What percentage reduction in the EU agriculture budget he will be seeking in discussions in the Council of Ministers on CAP reform. [22301]

I shall be seeking CAP reforms that deliver lower prices to consumers in the short term and savings to taxpayers in due course.

Ten days ago I addressed 4,000 angry, upset farmers in Oswestry. Numerous farmers from the crowd said that they wanted not subsidies or regulation, but to sell their quality product in fair and free conditions. If CAP reform is a priority of the Government, why did the Prime Minister not mention it in his speech of welcome to the President of the Commission on 8 January?

The briefing material associated with the meeting with the Commission on that date certainly reiterated the Government's commitment to CAP reform, as has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary both in his speeches in Europe and in a recent interview published in Le Monde. I reiterated the Government's commitment in my first address to the Agriculture Council in Brussels on Tuesday.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is badly and urgently needed is the comprehensive reform of both the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, and that without such reform there can be no enlargement of the Union?

I agree that we need to look for both those reforms. It is pleasing and encouraging that CAP reform is now very much on the agenda and I expect to see detailed proposals from Commissioner Fischler some time in March. We are scheduled to have reform of the common fisheries policy by 2002.

The Minister did not answer the original question at all, but if one assumes that implicit in what he said was the idea of lower subsidies, does he agree with the National Farmers Union that with that should go a closer comparison between world prices and the prices charged for our agricultural products?

Yes. I am pleased to say that I agree with that important point. The whole thrust of reform of the CAP should be to dismantle production controls, which inhibit many of our farmers, to move towards world market prices and to decouple from production the transitional support for that change.

What approach does the Minister take in the debate about modulation in the reform of the common agricultural policy? That will be crucial for the future, especially for small farms, and it is essential that he retain an open mind on the subject.

I have made my position on modulation abundantly clear. I am opposed to it or to any proposal managed and controlled from Brussels that would be detrimental to efficient farming interests in this country.

When he last met the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the recent fall in farm incomes. [22303]

My right hon. Friend last met the president of the NFU to discuss incomes in December last. Along with many right hon. and hon. Members, I also had discussions with farmers on Tuesday.

Is the Minister aware that farmers in South Suffolk are experiencing a drop in their incomes partly as a result of Government policy, including the high level of sterling that has been caused by five interest rate increases during the past nine months? What discussions has he had with the Treasury about using the underspend on agricultural schemes that we will receive as part of our European Union budget rebate to help farmers cope with the effects of declining incomes?

Other industries are also affected by the increase in the price of sterling. Agriculture is not alone, although in special recognition of that problem my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 22 December substantial extra help to the farming industry.

At the farm income lobby on Tuesday, one of the points made to me was that our pig farmers are forbidden from feeding meat and bone meal to pigs, yet meat raised in that way is freely available on our supermarket shelves. What plans does the Minister have to restrict imports of meat produced in that way?

We have no plans to restrict such imports. We are subject to the restrictions of the ban imposed on meat, bone meal and other products because of the mismanagement of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis by the previous Government. The consequences of that are being felt by farmers and the whole of the food production industry today and that will remain the case for some time to come.

The Minister knows that on Tuesday the president of the National Farmers Union and others presented a petition with 650,000 signatures from people who want to keep Britain farming. He knows full well that it is not merely a question of sterling and that in fact the Government have taken £129 million away from farmers and given back only £85 million. Why will he not now answer the question my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) asked? Will he undertake to the House that any underspend in the sheep premium, in set-aside, or in any other European programme will be used as part of our refund to access more money to help Britain's farmers?

First, let us get the record right. The figures that the hon. Member quoted are correct, but they are for two different years. The increases he mentioned are for the next financial year and the assistance to farmers will be paid in this financial year. We do not make a move on those finances without the agreement of our colleagues in the Treasury. On the so-called underspends, what he suggests has never happened in the past and I do not see it happening in the future.

