If he will make a statement on flood defences in the Edgware area. [33751]

Although the Department has policy responsibility for flood defence, individual works are designed, constructed and maintained by the operating authorities for each area. The Environment Agency and local councils are jointly considering improvements to defences in the Edgware area.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since the last extensive flooding many people feel that they are living on borrowed time and have sandbags piled high in their back gardens? The floods affected not just Edgware but Burnt Oak and Colindale, and caused substantial damage with consequent distress to my constituents. My constituents are concerned that recent changes to MAFF criteria for approval of schemes may adversely affect them. Before making any final decision on the expected report from the Environment Agency, will my hon. Friend agree to listen to further representations on that study?

My hon. Friend has pursued the threats to his constituents with diligence. The Environment Agency is considering a catchment plan for the Silk stream and its tributaries, which is probably the best way of approaching the problem. That proposal has not yet been put to MAFF, so we are not in a position to ascertain whether it meets the criteria. If it does not, stand-alone schemes may be considered to protect the interests of residents. We are always willing to receive representations.

What recent developments there have been on the issue of BSE. [33752]

On 16 March, the Agriculture Council agreed by a convincing majority to lift the beef export ban for certified herds in Northern Ireland. That is excellent news for our beef industry, and is the first crucial step towards lifting the ban for the United Kingdom as a whole.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success, but has he seen the most recent claims of Professor Lacey, who alleges that farmers are burying on their land BSE-infected fallen stock? I am having great difficulty understanding how that is possible, given that farmers are being paid between £540 and £680 for each animal that they notify as having BSE. What is actually happening?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about our success in Brussels this week. The United Kingdom Renderers Association wishes to make it clear that no official representative of the association has ever met or discussed any issue with Professor Lacey. My hon. Friend is right that BSE is a notifiable dise, and the burials to which the allegations refer would therefore be an offence. He is also right to point out that, from April this year, if a BSE case is confirmed by post mortem, the farmer will receive £531 and, if it is not confirmed, and the animal has been destroyed, the fanner will receive £663. Given the position of UK farming, I find it difficult to believe that farmers would voluntarily forgo £500 million to £600 million.

Will the Minister confirm that the Workington site chosen for the new British cattle movement centre had the highest set-up costs of the three sites considered?

I can confirm that a cost-benefit analysis showed that Workington was the best site for the taxpayer and the industry.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the opening of the inquiry into BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob syndrome? I attended last week with a bereaved family from my constituency, who were very impressed.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on what is happening in the inquiry, but I can say that the culture of secrecy in the Ministry ended on 3 May 1997. I have made it clear to all Ministry officials that they are free to give the inquiry whatever evidence they think appropriate, and that there is no question of any action being taken against them subsequently.

In view of the significant breakthrough that has been achieved in Northern Ireland—which we all hope will be followed as swiftly as possible by similar progress in respect of England, Wales and Scotland—will the Minister comment on reports leaked from his Department earlier today concerning the selective cull scheme? Civil servants expressed concern about the effectiveness of traceability, and feared that such reports would send the wrong signal to our European Union counterparts. Can the Minister assure us that everything possible is being done in regard to the remaining 20 per cent. of animals, and that if further action is needed to maintain and build on the momentum at European level, no stone will be left unturned?

I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House a categorical assurance to that effect. The last Administration, however, were very slow: the selective cull did not begin until January 1997. Because of the delay, it is not surprising that not all the animals that we thought could be identified have been identified. However, because of the age of those animals and the operation of the over-30-months scheme, there have been no consequences to human health. If the animals were not killed, they would have been caught by the over-30-months scheme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the borough of Rotherham is about 65 per cent. rural? It is one of the beef-eating and beef-producing centres of Yorkshire, so my constituents are delighted with the news that my right hon. Friend has brought back from Brussels. Does not that news, along with news of the reform of the common agricultural policy—the Commission is adopting a British agenda to force down food prices, which will benefit the British people—contrast with the isolationist, anti-European, xenophobic politics that caused such disaster in our farming communities when implemented by the Conservative Government?

As my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) have pointed out, we must press on as quickly as possible with the date-based export scheme for beef producers in the rest of the United Kingdom. I assure the House that we are doing that.

