What plans he has to ban the import of pigmeat derived from animals fed on meat and bonemeal; and if he will make a statement. [83846]

We will continue to urge retailers, caterers and consumers to take account of quality, animal welfare and other considerations when sourcing pork and pork products. An import ban on such products would be incompatible with our European Union and World Trade Organisation obligations.

Following the Agriculture Committee's positive report on the pig industry, and given the unprecedented difficulties being experienced by the pig sector, will the Government at least ban the import of animals fed on meat and bonemeal whose consumption has been banned in this country? We have unilaterally banned sow stalls and tethers in this country, and have put our pig producers in a very uncompetitive position in relation to producers in other European countries. Will the Government finally, once and for all, act today?

What the hon. Lady asks cannot be delivered in the context of the single market regulations. Conservative Members have asked whether measures such as article 36 of the treaty of Rome could be used to ban the import of meat produced from pigs that have been confined to sow stalls and tethers. As there are common standards applying to the European Union, article 36 cannot be used.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the animal welfare standards that apply to the pig sector in this country should apply throughout Europe? Will he confirm that the new standards applied here have led to a premium in British pig prices above the European norm, which we hope will continue?

My hon. Friend is right. Tethers are to be banned in the European Union, and we believe that sow stalls should be banned as well—as does the European scientific and veterinary committee.

Has the Minister urged his opposite numbers in the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to prevail on health authorities and local authorities to obtain only pigmeat and pork products that have been produced according to the high health and welfare standards that pertain in this country? Does he not recognise that it would be reprehensible for taxpayers to fund the purchase of pork from abroad that had not been produced according to the standards that apply here?

My right hon. Friend the Minister has written to local authorities, and all Ministers have taken every opportunity to suggest that local authorities specify welfare and quality standards. However, many local authorities have difficulties in relation to best value, and restrictions on tendering that were introduced by the Conservative Government.

Obviously we cannot ban the import of pork, but surely we should ensure that people know what imported pigs have been fed on, as well as knowing what health and welfare standards have been applied. That would at least give our pig farmers a fighting chance. Will my hon. Friend consider introducing appropriate labelling?

The Meat and Livestock Commission and the pig industry have launched a quality British pork label, and many Agriculture Ministers and other hon. Members have attended publicity events connected with the launch. We want consumers to know that what they are buying is British-produced, and produced according to the quality and welfare standards that we know consumers want.

Does the Minister not realise that, given the crisis in the pig industry, what Britain needs is a fair deal for British pig farmers? Will he not accept our advice? First, the Government should introduce labelling that shows both the method of production and the country of origin of all pigmeat sold here. Secondly, will the Minister challenge the unlawful cash payments made by the French Government to French pig farmers, evidence of which I delivered to his office by hand last week? Thirdly, will the Minister do what the Government of any other European Union member state would do in the event of a similar crisis in their pig sector, and at least try to halt the import of illegally produced pigmeat? If he is challenged in the courts, he will have our full support.

That is very reassuring.

If he will make a statement on progress on quarantine 0reform. [83847]

On 26 March, I announced that new arrangements were planned to be in operation by April 2001, with a pilot scheme beforehand. I am looking at the options, but am minded that the pilot scheme should initially be open to a range of carriers on a range of routes and targeted at pet owners who are likely to come to, or return to the United Kingdom for a longer period than a conventional summer holiday. I am also minded to include guide dogs for the blind and for the deaf in the pilot scheme.

May I welcome the progress that the Government are making on the subject and congratulate my right hon. Friend on it? It compares favourably with the complete lack of progress under the previous Administration. None the less, many people in Wirral, South are concerned about the facility of bringing their pets home after a period overseas. What reaction has he received from transport operators to his proposals for a pilot scheme?

Some weeks ago, I organised a meeting with representatives of transport operators. Discussions have continued between my officials and those of the different transport operators. The response from all sectors has been favourable and, from most, enthusiastic. Transport operators are rising to the challenge and recognise the potential of the scheme.

Will the Minister confirm that it is not a question of keeping just rabies out of this country? Other canine infections are endemic on the continent, yet absent in Britain. Can he give the House the assurance that, if he does change the quarantine laws—personally, I would welcome it if he did—to satisfy the public, it must be shown that there is no greater likelihood of any of those canine infections coming to our country?

