What representations he has received from animal welfare organisations in connection with his Department's new ear tagging arrangements for cattle. [47156]

The new arrangements for double tagging of cattle result from European Union, not national, rules. Welfare organisations were included in the consultations on the new arrangements.

The Minister will be aware that the tags have to be affixed to both ears of a calf during its first week of life. For some breeds, particularly Dexters, the tags will be larger than the calf's ears. For all breeds, those tags will snag and tear the soft flesh of the ear. Will the Minister review the system and take up the matter with his European Union colleagues to obtain an electronic and more humane alternative?

The welfare issues relating to double tagging are very important. I should emphasise that the two tags do not have to be in the same ear—there can be one in each ear. We have managed to secure agreement that small breeds of cattle, such as Dexters, can wear a smaller second tag, which should take into account some of the welfare concerns. Welfare organisations and bodies such as the Dexter Cattle Society have been consulted on double tagging.

I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on taking a courageous view, for a Conservative Member, on animal welfare. I welcome that revised attitude to animal welfare, and I hope that he will be as sympathetic on the subject of hunting with hounds.

Hunting with hounds is not a matter for me, but welfare issues are important. That is why we want to progress such advances as electronic tagging—trials are currently taking place and will be completed by 2000. There are a whole range of animal welfare issues, and the Government should be congratulated on their progress in improving all kinds of animal welfare.

When he expects to receive the report of the independent panel of scientists into alternatives to quarantine to combat rabies. [47157]

The advisory group on quarantine is expected to report to Ministers in the summer or early autumn.

I remind my hon. Friend that most continental European countries have bad records in the enforcement of animal welfare regulations, and a sustained improvement in that performance needs to be demonstrated before we can lower our quarantine defences. Will he quickly implement his new powers to enforce higher welfare standards in quarantine kennels, and close those kennels where the regulations are breached?

My hon. Friend is right. As the House knows, the expert advisory group is comparing five options with the current system. We have asked it to present any option that is as good or better at protecting this country from rabies than the status quo. If it comes up with such an option, we shall fully consult the wider public, including pet owners and non pet owners, and there will be discussions in the House, after which we shall take actions accordingly.

If he will make a statement on farm incomes in the year to 1 May 1998. [47158]

Total income from farming is estimated on a calendar year basis. In the last year for which figures are available, 1997, total income from farming fell by 37 per cent. in real terms.

I thank the Minister for his answer, but I hope that he does not underestimate the damage that is being inflicted by current policies. What has he to say to Mr. Godfrey Caldwell, who runs a grass-drying business in my constituency? The strength of the pound has slashed the prices of his products by 40 per cent. over the last year, has cut a quarter of a million pounds from his turnover although the same amount of work has been undertaken, and has caused him to make a loss for the first time in his 42-year career in the industry. Does the Minister understand why Mr. Caldwell considers him to be the worst occupant of his high office in living memory?

I understand—as, I think, does every hon. Member—that the strength of sterling causes problems to farmers, and, for that matter, to manufacturing industry. I also understand—as the hon. Gentleman was a special adviser to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the last Conservative Government, I hope that he recalls this—that two thirds of the increase in the strength of sterling happened under that Administration, and not once was one penny of agrimonetary compensation paid.

My right hon. Friend will know that the incomes of many farmers have been suppressed because of the legacy of the BSE crisis. Is he in a position to update us on the cattle traceability scheme, which I think will do much to help farmers in my constituency?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly true that, in addition to the strength of sterling, lower commodity prices have impacted adversely on farm incomes. It is for that reason, among others, that we announced £85 million of agrimonetary compensation earlier this year, and it is also for that reason that the Government have invested £30 million in the establishment of the cattle traceability scheme, which is located in Workington. I shall visit it tomorrow with the president of the National Farmers Union to get an on-the-spot update on progress, but I can tell the House that we are on course for the scheme to be fully operational in September.

