What plans he has for speeding up reforms to the common agricultural policy. [12609]

I expect the Commission to propose detailed CAP reforms early next year. Making progress on discussion of those reforms will be a priority for the UK presidency of the Agriculture Council.

It is pleasing to note that from 1 January next year the EU presidency will be with the Labour Government. As one of the EU's objectives is to help small farms, will my right hon. Friend make every endeavour to ensure that the UK's large farms do not suffer under any CAP reforms? Will he also make every endeavour to assure us that the benefits of any CAP review will be felt by UK customers in the form of lower food prices?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend assurance on both those points. First, I would not support any form of modulation which discriminated against the UK or our efficient farmers. There are arguments for reducing expenditure on the CAP, but the argument that expenditure should be targeted at less efficient farming does not appeal to me. As for directing the benefits of any change towards consumers, I can assure my hon. Friend that we expect consumers to benefit quite significantly from changes to the cereals, beef, and—if we could achieve them—the milk regime too.

The Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP are outlined in Agenda 2000, but does the Minister agree that they make little concession towards enlargement of the EU, that they are probably unacceptable to the World Trade Organisation and that the financial outcome will be that they cost the taxpayer more rather than less?

I can partially agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some of the proposals will help us to conform with the likely requirements of the next round of WTO talks, and some will help us to develop a successful enlargement of the EU, which is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, but proposing that milk quotas should continue until 2006 will not help us to achieve either of those two objectives.

When considering the effects of European policy on British agriculture, farmers in my constituency are rather keen on the single European currency. Was not the Chancellor's statement on the euro last week in the best interests of British agriculture, while the stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition does a disservice to farmers and shows that the Opposition are completely out of touch with the countryside?

Exactly so—for a party which claims to be in touch with what is happening in the agriculture and food industries to suppose that that is not the case just shows how out of touch with reality it really is.

Will the Minister acknowledge that one of the potential benefits that can accrue to the United Kingdom through the coincidence of his custodianship of the Council of Ministers in the first half of next year and the CAP reform agenda is that he will be in a position to resist the understandable political temptation to speed up reform and, if he judges it correctly from a British as well as a wider European interest, he can ensure that time is taken to get the matter right, not least in the light of the implications that were acknowledged by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)?

There were several questions there.

May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the answer that he has just given, in which he dismissed the claim that I made in the debate on Tuesday that there was an underspend on the sheep annual premium? Will he confirm that he has received advice that there is an underspend on that budget? Will he also confirm that, in the light of that underspend, if he were to maintain the current levels of spending on hill livestock compensatory allowances, he would not breach his Department's public expenditure survey limits, which have already been set? If he cannot defend the interests of hill farmers—who are some of the hardest pressed farmers in this country—by giving me a positive answer, will he confirm that the truth of the matter is that the Treasury already has the money?

The truth of the matter is that that was the same rubbish that we heard from the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday evening. I can confirm that the sheep annual premium is a demand-led scheme and is fully funded by the European Community. We make estimates of expenditure under the scheme, but there is no specific provision for that. To suggest that, because there may be less in sheep annual premium this year than last year, the difference is available to me to use for hill livestock compensatory allowances is absurd nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that, let me tell him that hill farmers know it and they know that he is bogusly trying to raise a scare.

The Minister referred to the priority that he is giving to reform of the common agricultural policy. Will he enlighten us on the ways in which that reform could take place? Does he acknowledge that one way would be to reduce headage payments and to spend more money on agri-environmental schemes? Are the Government of the view that that is one way forward?

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is one of the positive opportunities for reform that we should grasp. We should decouple CAP expenditure from production. I should like to see reductions in support—with, I emphasise, transitional support for farmers—so that we move towards market prices for commodities. We should transfer some of those resources into agri-environment schemes and into rural economies generally.

What steps he is taking to improve the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service. [12610]

My first priority is to safeguard the health and well being of consumers, and the Meat Hygiene Service is in absolutely no doubt of that.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. What steps does he intend to take to raise consumer confidence in standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses, and when does he intend to publish individual hygiene scores?

