What progress has been made on the adoption of the export certified herd scheme. [28746]

The Commission presented a proposal for the export certified herd scheme to the Standing Veterinary Committee on 21 January. I expect the committee to vote on the proposal soon. If it is not adopted by the committee, it will be referred to the Agriculture Council for a decision.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Like many of my colleagues, he may not know that Rochdale has a substantial interest in the issue. I have been lobbied by farmers—I grew up with several farmers—who are proud to be the providers of some of the finest and safest beef in this country and, indeed, the world. They want to know what support the Europear Commission got for the export certified herd scheme, and what my right hon. Friend expects the Standing Veterinary Committee's view to be. They want to know whether we stand a chance this time of getting enough support from the Commission to ensure that they car export their beef, because it is the best beef.

I certainly agree with my hon Friend that British beef is safe to eat. The important aspect of the Commission decision was that the Commission itself accepted implicitly, in unanimously backing the scheme, that British beef is safe. There are no good reasons for the Standing Veterinary Committee not to reach the same conclusion.

To implement the scheme in Great Britain, we need a computerised system. Yesterday in answer to a debate in the House, the Minister of State said that no decisions had yet been taken on charging for the scheme, and that no decisions had been taken or passing on the costs of setting up the scheme—the previous Government made a public spending commitment not to pass on those costs. Can the Minister reassure farmers that, as in Northern Ireland, there will be no charge for the scheme?

I can tell the House that I shall be meeting farmers' leaders with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister later today.

What steps have the Government taken since May 1997 to implement the Florence agreement, and may we be told why the European Union is still refusing to reopen the beef export market?

We have fulfilled all the terms and conditions placed on us by the Florence agreement and, I repeat, there is now no good scientific or veterinary reason why British beef should not be allowed back into international markets.

How many farmers have committed suicide in each of the past five years. [28745]

The high rate of farmers committing suicide is of particular concern to the Government, and we are adopting policies to reduce the rate. MAFF is represented on the rural stress information network, the purpose of which is to alleviate rural stress.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is there sufficient realisation in his Department of the severe stress and strain that is placed on farmers by all the bureaucracy that has been implemented as a result of the BSE scare and other happenings in the industry? Given that his Ministry has decided to impose a ban on the sale of bone-in beef, which will cost the industry this year £77 million in recurring costs and £20 million in non-recurring costs, what price does he put on the life of a farmer?

Rural stress and suicide rates among farmers are very serious issues. They are connected with many factors—not least isolation. When visiting farmers in Weardale recently, I discussed the support networks that farmers are organising. As I said, the Ministry has been supporting them. I would need to examine the hon. Gentleman's figures on the bone-in beef ban before I could support them, but I should tell him that that ban affects 3 per cent. of the beef market.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I in order in pointing out to the Minister that the figures are—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order doing only one thing—which he is not doing at the moment.

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that every suicide in the farming community is a great tragedy. He will understand that there is a crisis in British farming. I know of farmers in my constituency who feel some despair. What measures are being taken to introduce an early retirement scheme to help farmers?

We are discussing that issue with farmers' representatives.

Is the Minister aware of the very considerable number of suicides that appear to be linked to organophosphate poisoning? Is he aware of the work of Dr. Robert Davies, consultant psychiatrist at the Taunton clinic, which demonstrates that the proportion of suicides is completely inexplicable except in terms of the effects of OP poisoning? Is he in a position to give any more information about the Ministry's work in that regard?

We are aware of all the research in that area, and of course take the issues seriously. The Ministry has committed £500,000 to a research programme. It is too early for it to have reached conclusions.

One of the things that farmers in my constituency tell me leads them to despair is the fact that they are told by supermarkets that they must produce goods to very high standards, but find that those same supermarkets stock cheap imports which are not produced to the same high standards. Does the Minister get as cheesed off as I do with the Opposition's hypocrisy, since one of their number, the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, through his day job with the Asda supermarket chain, is in a position to do something practical?

There is no doubt that the supermarkets insist on high standards from British producers, and British producers match those high standards. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect big retailers to recognise that there is a responsibility for their meat and food supply.