The main problem facing farmers is the large variation in the exchange rate of our currency and its effect on the green pound. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Conservative Members were really concerned about the countryside and were really the farmer's friend, they would take a far more positive attitude to the single European currency—which is favoured by the NFU—instead of their ridiculous policy of not going anywhere near it for 10 years and leaving farmers to suffer from sharp variations in exchange rates?

The answer to that excellent question is yes.

Does the Minister recognise that, as sterling is likely to remain strong against the European currencies until the single European currency has been seen to fail and is abandoned, we are not dealing with a short-term problem? For the foreseeable future—for some years to come—British agriculture will be unfairly and exceptionally adversely affected by the present green pound arrangements. Are the Government seriously considering some way to help farmers over that period? If the green pound is left as it is at present, it will destroy British agriculture in the next three years.

I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior knowledge of the banking system. His confidence that the European monetary system will fail will not be shared by many people. He may be able to look into the future with such certainty, but we cannot. The issue will be with us for some time, as he said. Not only the farming and agriculture industry, but the whole of British industry, will be affected.

If he will make a statement about the problems facing beef farmers. [22305]

If he will make a statement on his Department's current support for the British beef industry. [22309]

I am well aware of the problems of the British beef industry and I set out proposals to the House on 22 December for a special aid package, worth £85 million, for livestock producers. I have no current plans to make further aid available.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the measures that he has already announced. Does he agree that the farmers from Monmouthshire who came to the House on Tuesday made a strong case for clear and honest labelling of meat and meat products in British supermarkets, stringent controls on the import of substandard beef and a review of the tendering process so that public bodies can be encouraged to buy British beef?

Yes. All those measures are under consideration.

What progress has been made on lifting the ban in Europe, given the welcome news about the potential for allowing Northern Ireland to export beef? I re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), that many purchases are made by public bodies such as hospitals and schools and, indeed, Government Departments. What steps can my right hon. Friend take to encourage them to purchase British beef?

It was excellent news when the Commission in Brussels gave an emphatic yes to the export certified herds scheme last week. Yesterday, the Standing Veterinary Committee acted swiftly to follow that up by setting up a working party that I understand will meet again in Brussels next week. I hope that it will reach a positive decision.

Will the Minister acknowledge that his decision to charge a flat-rate licence fee to fund the Food Standards Agency is attracting widespread criticism, including from Chris Haskins, the head of the Government task force? He also criticised Ministers for a tendency to overreact; the ban for being unscientific; and the whole regulatory framework, saying that people misjudged the matter if they thought that increased regulation would increase food safety.

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's question was, but I have read some of the reports. The hon. Gentleman's first point was completely misplaced, because we have made no decision to have a flat-rate licence fee for retail outlets or anyone else. We simply gave an illustrative example when we published the White Paper.

Does the Minister agree that one of the most urgent and difficult cost increases that beef producers face immediately is the cost of disposal of fallen stock? Will he consider a small transitional fund so that the industry can get itself sorted out in the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal of the subsidy scheme and so that we can guarantee that high-risk and fallen stock material does not illegally find its way back into the human food chain? Can it possibly be in anyone's interest for the Minister to knacker the knackers' yards?

Temporary provision—transitional support—was made for the rendering industry. No further provision is available for it. The object of the support for the rendering industry, which was decided by the previous Administration, was to avoid problems in the meat chain in the immediate aftermath of the BSE crisis. We have no proposals for any temporary fund for the industry. The conditions of last year that gave rise to the problems no longer exist.

The Minister is aware of the enormous, disproportionate impact of the BSE crisis on beef farming in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, why has there been undue delay in the release of the agricultural monetary compensation fund? Will he look into the matter and take action to release that fund so that farming incomes may be properly upwardly adjusted?

I am somewhat surprised by that question. Farmers in Northern Ireland, just like those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, will qualify for their share of the £85 million package that I announced on 22 December.