We have taken a significant number of steps to improve consumer confidence in the hygiene and safety of meat in general and beef in particular. We shall publish individual hygiene assessment scores from January next year. We have taken action to remove dirty livestock from the food chain; contaminated carcases must never be passed as fit for human consumption; we are providing additional training for Meat Hygiene Service staff; we have stepped up attendance at plants, particularly those with low hygiene scores; and we have given a wider role to principal official veterinary surgeons as circuit supervisors of plant-based hygiene and inspection teams. In those and other ways, we are concentrating and focusing on driving up hygiene standards in the meat industry.

Does the Minister agree that the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service in York—in conjunction with the Central Science Laboratory at Sand Hutton in my constituency—has been an outstanding success? Will he take this opportunity to say that the jobs and prospects of staff at both establishments will be protected when he creates his Food Standards Agency?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The last Administration's decision to establish the Meat Hygiene Service was a good one. It has worked: it has improved the efficiency of the system. [Interruption.] I am saying that it was a good idea. It is rather churlish of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to protest when I am agreeing with one decision made by his Administration. I am telling his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that the service has improved efficiency and is an excellent feature of our determination to drive up hygiene standards. It has an assured future: responsibility for it will pass to the Food Standards Agency, and we have no intention of moving it from York.

What measures the Government are taking to ensure that the British public have confidence in his Department's statements about food safety. [12611]

Our clear priority is to put food safety first. We are looking towards the creation of an independent Food Standards Agency, which was a clear manifesto commitment, and we shall publish a White Paper very soon.

Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that consumer confidence in this country will be severely shaken if the World Trade Organisation succeeds in its current attempt to overthrow the European Union ban on imports of beef from America containing hormones that we all know cause cancer? Will he assure the House that he will join his colleagues in the European Union to fight the World Trade Organisation and the Americans tooth and nail?

The World Trade Organisation rules allow Governments to choose the appropriate level of protection for their citizens, which is absolutely right. What they do not allow are restrictions on trade which are not scientifically justified or are in themselves discriminatory. The hormones case is still going through the disputes procedure. We shall be looking for an outcome that protects consumers and their rights while respecting the sound scientific principles on which the WTO rules are based, without which there would be international chaos.

Will the Minister confirm that public health safety will be the primary object of the new food safety organisation, and that it will have its primary remit in the best scientific evidence that is available at the time?

The answer to both questions is yes.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the E. coli outbreak in my constituency of Lancaster and Wyre? The victims have fortunately recovered, and the firm involved has been completely exonerated and has operated in a very responsible manner. It seems that the problem related to the use of unpasteurised milk. Will my hon. Friend give some consideration to future policy regarding the use of unpasteurised milk in cheese-making?

Yes, I am aware of the recent outbreak in my hon. Friend's constituency. The outbreak control team met this morning. It has carried out a risk assessment of the factory and its products and has decided that there is no justification for extending the action taken in respect of unpasteurised milk cheese to other cheeses produced by that factory. Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Department of Health left for Lancashire this morning and should arrive there by early afternoon, although they are not part of the outbreak control team. I am moving to bring English policy on the drinking of raw, unpasteurised milk into line with that which has been in place in Scotland for many years, but I have no plans to do that in respect of cheese.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the Official Report of yesterday afternoon's Committee proceedings on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order? We looked carefully at the issue of fish safety and people's attitude to health issues relating to its consumption. Is the Minister aware that 293 square miles of the Moray firth have been banned to fishermen and that this dates from the first report of oil pollution on 28 August? At one point, it was 150 tonnes. It was then downgraded to 100 tonnes and subsequently moved up to 685 tonnes of oil pollution. It is sad that, in yesterday's Committee debate, the Government showed little sense of reality on the question of how to deal with long-term issues affecting co-operation by the oil and fishing industries to ensure that both industries are safe.

The hon. Lady raises an important point which was not dealt with by the Ministry at yesterday's meeting of the Committee. Nevertheless, I am aware of the general issues that she rightly raises and I will write to her on the detailed points.

What steps he is taking to further the welfare of battery hens. [12612]

The welfare of laying hens is a matter of concern which needs to be resolved at EU level. This is why we are pressing the Commission to bring forward proposals to amend the current controls. We expect these amendments to recognise the need to plan the long-term phasing out of the conventional battery system.

