To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what preparations his Department is making for the establishment of a food standards agency. [7274]

My Department, with the Department of Health and other interested Departments, is working towards publication of a White Paper in the autumn, which will set out the Government's proposals for the food standards agency. We have already made changes to the organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to prepare for the agency.

Many of my constituents in Stourbridge have raised the issue of food standards and safety with me, both before and after the general election. Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about publication of the White Paper and tell me what food standards measures his Department is implementing in the interim?

We have already conducted preliminary consultations on Professor James's report. My Department is now analysing the responses to that consultation. We shall draft the White Paper and make it available to the House and the public as soon as we possibly can. I am working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on appropriate interim arrangements to ensure that, if necessary, we can expeditiously deal with any food health problems that may arise.

Does the Minister agree that a Cabinet Minister should retain ultimate responsibility for food safety in the United Kingdom?

The food standards agency will be an independent executive agency. It will report to the Secretary of State for Health.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that development of the food standards agency will require the support of world-class research into the food sciences? If he does, will he consider a visit to the Institute of Food Research, in Norwich, as a part of the essential process of establishing a food standards agency?

Yes. As a scientist myself, I am absolutely certain that any decisions that we make on the matter should be based on the very best possible scientific analysis and advice. In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, yes, I will try to visit his constituents in Norwich.

Doubtless the Minister will want the maximum openness and transparency on the issue. Will he, therefore, kindly undertake to place in the Library the responses to Professor James's consultation, so that hon. Members may have some good reading over the long recess? Will he also consider following the excellent example of the Secretary of State for International Development, who, before publication of her White Paper, held a debate in the House in Government time? May we have a debate, in Government time, before publication of the White Paper on the food standards agency?

On the first part of the question, I should tell the Gentleman that there have been more than 600 responses to the consultation. In the interests of openness and transparency, I think that I can say—although that has a certain European parliamentary ring about it—that, yes, I will place copies in the Library. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, debates in Government time are a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Council.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that genetically engineered crops are separated from the main crop. [7276]

Under World Trade Organisation rules, it is not possible for Governments to demand segregation of genetically modified crops that have been approved as safe. Manufacturers and retailers, however, are free to pursue segregation on commercial grounds. Many United Kingdom supermarkets are demanding ever greater product traceability from their suppliers. There is no reason why they cannot do the same with genetically modified crops.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public's right to have their food labelled with pertinent information is more important than the rights of multinational food companies to make large profits by claiming that they are unable to separate genetically modified crops from the main crop? Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that such labelling occurs?

The answer to both my hon. Friend's questions is yes.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the operation of hill livestock compensatory allowances. [7277]

In England, 98 per cent. of claims under the 1997 scheme were paid by the target date of 30 April. The 1998 scheme is now open for cattle claims, and the application period for sheep claims will be open as usual in December.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that much of the beauty of areas such as the Lake district depends on the hard work of hill farmers? Is he aware that, with sheep prices now falling and the continuing and accelerating difficulties in the beef sector, many hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere are facing genuine problems? Will he therefore look with sympathy on their case for an uprating of HLCAs in the coming year?

HLCAs are indeed an important support package for farmers in the uplands. However, I have to point out that when the Tory party was in government it made no provision for the £60 million that it gave to the beef sector in the uplands this year. That £60 million is not in next year's accounts, which will cause some difficulty in providing support through HLCAs.

Would not the review of the upland payments be easier if the Government acted now to prevent the damage it will inflict on the incomes of hill farmers, and beef suckler herds in particular, and withdrew the ill-founded proposal to put a 560 kg weight limit on the animals eligible for culling? Does he not realise that that alone could cost hill farmers—honest hill farmers, not those out to fiddle the system—up to £150 per beast? With the next green pound revaluation now imminent, why does the Parliamentary Secretary not do what the Ministers of eight other countries have already done and go to Brussels to get the compensation to which he is entitled for his farmers, who will otherwise suffer?

