no timetable, no bankable assurances and—if he is absolutely honest with the House—no progress of any kind?

Yes, I can confirm that—literally from the Government's first days—I have had a whole series of meetings. Moreover, I have not sought a timetable, because too many problems have been left outstanding by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—including his failure to fulfil effectively the terms and conditions of the Florence agreement, which the former Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary signed up to; his failure properly to implement the selective cull; and his failure to develop an effective cattle traceability scheme. All those problems are a result of his stewardship. They were unresolved when we took office, and it is absurd to think that we could immediately go to Brussels and demand a date for lifting the ban.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to deal with the current problems in the beef sector. [2898]

I am continuing in my efforts to remove the ban on UK beef exports. I will also be seeking fundamental reform of the beef regime in forthcoming negotiations in Brussels.

While I welcome all the work that the Minister is doing to deal with the serious situation in the beef industry, can he tell us when we can be sure that no beef can be imported into this country which fails to meet the exacting standards expected of British farmers, when we can expect to have developed a tracing scheme that could benefit herds in grass-fed areas like Northumberland, and when we can hope for some compensation for British farmers similar to that obtained by European farmers from European funds for fluctuations in the green pound?

I have announced action on beef imports. I very much hope that people who are importing beef into this country—it is projected to total 160,000 tonnes this year—are acting responsibly on their own account. I would much prefer a European Union-wide scheme for the removal of specified risk materials from all beef, but I have made it clear, and do so again today, that 1 am giving the European Union Agriculture Council until its July meeting to introduce that action on an EU-wide basis. If it does not do so, I shall act unilaterally—reluctantly, but unilaterally—by laying orders in the House to ensure that all beef and bovine products imported into Britain are subject to the same rigorous controls on health grounds that British beef is. I cannot be clearer than that. That action was open to the previous Administration but, for reasons that I do not understand, they declined to take it.

I, too, add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and his team. I am sure that he is as concerned as I am about the plight of beef farmers, given that the market for over-30-months old beef is now half what it was at the time of the announcement on 20 March. It is a pity that no Labour Back Benchers are asking him questions about the matter on behalf of their constituents. Given that the beef market is so dire, will he deny the rumour circulating today that he is thinking about reducing the OTMS payments?

I am not confirming or denying any rumours in the press; what is more, I have not seen them myself.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when we were trying to wrestle with the problem created by the Tory Government and when about £3 billion was lost—money that could have been spent on hospitals, schools and so on—he heard some of us reminding the Government at that time that while there was compensation of a kind for farmers, some people were left out completely? Casualties included people in the meat production trade and lorry drivers who were sacked on the spot and did not get a penny-piece. When my right hon. Friend is devising schemes, not mentioning Florence or November in any judgment he makes, will he bear in mind the casualties who should be looked after?

Yes, but the reality is that the mishandling of the BSE crisis in this country has been a scandal that has cost the taxpayer approaching £2 billion—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"]—two billion pounds, and the costs continue to rise. The previous Administration made no proper public expenditure provision for those costs in the medium term and developed no policy for the disposal of the thousands of tonnes of dead animals around the country that may have had BSE. We have inherited a series of desperately difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend has mentioned two or three other problems that were also neglected by the previous Government.

I am sure that many of us accept that the Minister is genuinely doing all that he can to get the ban lifted. Does he recognise that the only power that we have left is the power of persuasion? Many of us are not satisfied that our colleagues in Europe are as keen to get the ban lifted as we are. Is the Minister satisfied that they are as keen as he is?

We are bound by the European legislation that came about as a consequence of the BSE crisis. We cannot wish that legislation away. We have to meet its requirements, which were agreed by the previous Administration. We have to work within the terms of the legislation and the Florence agreement, negotiated by the previous Government. I am doing everything I can to meet those conditions as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we are thinking of ways to try to alleviate the problems that beef producers are facing, such as the action that I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the expenditure on the destruction of fruit and vegetables through common agriculture policies in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the average amount in the previous five years. [2899]

In 1996, total expenditure on intervention across the European Union was £145 million. The average for the previous five years was £265 million. The cost of those fruits and vegetables subsequently destroyed, as opposed to those put to other end uses, cannot be separately identified.

Is it not sickening that hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on destroying food to keep prices artificially high, thereby undermining the living standards of the poor? Will the new Labour Government commit themselves today to scrapping that sickening protection racket, which is a hundred thousand miles from what I had always understood socialism to stand for?

Such levels of destruction and the costs are clearly scandalous. There is no other word for it. Fruit and vegetable regime reforms have reduced the payments by 40 per cent. and the amounts of produce destroyed. Intervention is a part of the common agricultural policy. We shall be pressing for reforms of such elements of the CAP.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the conditions in which live animals are transported. [2900]

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just explained to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), as a first step we have implemented the new EU rules which ought to have been implemented by 31 December 1996. We are actively considering other measures to ensure that the highest welfare standards are applied.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he ensure that the arrangements for the transport of animals in Europe are up to the high standards that apply in Britain? Will he also ensure that any operators that breach the laws on animal transportation are dealt with forcefully—by the withdrawal of their operator's licence if necessary?