I am sure that I do not need to remind my hon. Friend, with his commitment to animal welfare, of the cruel conditions in which battery hens live. They are unable to stretch their wings, to peck or to scratch, and they are not even able to make nests in which to lay their eggs. What action does he intend to take on the Farm Animal Welfare Council report, which calls for the phasing out of battery cages and for further research on alternatives to that very cruel method of raising hens?

The Government have welcomed the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on laying hens. We are also commissioning research into supporting alternative systems and dealing with the welfare problems of each system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will address the issue during the UK presidency to seek improvements to battery systems in the short term.

Does the Minister agree that hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested in the welfare of animals and of battery hens in particular? Does he further agree that this must be a matter for the EU and that we must have a common standard throughout? Does he also agree that the answer to the welfare of hens in a battery system is down to good husbandry and that the number of eggs that are required in this country for catering and for private consumption cannot be supplied by free-range or barn systems? In addition, housewives cannot afford such eggs. Will he present a common-sense solution to the problem and ensure that, with good husbandry, the product can be afforded by the majority of Britain's families?

The hon. Lady is right to say that the issue must be approached on a Europe-wide basis; otherwise our producers would be undermined without welfare gain in relation to the eggs on shop shelves. Retailers such as Marks and Spencer have announced that they will no longer stock any eggs except those from free range systems. Undoubtedly consumer demand and quality assurance schemes from retailers are already driving change in that area.

What recent representations he has received on the common fisheries policy. [12613]

I have received many recent representations on the common fisheries policy.

Will the Minister do all he possibly can to reverse the decline of the inshore fishery? Is he aware that many fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea feel that sole and plaice quota has been lost to flag ships and that that imbalance has failed to be addressed by underpinning? Will he finally ensure that EC directive 2141/70 article 39(i) is adhered to, as it will help fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea and those people who eat the fish in Basildon?

The hon. Member makes a serious point about the pressures on the inshore fishing industry, and Ministers are committed to supporting that sector of the industry. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, in the discussions that, as he is aware, are taking place on a change towards fixed quota allocation the Government will ensure that the needs of the inshore industry are protected and recognised by continued underpinning of quota and, in relation to directive EC 2141/70, by support for the inshore industry through schemes such as PESCA and harbour grants. The industries in that area are eligible for such schemes. They can make an application, and of course we shall treat each application on its merits as part of our support for the fishing industry.

While I appreciate the efforts being made by the Minister at the recent meeting of European Ministers to ensure that the most humane methods are employed to prosecute various fisheries throughout Europe, will he recognise, as I do, that many fishermen have chosen to employ other methods which take them away from the quota system, and will he respond to requests that compensation be afforded to the very few tuna drift net fishermen who will be damaged by any measures to ban their fishery so as to assist them to retrain and invest in other forms of fishery and remain off quota?

At the Fisheries Council last week, I made it clear that, under the United Kingdom presidency, the British Government will progress with proposals which have been lying on the table since 1992 to phase out high seas drift nets in EU waters, especially because of the impact on dolphins and non-target species. I also said then that we realised that this would have an impact on those fishermen who are involved in that fishery, and of course their interests and needs will be taken into consideration. I have already received representations from Mike Townsend of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, who has argued the interests of his members very strongly.

Will the Minister confirm that, due to the Prime Minister's failure in negotiating the Amsterdam treaty, that treaty contains no legal protection for British fishermen threatened as a result of quota hopping? Can he also confirm that what was negotiated in the form of an exchange of letters between Commission President Santer and the Prime Minister amounts in effect to nothing more than is already contained in category A licences as far as landings are concerned?

The Conservative Government put forward totally bogus proposals to deal with quota hopping. They made proposals to try to deal with the issue in the intergovernmental conference, knowing that just one country could veto those proposals. Not only that, but not one other country supported the Government's position. We have made more progress to deal with quota hopping in six months than the Conservative Government made in their last decade in office. We shall make announcements about our policy on the fishing industry in due course, but we have been undertaking a proper consultation with the fishing industry to obtain its views and to involve it in decisions in a way that the previous Government failed to do.