That is a fair point. As Professor Kennedy outlined in his report, we are proceeding. Officials at my Department are in discussion with officials at the Department of Health to ensure that, as well as protecting against rabies, we take the opportunity to ensure that the pre-entry procedures protect, as much as they reasonably can, against other canine infections.

I warmly welcome not only the speed with which my right hon. Friend has moved on the issue, but the responsibility that he has taken on. I particularly welcome the announcement that guide dogs will be included in the pilot scheme. However, is he aware of the difficulty of a constituent of mine whose sister lives in Florida in the United States? Her dog is already microchipped, already has a health certificate and would be healthy to travel to the UK. However, there is still a delay on the announcement about the United States and Canada. Therefore, may I urge him to make a decision as quickly as possible, so that my constituent's sister is able to return to the UK with her guide dog as speedily as possible?

I am sympathetic to individuals in the circumstances that my hon. Friend outlines. A number of hard cases have been put to me, but I do not think that it would be right to deal with individual cases at ministerial level before we have the pilot scheme in place. It is the Government's intention that the pilot scheme will lead to a full-scale scheme as quickly as possible. On the question of the United States, I hope to have something further to say to the House in a matter of weeks, but we are moving ahead in trying to get a scheme that will meet the needs of those who wish to bring pets in from north America.

What representations he has received about the level of regulation on low throughput poultry plants. [83848]

We have received representations from Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, industry organisations and poultry plant operators, about the impact of proposals to increase the level of veterinary supervision in meat plants and to increase Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges. We have had just over 40 representations altogether.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of full-time veterinary supervision for low throughput producers has already driven four firms out of business and caused another four to deregulate to the exempt sector? Will he accept that that level of supervision is unnecessary for high-quality, free-range producers such as Kelly Turkeys in my constituency? Will he seek to establish from the Commission, as a matter of urgency, exactly what is the legal position on this matter?

We are seeking to establish with the Commission the issue of derogation in the poultry meat directive. Our legal understanding has always been that it applies only to the structural improvements, but we are checking on that and seeking clarification. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but every day in this country we slaughter 2 million chickens for us to eat. I am not prepared to put at risk the hygiene checks on the industry that are necessary for public protection.

If he will make a statement on the outcome of the May Agriculture Council concerning the recent agreement on common agricultural policy reform in relation to farm incomes. [83850]

The reform will increase the market orientation of European agriculture and assist producers in their efforts to improve the competitive position of their businesses. In the short term, before the adjustments take place, there may be a small negative impact on aggregate incomes, but the hard-pressed beef sector is fully protected.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the possibility for modulation according to national priorities could be a great opportunity to make the common agricultural policy more acceptable to Britain? Does he expect to be able to use the system to provide more assistance to small family farms and possibly to new entrants into fanning?

I am not an advocate of modulation, but it is permitted by horizontal measure 4 of the agreement. We consulted on the issue in principle in January, before the final phase of the negotiations, and the majority of farmers liked the idea in principle and responded positively. We are consulting further and we shall be consulting the Agriculture Ministers of the devolved authorities.

Two years ago farmers were told that things can only get better under Labour. Since then, farm incomes have collapsed. Will the so-called reform of the common agricultural policy give farmers any long-term hope? It appears that the reform is totally incompatible with the next world trade round and takes no account of the cost of EU enlargement. Can the Minister reassure fanners?

I want to make it absolutely clear that I would have liked to have seen the reform agenda advocated by the United Kingdom and others go further and be introduced more quickly than it was in the negotiations that were concluded in Berlin. The common agricultural policy is undoubtedly moving in the right direction and there are substantial benefits in it for British agriculture. The task for Ministers and, dare I say it, for Parliament is to ensure that we make use of all the measures now open to us, including the rural development measures, to ensure that small, medium and large farms come through the present downturn in the agricultural cycle to profitability, a decent return on the work that farmers are doing, on the capital they have invested and on the investment in their livestock and crops.

My right hon. Friend will know that the Conservatives are always telling us that they want to keep the veto. Is the retention of that veto helpful in renegotiating the CAP?

It is important that the Government have been able to get our country back to the heart of the negotiations with our partners in the European Union. We have been able to make substantial progress on our reform agenda in each and every area of the CAP and stabilise the budget in a way that the previous Government failed to do.

