If he will make a statement on the time scale for reform of the common agricultural policy. [58041]

What progress has been made on reform of the common agricultural policy. [58048]

The Agenda 2000 package was published on 16 July 1997 and the proposals were adopted by the Commission on 18 March this year. Negotiations with member states on the CAP reform proposals are currently taking place with the aim of concluding negotiations by March 1999, in accordance with the timetable laid down at the Cardiff European Council.

Reform of the CAP is necessarily a slow business, but farmers need a great deal more support. In advance of CAP reform, is my right hon. Friend in a position to announce further measures now to support British farmers?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are three things that I have to do: I have to respond to the present crisis; I have to carry the farming industry through the Agenda 2000 proposals; and then I have to engage in the broader reform agenda to make sure that there is a secure future for British agriculture. The Government have already been able to announce some measures in response to the current difficulties in the industry. I have some more measures to announce that will be a charge to the public purse. I shall be seeking to make a statement in the House on Monday or Tuesday next week.

With the euro starting on 1 January 1999, does my right hon. Friend agree that one thing that can be done to help our hard-pressed farmers and others in the food industry in the run-up to CAP reform is to give them the option of receiving their payments in euros? What plans does he have to allow that to happen?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, because I am pleased to be able to announce, on behalf of the Agriculture Departments, that by autumn 2000 we shall be able to make available an option allowing payment in euros of CAP market support payments, such as export refunds and intervention payments. That will make CAP payments in euros available to a wide range of traders and to the food industry. We will be giving further thought to the possibility of extending that option to CAP direct payments to farmers. Clearly, the choice will be made by farmers; it will not be made by the Government. We hope to be able to offer the choice.

What are the priorities of the Government's reform package? What will the Government do if they do not get their way?

Clearly, the negotiations have to be conducted with others, but my priority is to reshape the CAP so that it is less reliant on price supports and able to deal with the challenges marching towards it of an increasingly liberalised market. It is the Government's view that the current structures cannot endure in their present form.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about possible dilution of the reform proposals during the negotiation process? Will he assure the House that Britain will provide a real lead in Europe in pushing ahead with reform of the CAP so that we achieve a positive framework for farming and see an end to some of the financial pressures on consumers that have resulted from the CAP?

If the United Kingdom's reform package is adopted, there will be real savings to consumers. The UK is now able in the Council of Ministers to engage with others in driving CAP reform through. We have allies, for example, on our proposals for dairy quotas—something that the previous Government might have found it a lot harder to have.

I warmly welcome the Minister's promise to make a statement to the House on the package that he intends to introduce to ensure the long-term future of the CAP and to deal with the immediate problems of the industry. Will he tell the House the precise representations that he received from farmers' leaders at his meetings yesterday, at which the Prime Minister was present? Will the Minister be able to introduce a package of proposals that will affect the crisis that is hitting our farmers in the current year, not just next year?

The measures that I hope to be able to announce in the House on Monday or Tuesday next week are specifically targeted at the current difficulties in the industry. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that the announcement is to be made in the House; it is of such significance that, in my view, it has to be made in the House.

The Minister will remember the comments made by the recently departed Secretary of State for Wales, that, in view of the crisis facing the livestock industry, there is a need for an exceptional response to exceptional circumstances. Given that the Government made £85 million available last year and that, since then, the crisis has worsened and broadened into the sheep sector, will he give an assurance that the money made available now will be in excess of that?

The representations that the right hon. Gentleman makes on behalf of his constituents are such that I find them entirely reasonable, but I do not want to pre-empt my statement on Monday or Tuesday next week.

What recent discussions he has had with supermarket chains about meat prices. [58042]

With my noble Friend Lord Donoughue, I was present when my right hon. Friend the Minister met representatives of the British Retail Consortium on 3 November. They explained some of the factors affecting the retail price of meat and we agreed a number of measures that should help UK producers.

Given that some controversy has arisen between some producers and some supermarket chains over the fact that farmgate prices have fallen rapidly, while supermarket shelf prices have remained static, will my hon. Friend consider two possibilities: first, of commissioning some independent research to find out what is happening in the food and price chain; and, secondly and more important, of bringing producers and retailers together to promote British beef as the best buy—best on hygiene and best on animal welfare?