If he will make a statement on how much beef by tonnage and value has come into the United Kingdom from outside the EU in 1997.[28747]

Provisional figures for United Kingdom imports of fresh, chilled and frozen beef from non-European Community countries from January to the end of November 1997 indicate that some 53,000 tonnes were imported to the approximate value of £135 million.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is there any truth in the rumour that some of the beef is fed to the armed forces? If that is so, will the Minister contact the Minister for the Armed Forces and advise him that British beef should be fed to British forces? Furthermore, will there be a traceability system so that we can trace where the beef goes and from where it came?

I should imagine that the beef will be covered by the forthcoming beef labelling scheme. Consumption of British beef by the armed forces is much higher under this Government than the previous one.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that labelling has a part to play in improving confidence in domestic beef? Will he confirm also that steps will be taken to improve the labelling system so that consumers will be sure that they are consuming quality British beef?

Yes. From April, the beef labelling scheme will come into force. At present it is voluntary. We have encouraged all producers to become accredited. There must be independent certification before the product can be sold as British beef. In the meantime, farmers, supermarket owners and customers could ask whether the beef that they buy has a hygiene assessment score. The only beef to which that system applies is British beef.

Will the Minister confirm that hygiene assessment scores do not involve any microbiological testing of the product? I hope that he will take that up in response to a question that I have already tabled.

Last year we imported about 2 per cent. less non-EC beef than was imported during the previous year. Less non-EC beef has been imported under this Government than under the previous Administration. In other words, there has been a decline. At the same time, there has been more activity in making checks at the ports and raising standards.

On the question of non-EU products, will my hon. Friend address the World Trade Organisation at the next round of negotiations to ensure that the same high standards that we insist on for our beef products are also insisted on in other states that are seeking to export into the United Kingdom, especially in the areas of animal welfare and environmental care, along with many of the other quality issues which were referred to by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sout-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)?

The points that my hon. Friend raises are not ignored by the Government. Even from non-EU countries, there must be conformity with the standards that apply within the European Union—a single market of which we are a part of under legislation introduced by the previous Government. Checks are made in third countries to ensure that their products conform with the standards required by the single market.

What representations he has received about the future of green top milk; and if he will make a statement.[28748]

We have received about 800 responses from a wide range of interested parties. I expect to be receiving more before the close of consultation on 24 February.

I hope that the Minister will take careful account of all the responses, including those from some of my constituents who have been drinking green-top milk all their lives with no ill effects, and who believe that the decision to drink traditional farm milk should be left to the individual.

As some of my hon. Friends have said, just up the road from the hon. Gentleman's constituency there are citizens who are not allowed to purchase green-top milk. We are consulting on the issue and this is not the appropriate day on which to make an announcement. We will not make a decision until after the consultation process. We are operating on the precautionary principle. The hon. Gentleman may say that hon. Members have admitted that they were brought up on green-top milk, but some of the bugs that have been discovered in raw milk, such as E. coli 0157 and Campylobacter, were not known about 20 years ago.

Does my hon. Friend share the concern that I felt on reading the documentary evidence that more than half the samples tested had faecal contamination? If less parliamentary language was used to describe the source of the contamination, the public would share my horror that, as some seem to imply, we need to have dead bodies before we act.

My hon. Friend puts it in the same graphic terms that were put to the Government—that we should act only after dead bodies are available. That is not what we normally do, although every hon. Member who has ever campaigned for, say, a zebra crossing to be placed at an accident black spot will have been annoyed at the unwritten message that, until there are five dead bodies and a cartload of limbs, they cannot have a zebra crossing.

What representations he has made to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the minimum wage. [28749]

As is the case with the formulation of Government policies, the national minimum wage has been the subject of internal discussions between Ministers.

Is the Minister aware of the National Farmers Union estimate that a minimum wage, if introduced at half male median male earnings, would add about £250 million per annum to the costs of agriculture, and that those costs would fall disproportionately on the sectors that employ a large number of casual workers? What studies has he commissioned to assess the impact on agriculture of the minimum wage, and in particular employment in, and survival of, horticultural businesses?