A group of beef farmers from my constituency who attended the rally on Tuesday were bitterly disappointed and surprised to find that, when the audience was asked whether a Labour Member of Parliament was present in Westminster Hall, no one put up their hand. Is that indicative of the Government's position on the beef industry?

That of course depends on who the farmers invited—does it not?

Even the right hon. Gentleman could have gone.

The right hon. Gentleman is a little behind the news. I spent Monday and Tuesday in the Agriculture Council in Brussels. I chaired my first Agriculture Council meeting on Tuesday and returned to London at 8 pm on Tuesday.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was at the meeting at which, supposedly, no Labour Member was present? May I inform him that the beef farmers and other farmers who came to see me that day wanted most to talk about the way in which the previous Government, for 18 years, failed to come through with policies that helped small and medium farming enterprises? The policy that this Government will institute will create a healthy living for such farmers.

I am pleased to say that I agree with my hon. Friend's comments.

I can understand, after that exchange, why the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) did not put his hand up in Westminster Hall.

I shall answer all the right hon. Gentleman's questions in due course. We have the right to inspect each consignment of imports from third countries if we think it necessary. On EU imports, the right hon. Gentleman should know—whether he does is another matter—that, due to requirements and obligations under the single market, we can make only sample checks. That is done, and we check all the paperwork available to us.

What steps his Department is taking to improve animal welfare. [22306]

We have taken a number of steps to improve animal welfare. Shortly after the general election we put in place new rules on transport and achieved European Union agreement to a legally binding protocol that recognises that animals are sentient beings. This last will provide an important basis from which to seek further improvements to EU welfare standards both during our presidency and beyond.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the protocol to the treaty of Rome. What progress is being made on delivering our pre-election commitment to ban fur farming? Will he confirm that there is no valid agricultural argument against a ban on hunting with hounds? Will he convey his support to his colleagues in the Home Office for the allocation of sufficient time to enable the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill to become law?

The Government remain committed to ending fur farming as soon as practicable. We have had a public consultation exercise and we are currently considering the best way forward. As a mark of our intention, we have recently reduced the period of application of Mink Keeping Orders from five years to three and introduced new charges for inspections. It is the view of the Ministry that hunting with hounds makes an insignificant contribution to fox control. As for Government time, that is not a matter on which I can answer.

Does the Minister accept that very high hopes were raised in animal welfare bodies—and in a large body of people who care deeply about animal welfare—by his party's manifesto at the general election and that at meetings of the all-party animal welfare group that I attended immediately after the election he continued to nurture those hopes? In fact, nothing has happened save a few measures that were already put in the pipeline by the previous Government. When will he start to deliver on the undertakings that he gave in his manifesto?

I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's comments. The report that I gave to the all-party animal welfare group was not on intentions but on progress that the Labour Government had achieved. I recall that one of the members who offered their congratulations on that progress was the right hon. Gentleman himself.

What estimates he has made of the likely future consumer demand for genetically modified food. [22308]

My Ministry is responsible for ensuring that such foods are safe and clearly labelled. It is for food manufacturers and producers to assess likely consumer demand for their products.

While I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's commitment to proper food labelling is unparalleled, does he share my anxiety about developments in the European Union? Proposals emerged from Brussels last month that would ensure that the "genetically modified" label will apply to only 20 per cent. of products derived from GM soya beans and maize and that some products such as flavourings and food additives will be excluded. What steps can the Government take to ensure that the EU takes a more robust line on this matter, which excites tremendous consumer concern?

We are taking a robust line, but my hon. Friend must not jump to conclusions about the results of the negotiations in Brussels. No decision has been made even after last week's meeting. We are still progressing the negotiations on labelling. We want labelling that is informative, practical and meaningful. That means that where GM bits and pieces have been used in the manufacture, but refined out of the final product, the label will probably not include a reference to genetic modification. We are still negotiating on the issue in Brussels and we hope to come to a conclusion in the very near future.