Following our exchanges at our last agriculture Question Time about the continuing crisis in farm incomes, and the related increase in the number of farmers and their families who are now receiving various social security benefits, does the Minister share my surprise at what was revealed yesterday by the answers to my written questions to the Department of Social Security?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point, let me say that the Government have made their position clear. It is interesting to note that the National Farmers Union shares the Government's view of the importance of this issue to farmers—unlike the Conservative Opposition, whose policy continues to be extremely damaging to Britain in general and to farmers in particular.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the analogy of bringing a supertanker to a halt, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health? The Government took over an industry that was devastated by the BSE crisis, with farm incomes plummeting since March 1996, and it takes time to stop such a precipitious fall. The decline has now halted and we can look forward to recovery and subsequent growth in farm incomes in the final years of this Parliament.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Farm incomes were in steep decline at the time of the general election. The previous Administration did nothing about it, and certainly never paid any agrimonetary compensation. I share my hon. Friend's hope that we can turn round the disastrous circumstances affecting farmers, and especially livestock farmers and the beef industry, as a consequence of the Conservative Government's abysmal policy failures.

Is not it time that Ministers stopped blaming BSE for the crisis in agriculture and recognised that BSE has nothing whatever to do with the collapse in milk, sheep or grain prices? Does he recall the Parliamentary Secretary saying at a previous Agriculture Question Time that 50 per cent. of farmers have borrowings? Why, then, do all the agriculture managers of the major banks say that the figure is between 70 and 90 per cent., and that those borrowings are going up by about 8 per cent. overall and 16 per cent. in Scotland? Is it any wonder that farmers throughout Britain think that the Government do not know and do not care?

The hon. Gentleman's synthetic anger is misplaced. If he talks to beef farmers, he will find that they really do think that the ban on their product resulting from the previous Government's failures is one of the biggest problems that they face; they say that repeatedly. The information that we get from the banks is very different from the figures that he has just cited.

Pursuant to his answer of 4 June 1998, Official Report, column 341, on sea levels in the Thames estuary and River Medway, if he will carry out surveys relating solely to projected sea level rises. [47159]

It is not the Ministry's responsibility to undertake such surveys. The Environment Agency is responsible for undertaking surveys and studies as part of its flood defence functions; in doing so, it takes into account Ministry guidance on sea level rise.

Like many others, I am concerned that this is a question of falling between stools. The Government need to take the initiative and examine the impact on coastal regions of rising sea levels, because the evidence suggests that there will be significant flood tides on the Thames and Medway over the next quarter of a century, which will necessitate increasing use of the Thames barrier and involve a danger of its being overtopped. The problem should be addressed by the Government on behalf of all hon. Members who represent coastal regions.

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the projected rises in sea level are taken into account in Environment Agency surveys and in our flood defence calculations. It is not considered that the flood defences in my hon. Friend's constituency are at risk. I know that there has been some press speculation that he has offended the Prime Minister in some way, but I assure him that there is no danger that his constituency will be obliterated as a result.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the German Government's proposed reduction of its national contribution to the EU budget upon the common agricultural policy. [47160]

One key reason why the German contribution is so high is the cost of the common agricultural policy. The best way of keeping member states' contributions to affordable levels is to ensure firm control of the Union's spending. That necessitates policy reform. We hope that Germany will join us in pressing for fundamental reform of the CAP, which will bring savings in the longer term.

Is it not the case that neither German electioneering nor the right hon. Gentleman's empty rhetoric have done anything to modify the burgeoning growth of the common agricultural policy? How can he countenance £1 billion ecu in subsidy for tobacco growing? How can he approve of £857 million ecu for wine production up to 2003? Is not the CAP a protection racket for booze and fags?

I share some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the cost of the CAP but I do not share his attitude towards persuading our colleagues in Europe to change it. I also share his view about the tobacco regime; Britain is one of the minority of five member states that do not grow tobacco. Ten members do grow tobacco, and that is why there is a tobacco regime. We can change the situation only by sensible and reasonable negotiation, and not by using the kind of language employed by the hon. Gentleman.

Once the German elections have passed, are there any plans for serious discussion of what will happen when new member states begin to make demands on the CAP pool?

My hon. Friend raises the important need to reform CAP as part of the process of enlargement. It is untenable to suppose that the policy as presently constituted and financed could be acceptable when there is a significant increase in the member states of the European Union.

The Minister must know that he has allowed the presidency of the EU to go by without his placing those important matters on the agenda. Is that why he has not bothered to go to a single agricultural show during the United Kingdom presidency? There are rumours that when he does turn up for one, it will have to be specially policed so that farmers can be kept away from him.

We can conclude from that question that the hon. Gentleman slept through the UK presidency. In reality, the Agriculture Council unanimously approved conclusions that were adopted at the Cardiff summit. Work on those conclusions will be continued by the Austrian presidency. The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong.