The rate for the minimum wage has not yet been set, so the hon. Gentleman's comments are pure speculation. The NFU sided with the Labour party when the previous Government tried to abolish the only minimum wage board left—the agricultural wages board.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party, the trade unions and the NFU all supported the retention of the agricultural wages board because they recognised that there needed to be a minimum below which wages would not fall, and that, contrary to the assertions of Opposition Members, that is also the policy of the Government?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The agricultural wages board sets a benchmark that goes far beyond the agriculture sector and is important within the whole rural economy. That is why it was supported by rural interests and the Labour party, and was opposed by the Conservative party.

From the latest farm management survey figures for Wales I have calculated that, on the basis of a 40-hour week, farmers earn £2.50 an hour? In his discussions with the President of the Board of Trade, will he take that into consideration, as clearly farmers will not be able to afford to employ anybody.

We have already taken into account the pressure on farmers in Wales and, indeed, in other sectors. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State recently announced a package of £85 million-worth of extra aid, which is targeted at the most vulnerable groups.

What plans he has to amend the law and regulations regarding quarantine. [28750]

The advisory group on quarantine is expected to report by late spring, after which I plan to hold a full public consultation on its report.

Although I agree that the first priority should be to prevent the importation of rabies, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Professor Kennedy's group is giving serious consideration to the option of vaccination, with appropriate documentation and the insertion of a microchip for identification, so that animals with a pet's passport can be brought into this country without the need to spend months in quarantine?

Yes. I can confirm that vaccination is one of the options that will be considered.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, provided that he and his Department are satisfied with the science referred to by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), and provided that the arrangements are satisfactory in this country for monitoring incoming animals, there is no reason whatever that we should not be able to abandon the quarantine arrangements?

The hon. Gentleman is persuasive, but I shall not pre-empt the outcome of the scientific risk analysis. I can assure him that I believe that the time is right to re-examine the quarantine laws. That is why I have taken this initiative. There will be a full opportunity to consider all the aspects of the report when it is available.

When he will implement the recommendations of the Lamming committee on animal feedstuffs. [28751]

Most recommendations have been acted on since 1992. The principal one, on the establishment of an advisory committee on animal feedstuffs, is only now being implemented by the Government.

I welcome the announcement that there is to be an independent advisory committee on animal feedstuffs. It is an old adage that we are what we eat. Does not the Minister find it extraordinary that the previous Government did nothing to implement the recommendations of the Lamming committee in 1992? Is it not good news for the consumer that we now have a force for change in agriculture and in British politics?

My hon. Friend is right. It is good news for the consumer and for the producer, as many producers also want to be assured of the quality of their animals' feedstuffs. The committee is a step forward which will be welcome on all sides of the industry.

How many representations he has received in response to the Food Standards Agency White Paper. [28753]

Public consultation on the White Paper ends on 16 March. As of yesterday, 52 written formal responses have been made to the Department. My right hon. Friend and I have also met a number of interested organisations to discuss the White Paper.

Are not the Government's proposals good news for all those producers and consumers who suffered so grievously from the series of regulatory failures followed by cover-ups which characterised the stewardship of the Conservative party? What assurances can my hon. Friend give on two specific aspects of the proposals—first, on the independence of the agency and, secondly, on public access to its data and conclusions?

The independence of the agency will be enshrined in legislation which will be approved by the House. The commissioners who will govern the agency will be appointed under full Nolan principles, they will not be representative of any vested interest groups and they will be appointed for their individual expertise. There can be no greater signal that the agency will be open than that it will publish its advice to Ministers.

Will the Minister confirm that the Food Standards Agency will negotiate on behalf of the Government in Europe and elsewhere? Will he also confirm that the agency will draft secondary legislation for the Ministry of Agriculture?

Yes and yes.

Does my hon. Friend agree that only an effective Food Standards Agency will put behind us the tragedy for British agriculture that was caused by the former Government, and that the sooner such an effective agency is up and running, the sooner British consumers can be assured of the quality of the food that they eat and producers can be assured of a good market for good produce?

Yes, but British consumers do not have to wait until the agency is up and running. The Government's policy is to make consumer safety and food safety a top priority. That is where the change of policy started in May last year.