On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we are doing all that we can to bring producers, suppliers and supermarkets together in a constructive way. On the first part of his question, it would be best if the House awaited the forthcoming report of the Office of Fair Trading, which follows the important report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Last week's meeting was constructive, especially in respect of the pig sector and the commitments given by the supermarkets.

The Minister and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food know perfectly well the level of the prices that farmers are getting for meat, and they know the prices that are being charged in supermarkets: there is an enormous margin. The supermarkets are operating a cartel against the consumer, and it is those same supermarkets that are funding, to an extremely large degree, the Labour party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] Naturally, I am gratified that Labour Members should feel so indignant. Can the Minister not say to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, the next time one of his sponsors calls in at No. 10, he might mention the outrage in the countryside that is caused by the enormous margin between what producers get and what retailers are charging?

Some of the points that underlie the right hon. Gentleman's question have led to the supermarkets feeling very unloved and have brought about some of the concessions that they made in respect of sourcing supplies in this country, sourcing pigmeat only from suppliers that meet the same welfare standards as those that will be imposed in this country on 1 January, and correctly labelling any imported meat that they bring in, so that it is fairly labelled and they do not try to sell it off—I nearly said "flog it off'—as British when it is not.

Does my hon. Friend realise that having a go at New Zealand producers, who represent only a small part of our import market, while not doing anything about the supermarkets that are really ripping off the consumer, is counter-productive? What we need is a sensible agreement that does not bankrupt British farmers or those who supply us with good-quality produce; and, at the same time, we must ensure that some members of the Conservative party, some of whom are in the House, do not walk away with bags of gold at the expense of the housewife.

My hon. Friend is right. Nothing that the Government have done or supported is an attack on our suppliers and friends in New Zealand, who have supplied this country with quality produce for decades. It is up to individual producers and supermarkets in this country to arrange their supply chain. We ask them to consider the British supply chain. We ask them not to impose conditions on British food producers and then buy from foreign producers who do not meet the same welfare conditions.

Does the Minister agree that, as farm incomes have decreased by more than £2 billion in the past two years, the very survival of British farmers depends on a lot more than supermarket prices—it depends on direct action by the Government? As we have been promised a statement in the House next week, will the Minister confirm that, as a minimum, he will use the statement to apply the whole of the large underspend on the agriculture budget from the past two years to extend the calf processing scheme for a year, to raise hill livestock compensatory allowances by 50 per cent. and to enable the agrimonetary compensation currently available for the livestock sector to be taken up?

I ask the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House to await the statement that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has offered to make next Monday or Tuesday. It is preposterous to expect detailed answers from the Dispatch Box today when we have promised a statement next week.

If he will make a statement on the current state of the pig industry. [58043]

If he will make a statement on the current state of the pig industry. [58051]

I take the current crisis in the pig industry very seriously. The industry is going through a difficult time as a result of low market prices. That is mainly the result of over-production, which has led to a distorted version of the classic pig cycle.

I welcome the Minister's reply that the Government now appreciate the serious problems in the pig industry and the fact that there will be a statement next week, but will he confirm that the package will contain a significant element to ease pig farmers' problems?

The Government have been taking a range of actions to try to help the pig industry, and I am conscious of the particular difficulties in the Province, where the processing fire made matters substantially worse. We introduced special aid there to help in those local circumstances. I cannot introduce new state aid for the pig industry. It is a relatively liberal market; the Commission determined that it should stay that way, and its broad approach is right.

Does the Minister agree that one of the major problems facing pig farmers is that they are not able to compete on a level playing field with their competitors in Europe, principally because of the actions of British Governments? For example, they have to spend millions of pounds on getting rid of stalls and tethers, which the Dutch and the Danes do not have to pay for; they are not allowed to feed bonemeal to their pigs, but the Dutch and the Danes can; and the income that they used to get from rendering has been turned into a loss because of the increase in health regulations. What will the Minister do to make that playing field more level?