If labelling is to be meaningful, it must be enforceable. What investigation has the Minister made into the role of enforcement agencies in respect of labelling? Where the genetically modified gene exactly mimics, without any tracer or marker, the unmodified gene, enforcement is extremely difficult. It is my understanding that science has not yet provided the tests that enable enforcement officers to determine whether a product contains genetically modified genes. What progress has there been in that respect?

The hon. Lady is perfectly right. There are going to be some products that it is impossible to test to establish whether genetically modified substances have been used in their manufacture and processing.

What measures he proposes to avoid flooding and the impact of rising sea levels in and around the Thames estuary and River Medway. [22310]

The Department is responsible for flood and coastal defence policy in England, provides guidance to operating authorities and contributes significantly to the funding of capital defence measures. Local operating authorities—the Environment Agency or local councils—identify the need for defence measures and promote, design, construct and maintain them.

Will my hon. Friend consider, as a matter of some urgency, initiating studies into the impact of rising sea levels, which threaten the Thames estuary and the Medway estuary? Deep in the memory of the people of Tilbury and elsewhere on those estuaries are the floods of the early 1950s. Since then, the Thames barrier has been erected, which has caused anxiety. If there is a North sea surge and the Thames barrier is used, where will the water go? That is a question the Government should address with some urgency.

Rising sea levels is a serious issue, especially for those who live in low-lying constituencies such as those on the Thames and Medway estuaries. The Environment Agency is carrying out surveys relating to projected sea level rises. It makes recommendations to the Ministry and we issue guidance on priority scores for taking action to ensure that people, land and property are adequately protected.

If he will make a statement on recent trends in farm incomes. [22311]

Farm incomes rose as a result of devaluations of the green pound and improved productivity in the mid-1990s. They peaked in 1995–96, when average net farm income in the United Kingdom was about £31,500. Since then, incomes have fallen, mainly as a result of the strength of sterling.

Further to the response to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), how can the Minister justify taking away £129 million from farmers in cuts to the over-30-months scheme and extra charges resulting from the need to meet new meat hygiene regulations and the cattle passport scheme?

There is no justification whatsoever for the taxpayer fully funding all the controls necessary to check specified risk materials. Those extra charges will not come into force until 1 April this year. As we made clear before the election, we are working within the overall public expenditure limits of the previous Government and we make no apology for that. It is simply not possible to pour more and more taxpayers' subsidies into the industry. We wish to support the industry, but it will not benefit from further subsidies.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the incomes of hill farmers, who farm land that is difficult in terms both of the weather and what they can do on it, have been eroded for many years? What does he think the future holds for them? Does he believe that farming in those areas will continue to be viable?

I certainly hope so. That is one of the reasons why we are redirecting funds to ensure that the majority of the money announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22 December goes to hill farmers and those in less-favoured areas.

Is the Minister aware of the Scottish agricultural survey conducted by the Trustee Savings bank, which came out this week? It revealed that 94 per cent. of the respondents from the farming sector of Scotland believed that they were less prosperous this year than they were last year. How much evidence must be produced before the Government truly respond to the crisis affecting the rural industries of Scotland?

I am not aware of the survey that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Farmers in Scotland will benefit from their share of the money announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22 December. I freely admit that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that net farm incomes in Scotland have dropped—in 1995–96, they were £22,000, and in 1996–97, a little over £19,000.

Has my hon. Friend seen the latest figures out this week which showed that nine farmers had received £1 million in subsidies and that another one had received a £250,000 subsidy under the set-aside scheme? Does he agree that those sums distort the figures relating to the many thousands of farmers who have a job to make ends meet, while there are some people at the top who are making a small fortune out of the common agricultural policy?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The figures that I have quoted in the two previous answers are averages, which can be extremely misleading. They are, of course, distorted by the state handouts given under the equivalent of a social security system for part of the farming industry. Some individuals get an absolute fortune and I would like nothing more than to be able to publish the detailed information, but under the terms of the law of confidentiality between the Government and the recipient of such state handouts, I am unable to do so.