Does the Minister take pleasure in the fact that the farmers of Northern Ireland greatly appreciate all the work that he and his colleagues have done over the months since he took power to persuade the European market to lift the ban, especially in Northern Ireland?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks and kind remarks. I recognise the significance of agriculture to Northern Ireland's economy and that beef producers in Northern Ireland have had a particularly difficult time. I know that they are delighted by this week's result in Brussels and the emphatic nature of the vote in the Council, which voted by qualified majority to accept the scheme. I accept, however, that it is imperative that we press ahead and try to achieve similar success for the dated-based export scheme because of the universal nature of that scheme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still a great need to understand the scientific basis of this disease and its progression: the BSE prion and its mutational properties, its stability in blood and water, its cross-infectivity and the incubation time? Does he agree that scientific funding still needs to be found to understand the full properties of the prion?

I certainly agree that we need to know much more about BSE and new variant CJD, but I have recently authorised considerable additional expenditure for research of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers. That is an extensive research programme. We have probably the widest-ranging research programme into BSE and its consequences of any country. That programme will continue under this Administration.

Following on from his earlier replies, will the Minister give us a candid assessment of the difficulties that he will face in achieving acceptance of a date-based export scheme within the European Union?

I can foresee some of the difficulties because some of our colleagues in the Council have been reluctant to cast their votes on the basis of the scientific and veterinary advice, opinions and evidence. It is important that we should insist that decisions are taken on the basis of science, not of political or economic advantage. I have already made my views abundantly clear in Brussels and in capitals throughout Europe, and I shall go on doing so.

If he will make a statement about resources made available for sea defences. [33753]

Allocations for MAFF grants and credit approvals to operating authorities for capital flood and coastal defence works in 1998–99 are at the same levels as plans proposed last year by the previous Government. For future years, the funding level will depend on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.

Is the Minister aware that the cost of emergency repairs at Selsey in my constituency is approaching £500,000 and that that money is coming from the Environment Agency budget that was originally earmarked for making more permanent repairs? Is that not a Catch-22 situation, because the more money is spent on emergency repairs, the less is available for making the sea defences permanent? Will the Minister assure my constituents that the Government will make available the resources necessary to bring an end to that absurd situation?

I can confirm that, because of the particular problems on the Sussex coast, extra resources have been available in relation to the grant-earning ceiling. That has been raised from the original allocation of £3 million to £3.9 million, which takes into account the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about the need for emergency repairs and the fact that the cost of permanent repairs has increased.

If he will make a statement on progress towards lifting the beef export ban. [33754]

As I have just told the House, on Monday, we secured the first crucial step towards lifting the ban when the Agriculture Council approved the export certified herds scheme by a substantial majority.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there two lessons to be drawn from the successful meeting on Monday? First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—whose constituency, even if it is 65 per cent. rural, is not as rural as Selby, which is is about 80 per cent. rural—said, if we are to have the ban lifted in England, Scotland and Wales, we need to maintain our constructive attitudes to Europe. Secondly, and more important, in the coming months we need to maintain the strongest possible public health measures.

My hon. Friend is right on both counts. It is because we have developed an open and constructive dialogue with all the institutions of the European Union—the Commission, the Council and the Parliament—that we have been able to make progress. The progress is due equally to the fact that we have taken stringent measures to safeguard the public and to ensure that our beef is safe to eat.

On behalf of Opposition Members, I welcome the announcement on the lifting of the Northern Ireland beef ban. It is a tribute to the foundation work put in place by previous Agriculture Ministers that this Minister has been able to achieve success in Brussels.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. First, I give the right hon. Gentleman at least nine out of 10 for brass neck. The previous Administration made no progress towards the lifting of the ban, which the right hon. Gentleman, the House, the country and, more particularly, our farmers know very well. The right hon. Gentleman is also out of touch with what is happening at the next Agriculture Council. The next Council will be a special Council which I have called to hold the opening discussion and debate on the Agenda 2000 proposals. There is no question of my tabling any indicative timetable at that time. The Council has the special and single purpose of discussing Agenda 2000. If the right hon. Gentleman spent more time and paid more attention to detail, we might get some sensible questions from him. Finally, we expect the centre at Workington to be operational later this year.

When he last visited the north of England to discuss subsidies to farmers. [33755]

I visited the region in February when I attended a meeting with the local National Farmers Union.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. So much for the Conservatives being the party of the countryside. How can the Conservative party represent the countryside when it has no rural representatives—and no urban representatives, either, come to that—in Scotland or Wales? It is illogical. I assume that my hon. Friend will continue to meet farmers throughout the United Kingdom in order to discuss their problems.

