If he will make a statement on the marketing of farm—fresh turkeys. [62985]

The number of traditional outlets available to the trade has declined over the years but the traditional farm-fresh turkey sector does have a loyal base of customers who continue to look for high-quality fresh birds. Farm-fresh turkeys give consumers a choice and the Government would like to see that traditional production continue.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am very much looking forward to eating traditional Welsh turkey on Christmas day. Will my hon. Friend explain exactly how those press reports arose and why there was confusion about whether European Union regulations would mean that farm-fresh turkeys would not be allowed? Will he confirm absolutely that the traditional British turkey is safe?

Farm-fresh turkeys, marketed correctly in the traditional way, are a very small share of the turkey market, but customers can be assured that traditional farm-fresh turkeys are all British; they are never frozen; there are no added chemicals; they are dry plucked with no water drenching and, furthermore, they are not found on sale in supermarkets—customers go to a proper, traditional butcher to buy them.

Will the Minister tell the House what representations he has received from the turkey industry about the poultrymeat hygiene regulations and his efforts to gold-plate them? Will he tell the House what proportion of turkeys are now imported instead of being produced in this country, as a result of the excessive regulation that he is now making worse?

The hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong.

indicated dissent.

No, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Unlicensed farm-fresh turkeys, under the limit of 10,000 slaughtered a year, are not affected by EU regulations. They are not affected, we have no proposal to bring them under EU regulations—indeed, we have no proposal to introduce further regulations for small producers on farms.

What safeguards his Department has introduced to ensure that consumers have adequate information on genetically modified foods. [62986]

What steps the Government are taking to ensure the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. [62998]

The Government are committed to providing clear information to enable consumers to make informed choices about genetically modified foods, including the labelling of all foods containing genetically modified material.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he assure me that all genetically modified food products are clearly labelled so that consumers can make the informed choices that they want about the food that they eat? In the light of public concern, will he reassure the House that he will keep the quality of such labelling under review?

Yes, most certainly. There are only four genetically modified products on sale in this country at present: maize, soya, tomato paste and vegetarian cheese. They all have to be labelled if the ingredients are genetically modified. We hope to co-operate with our European partners in getting additives covered over the next 12 months, but that will require EU regulation.

May I assure my hon. Friend that Harrow is not the centre of genetically modified food in this country? It is a pure coincidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and I have tabled questions on that subject today.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have opened up the meetings of the advisory committees that advise the Government on the issue and their minutes are now published. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes held its second open meeting a few days ago to discuss how we can take forward long-term monitoring of genetically modified foods once they are more widely available on the market. On 21 October, a new Cabinet Committee on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification was announced and that Committee has now met. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced a Government review of the framework of all the advisory committees on biotechnology so that we ensure that we have the right pattern of advice to the Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although it is desirable to provide information, labelling and, if necessary, a monitoring system, it is important to retain a sense of balance? Will the Minister, who, by the standards of Labour Ministers, has always struck me as a relatively normal individual—[Laughter.] I realise that I have probably already inflicted grave damage on the hon. Gentleman's reputation with that observation. Will he confirm that, while he is a Minister and responsible for these matters, the cause of information will not be overtaken by politically correct fetishists with a hostility to the British food industry?

I note that the hon. Gentleman speaks under the protection of parliamentary privilege in respect of his first comment. I understand the tone of his question and, by and large, the answer is yes. We will conduct this policy on the basis of the best science available. We will not shut out from our deliberations any scientists who are not in the loop and who have other views about this issue. We will listen to them. We will operate the precautionary principle and ensure, for example, that, as the crops begin to grow, they will be introduced in a managed way. It will not be uncontrolled. To that extent, we will work using the best science and be as open and transparent as possible.

Does the Minister agree that the fact that one in five of the official Government sites for genetically modified crops is breaking the regulation governing the trials is undermining public confidence in a potentially valuable method of food production and fuelling suspicions that the advocates of the rapid expansion of genetic modification are motivated by commercial pressures and ready to ride roughshod over legitimate public fears?

The short answer is that we are taking the regulation of those crops so seriously that the Health and Safety Executive is prosecuting two agricultural companies, Monsanto and Perry Field Holdings, following a routine inspection of a trial site at Rothwell on 5 June this year. The case will be heard on 17 February next year. The regulation of the science and the industry is taken very seriously.