Given that the Minister has correctly acknowledged, today and previously, that the interim CAP reform will have to be revisited—for the very correct reasons referred to by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter)—will he confirm that the British Government's efforts in the matter will be concentrated on making the case, with renewed vigour, for shifting more funds, and fresh funds into wider rural development? We have to do that if we are to maintain the viability of our agricultural sector, particularly in the United Kingdom's less viable parts in terms of incomes.

I welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. I set big store by the rural development measures. I am looking forward to working closely with the Agriculture Ministers from the devolved authorities—the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The House will want to know that the mechanisms that I propose to use for consultations with the other Ministers are exactly the same as ones now operating within the Government, except that meetings of officials before the Council of Ministers will—I hope; it is subject to agreement with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—be supplemented by ministerial meetings between me and the other Agriculture Ministers.

Will the Minister confirm that, prior to the previous general election, the Labour party was in favour of modulation in support payments? May I, please, impress on him the need for a really serious look at modulation—which would assist upland farmers, who are most under strain in the current economic climate?

I am taking a hard look at it, and the consultation is a serious one. I have been struck by the response to my January consultation from farmers across a range of agricultural sectors. They were in favour of it, at least in principle, and wanted the idea to be explored further. Modulation is, of course, divisive in the agricultural sector, as those who believe that they could be beneficiaries of it are advocates, whereas those who believe that they could lose out by it are sceptical of it. We therefore have to proceed carefully.

What assessment he has made of the implications for the beef industry of a lifting of the ban on the sale of beef on the bone in one part of the United Kingdom only. [83851]

The Government have made clear our wish to revoke the beef bones controls as soon as the scientific and medical evidence indicate that it is prudent to do so. Until then, we believe that United Kingdom-wide application of the controls will best protect public health and maintain confidence in beef and beef products.

Given the fact that the ban was imposed to safeguard the health of everyone in the United Kingdom, would it not be ludicrous if the ban were lifted in Scotland and in Wales but not in the whole of the United Kingdom? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if it is lifted in Scotland and in Wales, it will be lifted also in Northern Ireland—which, currently, is the only part of the United Kingdom that is able to export beef?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We have had this discussion before. Confidence in the industry is important, but the need to protect the health of the public is of overriding importance. The Government's recommendation was based on the advice of the chief medical officer—not just the chief medical officer for England, who advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and me, but the separate officers who advise my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. The Government decision was unanimous. It is difficult for Ministers to set to one side the clearly stated advice of the senior professional whose duty it is to advise them.

I support my right hon. Friend and urge him to take no criticism From Her Majesty's Opposition, who showed great incompetence on these matters during the 18 years that they had the power of decision over that great British industry. Will he assure me that he greatly appreciates eating the roast beef of Great Britain, that he likes a pork chop and a leg of lamb and that he believes that tasting and enjoying those products of the British industry makes him a better leader and negotiator? I should like to hear such appreciation of a great industry.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of the British meat industry and an enthusiastic consumer of its products. At events organised by the Meat and Livestock Commission and others, I am pleased to be joined by hon. Members from both sides, sharing that appreciation of the best of Britain.

Why is the Minister so hostile to the poor old British beef farmer? [Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers seem to find that extraordinarily funny. They obviously have not talked to any beef farmers recently. The Minister wants to allow imports of US beef fed on hormones that are banned in this country. He boasted last November about the end of the export ban, then waited five months before inviting European Commission officials to carry out that decision. He is destroying confidence in beef by keeping the absurd ban on beef on the bone when even the Government's chief scientist has said that it is not scientifically justified. Is it not time that Britain had a Minister of Agriculture who wanted a fair deal for Britain's beef farmers?

We agree on that, then. This country has a Minister of Agriculture who wants a fair deal for British beef farmers. It has a Minister of Agriculture who got the beef ban lifted. It has a Minister of Agriculture who ensured that the beef sector was fully compensated for the price adjustments in the CAP round. It has a Minister of Agriculture who supports the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission and is able to maintain public confidence in beef products. A political lifting of a ban imposed for health reasons would do nothing for public confidence in the industry. On hormone-treated beef from the United States I am continuing the policy of the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member and a supporter.