The answer to the question implied in my hon. Friend's comments is that we meet farmers regularly throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Subsidies to farmers in Scotland—part of which my hon. Friend represents—were £480 million last year, which is an all-time high.

Farmers in the north of England will be interested in the recently published proposals for Agenda 2000—and particularly the way in which they affect the dairy sector. Can the Minister tell me whether, at the special Council which his right hon. Friend the Minister will be attending at the end of the month, he will be raising the fact that there is to be a 2 per cent. increase in milk quota, but that, as we have no mountain dairy producers or, at this stage, a newcomers' scheme, Britain will get no increase in milk quota, but will suffer a 15 per cent. reduction in the price of milk? Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will protect Britain's dairy farmers in those discussions?

Yes, the issue will be raised.

What steps his Department is taking (a) to provide for the incineration of more meat and bonemeal and (b) to reduce the need for MBM storage. [33756]

The Government are actively considering a number of major disposal options involving incineration for the meat and bonemeal derived from the over-30-months scheme. Our goal remains to find a disposal solution which takes full account of the need to protect human and environmental health, while keeping the cost to the taxpayer as low as possible.

I thank the Minister for his reply. My constituents turned out in force last week at a council planning meeting and they were delighted that the council unanimously rejected a plan to store meat and bone meal at an inappropriate site in Wroughton in my constituency. Will the Minister assure my constituents that MAFF, the intervention board and the Environment Agency will put no pressure on the applicant to appeal against the decision, so that my residents' wishes are respected?

Yes; not only will MAFF not put any pressure on the applicant to make an appeal, but, if the applicant makes an appeal, we will put no pressure on the appellate authorities.

If he will launch a campaign to promote the safety and quality of British farm products. [33760]

:The safety and quality of British foods are second to none. My colleagues and I take every opportunity to publicise that fact, and to stimulate the effective marketing of our products. Promotional campaigns are really a matter for the trade, as they are far more expert at them than are the Government. However, we do what we can to support the various and many trade initiatives.

I am slightly disappointed by that answer—although it might help a bit if the Minister were to take on board the fact that the oldest agricultural show is staged in my constituency of Chorley. There are many agricultural shows across the country, at which MAFF has exhibitions. What better opportunity could there be to ensure and promote the safety and quality of our good British products? With a little imagination, which I know they have, the Government could raise the profile of safety and quality by promoting them at those shows. Such promotion is all the more important as some people, such as the French, continue to block British beef products but are not sorting out their own house.

I understand and share my hon. Friend's concern. MAFF has travelling exhibitions which visit most of the shows and major exhibitions, such as the food fair that will soon be held in London. We have also sponsored a major British specialities exhibition at the food and drink expo—which I visited on Monday—at the national exhibition centre, in Birmingham. Although we shall continue our exhibitions, it is for the trade to push the matter. Ministers will give what support we can, and we shall visit as many shows as possible—especially targeting shows that Ministers have previously avoided.

How can the Minister justify the continuing ban on sales of beef on the bone in the light of the advice given by his own Ministry to the landlord of the Elm Tree pub in Swanwick that it is perfectly legal for him to cook beef on the bone if he strips it off the bone after it is cooked in the kitchen and before he serves it to his customers? How do the Minister and his colleagues, having introduced the legislation, feel to be the first Labour Ministers since Ramsay Macdonald—who earned the title from Winston Churchill, in 1931—to be boneless wonders?

The hon. Gentleman and most of his colleagues have not quite got the message: the decisions that we took last December have enabled us to start to secure the beginning of the lifting of the beef ban. If what the hon. Gentleman said about the cooking of beef on the bone is accurate, it is contrary to the regulations. It is an offence to cook beef on the bone. As we have repeatedly made it clear, the danger will be in the juices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Oh, yes; and we will not be the first Government knowingly to put infectivity in the food chain. Fairly soon, Conservative Members will get that message.

Does my hon. Friend accept that farmers and consumers in my constituency realise that one of the best ways of promoting the safety of British food is by establishing the Food Standards Agency? Will he perhaps tell the House how he will promote that agency, so that producers and consumers understand the importance of promoting and improving our food?

Yes. The consultation round on the White Paper "A Force for Change" concluded on Monday, and more than 400 representations were made. We expect to produce draft legislation for the House to consider by the early summer, to produce a Bill for the next parliamentary Session, and to have the agency up and running in the second half of next year.