If the Government will organise an independent investigation into genetically modified organisms, with particular regard to (a) labelling and (b) segregation. [47161]

We have no current plans to do as my hon. Friend asks, but the Government will hold public consultation on biotechnology in the near future in order to inform future policy.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Responsibility for GMOs is shared jointly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Will the Minister acknowledge the unprecedented level of interest in GMOs, ranging from the Prince of Wales to The Express? Will he reconsider his earlier reply, and consider an investigation into labelling and segregation of GMOs to ensure consumer confidence and choice?

The widespread interest in how our food is produced, marketed and labelled should be welcomed by everyone. We ask, however, that people consider the science. I could nitpick about The Express article on Monday, which contained inaccuracies. From September, compulsory labelling of genetically modified soya and maize will begin. Several other products are already voluntarily labelled to show that they are genetically modified. We cannot force segregation of crops internationally as we would have a problem with the World Trade Organisation, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produced a list of 48 suppliers of non-genetically modified soya and maize a few weeks ago. Others have since been added to the list, which now names 57 suppliers. The more information available, the better for all concerned.

Can the Minister explain why acres of genetically modified soya have been planted just 100 yards from the largest organic farm in the west country without any consultation with the organic farmer about the effect on his livelihood? How can 841 acres of genetically modified trials, approved by MAFF, be allowed only 100 yards from an organic farm?

It is not MAFF that approves that. [Interruption.] No, it is not. It is right that more than one Government Department is involved. In terms of crops, the Department of the Environment controls the releases to the environment through its advisory committee. It is important that it is not MAFF, the food-sponsoring Ministry, which plays that role. If I have the location of the farm mentioned by the hon. Gentleman correctly in mind, there are few acres of genetically modified crops within the total of the experimental acres and the genetically modified crops are 2 km away from the organic farm.

Does my hon. Friend agree that scientists are often regarded as arrogant, distant and uncaring, and that they, too, must win the argument with the consumer?

I endorse what my hon. Friend said. Many scientists wish to be as open as possible. Obviously, sometimes confidentiality and peer group discussions present difficulties. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of science that it is as open as possible and it is in the interests of us all that we keep scientists on tap, not on top.

If he will reconsider his decision not to make agrimonetary compensation payments. [47162]

I announced on 3 February our decision to pay £85 million in agrimonetary compensation to the UK beef and sheepmeat sectors. This is the first occasion on which a UK Government have paid such aid.

Is not the real reason why the Government refuse to pay the full amount of agrimonetary compensation because they are trying to browbeat individual farmers into abandoning their opposition to the single currency? [Laughter.] I am talking about the views, not of the National Farmers Union which the Minister has already articulated, but of individual farmers. In many respects, the views of the NFU are as different from the views of individual farmers, and as out of touch with them, as the views of the Government are out of sympathy with public opinion.

Even for the fevered anti-European imagination of the hon. Gentleman that one is a tall story. As I have already told the House, the reality is that this is the first Administration ever to pay agrimonetary compensation to farmers and—

A tiny amount.

We have paid 95 per cent. of the total available to sheep farmers and 75 per cent. of the total available to beef farmers.

When he next proposes to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the regulation of fishing. [47163]

Frequent meetings are held with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on a wide range of fisheries issues. No firm date has been set for a future meeting, but I last met them on Monday of this week.

I know that my hon. Friend makes unprecedented efforts to keep in touch with the industry and, in particular, to come to its natural home in Grimsby and consult the industry there. At the same time, he is imposing an unprecedented diet of change and now the possibility of charges on the hard pressed industry. Will he undertake, first, to introduce changes and charges only by consent and after consultation and, secondly, to impose no more restrictions or charges on the British industry than its European competitors face? We need a genuinely level fishing ground where regulations are not imposed and enforced in this country while they are blithely ignored across Europe.

My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that, when we came to power over a year ago, we inherited a fishing industry in utter shambles. That is why a great many changes in regulations and procedures have been introduced. It is correct to say that, as part of a comprehensive spending review, we have been considering all options, including whether there is a case for charges. That is an academic exercise, and we have made available to the industry the results. I assure my hon. Friend that proposals will not come forward without full and proper consultation with the industry and without taking into account what other European countries are doing in relation to such things as charges.