The Minister may recall that he was supposed to have been in Harrogate on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Food Standards Agency at the Hortex exhibition, which I opened. Can he explain to the House why, at the last minute, he gave a slap in the face to horticulture by cancelling his attendance at that meeting? Can he further explain why no other Minister was put up to speak in his place and why, if that was not possible, an official was not sent? He disappointed and upset many people who wanted to know about the agency, and showed disdain to the horticulture industry.

I had urgent diary commitments in London.

I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer a moment ago to the importance of consumer safety. Does he agree that one of the key tasks for the new Food Standards Agency is to deal with E. coli poisoning so that other parents do not suffer, as two parents in my constituency have, the sad, sorry, unnecessary premature death of a child?

My hon. Friend is right. Maintaining healthy living in this dirty world requires constant vigilance of some of the bugs that are around, especially those that were not around or known in this country two decades ago.

What assessment he has made of trends in farming incomes over the next three years. [28754]

It is difficult to predict the trend in farm incomes because of the many factors involved. I am kept informed by my officials on how specific market developments could impact on farm incomes.

Does the Minister accept that independent forecasts, such as those by Barclays bank, suggest a further significant fall in farming incomes next year? Farmers in my constituency have overdrafts that would make my eyes water. Does he accept that they cannot wait two years for an upturn, and does he agree that the crisis in farming incomes needs to be tackled urgently?

There is no doubt that this is a difficult year for farming incomes, although the hon. Gentleman may have misinterpreted the report slightly: Barclays suggests a downturn in 1998 and an upturn in 1999.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many hill farmers, particularly in the Pennines and similar areas, already farm on a non-viable basis and that, if something does not happen to give them a better return and standard of living, they will get out of farming?

Yes, I accept that. It is one reason why we are discussing the idea of early retirement with farmers' representatives and considering schemes such as hill livestock compensatory allowance. Hill farmers have always been in the lowest quartile of income. Perhaps the time has come to look at the support mechanisms as part of the restructuring of the CAP and the year 2000 proposals.

How much has been taken out of farm incomes by the rise in interest rates since last May, and how much more would be taken out by a further rise, as canvassed by the Governor of the Bank of England?

A rise in interest rates would affect farmers in the same way as any other business.

The Government are to be congratulated on their courage in dealing with the extremely difficult and painful, albeit inevitable, changes that have taken place in the farming industry. Could farmers hope for a more secure future in the long term if they were to change farming practices and carry out more organic farming, or move into areas for which there will be a secure market in the future, such as the cultivation of flax?

Farmers are certainly going through a period of change, not least because of the pressures on the CAP. There are tremendous premiums for organic products, but nearly 70 per cent. of the organic market is taken by imports. We are doing our best to encourage farmers to convert to organic methods and take the opportunity of that market. We shall announce further proposals in the very near future.

Does the Minister agree that, as soon as the ban on the export of beef from the United Kingdom comes about, farming incomes will start to increase again? May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State for attending the animal health computer presentation by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture today, and urge other hon. Members to attend the presentation at 4 pm in Room 21 so that their regions can benefit from the facilities that we have in Northern Ireland?

The computerised scheme in Northern Ireland is excellent and has helped in terms of the Commission's recommendation that the ban should be lifted in Northern Ireland. We are extending such a scheme, through the cattle passport scheme, throughout the country. It is a great shame that the previous Government did not implement that scheme in 1989 when they were pressed to do so by those on the Labour Front Bench.

The Minister will understand that the agrimonetary regime has a profound effect on farmers' incomes. A document produced by Mr. Lebrecht, a senior official in MAFF, has come into my possession. It waxes lyrical about the stability of the current arrangements and the contribution to farm incomes, and talks about the generous compensation schemes available to farmers in the context of post-euro agrimonetary arrangements.

It is a shame that the shadow Minister did not see a document that I have seen, which points out that in 1995 the then Conservative Government voted against the agrimonetary scheme—the very scheme that the Conservatives are now pressing us to implement.