May I first welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his first Question Time in his new role? I repeat: if the previous Government felt that support for the suckler sector was so important, why did they make no provision for the £60 million in the Ministry's budget next year? It is true that there is hardship for the suckler sector because of the changes that have been made, but the Opposition spokesman will be aware that the total cost of bovine spongiform encephalopathy support is £3.5 billion of public money, spending for which the previous Administration bear some responsibility because of their incompetence.

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, since this Government came to power, there have been two major green pound revaluations, because the Chancellor let go of control of interest rates, and a third is imminent? As farmers are suffering severe income loss as a result, are they not entitled to get compensation from Brussels? Why does the hon. Gentleman not do what eight of his colleagues at the Council of Ministers are doing and get that benefit for his farmers—or does he not care enough?

In relation to the revaluation of the green pound, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already met a delegation of farmers from the National Farmers Union and made it clear that we are considering that point.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the Meat Hygiene Service. [7278]

The Government are looking carefully at the options for the future of the Meat Hygiene Service following the consultation exercise on Professor James's report into the establishment of an independent food standards agency. The report itself recommends that the new agency should take over responsibility for the Meat Hygiene Service.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that useful answer. I, too, think that the Meat Hygiene Service should become part of the agency. My right hon. Friend will be aware that York is not just Britain's but Europe's biggest centre for bioscience and has many agencies from his Department other than the Meat Hygiene Service—for example, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Central Science Laboratory. Would he like to come to York to see what they contribute to food safety, and will he give me an assurance that, wherever the headquarters of the new food standards agency is based, the Meat Hygiene Service will remain in York?

I very much hope that my hon. Friend remains in York, too, as the Member of Parliament. No proposal has been made, by Professor James or anyone else, to relocate the Meat Hygiene Service. I can assure my hon. Friend on that point. In the coming months, I will try hard to visit him and his constituents in York.

Does the Minister consider that the food standards agency should adopt the role of regulator of the Meat Hygiene Service, which should remain? Does he also believe that it is in the interests of the public that we have the highest possible standards of hygiene and that the consumer deserves nothing less from products coming in from Europe?

The food standards agency will subsume the Meat Hygiene Service and its necessary activities. I certainly agree that we must drive up standards of hygiene in food generally and in the meat industries in particular. I hope that my European ministerial colleagues at next week's Council of Ministers vote to implement the same rigorous controls over specified beef risk materials that we have in this country. As I have told the House on more than one occasion, if they do not, I shall table orders in the House to ensure that beef imported to Britain is subject to those rigorous controls.

Is the Minister aware that some of the abattoirs that have worked most closely with the Meat Hygiene Service and offer the best levels of hygiene and welfare facilities have been inexplicably excluded from the over-30-months cull? That is causing enormous difficulties for farmers, agents and hauliers throughout my constituency and, I think, in most of the country. Will he intervene to avoid another agricultural crisis?

I am not aware of any impending crisis. The scheme, which, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, is administered by the Intervention Board, is subject to competitive tendering to ensure that we get the best value for the large amounts of taxpayers' money involved, running to hundreds of millions of pounds.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for reform of the common fisheries policy. [7280]

The Government are pressing for the common fisheries policy to be improved in a number of ways, including strengthening the economic benefits that countries derive from their quotas, improving the effectiveness of enforcement measures and introducing a greater regional dimension into decision making.

Will the Minister give the House two assurances? First, will he assure us that coastal strips predominantly fished by the non-sector industry will for ever remain exclusively for UK boats after 2002, when the current derogation expires? Secondly, will he assure us that the North sea will never be fished by other national fleets except those that already fish there? The pressure on quotas is already destroying this country's inshore fisheries.

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks on both counts. I know that fishermen in Brightlingsea, West Mersea and Wivenhoe in his constituency have had particular difficulties caused by over-fishing. We want to press ahead with restructuring our fishing industry to try to deal once and for all with problems such as those that he has rightly drawn to my attention.

During the forthcoming UK presidency of the European Union, will the Minister ensure that reform of the common fisheries policy is given clear priority and that Britain sets the agenda for it? Does he believe that our presidency provides an opportunity to bring forward the date of the much needed review of the common fisheries policy?