Does the Minister agree that if the south Devon countryside were covered by a lot of dead sheep, lying on their backs with their legs in the air, it would not help the tourism industry? Farmers in my area are finding it more and more costly to remove dead sheep, while the income that they receive is falling. I am not asking for more state subsidies, but I know that those carcases are offending all the urban dwellers who come down to my area to enjoy the countryside. May I suggest that the Ministry conduct an inquiry into how we can reduce the costs of removing dead sheep carcases from the green and pleasant land of Devon?

I admit that that sight is not a good advertisement for tourism in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

On Tuesday, I spent two hours in talks with farmers from Derbyshire, having taken the precaution of booking a Committee Room for the meeting rather than leaving them in Westminster Hall. They are concerned more about the future of farm incomes than about analysing the past. They are most concerned about what progress can be made with the European Union to help to restructure their industries so that they have a healthy future. What progress can my hon. Friend report?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that it is the future that counts, not the past. I openly admit that, this year, the prospects for farm incomes are not good. We must look to the future to give hope to the industry and the thousands who work in it, love it and depend on it. That means that decisions must be taken Europewide; we are not sole masters of our future. During our presidency of the EU, we will do everything that we can to take reform of the CAP forward. Without such reform, which is opposed by many of our European economic partners and competitors, there will not be much hope for a positive future. Nothing less than reform of the CAP is required.

The Minister and the Minister of State have both made much this afternoon of the aid package announced just before Christmas, but so far, farmers have not received a penny of it, so may I ask the Minister of State some straight questions?

I will answer the question that the farmers really want to know of those on the list that the right hon. Gentleman asked—the answer is, before Easter.

What discussions he had with the Deputy Prime Minister about the impact on farming of the abolition of the Rural Development Commission. [22312]

The Rural Development Commission has not been abolished. The Regional Development Agencies Bill recently laid before the House, which provides for setting up regional development agencies, would transfer the RDC's rural regeneration functions to those bodies. I am confident that the needs of rural areas will be properly addressed under the arrangements proposed.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, will he take the opportunity to applaud the valuable work done by the Rural Development Commission, under the excellent leadership of the noble Lord Shuttleworth, in helping the diversification of farming enterprises and the rural economy generally? In the current crisis in farming, such help is required as never before, so can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a guarantee that the proposed urban-based regional development agencies will be able to fulfil those functions as well as the RDC has done?

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of the Rural Development Commission and to Charles Shuttleworth, with whom I and my constituents have had a long and productive relationship. The Rural Development Commission did excellent work in west Cumbria in general and in my constituency in particular, and I am happy to pay tribute to it for that work and commitment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that farmers' families and farm workers' families cannot continue to live in remote rural areas such as those that he and I represent unless there are rural services? Does he acknowledge that, in the most remote rural areas, the Rural Development Commission concentrated much of its effort on rural services, village shops, village workshops, transport and postal services, and that that work must continue? There is genuine concern that, given the major urban problems in regions such as his and mine, it will take a very considerable effort to ensure that that work continues.

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says. He and especially his constituents have experienced, as I have, the real benefits of the successful programmes of the Rural Development Commission. The commission remains the Government's rural development agency, with a statutory duty to continue to advise the Government, and I am determined that we should continue to have not only expert advice, but expertise in the micro-economies of rural communities and rural areas, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman has given.

If he will make a statement on beef imports from the European Union. [22313]

Imports of beef from other member states will continue to be permitted provided that the beef has been produced in accordance with harmonised European Community rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat and complies with United Kingdom rules that require that specified risk materials be removed before import.

In answer to an earlier question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the Minister pointed out that we could make only spot checks on beef imports from the European Union. He did not quantify those checks. How many Ministry officials are involved in that procedure, how many spot checks have been made and how much material has been rejected?