If he will make a statement on the promotion of meat hygiene in abattoirs. [62987]

If he will make a statement on the promotion of meat hygiene in abattoirs. [62994]

The safety of food and consumer protection remain among the Government's highest priorities. We have therefore put in train a series of measures designed to raise hygiene standards in abattoirs and have instructed the Meat Hygiene Service to take rigorous enforcement action to ensure compliance with legislative requirements.

Are those in abattoirs who breach the regulations being prosecuted?

The short answer is yes. If prosecution is required, it will take place—in fact, there have been 19 prosecutions since the middle of 1996. Each prosecution is known and open and they are all reported in the Meat Hygiene Service enforcement bulletin, a copy of which is placed in the Library every month. If hon. Members wish to be on the mailing list—as the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is—they have only to write to my Department and they will be added to it.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department is at present consulting with regard to the enforcement powers of meat hygiene inspectors? Will he confirm also that any intimidation of those inspectors is not acceptable and will not be tolerated?

There are two issues involved in this matter. We do not need to consult about the powers of hygiene inspectors regarding the intimidation of public staff. The Meat Hygiene Service has been told—and the advice has been clarified—that, if there is verbal or physical intimidation of staff, it has the power to remove inspectors from the part of the plant concerned. That would effectively close the plant, so the service has that power. There have been two successful prosecutions this year regarding the abuse of meat hygiene staff. Those cases have been highlighted and one was the subject of an early-day motion in the House.

Does the Minister agree that most members of the public regard abattoirs as a taboo subject? That makes it even more important for Members of Parliament to see at first hand how they operate. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister tell the House how many abattoirs he has visited and when he next proposes to visit one?

I have visited three cattle abattoirs and a sheep abattoir. Last Friday, I visited the pig abattoir that is the family business of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is my Pair in the House.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food visited Welshpool market and was apprised of meat hygiene inspection issues? Is he further aware that many abattoir owners think that the cost of inspection is unnecessarily high? Will he make a commitment to re-examine those costs to find out whether savings can be made?

We have no intention of overburdening abattoirs, particularly small owners and operators, but there is no opportunity for derogation within the EU guidelines. There is an EU requirement that abattoirs be visited and inspected. If there are allegations that we are being too onerous, we will consider them. As I have already said, if there are allegations that the same rules do not operate in the rest of the European Union, the evidence should be given to us and we will take the matter up with the Commission, which is responsible for checking abattoirs in the rest of the EU.

What steps he has taken to promote sustainable rural development. [62988]

What measures have been taken to promote the rural economy. [62991]

The Government have provided a broad range of support for the rural economy since May 1997, including £112 million available for agriculture-related rural development projects under the objective 5b programme, an additional £50 million a year for rural transport, and aid—amounting to over £270 million—to support the livestock sector. Those measures are in addition to the support for agriculture under the common agricultural policy which is worth, on average, £3 billion a year.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that a number of local authorities are doing their best to bolster the rural economy by innovative schemes such as grants to small rural businesses and village shops and grant aid for the re-utilisation of redundant farm buildings. I know that there is excellent joined-up government work between the Ministry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. My former planning authority has asked me what the relationship is between the review that my right hon. Friend announced last month into the long-term strategy for the rural economy and the rural White Paper, which I know is in preparation. Can my right hon. Friend help?

The two examinations are being conducted in parallel. The work between my Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is very important. We are working together on the joint White Paper for rural Britain. There are also areas of overlap between several schemes that are administered by my Department and the Department of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. We are trying to ensure that we get the maximum return for public expenditure.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new Countryside Agency will create a new and more integrated voice for rural England?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that my Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions work closely on those projects and keep our objective clearly in mind. That objective is to reshape the CAP, so that it provides, among other things, a broader support mechanism for rural England, and to ensure that the work in my right hon. Friend's Department complements our projects.

Farmers in the Vale of York, particularly those in the uplands area, have benefited through objective 5b and the subsidies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Will he give them an assurance that they will continue to benefit—not perhaps to the same extent, but in large measure—particularly in the transitional phase, from the moneys that they have enjoyed in the past? They are still in the middle of a farming crisis and would appreciate such an assurance.