We certainly intend to set the agenda. We must recognise that we cannot totally control it, because it is partly set by the circumstances that we inherit from the previous presidency. We want reform of the common fisheries policy to be on the agenda. I doubt that there is any way in which we can advance the date for the changes that the hon. Gentleman referred to, but we have begun to prepare for our presidency. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I had a meeting earlier this week with the leaders of the British fishing industry from all over the United Kingdom.

I applaud the Government's efforts to tackle the problems of the fishing industry, which are in contrast to the empty talk we had from Conservative Members when they were in government. What is being done to improve the enforcement of the measures?

I am pleased to say that one of the commitments my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received from the President of the Commission was that we would move towards the uniform enforcement of fishing controls across the European Union—something that should have been done a considerable time ago.

In seeking to tackle the problem of quota hoppers, in particular by the proposals on landing and crewing, the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be frustrated by the treaty of Rome, as happened in the Factortame case. Does he accept that, in reality, the only way forward is to amend the treaty of Rome, particularly the provisions that deal with the movement of persons and capital? That can be done only at an intergovernmental conference.

No, I do not agree. Even if I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right on that point, we realise clearly that there is no support from other member states of the European Union for such an approach. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Factortame case, over which the United Kingdom was in difficulties. The difference now is that we have a letter of authority from the President of the Commission for what we intend to do. If our proposal was the subject of a legal challenge, the President of the Commission would be on our side, as opposed to being against us, as happened in the past.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve the welfare of animals held in quarantine. [7281]

We are currently inspecting those quarantine kennels that have signed up to a voluntary code of practice for the welfare of dogs and cats in quarantine premises to ensure they can meet all its requirements. We would like to put the code on a statutory basis when parliamentary time can be found.

Is my hon. Friend shocked by the list of situations, reported to him by Passports For Pets, in many of the quarantine kennels that are outside the present code? They are no-go areas for animal welfare. There are cases of neglect and sometimes cruelty, leading to great suffering for the animals incarcerated there. Although my hon. Friend is, I am sure, planning for a major reform of our absurd, cruel and unnecessary quarantine system, will he give an assurance that the Animal Health (Amendment) Bill, which was presented to the House yesterday, will have the Government's full support when it is considered by the House again in November?

I was present in the House yesterday when my hon. Friend presented the Bill and I congratulate him on his arguments on the serious issue of maintaining very high standards in quarantine kennels. At present, 74 quarantine kennels have signed up to the Ministry's voluntary code of practice; five have not. There are no powers at present to insist that they do sign up. We will look at the matter and we will examine my hon. Friend's Bill carefully when it is published to see whether we can use it as the basis of taking this issue forward.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a significant reduction in the problem of the welfare of animals in quarantine could be brought about by reducing the necessity for animals to go into quarantine? Do the Government have any plans to introduce new rules to allow animals coming in from the European Union and other rabies-free countries with the necessary veterinary certificates not to have to go into quarantine for the period at present required?

The Government's policy is to ensure that this country retains its rabies-free status; that is obviously very important. Having said that, we acknowledge there have been new advances in technology and new procedures. We committed ourselves, when in opposition, to a review of quarantine procedures. We have carried out that review and we propose to produce a consultation paper in the not-too-distant future on the various options that could be considered, ensuring that we maintain the rabies-free status of this country.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards securing reform of the common agricultural policy. [7282]

I am delighted that the European Commission yesterday published proposals for common agricultural policy reform, which in most respects reflect the Government's own ideas and priorities.

Does the Minister agree that, although the announcements from the Commission are broadly welcomed by the agricultural sector and the wider environment, there is concern about the possibility of a cap on the proposed ceiling for direct payments to farmers? Will he undertake to resist any proposals for a cap on our farms, which are generally two or three times larger than those elsewhere in the European Union, as that would be detrimental to farmers in my constituency of Lewes and elsewhere in the country?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to what in Euro-jargon is called modulation. I can assure him, as I have told the House before, that I am opposed to the introduction of modulation in the CAP.