I cannot give precise answers to those detailed questions, but I shall ensure that I write to the hon. Gentleman—I hope before close of play today. We have taken measures within the Department, in advance of the Europewide ban on specified risk materials that will come into effect from 1 April, to ensure that we can—if you like—beef up our checks at the ports of entry. In that way, we shall have better surveillance of the paperwork involved and more random checks on incoming loads.

Is the Minister aware that, if there is no country-of-origin marking and no efficient enforcement, checking on the paperwork will not ensure anything as the European Union has a long and hallowed tradition of cheating in its paperwork first, last and always? Will the Minister please ask for the immediate return of country-of-origin marking to the statute book so that people may know what they are buying?

My hon. Friend is partly right. The beef labelling scheme will be introduced in this country from spring this year on a voluntary basis. It will become compulsory from 2000. In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, random checks on beef supplies as well as on the paperwork will take place.

What discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding fraud in respect of Further Education Funding Council funds and training programmes. [22331]

I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest. It is not my practice to disclose the subject matter of our discussions.

At their next meeting, will my right hon. and learned Friend urge the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate training programmes in Britain, especially with regard to 1995 and 1996 and a programme conducted by a firm called Link, which was subsequently taken over by CRT? CRT is an arm of a subsidiary controlled by Michael Milken, the American junk bond dealer. CRT is claiming the outstanding sum of £3.2 million in taxpayers' money for bogus tutoring; one tutor supposedly worked for 94 hours in 14 different locations on a single day. There are thousands of other similar claims. Milken and his company have had the cheek to tell the people of north Derbyshire that they are not allowed to speak about the matter and have served them with an injunction while claiming £3.2 million from the taxpayer. It is one of the biggest scams that occurred in the last few months of the previous Tory Government and it is time to investigate the matter properly.

I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. It is for the police to investigate allegations of possible criminal conduct. If such evidence is found, it will be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of a prosecution. The CPS will bring a prosecution if there is sufficient evidence to sustain the realistic prospect of a conviction and if it is in the public interest. The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that prosecution will be necessary in the public interest.

What plans the Government have to reform the Crown Prosecution Service. [22332]

The Government remain committed to restructuring the CPS into 42 areas, but the interim advice that we have received from the Glidewell review team is that that cannot take effect until 1 December 1998 at the earliest. I now expect to receive the full report in March.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to prepare for the implementation of the Narey proposals to ensure that offenders appear in court to face the consequences of their wrongdoing more quickly?

There are a number of fast-tracking initiatives around the country involving young offenders, in which the CPS plays a key role. The White Paper on reforming the youth justice system gives examples of two schemes in Middlesbrough and north Hampshire. The north Hampshire scheme has reduced the average time between charge and first appearance from 69 to 44 days, and the average time between charge and sentence has been brought down from 133 to 89 days. That is an encouraging development, which shows what can be achieved by co-operation between agencies. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with that.

We look forward to Sir Iain Glidewell's report. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked him to carry out his study into the Crown Prosecution Service, including the important matter of relations between the CPS and the police, he found it necessary to use some rather strangulated wording to ask Sir Iain to

"consider the manner in which the CPS influences its relationship with the police".

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. We want to ensure the maximum co-operation between the CPS and the police. He and I will recall that, at the start of the CPS, there were always differences of view on who was responsible for this failure or that failure. We have moved to create 42 areas of the CPS which are coterminous with the police areas. A former inspector of constabulary is a member of the Glidewell team, and will be deeply aware of the need to ensure maximum co-operation between the two agencies.

How many appeals against over-lenient sentences have been made since 2 May. [22333]

The Law Officers between them have referred 52 sentences to the Court of Appeal.

Does the Attorney-General agree that the introduction of appeals against over-lenient sentences was a popular and successful measure introduced by the previous Government? Does he agree that both the victims of the crimes that led to those over-lenient sentences and the public in general feel that that is a worthwhile power? Will he look carefully at extending the consultation between prosecution authorities and the police, and the victims of the crimes concerned, when an appeal against over-lenient sentences is considered in future?