What representations he has received from breeders of traditional native breeds of cattle with slow rates of growth. [12614]

I have received a small number of representations from breeders of such animals.

Is the Minister aware that ecologists agree that the best way to maintain the unique character of the New Forest is to have it grazed by suckler cows? Is he also aware that, because of the quality of the ground, such beasts will be in their third year before they can be sold as store? Will he therefore distance himself from the disgraceful remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture on Tuesday when he accused farmers of cheating on the schemes for compensation for BSE?

I will attempt to address the hon. Gentleman's question of substance, because there is a genuine problem for breeders of native breeds of cattle with slow rates of growth such as Galloway, Welsh black and Highland. The beef assurance scheme was fixed up so that such cattle can come to market at between 30 and 42 months. I regret that there are only 73 registered members of that scheme, so it has not been a success. That does not meet the issues raised in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but it meets those raised in his original question of substance.

My hon. Friend is completely right to say that it is a genuine problem. Will the Ministry take into account not only any romantic advantage of Highland or other special breeds but their value to the gene pool? Will the Ministry look at the issue from the point of view of long-term genetic advantage to the British cattle herd?

I do not know how many of the 73 herds in the scheme are in Scotland, but my hon. Friend's point is correct. One of the reasons for the beef assurance scheme was to ensure that farmers with special breeds did not suffer and that the nation did not suffer by losing those breeds.

Does the Minister accept that the three breeds that he just cited are all hill breeds? Is it not absolute drivel for the Minister to suggest that the problems of hill farming are related purely to the beef ban? Does he not know or even care that the prices of fat cattle, store cattle and lambs are now much lower than they were 12 months ago, which was well after the ban was introduced? Does he not know that the prices of store cattle and sheep are now lower than when he took responsibility for the industry? Is it not true that that is because of the Government's policy of keeping sterling so high, which is destroying our sheep exports and encouraging beef imports? What will he do now about the proposals to end the intervention for beef, which would only mean more imports into this country and even lower cattle prices for our native breeds and all others?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the illusion that we are not living in a market economy.

What assessment he has made of variations in diet and nutrition between the regions of England; and what role the Food Standards Agency will have to investigate them. [12616]

The Department assesses regional variations in the diet of the British population using the continuous national food survey and, with the Department of Health, the national diet and nutrition survey programme.

Does the Minister agree that the consumption of fruit, vegetables and salad is lower in the northern region of England than in other parts of England? Does he agree that that is a matter not just of individual choice but of social exclusion from good diet because people find themselves on low incomes, with no cars and facing high-cost food? Will he assure the House that the Food Standards Agency will do some proactive work and contribute to the Government's policy on social exclusion so that diet is also considered when we talk about social exclusion?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the consumption of certain foods varies on a regional basis. More up-to-date figures will be published on 10 November in the next national food survey. A special analysis of regional data is contained in that report.

As there is a variation in the incidence of tuberculosis in badgers in the different regions of Britain, can the Minister say whether the Government have any policy on that matter? Farms have been closed—

Order. This question does not relate to badgers; it is about nutrition in the regions.

Does the Minister accept that an important element in nutrition can be vitamin supplements? Is he aware of the dismay among many alternative and complementary medical practitioners and nutritionists about the ban on over-10 mg vitamin B6? Does he accept that, across the industry, most people believe that 100 mg is perfectly safe? Is not the advice that the hon. Gentleman has accepted fundamentally flawed, having been based on a 10-year-old survey largely dealing with animals? Much more recent information is now available. Will he reconsider the matter, which is causing much concern among those who are trying to improve the health of the nation?

The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point, but I invite him to re-read the further information that he has received—as, indeed, has every hon. Member. The advice was not taken on the basis of one scientific paper—more than 100 have been assessed.

If he will make a statement on progress into investigations into the dumping of radioactive material at sea. [12617]

The searches to identify any unrecognised dumping of radioactive waste at sea have now been completed, apart from those at the Ministry of Defence, where they are unlikely to be completed this year, I regret. Only one further instance of such dumping has been identified in addition to those I announced in July this year. This concerns the disposal of radioactive miss-distance indicators by the Royal Air Force in the Holyhead deep in 1974.