I agree with the thrust of the hon. Lady's question. It is my intention that the rural support measures that come under the first pillar of the CAP and what we hope will be a strongly developing second tier are specifically targeted at farm businesses. Small and medium businesses are particularly at the forefront of my mind. They are of enormous importance to the rural economy, and the hon. Lady is right to make her point.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his colleague the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has devoted all his energy in this, his first and last Parliament, to abolishing fox hunting, the effect of which would be the loss of 16,000 jobs in the rural economy and the removal from that economy of something in the region of a quarter of a billion pounds? Does not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be trooping through the Lobbies to abolish fox hunting at the next opportunity show that class hatred and urban intolerance are every bit as prevalent under new Labour as they were under old Labour?

I do not care very much for class issues. It is what a person is that counts, not what his ancestors did. As for fox hunting, I shall vote to abolish it if the opportunity arises. The idea that the Home Office is currently considering—that of balloting on the issue, county by county—is worthy of exploration, and we shall see what the outcome of that is.

When he expects to end the ban on beef on the bone. [62989]

I am afraid that I am not going to be able to give the hon. Gentleman the reply that he is probably hoping for, so he will have to be content with this one. I am currently awaiting advice from the chief medical officer. When I receive that advice, I shall give it full and urgent consideration in consultation with my ministerial colleagues, and make an announcement as soon as possible. I am afraid that that is the best I can do for the hon. Gentleman.

In the same spirit of good will, may I first thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of Ryedale beef producers for his efforts in getting the beef export ban lifted? We appreciate what a difficult task that was. I suspect that, had he been able to do so, he would have liked to give me the answer that I was hoping for. Notwithstanding that, does he recognise that the continuation of the ban of beef on the bone is not helping in the task of persuading European consumers to choose to buy British beef, and that consumers in Britain simply want the opportunity to choose to buy not just British beef but British beef on the bone?

Once the date-based export scheme is up and running, the beef that we will be able to sell in Europe is deboned beef. It is that beef which is specifically covered by the scheme arising from the agreement made at Florence. As for the domestic market, surely the most important thing is consumer confidence. As I have said before, I never expected the domestic beef-on-the-bone ban to endure for ever—it was not intended to do so. However, when it is lifted—this is the source of the disagreement—it must be on the basis of medical advice, not on the basis of political decision making.

I look forward to the beef-on-the-bone ban being lifted, but may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a wholly unjustified ban, namely the ban on dairy products, mainly by some countries in the middle east? That ban was a major factor in the loss of 40 jobs in my constituency last week. Will he make urgent representations to those countries to have that ban lifted?

I understand that the particular country to which my hon. Friend refers is Saudi Arabia. We are making urgent representations to that country on that matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as and when he receives satisfactory reports and is able to bring to the House the necessary measures to lift the ban on beef on the bone, there will undoubtedly be all-party support for such a move, in a way that there certainly was not for the imposition of the ban, even though there was a hint of it when the former Conservative Minister supported it—something that those currently on the Opposition Front Bench like to forget? As and when the ban is lifted, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish a breakdown of the local authority and court costs to the public purse of the prosecutions achieved or just pursued, so that we can put into not only a political but a financial context just what a farce this entire ban has been?

I cannot accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is important that regulations pertaining to food safety and food standards are enforced. I cannot enforce just the ones with which the hon. Gentleman agrees and turn a blind eye to those with which he does not agree. He may discover the information that he requires by tabling a parliamentary question; there are no secrets in this matter. While the ban is imposed, my Department is obliged to enforce it.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to insist on medical reasons for lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban. That is the only way in which foreign customers will be encouraged to buy British beef. In the meantime, will he ensure that EU inspectors are able to see the different means by which we are able to export, so that exports can be reinstated as soon as possible?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The date-based export scheme is of course subject to a Commission inspection. In bilateral talks with different Agriculture Ministers in different countries in order to talk them through what the Government are doing not only to get the scheme up and running but to protect public health in this country, I have invited Ministers or their officials not only to come to this country but to join technical discussions with my Department's officials. We have absolutely nothing to hide. The date-based export scheme will put on international markets beef that is among some of the safest in the world.

Will the Minister confirm that the ban on the export of tallow was lifted at the Florence summit, subject only to inspections by the Commission? Is he aware that those inspections have still not taken place—some two years later? What will he do to make absolutely sure that inspections necessary for lifting the export ban occur, so that a reasonable timetable can be met for re-exporting the high-quality beef, which he rightly praises?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that questions relating to tallow are still under discussion with the Commission. We are proceeding on a pretty set timetable for the date-based export scheme. I am determined that it will be up and running by the spring. From discussions that my officials have had with the Commission, we have no reason at all to believe that there will be any delay in the Commission inspection, which, as he rightly points out, is crucial to getting the scheme up and running. There is no need for any further political clearance; the issue does not have to go back to the Council of Ministers—and I am pleased about that. However, it is necessary that the Commission reports that the scheme is up and running, as we said it would be. I am certain that we can get through the inspection, although, of course, the matter must not be taken lightly.