What measures he is taking to ensure that controls on specified risk materials do not place additional burdens on the livestock industry. [83852]

My right hon. Friend the Minister announced last month the deferral of industry charging for the cost of specified risk material enforcement for a further year, which is worth about £20 million to industry.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's deferral of the SRM charges. Will he also treat his review of other charges throughout the industry with some urgency?

Yes. Let us be clear about this. Deferring the SRM charges means that the taxpayer is continuing to pay for the work, which is still being done. There were about 4,000 SRM inspections last year. The industry has been successful. It is 36 months since we found any spinal cord attached to a bovine carcase. There has been excellent work in the industry, but it must be checked and audited. We have to make sure in the public interest that it is carried out properly.

Is the Minister aware that although the review is welcome—we particularly pressed for it—the speed with which the new consultation took place was resented, particularly by smaller producers who did not feel that they were given adequate time to look at it? Does the Minister accept that the important thing is to get the right decision rather than simply a quick decision, and if that results in low-throughput abattoirs being driven out of business, the lack of competition will be devastating for the meat industry?

We have no intention as a policy objective of driving low-throughput abattoirs out of business. We can make decisions on the basis of the consultation that we have already undertaken, and there are no surprises here for anybody. We decided to announce a further, quick check of the industry. Given the amount of letters, correspondence and representations, I accept that seven days was a short time. However, it was not as if anyone had to start from scratch in putting together their further representations. I do not accept that the consultation was only seven days. Added to the previous consultation, it makes a considerable length of time.

The decision concerning deferral has been widely welcomed by farmers in my constituency, and is an indication that this Government genuinely listen to beef producers. However, does my hon. Friend believe that there is a need to ask some searching questions of our European competitors on their charging policy in relation to hygiene costs and specified risk material removal to ensure fair competition throughout the EU?

SRM removal is a BSE enforcement measure. We must do that, and it is not common throughout the rest of the EU—simply because those countries do not have BSE on anywhere near the scale that we have had. I must also knock on the head the idea that the measure applies to everyone. I heard a programme the other week on which a pig farmer was bewailing the SRM charges. SRM conditions apply only to cattle and sheep, and not to any other meat. The SRM charges were the biggest section of the increase that was forthcoming. To that extent, I am sure that the deferral has received a wide welcome.

Why does not the Minister stop bragging about abandoning a charge for one year when the truth is that it was introduced by his Government in the first place, without any concern for its impact on the industry? How can we take seriously any concern for abattoir costs when he so contemptuously allowed just seven days for a response to the consultation? Why does he not do something useful today, and lift the specified offals controls on pig-only abattoirs, as was recommended earlier? If seven days is long enough for a consultation, the Minister has had more than that to consult the MLC. He could do it now.

Yes. We announced the introduction of charges for the removal of specified risk materials, but we did not do so through a written question or a letter. I announced it in a Committee in November 1997. There was not a single comment from any Conservative Member of Parliament present in the Committee that morning. The idea that this has just been put to the industry without any forewarning is nonsense. We put off the charges for the first year and the second year, and we will decide what to do for the third year before it starts.

If he will make a statement on Government policy towards the classification of nutritional dietary supplements as food. [83853]

Most products described as dietary supplements are considered in law to be foods. The Government have no plans to change this arrangement.

That answer is rather complacent. There is tremendous concern among health food manufacturers over the issue of definitions. There is no definition in law of a health food supplement. The manufacturers and consumers do not want the products to be banned as a result of the very wide definition that now applies to medicines. It is thought that the definition of medicines would include brandy, glucose and red wine, for example, as well as many other nutritional substances. Does the Minister accept that we need a clear definition of food supplements that ensures that they do not fall under the same regulatory regime as medicines?

The background to this is that the Medicines Control Agency is considering some of the foods that could possibly be classed as medicines rather than food supplements. There is a very clear definition of what is and is not a medicine. There have been some doubts about whether some of the foods currently on sale should be defined as medicines and regulated accordingly. That is why the MCA is acting, following an article 169 letter from the Commission asking the Government to review the question.

I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on the views of two manufacturers in my constituency, Peter Black Healthcare and Surepharm, which are concerned about the potential impact of MCA regulation. I welcome the reassurance that the regulation will not apply to existing products, but of course many companies will be concerned about the possible application to products developed in the future. Can we at least hasten the work of the expert group that was commissioned to consider the matter? What progress has it made?