That was a statement

The question asked for a statement.

I thank my hon. Friend both for his comments today and for his statement in July. That brought to light, for the first time, unacceptable practices undertaken under previous Governments to dump radioactive material at sea—including in Liverpool bay, off the north Wales coast, near my constituency.

The matter will be dealt with openly, and the report published.

Is the Minister aware that radioactive contamination at sea also comes from nuclear establishments? Is he further aware that, as recently as October, contamination from the Dounreay plant resulted in the closure of a nearby fishery, which, to my knowledge, is still closed?

I am aware of that. One reason why that contamination was discovered was the constant surveillance of our seashore for contaminants. It is a crucial and continuing process. Action will be taken when contaminants are found.

If he will make a statement about the level of confidence of the British public in British beef. [12618]

What steps he is taking to improve confidence in British beef. [12619]

If he will make a statement about the current state of the beef sector. [12622]

Numerous Government initiatives have helped to secure significant improvements in the beef consumption level, indicating a return of consumer confidence. However, the European beef sector remains in long-term structural surplus. The Government are pressing for fundamental reform of the EU beef regime through negotiations on the Commission's agenda 2000 proposals.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he go on to tell us whether he detects greater confidence in British beef among our European partners, and how that confidence might be manifested in policy or regulation changes?

We have been working hard to re-establish confidence not only in British beef but in the British Government's contribution to open and constructive dialogue in the affairs of the European Union, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. Two of our proposals are now under consideration in Brussels to lift partially the ban on British beef. The first is the certified herd scheme, and the second is the date-based scheme. It will be for the various committees of the Brussels Commission to make decisions on those schemes. I keep urging them to press ahead, without further delay.

The over-30-months scheme is one of the measures that has contributed greatly to raising confidence in British beef, but it has many faults. Will the Minister conduct an investigation into the scheme's workings, with particular reference to geographical distribution of abattoirs in the scheme? Apart from the commercial implications of uneven and inequitable distribution of abattoirs, there is an animal welfare consideration. Cattle—particularly casualty cattle—are having to travel unnecessarily long distances to slaughter.

Administration of the scheme is dealt with by the Intervention Board executive agency. However, abattoirs have been chosen on the basis of competitive tender, hygiene performance and geographical location. I realise that the over-30-months scheme is not universally popular and that there are some problems with it—not least that it is one of the single most expensive schemes in which we are engaged in dealing with the BSE crisis. I will reflect on what my hon. Friends have to say. As I have made clear to the House, however, detailed administration of the scheme is a matter not for me but for the Intervention Board.

Does the Minister realise that beef farmers in Northumberland have had animals transported from Northumberland to Cornwall for slaughter under the scheme and also face those transport costs? Does he realise that those beef farmers are also facing continued competition from imported beef, which still does not have to meet the standards that we set for our own beef product? Today, he has already admitted that hill beef farmers are facing particular difficulties. Does he realise that those difficulties are relevant to his decisions about hill livestock compensatory allowances?

Yes, I recognise the first problem mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, because he wrote to me about it. I said that I thought that that type of situation was clearly unsatisfactory, and that it should also be unnecessary.

Given that red meat consumption has fallen by 25 per cent. in the past 20 years and yet, in the same period, the incidence of colon cancer has increased by 20 per cent., will the Minister explain why he has given his full support to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy report which recommends a further reduction in red meat consumption? Is not that one more nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom's red meat industry, which is already in crisis?

The COMA report has not been published in full, so I advise the hon. Lady to wait and see what it says. If the Government appoint independent scientific committees—the previous Government did the same—to assess risk to people in respect of health and other matters, those committees sometimes reach uncomfortable conclusions. There is no point in our wishing away those conclusions because that simply destroys the integrity and independence of such committees.

It is not going to be possible to restore confidence in British beef if there are no British beef producers left. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his failure to match the previous Government's commitment to make a payment of £60 million—indeed, he intends to reduce it—has caused real fear and terror among hill farmers? Does he not understand that to sneer that hill farmers are one of the less efficient sectors of the British industry, as he did earlier in these exchanges, means that he is devastating a vital part of our agricultural community and, at the same time, making it abundantly clear that he has no idea of the role that hill farmers play, not only in British beef production as a whole but environmentally? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman's deeds matched his rhetoric?