I have observed what has been happening over the years, and I am sure that the change has turned out to be worth while, although I concede that, at the beginning, many of us had doubts. Those were not confined to one party and went much wider than politicians—to the judiciary as well—because there was concern about the dangers of double jeopardy. That is taken into account by the courts, although it is not in the legislation. I, like my predecessors, receive the views of the prosecutor and independent Treasury counsel. We must have regard to current sentencing practices. When the judge delivers his initial sentence, he has regard to all the circumstances, including the victim.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what the Court of Appeal has made of sentences referred to it by him? I accept that every case that comes before him must be judged on its merits, but can he give us some guidance on whether his view that there are over-lenient sentences is, by and large, supported by the decisions of the court?

Of the 52 sentences that I and the Solicitor-General have referred since 1 May last year, 19 have been reviewed by the Court of Appeal, of which 13 have resulted in increased sentences. In six of those 19 cases, the Court of Appeal held that the sentences were unduly lenient, but exercised the court's discretion not to increase the sentence. The remaining 33 sentences are yet to be heard. The figures for the last few years are of roughly the same order.

I have expressed to the Attorney-General the concern of one of my constituents, Mr. Brian Pithie, about what he considers to be an over-lenient sentence in the case of Philip Dale at Winchester Crown court. Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that he will look at the case and consider referring the sentence to the Court of Appeal for its leniency to be tested?

All cases referred to my office are considered personally by me or by the Solicitor-General, whoever is available. The law lays down that that has to be done within a period of 28 days from sentence. That is the limitation and that means that sometimes there are few days left, as I am sure my predecessor will be the first to agree, before reference is made. The cases, however, are personally considered—they have to be and always have been.

What considerations are taken into account when determining not to proceed with a prosecution on the grounds that it is against the public interest. [22334]

The code for Crown prosecutors sets out factors in favour of and factors against a prosecution. Factors against a prosecution include the youth or old age or infirmity of the defendant. In cases of any seriousness, however, a prosecution will usually take place unless any factors against a prosecution clearly outweigh those tending in favour.

The reasons also include possible embarrassment to the country and its international relations but, notwithstanding that and the other factors that the Attorney-General cited, when a prosecution does not proceed and the person who has been investigated is rich and powerful, has been in authority and may even have been a Member of the House, is there not a powerful case for saying that the public interest requires that the reasons should be given?

The reasons that are taken into account are set out fully in the code for Crown prosecutors. As regards ex-Members of the House, my hon. Friend has gone over the ground on more than one occasion and I have nothing to add, save that the police are investigating the matter.

Do the same considerations apply in respect of prosecutions for tax evasion and why are there so few such prosecutions? Would the Attorney-General ever be assisted if a Department of State prepared a case against a Minister in that same Department?

Prosecutions in Inland Revenue matters or decisions on whether to compound matters alleged to be due are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is responsible for that side.

Would the Attorney-General be consulted if there were an investigation of a Minister of the Crown, particularly if it reflected on something that he did outside the House rather than on his duties within the House? If so, at what point would that come about and would he be consulted about any prosecution?

As I said previously with regard to a former Member of the House, generally there would be no reason for me to intervene, it would be extremely unlikely and I hope that I would not. That has been the tradition where there has been political involvement.

If officials in his Department saw papers in relation to the prosecution of Mr. Owen Oyston. [22335]

No.

This is a very difficult case to raise because we are talking about a rape trial where the victim and the witness for the defence were teenage girls, and the prosecution hinged on their evidence.

My hon. Friend has put very carefully the matters that I know are of concern to him. He is right to refer to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. It is a matter for the judge whether he gives anyone leave to ask questions regarding the victim. The test will be that he will grant leave only if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the defendant to refuse to allow such evidence. As regards a witness and whether questions about previous sexual experience should be allowed, that is also a matter for the judge. As regards the 1976 Act, it was brought up to date in 1994.