Once the date-based scheme is secure, will the Minister and the Government consider launching a campaign based on the safety and quality of United Kingdom beef, to ensure that our farmers can reclaim some of the export markets that have undoubtedly been jeopardised by the beef ban of the past two years?

Yes. It would be useful to the House. Recently, Professor Philip James, having been asked about the safety of British beef, said in evidence to the Agriculture Committee:

"From my analysis of the BSE issue, I am embarrassed to tell you that…not just myself, but many members of our steering committee"—

"believe that meat and meat products from Britain are safer than in most other European countries."

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in applauding the work of Food From Britain, which does an extraordinarily good job of promoting British food abroad? Does he agree that farmers need to do more to sell food directly to the consumer? What plans does he have to encourage farmers' markets, which are such a success in the United States of America and could do so much to bring farmers closer to consumers, to the benefit of both?

Question Time is not the time to go into great detail, but when I was at the expo on Monday, I saw the excellent way in which Welsh beef farmers have been marketing pink beef and veal. They never thought of or needed to do such marketing before and they have the full support of my Department.

When he will visit Harborough to discuss stock farmers' incomes. [33761]

I have no plans to visit Harborough in the near future. However I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman met my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 2 March to discuss farmers' incomes and other issues.

May I begin by thanking the Minister of State for receiving that delegation? It was an extremely helpful and useful meeting. May I draw to his attention the case of one my neighbours, who is a beef farmer? The price of his beef bulls, which were selling at about £720 before March 1996, is now £530. He has not been able to sell any breeding heifers at all, his cull cows have gone down in value from £750 to £300 and the value of his herd, which has increased in number from 257 to 290, has been devalued by £50,000. Will the Minister bear that in mind in his further discussions with the European Commission?

First, I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind remarks about my hon. Friend the Minister of State; we are always willing to receive delegations consisting of right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents. I shall certainly bear in mind his example which, sadly, is typical of problems in the beef industry. That is why we are determined to press ahead to seek acceptance for the date-based export scheme to bring further support to the beef sector, in addition to the agrimonetary compensation and the other financial support that we have recently announced.

After two Labour Budgets, the average 300-acre family farm, in Harborough and elsewhere, will be £1,300 worse off—and that in a week when the Minister has announced that farm incomes have almost halved. As the Budget did nothing to dampen the strength of sterling, farmers now face the prospect of a further green pound revaluation. Yet the strength of sterling has helped save the Minister some money in his Department's budget. Will he go further than his welcome U-turn on the subject of meat hygiene and cattle passport payments and seek additional ways, within his departmental budget, of relieving the massive burden on British agriculture? He could do that without asking for any further increase in public expenditure, which I know perfectly well he would find it difficult to obtain.

Both Budgets under the present Government have benefited people in rural as well as urban areas. Only the Conservative party cannot find a single word of praise for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his excellent Budget earlier this week. Like his right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the hon. Gentleman never lets an opportunity pass without demanding more public expenditure. They say that I should find money from within my existing budget. What do they suggest I should cut to provide that extra money?

If he will visit the Royal Bath and West show this year to discuss the current state of agriculture in the west country. [33763]

I am unable to attend the show. I am aware of the current state of agriculture in the west country following a visit by my noble Friend Lord Donoughue to north Devon and Exmoor early in January.

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman cannot visit the Royal Bath and West. He may recall that the previous Minister was warmly received there. He would be equally warmly received in my constituency. Given the figures released by his Department last week, showing a 35 per cent. decrease in dairy farm incomes and a 65 per cent. decrease in lowland beef and sheep farm incomes, does he accept that his right hon. Friend the Minister was incorrect to tell me last year that there was no crisis in west country agriculture?

I respect the hon. Gentleman's argument and that of his farmers, who have suffered along with others. The extra help that we announced in December and confirmed in February—the cheques will be arriving this month—is going to the upland and less favoured areas. By common consent, that is where the need is greatest.

Agriculture in the west country is in a serious predicament. The most obvious immediate effect of the Budget has been a rapid increase in the value of the pound. What is the Minister's estimate of the likely impact of that on farm incomes in the coming year?

It is too early to say at the moment.

What progress he is making on lifting the ban on British beef. [33764]

What progress has been made with the lifting of the beef export ban. [33766]

As my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier this afternoon, we have made a major breakthrough with the European Council's agreement to the export certified herds scheme. We will be working hard to secure agreement to our proposals for a date-based export scheme, which would apply throughout the UK.