Is the Minister aware of the great disappointment that, under the proposed regulations, Bridlington will not be a designated port? Is he aware that the reasons that he gave me in his letter of 17 June—that there were no auction facilities and no fisheries office—are not acceptable? It is not acceptable that such decisions are made for bureaucratic convenience. My fishermen see this as further evidence that this is a Government of deregulation and I hope that he will reconsider that decision.

Designated ports have been introduced to try to improve fisheries enforcement. Whether we like it or not, there is a problem of enforcement and blackfish. This is a national issue for which we are responsible. In addition to the reasons given in the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Bridlington was not included because of the number of over-20 m boats which operate from there. We have received representations from Bridlington and they will be considered as part of the consultation exercise. However, I emphasise that the restriction applies only to over-20 m vessels and it simply requires them to give only four hours notice on their way to port or in port to give us the option of having a seafish inspector on the quayside to ensure that everything is in order.

What assurance can the Minister give the House that Britain's 6 and 12 mile fishing limits can be protected after the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002?

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the issue seriously. The 6 and 12 mile limits are a derogation from the common fisheries policy and must be renewed by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers. However, the value of the 6 and 12 mile limits has already been emphasised in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from the President of the Commission. I am confident that the value of the 6 and 12 mile limits, which other countries also acknowledge, means that they will continue after 2002. That certainly will not be part of the conspiracy theories against Europe that we have heard today in the House.

Fishermen in my constituency feel that my hon. Friend has done well since the election in his support for the fishing industry, but they never stop telling me that the fishing regulations are just not enforced as strictly by some European countries as they are by Britain. Does my hon. Friend agree and, if so, what steps is he taking, and what steps can he take, to ensure a level fishing ground—words taken out of my mouth earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)?

I can assure my hon. Friend that his fishermen are right to be concerned that measures are not enforced equally and fairly by all member states. It was for that reason that, under our presidency, we introduced a new draft directive which addresses the issues of enforcement and control, common definitions and common standards of enforcement, which all member states at the Council of Ministers agreed was important and should be introduced. I am confident that those issues will be properly addressed.

Has the Minister given consideration to the implications of the EU working time directive, particularly for the catching sector? Given the complexities of the implementation of the directive and how it will affect that vital sector, particularly in my area, is it the Government's recommendation that the catching sector should be excluded?

MAFF accepts that the working time directive is not appropriate for the working pattern of share fishermen. We have had representations from fishermen's organisations and they have raised the issue with the Department of Trade and Industry.

What confidence can the fishing industry have in the Minister's willingness to stand up in Europe to oppose further regulations such as the working time directive, the extension of logbook regulations and species recording when he is unilaterally planning, without reference to Europe, to introduce designated landing ports? Is it not time that he stopped contributing to the blizzard of overregulation that fishermen must undergo and did something positive, in Europe and in this country, to oppose it?

This is about national competence and the Government accepting our responsibility for the problem of over-landings and black fish. We had to introduce regulations such as designated ports because of the utter failure of the previous Administration to tackle the issue.

What steps he is taking to ensure that British farmers co-operate with British supermarkets to ensure high-quality food. [47164]

The quality of British food is second to none. The Government continue to help our farmers and growers to develop their marketing expertise so that they are better able to supply their products with the consistency, and in the volumes, that the supermarkets say they need.

That answer may seem a little complacent to anyone who has sampled the diversity and richness of other countries' food. Does the Minister agree that we have some of the most efficient and effective but also some of the most powerful supermarkets in the world? The power that they wield against our farming industry is quite intimidating. Will my hon. Friend ensure that our Government play a role in evening the balance to give diversity, choice and a good price to British farmers?

I do not think that the supermarkets are against the British farming industry. That is not my experience from visits around the country or my meetings in London. They have worked incredibly well over the past 12 months, on the farm assurance scheme in particular, so that there is some consistency and so that farmers are not played off one against the other between different supermarkets. MAFF's task force has helped more than 500 food businesses to improve their marketing techniques. Although we make every effort, we cannot, do not seek to, and are not qualified to do the industry's marketing job for it.

One of the finest products on supermarket shelves is traditional British brandy butter, made to a recipe tried and tested for more than 100 years. Does the Minister agree that a new EU directive that will make it illegal to market this traditional product as brandy butter is unreasonable? Will he do something to help brandy butter producers such as Charles Gordon Associates in my constituency, which tells me that jobs are at risk from the directive? Will he help it to stop the directive preventing it from selling its traditional product in our shops?