Will my right hon. Friend please outline how he intends to consult communities in peripheral rural areas such as the North York moors and his own constituency in Cumbria before the proposed reforms come into effect?

My hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary and my noble Friend in the other place are already involved in regional consultation on a regular basis, as are all right hon. and hon. Members. I can assure my hon. Friend that, having represented such a constituency for 27 years, I shall ensure that the voices of farmers in the hills, the dales and less-favoured areas are heard.

Given that the Government have already stated that the reform of the milk quota system is tied up with reform of the CAP, and as many dairy farmers are advising their sons and daughters not to follow them into the industry, but instead to enter the milk quota brokerage industry—assuming that they have also qualified as lawyers or accountants—will the Minister address the reform of the milk quota system as a matter of urgency so that young people are once again encouraged to join the industry?

The answer is yes. I favour the abolition of milk quotas, as that is the only realistic reform that should be on the agenda. I intend that that issue, among others, will be on the agenda during the United Kingdom presidency. In general, I support the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Does the Minister accept that the CAP has forced up food prices in Britain and elsewhere and represents a substantial transfer of resources from urban areas to rural areas? Why should the urban poor subsidise wealthy farmers? Would we not be much better off if the system were reformed so that prices were reduced substantially?

It is true that the rural poor as well as the urban poor have to pay high prices—sometimes even higher prices—for their food, so the CAP has been of disadvantage to British people generally. We all pay more than is necessary for our food. I can think of few, if any, other policies that cost £30 billion a year and infuriate the farmers and the consumers alike.

Although we welcome the reduction in price support contained in the proposals published yesterday—indeed, I welcome the remarks that the Minister has just made about them—does he agree that they would increase the cost of the CAP to the taxpayer by some £3.5 billion, yet at the same time reduce the income to arable farmers by some £330 million, in addition to the fact that cereal prices this year are already some 30 per cent. down on last year? Why should British farmers believe that the Minister will negotiate firmly on their behalf for proper compensation for further price reductions when he still refuses to commit himself to applying for the £350 million in compensation that is already on the table as a result of the revaluation programme.

The hon. Gentleman is right: the proposals—we are still examining them in detail—involve increases in expenditure. The Government have certainly not signed up automatically to that. I also recognise that, if we are to get away from support for production—that is our basic position—there will have to be transitional arrangements for farmers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to balance (a) fishing capacity reduction and (b) effort limitation in reaching the targets set out in the multi-annual guidance programme. [7283]

My colleagues and I are discussing this with leaders of the fishing industry.

I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the combination of effort and capacity targets is a bad idea because it makes it difficult to secure transparency and to know what is going on with regard to limitation of effort by our competitors. I hope that he further agrees that, given that the reductions demanded of us will be so massive, it will be impossible to reach them without substantial decommissioning funds from the Treasury to help the industry and without some kind of set-aside net-aside for tie-ups from Brussels. If we cannot reach such targets, we will have no access to European funding, which all our competitors have had and the British industry needs.

I know that my hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner on behalf of his constituents and the British fishing industry. I know that he understands, as we do in government, that part of the problem that the industry is facing is due to the failure of the previous Administration under MAGP III in making progress in effort reduction. The fact remains, however, that there is a serious problem with overcapacity, as my hon. Friend knows. We have to tackle that with the industry. We want to give the industry the widest options concerning effort control. There is of course also a case for decommissioning, for which we have some funds available—£12 million. As he knows, we are talking with the industry about the best way of using those funds and the various options available.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates to be the costs to date of BSE enforcement. [7284]

The approximate cost of enforcement of BSE measures by the Meat Hygiene Service since its establishment in April 1995 until the end of March this year is a little more than £20 million. Obviously, there are no figures available for the current year. Details of any local authority enforcement costs are not held centrally. I should put the figures in context: BSE is costing the public this year £1.4 billion, and over a four-year period, £3.7 billion—not a penny of which has been planned for.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Perhaps those relatively modest amounts spent on enforcement reflect the failure of the previous Government to deal with the matter and ensure the very highest level of personal and consumer safety.