Were not the only alternatives to the swift and decisive action that the Government took in banning beef on the bone either to try to sweep the matter under the carpet or to let it drift on, week after week, inviting speculation about the safety of beef on the bone, and thereby undermining confidence in the entire beef industry—in fact, the sort of fiasco that occurred under the previous Government, which is being revealed in the BSE inquiry? Did not such swift and decisive action help us achieve the removal of the worldwide ban on British beef?

Having seen the papers that were put in front of my predecessor before he made his decision to impose the beef-on-the-bone ban, I do not think that he had very much choice in the matter. I think that the decision was right. The Government are absolutely determined to put the safety of the public at the forefront of decision making in this area. It was never intended that the ban would be for ever. When it is raised, it will be as a result of medical advice and not political decision making.

If he will make an assessment of existing UK food safety legislation. [62990]

If he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to promote the safety of food. [62992]

We have taken a range of measures to promote food safety across the food chain and keep all food safety controls under general review. We are also fully committed to establishing a food standards agency as soon as possible.

Does the Minister agree that, for British food safety, it is absurd that EU-imposed rules on antibiotics do not to apply to food imported into this country? Does he accept that that is bad not only for our farmers, who are already in a crisis, but for our consumers, and that there is a potentially dangerous situation ahead? What does he propose to do about that situation?

The hon. Gentleman's question has two parts. On the part with which I disagree, I do not think that the EU decision is bad for consumers because, by having a European Union wide ban, European consumers' exposure is dramatically diminished.

Although I warmly welcome the Minister's comments on the food standards agency—which I hope will be set up very soon—I remind him that consumers and retailers alike regard it as crucial to have confidence in food safety. What action does he feel able to take in, one hopes, the very short term, while we are awaiting the food safety agency, to reassure the public and retailers?

I can do better than that. The Government remain committed to setting up the food standards agency, following the proposals outlined in the White Paper "The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change". We have said that, should additional parliamentary time become available—here we are slightly in the hands of the Opposition, both here and in another place—we hope to make progress on the necessary legislation in the present Session. In the meantime, the House will want to know that, following discussions with colleagues today, I can announce that we shall publish the food standards agency Bill in draft, for public consultation, in January 1999. The draft Bill will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny by the House. At the same time, we intend to publish a document for consultation on the Government's proposals for financing the additional costs of the agency.

As the Minister tucks into his Christmas dinner, I am sure that he will be aware that, year on year, the incidence of food poisoning at this season has increased. I hope that he will take note of that. May I, in that context, welcome very warmly indeed the announcement that he has just made? As he will be aware from experience in his former capacity and his present capacity, the Liberal Democrats have been urging that the food standards agency be established as quickly possible, to restore confidence in British food.

The agency is one of the Government's two priorities for legislation, should extra legislative time become available. In any event, I hope that the announcement that I have made today about the Bill's early availability and the potential for pre-legislative scrutiny—perhaps a Select Committee procedure here in the House—will speed the passage of the legislation through the House when we move to First and Second Reading. I hope that it will be possible to proceed on a broadly bipartisan basis, because this is an important public protection measure.

In the meantime, would my right hon. Friend like to spend some of his money, and perhaps some of that of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, on a straightforward but energetic publicity campaign, teaching both men and women how to cook? Some of the simple rules of hygiene might protect a lot of the people who get themselves into trouble at present.

I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question about public hygiene and ensuring that simple, easily understood information relating to public hygiene is available. I shall act on her suggestion.

Notwithstanding the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend, does it not remain true that the latest ban on antibiotics is only an empty gesture in terms of food safety, because consumers will continue to buy imported and unlabelled food from countries where those drugs have not been banned? Is it not the case, as I think that he has now acknowledged, that, unless he and the other Ministers on the European Council act quickly, the decision represents further proof that they do not really care about how far British poultry and pig farmers are placed at a disadvantage? It is only through campaigns such as the Opposition's "fair deal for farmers" and the Yorkshire Post's "save our farmers" that anyone is sticking up for the British farmer.