It is certainly true that the expert group, set up in 1997, is examining the issue. It is expected to report to the Food Advisory Committee towards the end of 2000. It is a major review, and there are many issues to consider. I repeat that it is not the intention unnecessarily to restrict the sale of vitamins and minerals or indeed to apply arbitrary limits without any scientific basis, but it is right and proper to regulate certain vitamins and supplements that may have a physiological effect and could come within the definition of medicines.

May I stress the wide public concern about this matter? On Monday, I received a petition of nearly 1,000 signatures from a health food shop in my constituency, which shows that people do not want to be deprived of their supplements and feel that, if there is the remotest danger, they should be warned and allowed to take an adult decision. Some of the supplements and herbal remedies have been in use since Anglo-Saxon times.

Some people are concerned about the current MCA review, but the intention is not to reclassify supplements as medicines. There are some grey areas and we need to examine whether some products are in fact medicines. It is a consultative process, and the views of both consumers and manufacturers will be taken into account.

How many responses he has received on the draft Food Standards Bill. [83854]

By the closing date for consultation on the draft Bill, in addition to the Food Standards Committee report, we had received 998 submissions, all of which will be placed in the Library later today.

I welcome the way in which the Ministry and the Department of Health have acted on food safety since May 1997 and the fact that the Government allowed pre-legislative scrutiny. That approach is a marked change from the attitude of the previous Government. When will the Bill be introduced?

Hopefully, next month. We are intent on legislating in this Session on the draft Food Standards Bill. We are still dependent—not wholly, but to some extent—on the progress of the House of Lords Bill. If the hereditary peers break their word again, as they did earlier this week, we will be in some difficulty. We hope, however, to introduce the Food Standards Bill in this House next month.

Is the Minister aware that local authorities believe that between £15 and £23 of the proposed £90 Food Standards Agency tax will be spent on the costs of collection? Given the fear expressed in the recent Agriculture Committee report that the charge could rise to £600 a year—a fear that causes grave anxiety among the corner shop owners in the Aylesbury Vale district council area, which incorporates my Buckingham constituency—what estimate has he made of the number of such corner shops that are likely to have to shed staff and throw people on the dole as a result of that ill-considered imposition?

At approximately the same time as we introduce the Bill, which is—in effect—another part of the consultation process, we will announce the result of our secondary consultation on the levy. That was a separate consultation in a separate document. We have made it clear that we take seriously the submissions made to us, and I can say that there is no shred of a possibility of a single levy charge of anything near £600. The reason for the appearance of that figure in the record of the exchanges of the Select Committee is that I gave an honest answer to an honest question that did not automatically presuppose that the rate would be £600. We will announce our decision on the charge, but we want a fair system.

Does the Minister welcome the achievement of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in winning a commitment in the partnership agreement to find a fairer funding system for the Food Standards Agency? Is he, as he has perhaps indicated, likely to follow suit? It would be unfair if the small village shop had to pay the same levy as the wealthy large supermarkets.

We shall have to be careful choosing our words now that we have devolution, especially as we are working in partnership in different parts of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] No, I am ever the diplomat at the Dispatch Box. The Food Standards Agency will be a United Kingdom authority, but we will be in the unique position of setting up that UK authority in devolved subject areas. Therefore, it is crucial that the issue is addressed so that differences can be taken into account by the regulatory authorities in those areas. I am certain that we will find a satisfactory solution that is fair to small shopkeepers, is fair between England, Scotland and Wales, and is perceived to be fair by the public, because that is also important.

If he will make a statement about the incomes of farmers in the pig industry. [83856]

The Government are fully aware of the difficulties still facing the pig industry. However, market prices have improved by 33 per cent. since the low point in January and currently stand some 20 per cent. above the average European Union price.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the serious and level-headed attention that he brings to that important subject, in contrast to some of the overblown rhetoric and nonsense we hear from Conservative Members. I commend to him the pigmeat products from the Lancaster and Wyre constituency; perhaps we should call it the Duchy of Lancaster pig. Will he give some serious attention to how notable firms such as North West Fine Foods can fully exploit the niche market of quality local produce, selling to quality local people and quality visitors?