I agree entirely with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. It is clear that the previous Government were slack in the extreme in enforcing BSE measures. That is why so little has been spent. The activities on Tuesday will be detailed in a further answer. We shall publish before the end of the year the hygiene assessment scores for every abattoir and slaughterhouse in the country. Frankly, anyone who continues to buy from any establishment that has a low score needs his head looking at.

We cannot have it both ways. Earlier, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food joined the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) in paying tribute to the Meat Hygiene Service, which is based in York, and I join him in that. The Minister of State, however, appears to be saying that the standards of enforcement were not good. What is the truth? Should we be concerned not about the standards of enforcement in this country but—if the Minister's plan to ban beef imports from other European countries that do not meet the same hygiene standards is to have any meaning—about enforcement in abattoirs in other European countries?

Let us get this clear. Staff in my Department have been carrying out the duties requested of them by previous Ministers. Previous Ministers were the ones who were slack. They deliberately sought not to enforce the regulations. Staff were required to follow those orders, which has left us having to close abattoirs at a few hours' notice. If there are any culprits in the matter, they are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and the Benches behind. As the costs and consequences of the BSE legacy emerge and become apparent to present Ministers, we can see ever more clearly that the previous Government's handling of BSE amounted to nothing less than economic treason.

My hon. Friend used the term "slack in the extreme". Will he make a statement, and place it in the Library, of what he found out about BSE when Labour took over the Government? From all reports, it sounds shocking.

I assure my hon. Friend that we asked all the questions that would come immediately to mind. We are still awaiting some of the answers.

In the light of the Minister's statements about the costs of BSE enforcement, it is obvious that there is cross-party enthusiasm to solve the matter as early as possible. Does he recognise the unease of the National Farmers Union for Scotland that the twin-track proposals announced by the Government suggest that one track may move faster than the other? Will he assure us that the twin-track approach will maintain the same pace for each aspect of the certified herds scheme and the date-based scheme?

The hon. Gentleman's question goes somewhat wider than the original question. We are moving as quickly as possible on several fronts to get the ban lifted. It is not just a question of BSE enforcement, because the Florence agreement contains many other impositions and requirements. We hope to make an early announcement on progress on those requirements and we will seek to move forward on a United Kingdom basis wherever possible.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase support for organic farming. [7285]

We have already made it clear that we want to encourage an expansion of organic production and we are considering the best ways of achieving that.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many organic farmers have a sense of grievance? They feel that they are discriminated against by the Department and are forced to charge higher prices for their products because their concern for conservation of the soil and the natural environment in which they work is such that they are unable to use the high-growth fertilisers and pesticides that other farmers use. They feel that the pricing system militates against them. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that sense of grievance is dealt with and that they are treated on a par with organic farmers in other parts of the European Union?

Yesterday, the Government responded formally to the Select Committee on Agriculture, which made recommendations on organic farming. This morning, at the Agri-Environment Forum, I had the opportunity to discuss the issue with Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, who made a powerful case for more support. The Government want to see more organic conversion. The present structures have caused problems for farmers wishing to convert and we are reviewing them. Demand for organic produce is so strong that we are importing produce, but we wish to see British farmers meeting the demand with organic produce.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent illegal beef exports. [7287]

All allegations are urgently and rigorously investigated. My hon. Friend will be aware that as a result of serious hygiene concerns arising from investigations into such allegations, my Department and I issued notices on 14 July preventing two meat plants in the United Kingdom from trading in beef.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that farmers in my area are concerned about any illegal activity, which can only help delay the lifting of the ban on British beef exports? Is he further aware of how welcome his prompt and firm action has been to local farmers?