If he will visit the World Trade Organisation in Geneva to discuss the European Union's banana regime; and if he will make a statement.[28755]

Negotiation in the WTO is a matter for the European Commission. I have made clear my determination to secure an outcome that both conforms to WTO rules and honours our long-standing commitments to Caribbean producers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the WTO ruling on the banana regime caused consternation and upset throughout the Caribbean? Many eastern Caribbean countries are wholly dependent on banana exports for their foreign exchange. The ruling also has serious social implications, because the banana industry is still a big employer in Jamaica and the eastern Caribbean. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, during its presidency of the European Union, the United Kingdom will do all that it can to bring about an outcome that will preserve the living standards and social structures of the eastern Caribbean?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Windward Islands, Belize and some other Caribbean islands depend hugely on banana production. Only this week, at the Agriculture Council in Brussels, we discussed progress on a new proposal to replace the one that was ruled out by the WTO decision—which, like my hon. Friend, I found very disappointing. We are determined to secure a new agreement for Caribbean banana producers.

Does the Minister recall that, at the time when Britain signed the treaty of Rome, the most solemn undertakings were given to our friends in the Caribbean—with whom we have historic links stretching over centuries—that their banana exports, on which their whole lives depend, would be protected? Must those undertakings be subordinated to the German wish to eat large numbers of continental American bananas?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have historic obligations to those tiny Caribbean democracies, and the Government are determined to fulfil our obligations, for all the reasons that he gave. I cannot see for the life of me why the complainants to the WTO made such a fuss. The tiny Caribbean countries produce only about 8 per cent. of the European banana market.

How many prosecutions have taken place with regard to the sale of beef on the bone to the final consumer. [28756]

None so far, but we are aware that two are pending, and that warnings about non-compliance have been given by local authorities.

I am sure that the House is glad that the Minister has dragged himself away from the health hazards of the Smoking Room to reply to questions.

The issue of prosecution is a matter for the independent prosecuting authorities. As hon. Members will have read in today's Evening Standard, someone is to be summoned before the magistrates in Rother, whose district council is run by a coalition between Liberal Democrats and Tories.

Is it not the case that there would be no need for prosecutions, or for the regulations banning beef on the bone, if the Tories had acted quickly when in government to quell the BSE crisis instead of dragging their feet?

Yes. It is a matter of public health and of taking precautions. We can say as a Government that we are not allowing BSE infectivity into the food chain, and we will maintain that position.

Will the Minister acknowledge that, in a democratic society, prosecution is always more difficult when there is no basic public consent to enthusiasm for or acceptance of the law itself? In that context, did he see the Teletext poll last weekend, when 94 per cent. of respondents expressed no confidence in or support for the Government's measures?

As most hon. Members appreciate, different rules apply to private kills, but the administration of justice in this country is not conducted by opinion polls.

May I tell the Minister that I have not had a single complaint about the temporary non-availability of T-bone steaks and oxtails in my constituency, I suspect because of their relatively high price? Does he agree that it is offensive for Opposition Members whose hands are dirty from BSE and CJD to take risks with public health over this temporary ban?

I agree entirely with the honest, fair and robust way in which my hon. Friend has put his point.

How many prosecutions have taken place or are pending in relation to breaches of the import regulations that were introduced on 1 January?

I am not able to answer that now without notice.

Did the Minister hear the item on this morning's "Today" programme, where a butcher who had been selling beef on the bone, when tipped off by the environmental health department that it was about to call on him, and when warned that there could be a fine of anything up to £20,000, decided immediately to stop selling beef on the bone? He was willing to be interviewed to that effect on that programme. Is that not what our local authorities throughout the country should be doing, so that we can guarantee all consumers that all possible steps have been taken to ensure that our beef is the safest in the world?

My hon. Friend is right, but I am not surprised that the butcher concerned was willing to be interviewed on the "Today" programme: it is clear that he is a publicity seeker.

If he will issue guidance to individuals who have beef on the bone in their freezers, bought for their own consumption, before 16 December 1997. [28757]

Such guidance was included in the question-and-answer material provided on the MAFF internet BSE site immediately after the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee advice on dorsal root ganglia on 3 December 1997.

Which advice is correct? Is it the advice on the internet that it is up to the consumer to decide whether to consume beef in deep freeze, or is it the advice given on television on Sunday by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that such consumption would represent an unnecessary risk?

People who already had frozen T-bones or ribs of beef in their freezers at home should, frankly, be treated as adults. [Interruption.] Those citizens owned that beef; it was in their home. We gave them the advice. They already owned that beef. It was not a question of making a commercial transaction—that had already been done.