I fully accept that pig producers are entitled to a welfare premium on their produce. Parliament put in place the stall and tether ban for perfectly proper reasons. That is an on-cost in the industry, and in the European Union market, which is a free market; it is not met by other producers. In those circumstances, it is reasonable for parliamentarians to say that consumers should be able to buy to the highest welfare standards and the highest produce standards. As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, meat and bonemeal are not fed to pigs in this country. As a consumer of pigmeat, that is something that I like to know—so when I buy pigmeat in the supermarket, I look for the Union Jack. That is a perfectly sensible thing to do.

Will my right hon. Friend enlighten me? I understand that, as a result of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, the technology of traceability has improved by leaps and bounds. If we are to emancipate the consumer, can we use that new traceability technology—the ability to identify whether products are British or foreign, and even trace back to the field and farm where the pig was produced—to provide real consumer choice, including organic choice, in pig production?

The conditions of production are such in this country that, if a discerning consumer wishes to purchase to the highest welfare and feed standards, he or she could do no better than to buy British pig meat. As my hon. Friend points out correctly, traceability is here to stay. It will be a continuing feature of all meat markets in the United Kingdom in one form or another.

Last Wednesday, the Minister claimed, at column 952 of Hansard, that he had agreed with the British Retail Consortium that all pigmeat sold in supermarkets would be from animals raised to the high welfare standards required in Britain. Is the Minister aware that, the previous day, the consortium had said that the agreement applied only to fresh pigmeat? Was the House misled last week? Does the Minister understand that there is a huge difference between those two statements? Do not pig farmers deserve a fair deal from the Government, not a fudged one?

Pig farmers will get the fairest deal that I can give them. The original press release issued by both my Department and the British Retail Consortium was agreed by the parties beforehand. A second version of the press release was issued by the British Retail Consortium, inserting the word "fresh". Therefore, it could be claimed that that distorted its meaning.

What proposals he has to encourage the regeneration of the moorlands. [58044]

We intend to improve both the environmentally sensitive areas scheme and the countryside stewardship scheme to give greater encouragement to regenerating moorland. We will also add £1 million to the budget for new countryside stewardship agreements for next year in order to increase the number of agreements in the uplands.

I thank the Minister for that answer, because the evidence of farmers in trouble in Staffordshire, Moorlands is all too apparent: broken stone walls, derelict farm buildings, wildlife under threat and overgrown fields. I am particularly concerned about the countryside stewardship scheme in the uplands because it has been a lifeline to many farmers in my area.

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the countryside stewardship scheme is very important in terms not only of environmental enhancement but of support for the rural economy, providing jobs and the opportunity to revive skills that have been lost, such as dry stone walling and hedge laying. For that reason, we have added a further £1 million to the scheme. In 1998, we expect to offer a total of 1,344 country stewardship agreements.

What measures have been taken to promote farm diversification. [58045]

Funding to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including farm diversification, is available in the six areas designated to receive assistance under the English objective 5b structural fund programmes. No grant aid for farm diversification is available outside those areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am very pleased to see him in his place, and offer him my full support. On diversification, will he bear in mind the fact that the 600 sheep farmers in upper Teesdale, in my constituency—which he will soon visit—have been undergoing the worst crisis in the 20 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, and perhaps in 25 years? Will he also bear in mind the fact that they are mostly tenant farmers, and that there is very little incentive for them to diversify, because any betterment goes to the landlord?

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I thank him for his kind remarks. I do intend to visit his constituents soon, but only after I have made my announcement on Monday or Tuesday next week, when I hope that I shall have said something that will please them.

I am glad that the Minister is as brave as ever. Does he agree that the draft rural development regulations that are being laid before the Commission at present are excessively timid, whether in relation to farm diversification, agri-environmental measures or other rural development measures? Does he agree that effective reform of the common agricultural policy will depend on a much braver, bolder initiative by the Commission than the one that we have seen?