I meet the groups that lobby on behalf of the British farmer and I am trying to work co-operatively with them. The suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has condemned was made to me and other Ministers by two all-party Select Committees. The idea that I am doing something that is discordant with the wishes of the House is just wrong.

If he will make a statement on the time scale for reform of the common agricultural policy. [62993]

On 23 and 24 November, the Agriculture Council issued a report to the Vienna European Council which identified the main outstanding issues of the CAP reform proposals and expressed its determination to reach conclusions on the package as a whole by March 1999.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the Agenda 2000 proposals for reform of the CAP will bring economic benefits and will be good news for consumers in the United Kingdom. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the overall impact that reform of the CAP will have on UK consumers?

There will be substantial benefits for consumers if we are able to achieve even the Commission's package. Further down the line, there are substantial benefits for taxpayers as well. The benefits for consumers will derive from cheaper food and the benefits for the taxpayers will derive from a diminished subsidy regime.

One of the changes to the CAP that the Minister may well be considering is new requirements for record keeping and identification of sheep. Is he aware that, in the north-west of England, there is great concern about the speed with which he wishes to embrace the proposals, especially as sheep producers have already agreed to a voluntary arrangement to improve the identification and marking of sheep? Will the Minister consider carefully the representations from the National Farmers Union in the north-west on that matter? What room for manoeuvre is there to make the new requirements compatible with the United Kingdom sheep industry?

I always consider representations from the NFU carefully. I am keen to establish a good working relationship with it and others who represent the interests of the farming community, the food industry and the broader interests of rural Britain. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not following the Agenda 2000 discussions quite so closely as I thought that he was, because the sheep regime is outside the scope of the Agenda 2000 proposals.

What measures his Department is taking to improve the marketing of food to the benefit of both producer and consumer. [62995]

The Department pursues a number of measures to improve marketing both for producers and for consumers. On 29 November—the first day of the Smithfield show—we announced a joint initiative with the National Farmers Union to encourage collaborative marketing among producers.

My family have always been involved in the food production industry so I know that the producers often take the largest risk in the food production chain yet take out one of the smallest commensurate profits. What is my hon. Friend doing to redress that balance?

My hon. Friend is right. That is why the collaborative marketing approach, which does not force producers into co-ops but enables them to produce on a small scale while still supplying the large suppliers on a large scale, is best. They can then produce both scale and quality. Of course, the big buyers want consistency of supply. Small producers cannot always provide that on their own, but they can do so in collaboration with other producers. We want to encourage the NFU and other producer groups to go down that route. My hon. Friend is right about who takes the biggest snatch in the food chain.

Does the Minister agree that it is galling if producers co-operate in the interests of the highest food standards and marketing development, yet imports enter the country and readily circulate without the benefit of the precautions and high standards of British producers? Is it not important that the Minister should examine the entire supply chain from plough to plate, to try to ensure that it operates with maximum openness and in the interests of British consumers as well as British farmers?

The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to build on the assurances that we received recently from the British Retail Consortium regarding its members. That is a major step forward and will help to ensure that British producers who, for example, maintain much higher animal welfare standards than our European partners, do not suffer because of that. We must find a mechanism for our buyers to force or encourage our European competitors to operate to the same high standards that we operate in this country.

What steps he is taking to end the export ban on beef. [62996]

The Commission decision providing for exports of deboned beef from the whole of the United Kingdom under the date-based export scheme—DBES—was adopted on 25 November. That was a major breakthrough reflecting months of dialogue within the European Commission and with our European partners.

The decision to lift the ban was indeed important and welcome, but it does not of itself put money into beef producers' pockets. In addition to the DBES, there is a need to restore confidence in overseas markets generally, and for our exporters to re-establish themselves in those markets. That will take time. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to help British beef producers re-establish themselves, and when does he expect substantial beef exports to take place?

My hon. Friend is right in his analysis of the situation. Officials in my Department and Ministers are working closely with representatives of the beef industry and in particular those who want to come into the date-based export scheme as suppliers or producers, to make sure that we get the scheme up and running as soon as possible. I anticipate that we will be able to start exporting deboned beef by the spring of next year. Markets will take time to grow, but it is a premium product for which we can find a place in international markets early on. The Government will stand behind producers and exporters to help them to regain market share.

How soon after the lifting of the ban on beef on the bone in the United Kingdom does the Minister expect it to be lifted in Europe, so that exports of such beef to Europe can begin?