May I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members on that? Is it true that only two European countries voted against the partial lifting of the ban? Does that represent progress on the issue with our European neighbours?

My hon. Friend is right—only two voted against. In the Veterinary Committee a few weeks before, four voted against and one abstained. All the recent movement has been towards the position of the British Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, without the strictest possible anti-BSE measures, including a ban on the sale of beef on the bone, there is no chance of the beef ban being lifted and that, unlike the Conservative party, he will act to protect public health?

My hon. Friend is right. We cannot repeat often enough that without the most rigorous precautions on the safety of the beef food chain we shall not make any further progress and would not have made the progress that we have secured. Unlike the policy that we inherited, that approach seems to be working.

Does the Minister feel that the British Army's buying British beef and British lamb would give people on the continent confidence about accepting our meat? How is he progressing in the efforts that I know he is making with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to increase the proportion of British beef, lamb and other meat the Army uses?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The knowledge that the Ministry of Defence is not sourcing from the United Kingdom raises questions among our competitors and others. We have had discussions with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. We expect more British beef to be purchased in future. There is a long-term contract for frozen lamb from New Zealand, which was based on best value for money. I do not know when the contract finishes. We are discussing the issue.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has not conceded that computer traceability should be the precondition for the lifting of the beef export ban in other parts of the United Kingdom? Will he take this opportunity to confirm his view that there are manual records which are perfectly adequate for the satisfaction of that purpose?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. It must not get around that the lifting of the rest of the ban under the date-based scheme depends on a computerised system. The position was different in Northern Ireland for the certified herds scheme because the necessary records were available due to their computer system, which they have had for many years and which had nothing to do with BSE.

In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, will he say whether there is any hope for English producers who can demonstrate that their herds have been totally BSE-free for some considerable time? Usually because their cattle are pedigree animals, farmers are able to demonstrate that they have had no problems, but they are still unable to export. That seems unfair.

My hon. Friend is right. It is not generally appreciated that the majority of cattle herds in this country have never had a case of BSE. Some 67 per cent. of the 120,000 herds have never had a case of BSE. For beef suckler herds, the situation is more extreme—84 per cent. have never had a case of BSE. That is why the majority of fanners are so angry; they have been affected by what happened to a minority of farmers. We can show that the majority of herds in this country have been BSE-free. Lifting the ban under a date-based scheme, or indeed a certified herd scheme, should be easier, but the myth gets around that every farmer has had loads of BSE cases. That is not true. The 171,000 cases of BSE have been identified on a minority of cattle farms.

What estimate he has made of future trends in farm incomes in the United Kingdom. [33767]

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

Is the Minister aware that, for many farmers in my constituency, that answer will seem very odd? They have performed their own calculations and believe that they will be out of business next year due to the present state of the pound and the Minister's steadfast refusal to apply for agrimonetary compensation at the level they require.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong on that final point. The announcement that I made in December, and confirmed earlier this year, was based on agrimonetary compensation.

It was a small amount.

The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand. He says that it was a small amount, but it was virtually all that was available in agrimonetary compensation for the beef sector at that point.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that farming incomes are particularly vulnerable to currency fluctuations? Does he therefore welcome the support of the National Farmers Union for the single European currency? Does he agree that it is absolutely ludicrous for the Conservative party to claim to be the friend of the farmer when it is still viscerally opposed to the single European currency?

My hon. Friend puts it very succinctly, and I agree with him.

If he discussed the reform of the common agricultural policy with the Minister of Agriculture of Chile during his recent visit to the United Kingdom. [33768]

My noble Friend Lord Donoughue met the Chilean Minister of Agriculture on Thursday 5 March. Reform of the common agricultural policy was one of the items that they discussed.

I am not surprised at that answer inasmuch as it must seem extraordinarily perverse that the United Kingdom allows itself to be part of a European Union agricultural policy that deliberately excludes some of the very best and cheapest agricultural produce in the world, such as that from Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. As the European Union's agricultural policy is up for review, could not only the consequences of enlargement but the paramount importance of satisfying the need for British consumers to get the best possible and most economic deal be taken into account?

I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. We should lose no opportunity to press for reform of the common agricultural policy, because of this country's support for successful enlargement of the Union, because of the impending next round of the World Trade Organisation talks on liberalisation and because, as the hon. Gentleman says, we want to give our consumers the best value for money and the best choice in the food that they buy.