One abiding reason that the House can rarely, if ever, take the hon. Gentleman seriously is that he has only one mode, and that is always over the top. Given the location of his constituency and mine, I suspect that I have far more regular contact, and on a much wider basis, with hill farmers than he ever does. He asked why I have not matched in the coming year the previous Government's commitment to support for HLCAs—the answer is that I have. We are working on the same proposals as the previous Government.

How many prosecutions his office has sanctioned for incitement to racial hatred; and how many it has decided not to pursue in each year since 1990. [12640]

Since 1990, 41 consents have been granted for prosecution of incitement to racial hatred under part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Five applications for consent have been refused and one has been withdrawn. I am arranging for a breakdown to be placed in the Library.

I am grateful for that reply. Does the Attorney-General share the widespread concern felt by people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds about the dissemination of race-hate and anti-Semitic material, which is being widely distributed? Will he assure the House that the Government will do far more than their predecessors to act rigorously and with determination to take legal action against the producers of such material?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I will act vigorously to ensure that the behaviour that he describes, which I am sure the whole House regards as repulsive, is dealt with. I hope that the police will continue vigorously to investigate any allegations of incitement to racial hatred. Where such inquiries result in submission of a file to the Crown Prosecution Service and where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the public interest will almost invariably justify proceedings, and I will accordingly give my consent.

The Government have announced their intention to provide extra penalties for a guilty party when racism is proved as a motivation for a crime. In order that the appropriate evidence may be gathered, what training resources and practice guidelines will be given to the police to secure a tangible result?

As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made proposals to introduce new offences of racial violence. In my professional experience, the Court of Appeal has long said that such matters should be taken into account by sentencing judges. I am sure that the enshrining of such matters in statute will be welcome. The primary duty to investigate such complaints lies with the police, who will approach the problem vigorously, although so far the majority of identification has, successfully, been in the hands of the CPS.

In the first question to the Attorney-General, the suggestion was made that past Governments had been dilatory in prosecuting in racial hatred cases. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that decisions on whether to prosecute are for the Crown Prosecution Service—ultimately, they are matters for the Attorney-General, but they are usually taken by the CPS—and involve no political input?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is a quasi-judicial function of my office. In the earlier years, from 1990, only two or three such consents were granted each year, but since 1995 there has been a rising curve, with seven in that year and numbers in double figures thereafter. Our best hope is that such matters will not arise, but if they do they will be approached quasi-judicially.

What plans he has to extend the period allowed for appeals against apparently lenient sentences. [12641]

The statutory time for an application for leave to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency is 28 days. That is mandatory and cannot be extended. That strict time limit was imposed to meet the concern that it would be intolerable if those whose sentences were subject to a procedure had to endure a long period of uncertainty about whether it would be used. Any consideration given to extending the time limit would need to take account of those concerns, as well as the practical implications of any other changes in the regime.

The concerns of convicted murderers or other offenders obviously have to be taken into account, but should we not also consider the anxiety and anger of the families of those who have suffered? I brought before the Attorney-General a murder case in which an apparently lenient sentence was given. The short period in which the processes have to be undertaken means that a decision often has to be made in the final hours of the final day. Is it not true that rushed judgments are often poor judgments?

I have explained why there has to be a balance. There was great concern when the proposal was first brought into operation. Time is short, as I am sure my predecessor would be the first to agree. There are often only days for consideration perhaps only hours in some cases, although in only a few, I hope. However, the cases are considered in time. I hope that all hon. Members will do their best to disseminate the information that 28 days are available from sentence.

What are the current staffing levels of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [12646]

On 30 September 1997, the Crown Prosecution Service employed the full-time equivalent of 1,975.5 lawyers and 3,612 other staff, the majority of whom are case workers supporting lawyers at branch level to prepare cases for court.

Is the Attorney-General aware that unless there is an immediate and substantial increase in Crown Prosecution Service staffing levels, his Government's much-vaunted aim of speeding up the workings of the criminal justice system will be just one more item on the ever-growing list of Labour's broken promises?