The hon. Gentleman is speaking about two separate schemes. The ban in the United Kingdom is a domestic ban, which was put in place for consumer protection reasons. Discussions are going on in the European Union about Europe-wide specified risk material regulations. Separately, there will be continuing discussions with our partners about the export of boned, rather than deboned, beef. I am afraid that, because of the terms of the Florence agreement, an announcement on that matter is still some way away. I do not want to raise the hon. Gentleman's hopes by implying that it might be early.

Further to the Minister's reply, there is a direct link. The new conditions require that meat companies dedicate whole abattoirs entirely to the export business. The most lucrative business before the ban was that of beef on the bone for whole roasts to Europe's highest-quality restaurants and meat distributors. I do not know of a single meat business that is prepared to commit itself to dedicate an entire abattoir until the beef-on-the-bone ban is lifted.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. After discussions with the industry, we are certain that we shall be able to get producers and abattoir operators into the scheme so, under the terms of the agreement, a volume of deboned beef will be available for export. The hon. Gentleman's question goes wider than the answer that I have just given and criticises the initial terms of the Florence agreement. All that I can say on that is that it was made by his Government.

How many unduly lenient sentences he has sought leave to refer to the Court of Appeal since 1 May 1997; and what has been the outcome of such referrals. [63015]

Since 1 May 1997, leave has been sought in respect of 137 offenders; 101 applications have been heard; leave was granted in 97 applications; and the sentence was increased in 84, which is 83.2 per cent. of references which have been heard.

I am delighted to hear that the new Government are continuing to use that power granted by the previous Government. Does the Attorney-General now regret the fact that the Labour party in opposition opposed the introduction of that power?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I am continuing on the same basis that my predecessors submitted cases to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the matter was debated. There was a great deal of concern, not confined to one party alone but apparent also among many of the judiciary, about the proposal. The basis of the fears was that individuals would be placed in double jeopardy. Fortunately, the courts have interpreted the legislation to take account of double jeopardy, and that is not in the legislation. In the circumstances, I am more than content that the machinery is working properly.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he refers cases for reconsideration, in particular those so serious or appalling that they generate widespread public concern. I am confident that the Court of Appeal will look closely at such cases. The people of Croydon are particularly grateful for cases of local concern which have been referred.

I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about a local case which caused great anxiety. A petition was submitted and there was a great deal of press interest. I know the concerns of many in many localities when sentences are out of line with guidelines and the practice of the courts. In those instances, it is important to maintain public confidence and to refer cases, which are few against the total number—about 0.5 per cent.—to the Court of Appeal to ensure that public confidence is maintained.

What new proposals he has to discourage apparently lenient sentences. [63018]

The Government are actively considering how best to implement our manifesto commitment to extend my powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for review when it appears to me that the sentence is unduly lenient. The Government hope to be able to announce proposals early next year.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall a recent case where a driver, who demolished a wall while being three times over the breathalyser limit, escaped without fine or ban; another case in which a defendant, who was accused of a £1 million mortgage fraud, was excused a retrial on the ground that he was suffering stress; and a third case in which a driver, who admitted to being responsible for an accident in which a young woman was injured and will probably lose her eyesight, suffered no prosecution, ban or penalty points and was advised to take extra driving lessons? Is it not extraordinary that, in those three cases, the people involved were all High Court judges? Is there one rule for judges and another for the rest of us?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there is the same rule, and the rule of law prevails for each and every one, from the highest to the lowest. Any decision that I have to take is no less fair for the highest than for someone who may, apparently, be less important in society. Everyone is treated in exactly the same way.

Does the Attorney-General agree that there might be a case for better instruction of judges in sentencing principles and guidelines?

As a rather long-established recorder until fairly recently, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that potential judges, assistant recorders, recorders and judges attend courses in order to ensure cross-fertilisation of knowledge, experience and practice. Over the years, the Court of Appeal has issued a substantial number of guidelines which have assisted judges in the difficult task of sentencing.

In pursuing the same line as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), may I ask the Attorney-General to speculate on whether judges are given proper instruction in the declaration of their interests?

I cannot comment on a matter that I understand is sub judice at the moment. As regards the decision made today, it would not be right for me to do so.

When a prosecution has been stayed or a trial discontinued because the defendant was apparently suffering from an incurable disease such as Alzheimer's, but he then makes a miraculous recovery, is there not a good case for the prosecution to revisit that case and bring it back to trial?