Overwhelmingly, farmers and legitimate and responsible meat traders will be infuriated by the allegations that British meat companies have been involved in a European Union-wide fraud, especially as the European Union ban on British beef came into effect in March 1996. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend, her constituents and the House to the fact that by 1 May this year no new legislation had been enacted in the United Kingdom to place the ban on a statutory footing. I intend to introduce new legislation shortly to clarify and strengthen my powers to deal with suspected illegal exports and to enhance the checks that are carried out at ports.

Does the Minister accept that the only way to ensure the same high standards in beef imported from continental abattoirs as we have come to expect from our own abattoirs would be to undertake to send our meat hygiene inspectors or our rigorous MAFF vets to inspect the abattoirs on the continent from which we are to import? Will he raise that idea with his ministerial colleagues next week and undertake to say that we will not import European beef unless it comes from abattoirs as demonstrably fine as our own?

That is an absurd proposition. I have no such powers to send my meat inspectors into meat plants in other countries. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European Union has its own inspectorate for such purposes.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the administration and financing of the over-30-months slaughter scheme.[7289]

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about his decision to reduce compensation payments to beef farmers with effect from 4 August. [7290]

I have received a number of representations from farming interests about the decision to reduce the compensation payment for cull cows slaughtered under the scheme and to cap compensation payments by introducing a weight limit of 560 kg. The over-30-months scheme is administered by the Intervention Board executive agency and is co-financed by the European Union.

When the Minister was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), he said that he saw no crisis brewing in the scheme. Does he not realise that many farmers, in my constituency and throughout the country, would regard that as remarkably complacent—perhaps even as complacent as the attitude of the previous Administration? Although the halving of the number of abattoirs and the reduction in compensation to farmers may lead to some reduction in costs for the taxpayer, it will certainly mean an increase in costs to farmers and more distress for the animals involved because of the longer distances that they will need to be transported.

I made the point earlier, and I make it again to the hon. Gentleman now, that the Intervention Board has introduced competitive tendering precisely so that we can improve value for money for British taxpayers. I also repeat that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, United Kingdom expenditure on all BSE-related measures is forecast to be more than £1.35 billion in 1996–97, and is budgeted at more than £3.5 billion for the entire period 1996 to 2000. We simply cannot go on spending money at that rate. We have to take due account of the horrendous cost of it all to the taxpayer. I invite the hon. Gentleman, and anyone else who supports his argument, to think what we could do in the health service or in our children's schools with that expenditure.

Why is the Minister discriminating against the farmers with the fattest old cows? What message does he have for my constituent Mr. Farwell, who has a herd of fine Friesians and is extremely aggrieved by the 560 kg limit? A fine Friesian that has become barren will probably weigh 700 kg, so my constituent will lose a lot of money as a result of the arbitrary change.

I recognise that farmers, too, have difficulties as a result of the mismanagement of the whole crisis by the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member. Perhaps I should remind him that the scheme is subject to EU legislation and is not completely within the control of Her Majesty's Government. Decisions have to be approved by the Beef Management Committee in Brussels, precisely because of the mess created by the Conservatives.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the basic principles of the over-30-months scheme was that the reductions announced in the compensation have been part of the plan all along? Was not one of the guiding principles that farmers and producers would have the time to plan ahead? They knew full well that the time was coming when the compensation would be reduced and measures such as those that my right hon. Friend has announced would have to be adopted.

Yes, I agree with that. I should also point out that there is absolutely no reason, given the time that has elapsed, why any clean cattle should continue to go into the scheme

Will the Minister look closely at any arguments or suggestions from farmers' organisations or other bodies trying to meet the needs of beef and suckler farmers, provided that any further action is met within existing resources?

Yes. I met the president of the National Farmers Union and a representative group of farmers from all over the United Kingdom a couple of weeks ago. They said that they would put some counter-proposals to me on how the scheme might be administered. I said that I would consider any such proposals that were put to me. As yet, I have not received them.

Will the Minister confirm that it was pressure from the Treasury that led the British Government to make this request to the Beef Management Committee and that that request was to reduce the price not by 0.1 ecu per kilogram but by 0.3 ecu per kilogram? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no further such request will be made?