No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the favour of recalling that we stated during the election campaign that we would put to the people—as we did successfully—the policy that in at least our first couple of years in office, we would operate within the spending constraints laid down by the previous Government. Within that policy, Sir lain Glidewell is conducting his review and I am sure that he will point out any difficulties that arise from the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service.

I visited my local Crown Prosecution Service branch during the summer and found there a highly motivated group of people working hard, obviously in trying circumstances. I was very pleased that when I raised a specific case, the service was prepared to review its decision and to agree to prosecute a case that it had previously not prosecuted. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's point about the review by Sir lain Glidewell. When will it be completed?

On the first matter, I welcome very much my hon. Friend's visit to his area office of the CPS. I hope that all hon. Members, when they were given the branch reports during the summer, were invited to visit their area office, and I hope that those visits were carried out.

1 welcome what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said about the motivation and good quality of the Crown Prosecution Service in his area. In light of the Attorney-General's decision to put more senior staff into the front line in the sense of having 43 chief Crown prosecutors—one for each police area—is he satisfied that he has sufficient staff to carry out other functions, such as caring properly for victims and witnesses, about which I am sure he would have told us if he had had the opportunity? That requires not only motivation but staff, including support staff, to assist the Crown prosecutors in court on the day. In that context, will the Attorney-General liaise with the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that there is somewhere for victims and witnesses to be cared for when the time comes?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Victim support has a high priority. I am sure that, if there are deficiencies in the CPS in terms of staff, Sir lain Glidewell and his review team will point them out. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced only recently that there will be additional money available for victim support. These are matters of great importance. Frequently, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are practical problems in ensuring that witnesses are properly informed and properly cared for in the courts. The Lord Chancellor is fully aware of that and of the importance of carrying out obligations under the victims charter. The CPS plays an important role, with the police, in ensuring that those obligations are carried out.

What plans he has to introduce local accountability in respect of the prosecution policy of the Crown Prosecution Service. [12647]

The Crown Prosecution Service is already exposed to substantial local scrutiny. Each branch, for example, now publishes its own annual report, commencing for the calendar year 1996. We are taking the process further through the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service into 42 areas.

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that answer, which touches on management if not accountability. Does he, however, understand the dismay and frustration of communities, such as those in the Martock and Wincanton areas of my constituency, when high-profile police action takes place and the result is either a decision not to prosecute or, worse still, no decision on whether to prosecute after more than 12 months? Does he agree that there is a need for far greater transparency and far greater local accountability in the Crown Prosecution Service?

Matters involving the police are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As regards local accountability, I hope very much that the reports that were published in the hon. Gentleman's area in July set out and put in the shop window the activities of the CPS in his area for the past year. He is concerned with local accountability. I know that he was invited, with all other hon. Members representing the south-west—and, it is to be hoped, other areas as well—to visit his CPS branch in July. So far, I fear that he has not replied. I hope he will do so fairly quickly.

Does the Attorney-General agree that accountability in the Crown Prosecution Service—in which I declare a family interest—is very much dependent on the quality of the people employed in it? The quality is undoubtedly very high. If we are to have consistency between one area and another, we must obviously have a central and not a local direction.

The people at the coal face carry the primary responsibility to the public, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) who tabled the question is concerned with something greater. Whether the CPS should be a national service and whether there should be local scrutiny in the form of committees, such as a watch committee or a police committee, was debated in the House. The Philips report on that was rejected because it was felt that the paramount consideration should be the independence of the prosecutor as part of a national service.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just confirmed the central point about which I wanted to ask him. Will he therefore assure the House that, in whatever changes his Government decide to implement to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the CPS, its independence from local pressures will remain the central point of its operations?

I took part in the debate when the Crown Prosecution Service was set up, and made loud and clear my view that there were difficulties as regards local accountability, which were enumerated by example. It is important that local communities are aware of what is happening. It is important that there is liaison at the highest level locally with the chief constable. It is important that local communities can discuss and debate whatever is happening—hence, I hope, as an input into the public domain, the branch reports. Further than that I will not go.