Has the Minister ever pondered whether the Opposition parties are really serious about getting the beef ban lifted, as they are obviously not willing to take the vital steps that are necessary to assure the world of the safety and quality of British beef?

The plain fact is that the Opposition are asking us knowingly to allow, for the first time, BSE infectivity into the food chain. We will not do it now, and we will not do it in future.

What representations he has received about the future of the Brogdale Trust; and if he will make a statement. [28758]

In recent months, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials have had a number of discussions with Brogdale horticultural trust and its representatives about their proposed sale of the Brogdale site. The Ministry's interest is in the national fruit collection at Brogdale, which is located on land that we lease from the trust.

Does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties facing the trust is MAFF's requirement for a sizeable pay-back if the land is sold? Can he assure the House that that enormously valuable collection will not be put at risk by unreasonable demands by his Department?

The national fruit collection is obviously of national importance and consists of more than 4,000 top fruit trees. Our priority is to ensure its existence and the lease arrangements, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, are part of the guarantee.

What progress has been made in eradicating BSE from the United Kingdom herd; and if he will make a statement.[28759]

As a result of the control measures already in place, the BSE epidemic is forecast to be close to extinction by the year 2001. That forecast was reiterated recently by Professor Sir John Pattison, chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, in his address to the annual meeting of the National Farmers Union.

Can the Minister confirm that the requirements that were agreed at Florence for the lifting of the beef export ban have been met? In view of that, and in the light of the evidence that he has just given to the House that the measures are succeeding, what is he doing to get the ban lifted not just from Northern Ireland but from the United Kingdom as a whole?

I responded to the House on an earlier occasion on this issue. Two schemes for the lifting of the ban are being considered by the Commission in Brussels. The first of those, which is the export certified herd scheme, was submitted by the previous Administration. That was unanimously approved by the Commission and awaits a decision by the standing veterinary committee. As I said earlier, I cannot see any good reason why that committee should not reach the same conclusion as the Commission on that scheme.

When he expects to receive the Glidewell report on the future of the Crown Prosecution Service.[28775]

I expect to receive the report in March.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that concise response. Does he agree that the move towards a more localised and less bureaucratic system of prosecution is long overdue?

Yes, and that is why we have already decided to reorganise the Crown Prosecution Service into 42 areas. We wish to continue with that and to improve liaison between the police and the CPS. The broad concept is of a localised, national service with as much devolution as practicable to each locality.

What progress he is making with his review of the Crown Prosecution Service. [28776]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr. Thomas).

I recently visited the CPS office in Eastbourne which serves my constituency, and was surprised by the tight financial constraints under which it operates. Is that why a whole class of minor offences such as vandalism and so on are apparently not being pursued for prosecution? My constituents are worried about the fact that minor crimes do not result in prosecutions. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that in his review?

I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman visited the Eastbourne office on 8 February. He raised a number of issues and there was a fruitful discussion.

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about one aspect of the Glidewell inquiry—the role of child witnesses? Is the inquiry addressing that important issue, particularly the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service handles child witnesses?

Before I answer my hon. Friend's question, I must congratulate him on being elevated to a bencher of my own Inn.

Since the Attorney-General has linked the two questions, would it be fair to assume that he is not making any progress with his review of the Crown Prosecution Service pending delivery of Sir Iain Glidewell's report? Can he tell the House, pending receipt of that report, what the 42 Crown prosecutors that he appointed for each area last May, are doing? On a specific matter, will he bring the House up to date about the steps he is taking to implement the Government's policy on fasttracking for cases of young offenders?

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the decision was taken fairly soon after the Government took office to set up the 42 areas. It had been hoped to make progress with formal appointments by the end of the year. Sir Iain Glidewell indicated during the autumn that, such was the nature of his inquiry, he thought it would be wrong to go ahead with appointments at that stage before his full report had been published. He was most anxious in his interim discussions to ensure that there were persons of the right calibre to carry the kind of local decisions that he regarded as important to devolve from headquarters. That is why that happened. In the meantime, those units are working in close liaison with the police areas. I hope that we will be able to make progress during the year and that there will be further progress after the publication of the Glidewell report.

Will the Attorney-General answer the second part of my question about fasttracking for young offenders?