That can always be considered if there is a change in the legislative position. However, it is not the position now and I have to administer the law as it stands.

What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs concerning declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998. [63019]

The contents of the Human Rights Act were discussed extensively among Ministers in the preparation of the Government's White Paper, in the process of drafting the Bill and during debates in Parliament. The provisions relating to declarations of incompatibility, although complex, are an important and central part of the legislation. Ministers are satisfied with the Act and in particular with the provisions relating to declarations of incompatibility.

That does not really take the matter any further. One of the primary functions of the Attorney-General is to ensure that Ministers and the Government stay within the law. The Home Secretary only recently told the House that a declaration of incompatibility does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given and is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made. Leaving aside the implicit contradiction between two senior Ministers, what advice would the Solicitor-General give to successful or potential litigants?

This country has been an adherent to the European convention on human rights since 1951. All Governments have complied with their international obligations. The legislation that they have introduced has in their view been compliant with the law. Occasionally, courts may decide that there is non-compliance and in future there may be declarations of incompatibility under the provision but, on the whole, we take the view—as did the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served—that we comply with our international obligations and so does our legislation.

Do the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General realise that there is a serious problem and unfinished business under the Human Rights Act 1998? Where the courts have declared our law to be incompatible with the convention, the Act provides under section 4(6) that the law none the less remains the same until it is changed by Parliament. However, supposing the Government disagree with the House of Lords and wish the matter to be resolved by Strasbourg so that our law is not out of kilter with that which applies in the rest of the Council of Europe. What would happen then? Which law would apply? Would it be the law before the ruling of the court or after the ruling of the court? Technically, it would be the law that applied before the ruling but, unless the Government make their position clear, neither the citizen nor our courts will know where they stand.

That section was a neat solution to the problem of parliamentary sovereignty—it retains parliamentary sovereignty. The courts cannot strike down legislation under section 4. Obviously, we are still obliged to comply with our international obligations under the convention, and we shall do so.

What representations he has received on the extension of the rights of audience of banisters and solicitors employed by the Crown Prosecution Service. [63021]

The Solicitor-General and I have discussed the matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions, others in the Crown Prosecution Service and members of both professions. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently introduced in the other place a Bill that will reform rights of audience and permit Crown Prosecution Service lawyers to exercise full rights of audience in the higher courts. I support his proposals and welcome the introduction of his Bill.

I am grateful for that reply. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered extending the same rights of audience that he has just explained to the House to in-house barristers working for companies in parallel with the Crown Prosecution Service, so that they can enjoy the same rights of audience under the Bill?

Before the Bill comes into effect—if it is approved by both Houses—the position of in-house banisters is subject to the machinery under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The matter is being considered, and I hope that an early decision will be made.

Does the Attorney-General really believe that having the state as both prosecutor and defender is in the interests of a fair and independent criminal justice system?

I do not think that there is any difficulty. The state has been the paymaster of the prosecution from time immemorial. Since a Labour Government in the 1940s set up the legal aid system, the state has also been the paymaster of the independent Bar and solicitors who have appeared in court on behalf of defendants. I see no difficulty in extending that principle if it becomes appropriate.

If he will make a statement on his assessment of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service. [63023]

Sir Iain Glidewell's report on the Crown Prosecution Service made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the CPS. On 30 November, I placed in the Library of the House a chart setting out the action that the CPS has taken to consider and implement those recommendations. I am pleased with the progress that the CPS is making under its new Director of Public Prosecutions and chief executive. I am confident that that provides a sound basis for the CPS to proceed as a national but decentralised service with effect from April 1999, obtaining maximum benefit from the "fresh start" advocated in the Glidewell report.

I thank the Attorney-General for that helpful reply. Is it not crucial to improved performance by the Crown Prosecution Service that the administrative support units that help to prepare cases for it are led and guided by the highest-calibre lawyers and police officers? Should not the emphasis of their work be on the expeditious handling of paperwork and on ensuring that they get it right the first time? What specific measures are being taken to facilitate that important objective?

I am happy to tell the House that, as regards the necessary priorities, the hon. Gentleman has got it right too. What he has described was one of the fundamental recommendations of the Glidewell report that is now being considered. I hope to report to the House later on the new unit appropriate for ensuring that prosecutions are handled effectively. As a major step in that direction, the advertisement has now gone out for the appointment of chief Crown prosecutors in each area. That is an important plank in building the type of system that both the hon. Gentleman and I agree is necessary.