For traditional chilled butters with alcoholic content, if there is a minimum of 34 per cent. butterfat content, I presume that there is 66 per cent. rum or brandy. One wonders what else is in there if those quantities are not matched by the manufacturer.

As someone who makes and consumes brandy butter, I am sympathetic, but can the Minister go back to the original question and address the relationship between supermarkets and the farming community? Many farmers are concerned that some supermarket chains choose to import goods that are produced to lower standards than those acceptable to our farming community or aware consumers. Steps should be taken to increase public information about such practices.

I take my hon. Friend's point, but I can only repeat what I said earlier. This week, when I was at the spray and sprayers exhibition in Cambridgeshire—[Laughter.] Well, many thousands of other people were there as well. I see that people find that a laughing matter, but that is a serious and important part of the industry. In discussions with representatives of farmers, supermarkets, the agrochemical industry and women's institutes—the whole food chain—it was clear that people were seeking to work together to ensure good-quality British food. We claim that it is the best, and that people should buy British, not just because it is British but because it is the best. People are working together in a way that they have never done before. We would encourage and embrace that, but people have to be free to import products. It comes down to nothing more or less than consumer choice, but food will not be allowed to go on sale in this country unless it conforms to the food safety legislation.

Surely the Minister must understand that there is a growing realisation that the powers of the supermarkets, their domination of the food chain and the way in which they dictate terms to farmers and suppliers are a cause for concern. Is it not a grotesque fact that one of the most effective farmers' co-operatives, Milk Marque, is under investigation while the supermarkets are able to exercise considerable dominance without being questioned? Is it not important that farmers be encouraged to combine and co-operate to achieve countervailing power? Do not the Government and the development agencies have a role in facilitating and encouraging that?

Yes, indeed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are encouraging farmers' co-operatives, but food producers, especially supermarkets, are always subject to the Office of Fair Trading restrictions. They are not out there as completely free agents.

It may be a shade early to talk of Christmas, but my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) mentioned brandy butter. May I draw it to the attention of the Minister that another Christmas favourite, beef on the bone, remains banned? He knows that we have consistently opposed that ban, and in today's Financial Times and Evening Standard there is a ray of hope in the indication that the Prime Minister is calling on the Minister of Agriculture to lift the ban. May I congratulate him on recruiting the Prime Minister to our cause? In the light of that information, may I now ask the Minister when he intends to stop pursuing people in the meat trade—caterers, butchers and others—in terms of prosecution? When will he repent like a sinner who has made a mistake, apologise for imposing this unnecessary ban and get it lifted?

We are not the prosecuting authority, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. We are not pursuing anyone. The law is the law and it will take its course. I am not prepared to comment on cases that are currently before the courts.

What assessment he has made of the effect of the publication of hygiene scores for abattoirs. [47165]

The publication of individual hygiene scores for licensed abattoirs and cutting plants is one of several measures designed to drive up standards in the meat industry. Although measurable improvements have been achieved and they have been substantial, we accept that more remains to be done, and we continue to push the industry to make further improvements and to eliminate bad practices.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that Britain is the only country in Europe that publishes individual scores? With the aim of propagating that information more widely, will he tell us where the best and worst abattoirs in the country are?

There has been a considerable improvement in the past 12 months. Hygiene scores above the 65 mark in April 1997 were 61 per cent., and in March 1998, were 94 per cent. That must have something to do with the fact that, since January this year, for each abattoir and cutting plant, the scores have been published. The two plants with the lowest hygiene score according to latest figures for June are Heaney meats of Woolwich and Cruisedeal of Manchester—both cutting plants—with a hygiene assessment score of only 50, which is unacceptably low. The two plants with the highest score were Knowles and Son of Bury and Mid Glamorgan Provisions of Bridgend—both stand-alone cutting plants—with a hygiene score of 100.

What are the Government doing to ensure that imported meats meet the same high hygiene standards as meat in this country has to meet?

I can honestly say to the hon. Lady that we are doing a lot more than her party did when it was in government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on.] Oh yes. On Friday, we saw as a matter of public record that, in 1992, the previous Prime Minister instructed a previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to go easy on hygiene standards in abattoirs in this country. We are doing far more than that. Meat will not be allowed into this country from abroad to be sold unless it meets the standards demanded of the meat industry by the Labour Government, which are much higher than those demanded by the previous Government.