The Commission's proposals are a useful start to CAP reform because they go in the right direction. I am strongly committed to diversification measures. Farm diversification already accounts for about 11 per cent. of all farm incomes, so it has an important part to play in the rural economy—perhaps more than is sometimes appreciated. I strongly support the extension of such measures, and will do what I can to achieve that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to diversify fully, farmers will need to be helped by liberalisation of the planning regime in our country? Will he join me in welcoming the Government's announcement that they intend to liberalise that regime? I know, as a result of meeting people in the rural part of my constituency, that they do want enterprise in the countryside and they do want to work in the countryside. They do not want to freeze the countryside in aspic, as the green belt policies of the Conservative party often seem to want to do.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the Government take a constructive attitude to farm diversification policies. About 41 per cent. of farms benefit from some form of diversification. That is a good thing, and should be supported.

What assessment he has made of food safety standards across the European Union. [58046]

The Government are anxious to promote common high food safety standards throughout the European Union. Monitoring in this area is the responsibility of the Commission, and we continue to press almost daily for the maintenance of high and consistent standards.

What does it tell us about food safety standards in the European Union that, of the 1,700 cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to have been expected on the continent as a result of our exports of beef to the continent between 1985 and 1990, only 30 cases were reported? Does it mean that the pure air of the continent miraculously cures cattle of BSE when they breathe it, or does it mean that some of our partners in the European Union are less honest than we are in reporting BSE outbreaks?

I do not think that it tells us what the hon. Gentleman implies. In this country, in respect of EU directives in meat hygiene, we have under-regulated and under-enforced the regulations, which was a matter of deliberate policy by the previous Government. [Interruption.] The Conservatives may not like it, but it is a fact, so it is nonsense to suggest that we are the only ones obeying the rules. In some respects, regulations in the meat hygiene sector in other parts of the European Union are better enforced than in this country. We are seeking to raise standards of meat hygiene in this country, and to enforce regulations and directives rigorously.

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that the Government must urgently take steps to improve regulation and its enforcement. Will he acknowledge that there is sustained and, if anything, growing public concern about the need for independent and consistent advice throughout the area of food safety? What steps does he propose to take, not simply to follow what is going on in the rest of the European Union, but to set an example?

The greatest example that Europe will have is the Food Standards Agency, when we set it up. That was one of the most popular proposals in the manifesto. The idea that we shall share with Europe in due course will concern separation of responsibility for food safety standards from the Ministry responsible for sponsoring the food industry and food producers. That is why we have already taken steps to lock all key food standards policy decisions into the joint food standards and safety group with the Department of Health, so that no key decisions on food safety will be taken by MAFF alone. That is a lesson and a practice which we can sell to the rest of Europe.

Returning to the Minister's opening response to the question, and given the near daily contact that he and his colleagues have with the European Commission to encourage and maintain food safety standards across the European Union, and the impact of imports to this country, does he agree that our hand would be immeasurably strengthened in making those proper representations if there were no remaining ambiguity about the progress and process of food standards legislation in this country? Will he clear up the ambiguity that remains, particularly as we want to maintain our leverage on Europe, as well as improve our standards at home?

I do not believe that there is ambiguity. The measures that have been taken in the past 18 months in setting up the joint food standards and safety group—a discrete group operating across two Government Departments in a way that is almost unique in government—are a major step. We are considering further ways to raise the profile of the group and its work. We published the White Paper. We distributed 3 million leaflets through a supermarket chain earlier in the year, telling people why we need an independent Food Standards Agency. Those reasons are as relevant today as when we made the proposal. The fact that, over the past 18 months, we have been able to deal with food crises without closing down sectors of the food industry is a measure of our success in co-operating. The principal instrument is the fact that no key food safety standards decisions are made exclusively in MAFF any longer—they are made in total co-operation and agreement with the Department of Health.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the progress of the Food Standards Agency. Will he take this opportunity to deny press speculation that the Government have abandoned that project because of pressure from food manufacturers?

I have no better way to give the lie to that than to recall the words of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box about two weeks ago. The establishment of the Food Standards Agency remains Government policy. There has been no pressure. No one in the food industry has said to MAFF during our consultations on the White Paper, when we received more than 1,100 responses, and at conferences throughout the country since then, that he does not want the Food Standards Agency. The entire food industry, to a greater or lesser degree, sees merit in introducing an independent element into the way in which we make decisions. There has been no back-door pressure whatever.