The Ministry of Agriculture is not immune to the need to stick within budgeted public expenditure—any more than any other Government Ministry is. A number of proposals were put to the Beef Management Committee in Brussels, and the final decision was made there. That is a consequence of the European Union legislation to deal with the crisis in beef farming caused by the previous Administration.

To ask the Attorney—General what discussions he has had since 1 May with the director of the Serious Fraud Office concerning the future of the office. [7305]

The director and I meet regularly to discuss matters of departmental interest. In 1996–97 the Serious Fraud Office had a highly successful year. Eight major cases were concluded, with 12 out of 14 defendants being convicted. The new director will continue to build on that foundation.

Do the Government have a strategy to rebuild the reputation of the Serious Fraud Office after it foundered on a series of high-profile cases during the past decade and earlier in this decade? May we have some idea of the kind of reforms that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider?

The figures that I have just given the House speak for themselves. There have been difficulties in the past, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that many of the cases with which the SFO has to deal are difficult and complex and need a great deal of investigation. Once they are prosecuted, of course, the SFO is in the hands of the courts. However, the hon. Gentleman should be reassured by the figures that I have given.

To ask the Attorney—General if he will make a statement as to the implications of the Amsterdam treaty for his Department. [7307]

The Amsterdam treaty does not have any specific implications for the work of my Department, but as a member of the Government I welcome the outstanding achievement of my colleagues in securing such a treaty which meets our key objectives.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that a strong and effective European Court of Justice is essential if this country is to gain the maximum advantage from membership of the European Union and essential to the interests of British industry if it is to take advantage of the single market?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A strong European Court of Justice is essential if we are to ensure compliance with the rules of Community law, such as the rules governing the internal market. As my hon. Friend says, the overwhelming majority of those rules benefit us—so I endorse his views.

Can the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty be used to enable United Kingdom judgments more easily to be enforced in other European Union countries?

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, I made my Department's responsibilities quite clear in my main answer, and the implications are as I have said. I could tell him what objectives we achieved, but the details of the treaty are matters for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I would respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts the question to him.

To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the effect of restrictions on rights of audience on morale in the Crown Prosecution Service. [7308]

The Crown Prosecution Service has no statistical information about this issue, but there is enthusiasm among Crown prosecutors to exercise rights of audience in the Crown court.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that morale in the Crown Prosecution Service is extremely important, and that it is a matter not only of resources but of career prospects, which include the possibility of appearing in the higher courts? Does he further agree that until the service is in good heart there is no point in contemplating a public defender system?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in these matters, and on the first part of the question I agree entirely: the morale is vital. On the second part, the review that we have set up has been warmly welcomed. Given that welcome, I hope that when the results come out, the review will play a major part in the question of morale that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises. The question of rights of audience and employed solicitors has already been decided, and it was clarified as recently as April this year. The question of employed banisters has not been resolved: it is before the designated judges for consideration, and has been for a little time.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to introduce measures to reform the Crown Prosecution Service. [7309]

In addition to the restructuring of Crown Prosecution Service areas to correspond with police areas, which 1 announced on 21 May 1997, Sir Iain Glidewell has been appointed to conduct an independent review of the CPS and expects to report to me by the end of the year. Further consideration will then be given to whether and what changes are necessary to provide for the more effective and efficient prosecution of crime through local public prosecutors.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that, although it is quite fair for the morale of the Crown Prosecution Service to be referred to by the Tory hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), it is far more important to consider the morale of our constituents, who are sick to the back teeth of having court cases delayed by the old existing service, over which the Tories presided? We want news of when Mr. Justice Glidewell's report will be published. Will the public be able to make representations? The people of this country want my right hon. and learned Friend to take a grip on the service, which is badly letting down the criminal justice system.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the paramount consideration must be the British public as a whole; I endorse that view. I hope that Sir Iain Glidewell's report will be published by the end of the year. The public will be invited to make their representations. In the years that have gone by, I have been aware of the feelings of many Members of Parliament and many petitioners about the Crown Prosecution Service.