What consultations he has had recently with leaders of the fishing industry with regard to coastal management schemes. [33769]

I plan to meet leaders of the fishing industry shortly to discuss their recent paper on zonal and coastal state management.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and suggest that it would be useful if he could visit fishing communities in Scarborough and Whitby and along the rest of the North Yorkshire coast to receive from them in person the thanks that they have expressed to me for the good start that the Government have made with fishing policy.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I am always more than willing to meet people from the fishing industry in fishing ports to talk about issues of concern. It is true that we have brought stability to an industry that has lacked it for many years, by getting to grips with the issue of multi-annual guidance programmes III and IV after years of delay.

What advice he has given the Government on the implementation of the EU and OECD conventions on international bribery. [33782]

Officials in the departments for which I am responsible are involved in providing assistance in such matters, but my hon. Friend will know that, by convention, advice given by the Law Officers, and even the fact of its existence, is not disclosed outside Government.

What action are the Government taking during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU to combat corruption in the public and private sectors?

I know of my hon. Friend's strong interest in this matter. Indeed, he introduced a Bill on the subject in February. The Government have been a strong supporter of measures to penalise corruption. As president, the United Kingdom is taking forward a Luxembourg presidency initiative on corruption in the private sector, which will build on and complement existing EU legislation against corruption of officials. Furthermore, a detailed report being produced by the presidency and the Commission evaluates existing anti-corruption measures in both the first and third pillars.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us more about what the Government are trying to do to ensure that our EU partners are not using bribery or other corrupt practices to obtain contracts in other parts of the world? During my visits to other countries, I have heard that Britain often loses out because companies, rightly, are not willing to engage in bribery and corruption with officials in countries such as the former Soviet Union, whereas some other notable large countries in the EU appear only too pleased to do so, to win contracts from Britain.

I am sure that my right hon. Friends who will be concerned with such matters in any discussions will seek to do what they can within the European Union to ensure that there is a level playing field. In our domestic law, we can deal only with offences committed within the jurisdiction.

As we are told that Cyprus is trying to join the European Union and will thus be affected to some extent by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and all the other areas of influence, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether, if discussions take place, the Government will tell the people of Cyprus that we shall bargain to ensure that Asil Nadir is brought back to this country as part of any deal so that he can tell us precisely when he handed the money over to the Tory party and what steps will be taken to give it back to the shareholders who were robbed of it in the first place?

I know of my hon. Friend's repeated concern and interest in this matter, which I suspect will not arise during the discussions. I shall take it up with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

When he now expects to receive the report of the committee reviewing the work and organisation of the Crown Prosecution Service. [33784]

Sir Iain Glidewell has informed me that he will not now be able to finalise his report this month, as he had hoped. Both he and I understand how important it is to the staff of the CPS that it should be completed as quickly as possible. I am satisfied that the review team is proceeding as expeditiously as it can, consistent with thoroughness.

Pending receipt of the report, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman cast his mind back to when he was in opposition and recall how critical he was of the CPS in relation to discontinuances? Has he noticed his own most recent figures, which show that, during the months he has had responsibility, they seem to have gone up somewhat? What is more, those discontinued before the first hearing seem to have dropped. Can he given an explanation and assure the House that the CPS has all the backing it needs?

I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the CPS has the backing it needs. This matter comes under the terms of reference of the Glidewell report, and the House would be right to await the report before forming a view. Evidence is required, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to recent figures.

In North-East Derbyshire, we cannot get the CPS to prosecute motorcyclists, or bodies organising them, who misuse designated bridleways and bridlepaths. Might the review provide some opportunity to allow the CPS to do its work, or might we need a change in the law?

I shall draw that matter to the attention of the Director, although these are substantially matters for the police in the first instance.

If he will make a statement on the review of the Crown Prosecution Service. [33785]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).

Is the Attorney-General aware that the CPS's computer system, SCOPE, had to be abandoned, at a huge loss of public money, because it was unable to cope with the new teamworking practices introduced by the CPS? This means that the CPS is now without any computer system that allows its branches to communicate with each other, let alone with every police force in England and Wales. What will the Attorney-General do to ensure this unsatisfactory situation is resolved?