Many people will be surprised at the Minister's last remark. Perhaps he will explain to the House why the draft Bill promised months ago has not yet appeared.

The short answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that we are in the single market, which we were taken into by the Conservative Government, and within which there is free trade. Within the EU, products can be freely transferred between countries. On occasion, especially in the meat sector, spot checks are made at the border points of entry and consignments turned back.

What steps the Government are taking to ensure the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. [58047]

What steps the Government are taking to ensure the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. [58053]

The Government have widely publicised the EC regulations which require all foods containing GM materials to be clearly labelled and have made it clear that they expect those to be effectively enforced.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and for his extensive written replies to my constituents, many of whom, along with many organisations in Stourbridge, have written to me on the subject. Is there not a problem, in that the EU thresholds for GM ingredients have not yet been agreed, and the labelling regulations that came into force on 1 September do not include ingredients which are part of the manufacturing and refining processes?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The rules that came into force on 1 September apply to the ingredients in the food purchased by the consumer; they do not affect the manufacturing process where GM materials may have been used but are no longer part of the ingredients.

Will my hon. Friend emphasise the Government's view and intention that consumers should be told exactly what is in their food so that they can make an informed choice about whether to purchase it? Does he intend to take further measures to increase consumer confidence and is he planning any sanctions or actions against food producers and retailers that do not comply with clear-labelling regulations?

Abuse or breach of the labelling regulations will result in prosecution by the regulatory authorities. That is important. Only four foods have been approved for sale in Britain—maize, soya, vegetarian cheese and GM tomato paste. All are required to be effectively labelled so that consumers have a choice. MAFF has produced a list of 59 non-GM soya producers in the United States and Canada, so that people in Britain can source that material and declare that it is not genetically modified. We have taken steps in that respect.

Are the Government planning to give farmers some protection against any legal liability which might arise as a result of damage to the health of consumers who eat GM crops and food? Has the Minister been told that planeloads of GM food are coming in by the day from the United States, where GM and non-GM foods are grown, processed and sold together? That makes a bit of a nonsense of the labelling that we are talking about with regard to Europe.

I must make it clear that when those foods end up on the supermarket shelves, their labels must state that they contain genetically modified ingredients. That is a requirement. If GM and non-GM ingredients are mixed in the manufacturing process, the made-up food, especially soya, must be labelled as genetically modified before it can be sold in the supermarket. We cannot legally force the Americans to segregate, but one day they will wake up to the fact that market pressure—which they well understand—will probably force segregation. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that material is now in this country, but labelling is required. Consumers then have the choice of whether to buy it.

The Minister will be aware that no test can say whether milk has been produced with the addition of synthetic or recombinant bovine somatotropin in the production process. As there can therefore be no viable labelling regime, will he reassure the House and consumers that the Government will campaign in Brussels for an extension of the moratorium on the use of BST?

Yes.

When he last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss the current state of the fishing industry. [58049]

When he last held discussions with representatives of the fishing industry to discuss protection of the Irish box. [58056]

I regularly meet fishing industry representatives and I last met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations on 20 October. Discussions have covered a wide range of issues, including fishing quotas, but not the protection of the Irish box.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In his discussions, which have covered a wide range of issues, has it been brought to his attention that in Grimsby and Cleethorpes there is no permanent memorial to those who lost their lives at sea? Will he support a local campaign, launched by the Grimsby Evening Telegraph, to raise money for such a memorial?

The Grimsby Evening Telegraph and its sister newspaper, the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph, have an excellent record in community campaigning and involvement. I was privileged recently to unveil a memorial to lost British trawler men in Iceland. It was partly funded by North-East Lincolnshire council—formerly Grimsby council — Aberdeen council and Hull city council. It is important to recognise the sacrifices and dangers faced by our deep-sea fleet, both in the past and in the present. I wish the Grimsby Evening Telegraph well in its campaign, which is a fitting tribute for the new millennium to the history of Grimsby.