One of the advantages of the implementation of the orders on the welfare of animals in transport is that they introduce, for the first time, compulsory licensing for hauliers moving animals. That will mean that animal exporters found to be in breach of regulations will face having their licences removed. The Government will not have the slightest hesitation in doing that.

With regard to the export of live animals, and indeed dead animals, have not the hon. Gentleman's officials been telling farmers in the west country since the Amsterdam summit that the beef ban is likely to last for at least two years—yes or no?

First, the Government draw a distinction in policy between the export of live animals and that of dead animals. We want to promote the export of meat and we want a strong meat trade. We believe that that should be given priority rather than the export of live animals that are slaughtered abroad and, on occasion, passed off as meat from the country in question. We of course want the restoration of beef exports as part of the strong meat trade. My right hon. Friend the Minister has explained the progress in, and the priority given to, that matter.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to apply to the European Commission for a full implementation of the compensation package available in respect of agri-monetary revaluation. [2901]

Paying the aid would have significant implications for United Kingdom public expenditure. We are considering carefully the case made by interested parties for payment, but we have until 31 January next year to decide on the matter.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand the extent of the difficulties that beef producers, and the dairy sector in the west country particularly, are facing as a result of the previous Government's actions over many years? Does he realise that those problems are being exacerbated by imports and that assistance is required, not some time next year, but now? If the Government do not take the opportunity of using the EU 50 per cent. resources that are available to them, producers will wonder why.

I understand, and we share entirely, the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We cannot take an early decision on the matter; we have time. I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the value of CAP amounts is 9.4 per cent. higher than in January 1992, even taking into account the most recent revaluation of 5 June. The current protection, following the effects of the January and March revaluations of the freeze rates that were used to calculate sterling payments this year, will be worth £400 million over the next two years.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the renegotiation of the common agricultural policy. [2902]

The need for CAP reform is widely recognised and is a major priority for the Government. A redirection of the CAP away from high prices and production controls is essential if EU agriculture is to remain competitive and dynamic in the face of the liberalisation of world trade and the effects of EU enlargement.

In response to an earlier question, the Minister of State said that he was not in favour of modulation. Will the Minister go further and say that he will reject any proposal for CAP reform that incorporated modulation?

I can go further still and say that I will reject any proposals that come up under the CAP that would disadvantage British farmers.

I recognise that my right hon. Friend has quite rightly identified the problems of enlargement in relation to the CAP, but what discussions are the Government having with those nations that might join the EU at some future date, such as Poland and Romania, whose agricultural economies would have a grave effect on the CAP's future?

That is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Those matters are being discussed not only by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary but by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the context of the intergovernmental conference and the wider debate about EU enlargement, which we support.

Given that not much progress seems to have been made on the issue of EU enlargement at the Amsterdam summit, and that reform of the CAP has to a great extent hinged on that issue, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the House, especially those of us who represent agricultural communities, how negotiations and discussions will take place? Enlargement is linked with the development of structural and regional funds, particularly for less-favoured areas. The issue is important to all of us who represent rural constituencies. I would like to hear Government Front Benchers send the message today that negotiations and discussions will take place in a positive fashion.

If the hon. Lady is asking for an assurance that we will adopt a positive approach to discussions and negotiations on EU enlargement, I can give her that without hesitation. Not to be able at the same time to seek fundamental reforms of the CAP would be damaging for us and, in the long term, the EU's structure would become unstable because an enlarged union would not be able to finance the current CAP.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the long-term prospects of farmers in less-favoured areas; and if he will make a statement. [2903]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is well aware of the problems of farming in the less-favoured areas as his constituency includes less-favoured areas. The concerns of hill farmers will be fully taken into account in the development of policy affecting rural areas.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Front Bench. In this afternoon's debate on the CAP, will he urgently address the issue of reform? Will he consider the ways in which the CAP is wasteful and unfair and how to redirect any resources saved as a result of reforms towards hill farmers and farmers in less-favoured areas such as those in my constituency?

I am aware that my hon. Friend represents some less-favoured areas. This is an important matter. Farmers in marginal areas should be supported. They will have expected to receive £650 million last year in subsidies for LFAs, which is equivalent to about £26,000 for each full-time LFA English cattle and sheep farmer. We intend to support those communities and we will ensure that their interests are protected in any reform of the CAP.

To ask the Attorney-General what measures he plans to introduce to reduce the time taken by the Crown Prosecution Service to bring cases to court. [2920]

The Narey report put forward a number of proposals for reducing delay in the courts. The public consultation ended on 31 May and the Government are now looking closely at the proposals in light of the responses that they have received.