What is the UK Government's present policy regarding the use of drift nets. [47167]

The Government have promoted an EC agreement on ending the use of high seas drift nets in order to protect dolphins and other non-target species.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the problem of drift netting for migrating salmon off the coast of Ireland, which is devastating the salmon population in Welsh rivers. That is affecting tourism in Wales and, in the long term, it will affect the drift netting of salmon off the coast of Ireland. Will he do everything in his power, at the Council of Ministers and elsewhere, to make sure that that practice is limited to a sustainable level?

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. Atlantic salmon stocks have declined dramatically. Irish salmon netting is beyond our national control, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, in our representations to Ireland, we shall draw attention to our concern about the impact of netting on salmon stocks.

When he last had discussions on the Crown Prosecution Service with (a) the Secretary of State for the Home Department and (b) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. [47146]

I frequently discuss matters of mutual interest with ministerial colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Officials from the Crown Prosecution Service likewise have frequent discussions with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Those discussions promote co-operation and effective joint working between agencies in the criminal justice system and are a key feature of the Government's commitment to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system generally.

Now that we have had an opportunity to read the Glidewell report following the statement made in the House by the Attorney-General on 1 June, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if there is to be an improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service, it is absolutely essential that there should be better co-operation and co-ordination between that service, the police forces and the Court Service? Will he encourage the new Director of Public Prosecutions, as a matter of priority, to hold discussions with the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and to ensure that that becomes a reality in London, where, in my opinion, there is a desperate need for less centralisation and less bureaucracy?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The need for better co-operation goes to the heart of the matter. A great deal has been done in recent years and many of the 75 recommendations that Sir Iain Glidewell made deal precisely with that issue. The issue goes wider than my own Department and wider than the CPS, so the Government as a whole, including my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, will be looking at all 75 recommendations as a matter of urgency. The document is now out to consultation and I should be grateful for any observations drawn from the experience of the hon. Gentleman in respect of London. As he knows, there are particular proposals for London.

Arising from the discussions that my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned, can he confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service has not closed the files on the murder of Stephen Lawrence—the brutal racist killing that took place in April 1993? Will he confirm that, when the inquiry is ended, every effort will continue to be made to ensure that the murderers of Stephen Lawrence—or at least some of the murderers of the 17-year-old—are brought to justice? Is he aware that Stephen's parents will never give up their fight for justice? Those who murdered their son should be put in the dock and, if found guilty, serve a life sentence.

I fully understand the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend; that is what the inquiry under a distinguished former judge is all about. Thereafter, of course, it will be a matter for the police, in the first instance, and if there is evidence, a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. We have to take it in stages.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss the Crown Prosecution Service, will he discuss the Lord Chancellor's proposals to open up rights of audience for employed solicitors within the CPS to the higher courts? Will he attempt to reconcile the Lord Chancellor's views on that subject with those that he himself expressed at the Bar conference not long ago, when he said that the independent Bar was one of the bastions of a democratic society? Are the views of the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor reconcilable on this matter—or on any other matter?

The views of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor on the independence of the Bar are precisely the same as mine. I have spelt them out time after time—but repetition is important, and a good thing. The Lord Chancellor includes in his consultation paper words almost to the same effect, which have exactly the same meaning.

What analysis he has made of the use of juries in serious fraud trials. [47147]

In February 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. The Government have not reached a conclusion on whether the ending of jury trials in serious fraud cases is desirable in principle, or formed an opinion on any particular options for change, and will not do so until the consultation process is complete.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the view recently expressed by the head of the Serious Fraud Office that some fraud trials are incapable of being handled by a jury? In considering that view, will he weigh against it the idea that technological developments have made it possible to simplify cases so that they can be more easily expressed to a jury, thereby making it possible to retain the jury in many fraud cases?

I fully recognise the technological changes, which are an invaluable tool in some of the more complicated fraud trials. In her article, the director of the Serious Fraud Office made it clear that she was expressing her personal view. As the Home Secretary said in his consultation paper, the Government recognise that there are concerns that the present 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. Obviously, we shall take into account both the director's views and those of all who participate in the consultation exercise.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also bear in mind, in that context, the fact that, historically, one of the problems with serious fraud trials appears to have been a tendency to overload indictments and not to sever them? If simple matters are explained simply, in a way that will lead to a just verdict, most juries can understand them perfectly well.