My hon. Friend the Minister will remember the anger that we all felt when, having told us that the Irish box would be protected in the negotiations, the previous Government returned from Brussels having sold out fishing in the Irish box for some other deal. My hon. Friend says that there have been no further discussions on protection of the Irish box. Will the Government make it a priority to win back protection of the Irish box, which is vital to Scottish and other northern fishermen who fish in the west?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. A great deal of the Irish box comes within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, but we have jurisdiction over England and Scotland through the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. May I inform my hon. Friend that we have recently agreed new contracts for aerial supervision of areas such as the Irish box? State-of-the-art technology will ensure that all fishing boats, from whatever country, follow the rules.

Although I appreciate that attention must be given to controlling the effort of the most efficient forms of fishing, does the Minister agree that much more attention must now be paid to giving sustainable methods of fishery appropriate promotion and encouragement, such as we see around the shores of this country in the inshore industry?

I recognise that point. The inshore industry has many advantages—it is low impact and it can be highly sustainable. It has, of course, to come within the quota management and the enforcement rules. Post-2002, in a review of the common fisheries policy, there may be an opportunity to examine the role of sustainable fisheries. Indeed, we are also giving thought to quota management for our inshore fleet to find out whether we can assist the industry better, but the key to enforcement and sustainability is to ensure that the rules are obeyed. The Government have made it clear that they intend to do that.

Has the hon. Gentleman made it clear in those meetings that, if article 14(2) of regulation 3760/92 is read in its entirety, there is not the slightest doubt in law that a unanimous vote in the European Union for still further derogations will be necessary because, otherwise, other nations will be able to demand complete access to the United Kingdom's exclusive fishing zone after 2002? Perhaps the Minister will share with the House what concessions he is already planning to make against this nation's national interest, to try to secure that unanimity.

We do not need any lessons from the Conservative party about concessions in the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman is misreading the implications of that regulation. I am quite confident that, post-2002, relative stability, which is important to the United Kingdom industry, will continue unless there is a majority vote against that. In the same way, coastal limits will, in my view, be renewed post-2002. The key to access is quota access. If relative stability is maintained—I am absolutely confident that it will be—the issue does not arise.

If he will make a statement on his policy on the prosecution of foreign nationals while in the United Kingdom for the torture and killings of British citizens elsewhere. [58031]

Cases involving possible criminal proceedings on the basis of extra-territorial jurisdiction are considered in the same way as any other case—that is, in accordance with the twin tests set out in the code for Crown prosecutors; whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction, and whether the prosecution is in the public interest. That applies equally to those cases that require my consent to be prosecuted, such as allegations of offences under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Arising from what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, is it not important that former murderous dictators—for example, Idi Amin, or Saddam Hussein, when he is, I hope, no longer in power—should not consider the United Kingdom to be some kind of safe haven from justice, international law and extradition agreements with other countries? Should not that be made perfectly clear today?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I remind him that the investigation of criminal misconduct is for the police to undertake. If a file of evidence is submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of a prosecution, or if I receive an application for consent to prosecute, each case will be considered in the usual way—that is, by applying the twin tests that I have mentioned.

What advice would the Attorney-General give to Ministers if a court held that an individual should be extradited, but letters of comfort or undertakings had been given by the Government or the previous Government, and had not been revoked, which made it clear that that individual could come to this country—for example, for medical treatment—without fear of extradition?

If I were asked for advice, that advice would take into consideration all relevant factors in any individual case. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the fact and the contents of a Law Officer's advice to Ministers is confidential.

If a person comes to this country with diplomatic immunity, is it not incumbent on this country—the host country—to tell that person that he is not welcome, rather than allowing him to come with diplomatic immunity, and allowing certain other events to take their course? If the principle of diplomatic immunity is broken, is that not a bad thing, and could it not rebound on our country's diplomats in future?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will have read in the newspapers, as I have, that an issue with some implications of that sort is now before the House of Lords. As I understand the ruling, it is currently sub judice.

When he last met the President of the Law Society to discuss the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. [58032]

I met the then president of the Law Society on 1 June 1998 to discuss the Glidewell report. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I met his successor for a general discussion on 13 October.