I am sorry about that. There were a number of points in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that, when we have a Crown Prosecution Service that is closer to the community, it will stop prosecuting and criminalising children accused of prostitution? Those under the age of consent are brought before the law and sentenced, giving them a criminal record when they are still children, while the pimps who run them and the punters who hire their services are not prosecuted. When will my right hon. and learned Friend stop the nonsense of prosecuting children and criminalising them when they are not even old enough to give assent to sex?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern. Individual decisions on prosecuting must be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service. The responsibility of the CPS is to consider the evidential test—whether the evidence is there—and to examine with great care in each case the public interest test on whether a prosecution should be continued. If my hon. Friend has a particular case to bring to my attention, I shall ensure that the CPS is made aware of it.

What plans he has to increase the number of lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service. [28777]

I have asked Sir Iain Glidewell to examine the organisation and structure of the CPS and to make recommendations that take account of the need to operate within existing provision. He will no doubt consider whether a redistribution of resources is necessary.

In the light of evidence recently given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Public Accounts Committee that many barristers return briefs to the CPS at the last minute, at the outset of the trial, causing chaos to the criminal justice system, will the Attorney-General or the DPP review the policy on the appointment of barristers to do Crown work? If so, when will that review be completed and published?

The hon. Gentleman has rightly alerted the House to a matter that is causing concern to the CPS. Mechanisms were set up in 1996. Since then, because of continued dissatisfaction, there has been an agreement with the Bar that there should be a monitoring service to examine the situation in each set of chambers, month by month. That came into effect on 2 February this year. Every six months there will be discussions between branches and the heads of chambers to see what can be done about the late return of briefs.

Before the CPS considers taking on more lawyers, should we not examine how to make best use of the lawyers that it already has? Could we not do that by rationalising the rights of audience? Does my right hon. and learned Friend really support a situation in which briefs go out to private barristers, often to be returned very late, while there are solicitors in the CPS with limited rights of audience in the Crown court and barristers with none?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is essential that the rights of audience be resolved. I remind the House that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is committed to a full examination of the rights of audience. I hope that there will be some expedition on that.

Will the Attorney-General bear in mind the fact that the work load of many Crown Prosecution Service lawyers is already very heavy? Last Friday, I visited the Guildford headquarters of the south-east branch of the CPS and spoke to the chief crown prosecutor there, Christopher Nicholls, who said that, certainly in Surrey, Sussex, Kent and Hampshire, CPS lawyers were already fully committed. I also spoke to several CPS lawyers when they came back from court late that afternoon, and it was clear that their work load was extremely heavy.

I will ensure that the Lord Chancellor is made aware of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As for the first part of his question, having been a practitioner up to 1 May, I am conscious of the great pressures on CPS lawyers and of how hard they work. The problem is in ensuring that a distinction can be made between their managerial and their legal functions. It is one matter that Sir Iain Glidewell will be examining closely. It will certainly be within his terms of reference to consider the impression that too much lawyers' time is taken up in management. If lawyers could be freed from that, they would have more time better to do their work in the courts.

What guidance he has issued on prosecutions under the age of consent legislation for homosexual males; and if he will make a statement.[28778]

The guidance issued to all Crown prosecutors is that contained in the code for Crown prosecutors issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which is applied to all cases.

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that answer. Does he accept that, as indicated by the number of signatories from all parts of the House to early-day motion 717, there is widespread concern about the continuing prosecution of people under the age of consent legislation, domestic legislation which the Government have accepted in the European courts needs to come before Parliament again urgently? In the light of the sentencing tomorrow of the Bolton Seven, will he consider offering specific guidance to the CPS on how we can prevent people's lives being ruined in the interim, until the House has an opportunity to pronounce its view on this outdated legislation?

The matter of the Bolton Seven is sub judice, and it would be wrong for me to comment on it. As for the anticipation of any possible change to the legislation, it is not for me to issue guidance on that. The CPS has to operate within and take account of each case on its merits and according to the usual criteria. It cannot anticipate any change in the legislation. As I understand it, the Government are committed to a free vote on that matter in due course following the Strasbourg decision, but one cannot expect the CPS to operate other than in accordance with the law as it stands today.