I am aware of the interest and the criticism of the hon. Gentleman, who raised this matter in a Select Committee. I am grateful to him for giving notice of his question. SCOPE is a basic tracking and management system and, where installed, performs those functions adequately. It has been overtaken as the CPS changed and greater demands were made of the system. The CPS is pursuing methods to meet those needs, including consideration of the private finance initiative. I attach importance to compatibility with the remainder of the criminal justice system and I know that the Glidewell review is considering the issue.

In light of press reports on the Glidewell review, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether it is proposed to restructure the CPS to 30 or 42 separate areas?

I am glad my hon. Friend has raised this matter, because there has been a misconception about it during the past few weeks. We took office with a commitment to restructure the CPS to 42 areas so as to align CPS areas with police force areas. That was the object of the exercise and it remains the policy. Sir lain Glidewell's terms of reference are clear and require that his recommendations are on the basis of the service being organised into 42 areas.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman join me in paying tribute to the work of the Crown Prosecution Service in West Sussex, in particular the division run from Horsham, which looks after the magistrates court in Haywards Heath? Does he agree that it does a remarkably good job, despite the fact that it is short staffed and under great pressure? The most important thing that the CPS needs to carry out its task to the best of its ability is a little more money.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman presses for more public expenditure, but he knows the remit under which we have decided to operate. I am glad that he has paid tribute to his local staff—a large number of very hard-working and hard-pressed men and women work in the CPS. The Glidewell report is considering the means to ensure that the resources that are available are used to the best advantage and that lawyers get on with prosecuting and managers get on with managing, so that there is not the current undue mix.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Glidewell report will thoroughly review the working relationships between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service?

Yes. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Concern that the relationship was not as smooth as it could be was a big factor in our decision to set up the review and to align police and CPS areas. It is also a specific topic in the review's terms of reference. The House will be aware that a very experienced former chief constable and inspector of constabularies, Sir Geoffrey Dear, is one of the team of three, which includes, of course, Sir lain as chairman.

What representations he has received on the use of juries in fraud trials. [33786]

Last month, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched a consultation exercise seeking views on whether an alternative method of trial should be available in serious and complex fraud cases and on the viability of various options for change. I have not received any representations following the launch of the consultation exercise.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he share my surprise that those who present fraud trials in an extended and lucrative way have taken no steps to preserve the current system? Does he also agree that Britain's reputation as a place for international financial business depends on effective and thorough mechanisms to combat fraud? What further steps do the Government propose to take to combat financial fraud?

In his consultation exercise, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining the effectiveness of current trial management procedures. Moreover, the Government intend to widen the gateways to allow for the flow of information between all relevant agencies in the fight against fraud. We are also considering a system of civil fines for behaviour that, although not criminal, nevertheless tarnishes the market's reputation. The Government also recognise that an effective system of regulation is necessary to complement the criminal justice system, so a new single financial regulator, the Financial Services Authority, has been set up to help secure the United Kingdom's place as a fair, safe and clean place in which to do financial services business.

Does the Attorney-General agree that juries should set and decide on standards for honesty in fraud as well as other trials?

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set out various options. The Government recognise that there are concerns that the current system for handling some major, complex fraud trials is not working satisfactorily and that there may be a case for considering some change to the system, but we have not yet reached a conclusion on whether the ending of jury trials in serious fraud cases is desirable in principle. Moreover, we have not yet formed an opinion on any particular option for change and will not do so until the consultation procedure is complete.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of any fundamental objection to a system of specialist jurors with financial qualifications, and who have time available to sit, as the solution to that problem?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to read the Home Secretary's White Paper and look at the options there canvassed. As I said in my first answer, I have not received any representations. That is one of the suggestions that could be canvassed; I invite the hon. Gentleman to make his representations to the Home Secretary.

If he will make a statement on the impact on the livestock industry of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy's recommendations on red meat consumption. [33771]

We have no way of measuring the exact impact on the livestock industry of recommendations made by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy in its recent report on the relationship between diet and cancer. For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the House that all the work on that report was completed before the Government came to power.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise how demoralising all this is for beef farmers and, indeed, how confusing it is for consumers? I do not want to make any party-political point, but does he accept that constant change in what is supposedly safe and what we can or cannot eat is very undermining and reduces significantly the credibility of Government spokesmen?

The hon. Gentleman's remarks are based on many of the myths and press reports surrounding the publication of the report. The fact of the matter is that COMA' s recommendations about reducing the consumption of red and processed meat apply only to above average consumers, especially those who consume very high quantities of red and processed meat. The recommendations do not apply to the vast generality of the British public who eat red meat.