I thank the Attorney-General for his answer, but I am sorry that the question of rights of audience for lawyers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service was not on the agenda for those discussions. The Attorney-General will know that members of the Bar and, indeed, the judiciary have reservations about lawyers being given rights of audience. Conversely, those represented by the Law Society feel that they should have them. The matter has been around for a considerable time. Can the Attorney-General tell us what is the current position, when action will be taken and when the issue will be resolved?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament in 1990, when the Courts and Legal Services Act was passed—an Act which he supported. Unfortunately, the legislation created a problem that took years and years—six years, in the case of employed solicitors—to resolve. We are determined to change that.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend contact the Crown Prosecution Service about the extraordinary events involving Britain's most senior woman judge? She was involved in an accident—which she has admitted to have been entirely her fault—in which a nanny employed by her family received appalling facial injuries. Glass is still embedded behind her eyes and it is possible that she will lose her sight in both eyes.

I am, of course, aware of the newspaper reports of the incident, as far as they go. However, it is an operational matter for the police. The decision was made by the police; they did not consult the CPS, and they were not required to do so. The matter is not within my ministerial responsibility.

First, may I take this opportunity of welcoming Mr. David Calvert-Smith QC as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and wish him well in his demanding role?

I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we did come in with a bang and started to deal with the appalling mess that he and the Conservative Government had left us. They remained silent when everyone in the land knew that something was appallingly wrong with the Crown Prosecution Service. We immediately decided that the service should have 42 areas and we appointed a chief executive shortly after the Glidewell report was published. The review considered in great depth the evidence it was given and its report was welcomed by all. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also now welcome it. We have also appointed a new Director of Public Prosecution, Mr. David Calvert-Smith, who is a distinguished member of the Bar with great prosecuting experience. His appointment, too, was welcomed by all. Now that he is in post, he can advertise for and interview applicants for the 42 posts of chief Crown prosecutor.

If he will make it his policy not to prosecute children under 16 years for prostitution-related offences. [58035]

Prostitution itself is not a criminal offence. However, a person who loiters or solicits for the purpose of prostitution does commit a criminal offence. There is strong evidence that most young people engaged in prostitution are victims of abuse and exploitation. The primary response, therefore, is to identify a form a diversionary action, which will protect young people from further harm and enable them to resume an age-appropriate life style. However, criminal sanctions against a young person who persistently and voluntarily returns to prostitution need to be retained.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. I hope that he has had an opportunity to read the excellent report on prostitution by the Soroptimist international working party, which states that between 1989 and 1993, some 3,300 young girls were prosecuted, yet in 1993, only 49 adults were convicted for pimping. Are not we placing far more emphasis on pursuing the victims of the crime than on punishing the real criminals?

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The children are victims and the focus of attention should be on those who abuse and coerce them. I congratulate the police, who, in the past year, have done ground-breaking work on the matter. The Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines, which emphasise diversion, have been piloted in Wolverhampton and Northampton. The Government will prepare, for the first time, comprehensive guidelines for agencies dealing with children to divert girls and boys from a life in prostitution.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his appointment as Solicitor-General and welcome him to his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He mentioned the pilot scheme in Wolverhampton, which is developing new ways to deal with under-age prostitution, based on the premise that children under 16 who are forced into prostitution should be treated as victims of child abuse and not as criminals. How many prosecutions of adults who force children under 16 into prostitution have there been as a result of the scheme in Wolverhampton? As his constituency is only a few miles down the road from mine, will he come to Wolverhampton to see the good work that is being done?

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. As she said, we have adjoining constituencies and I will take her up on her invitation.

Bearing in mind the fact that the Solicitor-General said that under-16-year-olds are more often victims and are extremely vulnerable in prostitution cases, what advice would he give the Government about under-16 activities in the event that the age of homosexual consent is reduced to 16?

As the hon. Lady knows, that is a matter for a free vote. The current law covers only soliciting by girls, so we need to address the problem of prostitution by boys. She will also be aware that the Government have sexual offences under review. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will introduce proposals for reforming the law in the coming year.