I welcome the Attorney-General to his post. He faces a difficult situation in ensuring that the bottlenecks that have been identified in the CPS are sorted out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be surprised to know that his colleagues in the Home Office told me, when I stressed to them that resources should go from the Home Office to his Department to get the CPS moving, that they believe that the CPS has sufficient resources and that all that is needed is good management. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I have to disappoint him, because there are no additional resources. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have set up an independent review, whose terms of reference have been made known to the House. That may deal with some of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman in the latter part of his question.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend please assure the House that the CPS will inform victims or relatives of victims when serious charges are downgraded, and give reasons for such downgrading?

The first part of my hon. Friend's suggestion, which I regard as particularly important, is under active consideration. As for the assertion that there has been undue downgrading, that will be considered, among other matters, by the independent review. I welcome my hon. Friend's observations.

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment, and the Solicitor-General, in another place, on his. In that context, however, I note that, even with 418 Members, new Labour cannot find two Law Officers in this House.

First, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words. In all the time that he held the office that I now have the honour to hold, he was unfailing in his courtesy and in the assistance that he gave me over the years, for which I thank him.

To ask the Attorney-General what are his proposals in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Asil Nadir in the United Kingdom. [2921]

The central criminal court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Asil Nadir, and Interpol has been informed. The Serious Fraud Office intends to proceed against him on charges of theft when he returns, or is returned, to the jurisdiction.

I do not suppose that Nadir mistook Turkey for Torquay.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that Turkey is not Torquay and that Mr. Nadir did not mistake the two places.

I also welcome the Attorney-General to his Front-Bench position. Does he recall that, when he and his colleagues were on the Opposition Benches, they used to maintain week after week that it was a very simple matter to get Asil Nadir returned to this country, and that the only reason why the Government did not achieve it was the alleged connection with party funding? Now that he and his colleagues are in government, why can he not be more decisive in solving a problem that he thought was so simple when he was in opposition? Has the legal position changed, or has the Labour party stumbled on the truth?

The hon. Gentleman is drawing on his imagination if he thinks for one moment that I ever suggested that this was a simple matter. As a lawyer, he must know the law and the extradition procedure. We do not recognise northern Cyprus, and therefore no extradition arrangement is in force. I have just told the House the present position on Turkey, and I have nothing to add. The legal position has not changed, as, I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.

Did the Attorney-General see "The Cook Report" television programme on Asil Nadir, in which, contrary to one's expectations, the Serious Fraud Office and other agencies of the state, not Asil Nadir, were exposed for their deception and dishonesty? Is the Attorney-General satisfied that the agencies involved acted correctly?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I did not have the advantage of seeing that television programme—like many of us in this place, I did not have the time. However, I have received a full report on the programme which, I am told, did not present an accurate or balanced picture of the investigation into Polly Peck International plc. I can add nothing to that. It would be wrong for me or the SFO to comment on that case any further, because the matter is obviously sub judice.

To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has to improve the accountability of his Department to Parliament. [2922]

I am accountable to Parliament for the work of each of my four Departments; namely, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and my own secretariat. The Treasury Solicitor's Department is preparing an annual report and accounts. The Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Government Property Lawyers agency will shortly submit to me their statutory annual reports.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend, and fellow countryman, to his new responsibility. Will his accountability, and that of his Department, extend to the publication of local reports? Will he assure me that, where appropriate, those reports will be published in his mother tongue of Welsh?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristically kind remarks. Currently, there are seven CPS branches in Wales, each of which published a bilingual report for the year ended 31 December 1996. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have the report for the West Glamorgan branch. We propose to continue the system of local reports, and they will be in two languages—something that will give pleasure to my hon. Friend.

Given that we are to have 42 chief Crown prosecutors when there are currently 13, can we expect the CPS to publish prosecution figures on each police force area comparable to the Home Office statistics on recorded crime?

The details of what will be in each report will be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, of whose interest I am aware, that the reports to be published in substance will not be less than what is done now. It is very important that the public in each locality should know what is happening, and that is why we have taken the speedy decision to ensure that there is appointed a Crown prosecutor comparable to, and covering an equivalent-sized area to, a chief constable. The public will know who is the chief constable and who is the Crown prosecutor. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office. [2924]

The Serious Fraud Office continues to deter the incidence of serious and complex fraud through effective investigation and prosecution. I will, however, be looking at the scope for further improvements as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review.

I welcome that answer. The Serious Fraud Office has had some fine successes, but also some expensive failures. Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree to beef up that organisation, with more accountants and more high-finance anti-fraud experts? Will he also consider putting a cap on legal aid, so that the taxpayer does not have to pay such huge funds to accused fraudsters?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I keep in close touch with the SFO. In the period for which figures are available, it had a conviction rate for defendants of 64 per cent. In the last year, nearly 86 per cent. of defendants were convicted.