The hon. Gentleman is right. The responsibility lies in the first instance on the Crown, likewise on the defence, and above all on the trial judge. The Court of Appeal has long spoken against overloaded indictments, but the hon. Gentleman will recall, in a famous case not so long ago, what happened with regard to the second trial.

Is the Attorney-General aware of the many misgivings at the possible replacement of juries in serious fraud trials? Is he aware of the public outrage in Israel at the recent acquittal, by a judge sitting alone, of numerous politicians charged with serious fraud and corruption?

I am not aware of that case. As far back as I can remember, there have been many views, both in favour of and against, the continuation of jury trials—not just in fraud cases but in some others, too. I for one, with a little experience of handling fraud trials, greatly value the role of the jury in deciding issues such as dishonesty. On the other hand, there are also other considerations in a small number of cases, such as the burden imposed on jurors of taking six months or perhaps a year out of their lives. Some might say that that was intolerable.

What objectives he plans to set for the new Director of Public Prosecutions. [47148]

New objectives for the Crown Prosecution Service are being considered, taking into account the findings of Sir Iain Glidewell's review of the Crown Prosecution Service, the cross-cutting comprehensive spending review of the criminal justice system and the Crown Prosecution Service's own comprehensive spending review. The intention is that revised Crown Prosecution Service objectives will contribute to the Government's wider objectives for the criminal justice system as a whole.

How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to ensure a consistent prosecution policy across England and Wales?

We hope to continue the work already done by the CPS to ensure national standards and objectives. To be fair to the CPS, great steps have already been taken over many years in that direction. Provided such national standards are adhered to, a great deal of the responsibility for implementing them can be devolved to local police areas.

Does the Attorney-General agree that it is wrong that DTI inspectors should investigate allegations of insider dealing and report to politicians in the DTI who have the final say? Surely it would be better to transfer the responsibility for investigating insider dealing, under the Financial Services Act 1986, to an independent investigative body such as the CPS, with decisions on prosecutions being taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

These are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Proposals on the future policing of the City have already been announced and are in the public domain.

Will the Attorney-General ensure that the CPS is made fully aware of the fact that, under the Crime and Disorder Bill, the maximum sentence—in terms of custody to be served—available to a magistrates court will be six weeks? Will he give the CPS revised guidelines to ensure that more cases are tried in the Crown courts, where proper sentences can be imposed? Will he bear in mind the fact that many of us think that six weeks' custody is far too low a maximum for magistrates courts?

These matters are primarily for the Home Secretary, but I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point about the CPS. The latter has to decide on the right venue in which to prosecute each and every case; I believe that it does so to ensure that justice is done.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my congratulations on the recent appointment of a new chief executive to the CPS? What role does he see for the new chief executive, bearing in mind the new structure proposed for the CPS in the Glidewell report?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. We have already, as he knows, announced to the House the appointment of the chief executive. He is in post, familiarising himself with his brief. When he has done so, he will consider with the DPP and other relevant Departments how far the Glidewell proposals should be accepted. He will oversee the bringing together of the senior management team for the new structure and he will initiate the selection process for the 42 chief Crown prosecutors, whose actual selection will require the involvement of the new DPP.

If he will make a statement on the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service.

I published the report of the review of the Crown Prosecution Service—the Glidewell review—on 1 June 1998. Its main thrust, which we accept, lies in proposals for reordering CPS priorities to focus more on the core business of prosecuting, greater separation of management from legal work, greater autonomy for the areas and better prospects for staff.

The whole House would respect the Attorney-General for the calm and charming way in which he answers questions in the House. However, if one looks back at the answers that he has given on the Crown Prosecution Service and at the criticism coming from both sides of the House, it is clear that that calm and charm masks a great deal of incompetence in his Department and possibly even on his part. Barbara Mills resigned, rightly, because of the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service was functioning. What about people in the Attorney-General's Department—or will we always be reassured that the CPS is working well, when clearly it has never worked well?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's latter comments and grateful to him for his earlier words. We inherited a system that was appallingly bad. We published in opposition "The Case for the Prosecution." I immediately set in train the Glidewell review. It examined in detail what was wrong and produced a report within a very short time—one year—which we are about to implement. We are doing so because the palsied hand of the previous Administration did nothing at all.