Is the Attorney-General aware that many of my constituents feel that the barrier set by the CPS before it decides to initiate prosecutions is set absurdly high and that on some occasions it appears that the reason is a backlog in the courts rather than a decision as to whether an action will be successful? Is he also aware that for many minor offences it appears to be almost impossible for the CPS to initiate proceedings and, for matters such as vandalism, only in exceptional circumstances does an action proceed?

Those are some of the matters of concern to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred. Those matters will come within the remit of Sir Iain Glidewell. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that those who are guilty of offences are successfully prosecuted. The CPS has to take an independent judgment on the chances of conviction in each case, and that is what it does. If there are any shortfalls, they will be examined by Sir Iain and his inquiry.

Does the Attorney-General recognise that we welcome Sir Iain Glidewell's review, but is he also aware that those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind? Does he recall that he and, in particular, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went up and down the country prior to the election putting out the idea that the CPS was constantly dropping or downgrading cases wrongly? They went on to say that the CPS rather than the police should have the job of informing victims, but the present Government have put no money forward to enable that to happen and have therefore found it necessary to set up Sir Iain Glidewell's inquiry. Two of its primary functions are, first, to find out whether what he and the Home Secretary were saying is even accurate and, secondly, to find out whether what they are proposing is even practicable. Will he assure the House that the report—when it comes—will be published in full?

I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the report will be published in full. If he had not shut his eyes over the years to the grave concern expressed by judge after judge, prosecutor after prosecutor and by Members of this House and members of the public, something would have been done years ago. He may recall that when the Bill which became the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 was first introduced I moved an amendment and said that the issue should be reviewed in five years' time lest we might—all of us—have got it wrong. I do not think that we got it right. Hence, I immediately asked for 42 Crown prosecutors to be appointed in each area, to be coterminous with chief constables, so that the public would know where they stand.

To ask the Attorney-General how many unduly lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal since 1 May. [7310]

Since 1 May this year, the Solicitor-General and I have considered 27 sentences. I have applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to refer 11 of those sentences.

I thank the Attorney-General for that reply. Is he aware how angry people are at the Government's failure to make up their mind whether to implement mandatory minimum sentences, which are on the statute book just awaiting a Government decision? Is he aware that many persistent burglars on their seventh conviction are not even being sent to prison? Will he ensure that where there is such leniency the cases are referred by him to the Court of Appeal, pending a decision by the Home Secretary as to whether to implement the legislation?

Only a very small proportion of cases have been referred to me or to my predecessor compared with the huge number tried. The other matters that the hon. Gentleman raises are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Does the Attorney-General realise that if he were successful in securing longer sentences for the number of people that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) would like, and still more if he went for mandatory sentences, there would be nowhere to put the prisoners? Does he regret that the Home Secretary engaged in the general hue and cry for mandatory sentences before the general election and now has to face the consequences of no financial provision having been made for the extra prison places required?

The concern of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which I am sure is shared by the right hon. Gentleman, is with the rising rate of crime, which has continued year after year, and the Conservative party's failure to deal with it. That was the basis of his remarks and of his continuing concern. We want to ensure that more of those who are guilty are convicted by the courts.

May I put it to the Attorney-General that his answer is worrying because the numbers being referred to him and to the Court of Appeal are very small? Those of us who have represented constituencies for a long time, or who have appeared in courts, know that sentences are frequently unduly lenient. It would be more reassuring if he could tell the House that he would endeavour to do a bigger trawl and consider a greater number of cases so as to get a better benchmark for the Court of Appeal.

I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I and the Solicitor-General consider personally each and every case, as under my predecessor. Cases are referred to me by Members of Parliament, the Crown Prosecution Service, or the general public. The pattern seems fairly consistent. In 1997, 32 cases were referred to my predecessor. In the previous year, in England and Wales, there were 68, and in the year before that, there were 77. The cases that in accordance with statute we have to refer are not those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman or I might feel to be lenient but those that are unduly lenient—that is, where a sentence occurs well outside the usual pattern of sentencing. The statute was passed by his party, and we have to operate it.