I fully take my hon. Friend's point, but there is no protectionist solution to the sector's problems. The way forward is to support the Meat and Livestock Commission's campaign on assured British pork, ham and bacon. At the same time, we must urge retailers to make sure that the welfare premium for which we voted in 1991 is obtained by producers in the marketplace.

If he will make it the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service to disclose to the victims of crime the reasons for deciding in any case not to prosecute. [83876]

The Crown Prosecution Service provides to the police information about casework decisions so that the police may forward it to victims. How much information can be given may depend on the circumstances of individual cases. The CPS must balance openness with victims with the interests of others involved in cases. As to the future, the Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether or not to take over from the police the responsibility for informing victims of the reasons for CPS casework decisions. I intend to make a statement on this in June.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. My question was, as he knows, prompted by a constituency case, involving Mr. Ellis, the author of a book entitled, "Thoth: The Architect of the Universe". After it was published, the book was subject to massive plagiarism by Random House, one of the world's largest publishers. No fewer than 70 pages and some diagrams from his book were reproduced word for word in a Random House book. The publishers were put on notice that Mr. Ellis objected, and they undertook not to carry out publication. However, they did publish, taking advantage of their position in the market as one of the largest publishers. My constituent went to the police to seek redress under section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a constituency case across the Floor of the House. He might do better to make proper written representations to the Attorney-General, which would give the right hon and learned Gentleman an opportunity to consider it.

Further to your remarks, Madam Speaker, I have written to the Attorney-General, and I have had no reply.

Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows about it now.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice this morning of the matters in which he is interested. He wrote to me as recently as 30 April concerning his constituent, Mr. Ellis, about whom he is obviously concerned. The hon. Gentleman's letter has been transferred to the Home Office for an answer. As I understand matters from the hurried inquiries that I have been able to make, the case is at present a matter for the police. So far as I know—and I shall have to make further inquiries following what the hon. Gentleman said—the CPS is not involved. I may be wrong on that point, but I have been unable to make further progress on it during the past two hours. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as the situation develops.

In cases involving death, what is the policy of the CPS towards keeping bereaved families informed of casework decisions, which cause much concern to many people?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. In cases involving death, a senior CPS lawyer will be available to meet bereaved families to explain CPS casework decisions and relevant criminal law procedures. That is the long-established policy of the CPS, and it is reflected in its commitments to the victims charter. The policy recognises the special sensitivity that must be given to handling homicide cases.

On the broader issue of communicating with victims, is not the real problem the continuing lack of effective communication between the prosecutor and the officer in the case and, through him, the victim? Is that because the Crown Prosecution Service does not explain matters to the police administration support units, or is it because the message does not get from those units back to the officer and the victim? Does the Attorney-General recall that in his report, Sir lain Glidewell made a number of recommendations both for research and action in that area? Will he please tell us what is happening?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I know from long experience that the system is not perfect—hence Sir Iain Glidewell's recommendations. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall from my earlier answer, the CPS is considering the matter to find out how the situation can be improved, given that there are two inputs—initially the police and, secondly, the CPS. I intend to make a statement because I know of the concern about the matter—it was registered by Sir Iain—when I make a further statement on his recommendations in June.

What progress has been made in implementing the Glidewell report in London. [83877]

Sir Iain Glidewell's review of the CPS made three recommendations specific to London. First, that CPS London should be organised broadly along the same lines as other CPS areas covering large conurbations. This has been accepted. A new chief Crown prosecutor for London has been appointed, supported by an area business manager. Secondly, Sir kin recommended that assistant chief Crown prosecutors be appointed. That has been implemented. Thirdly, he recommended that the special problems of London required greater co-operation between all the criminal justice agencies. The detail of that recommendation, especially in relation to trial issues groups, remains under consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will make a statement in June, as he said a moment ago.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the long-standing concern among police and magistrates in Bexley at the avoidable delays and inefficiencies that have arisen because the nearest office of the Crown Prosecution Service is at the Cooperage, London Bridge, rather than local? For that reason, the Glidewell report was welcome: it promised an integration of the police, the magistrates and the CPS and definite benefits arising from that. Indeed, space was reserved in the new Bexleyheath police station for a CPS unit.

Order. Questions should be brisk and to the point. The hon. Gentleman is raising an Adjournment debate. I hope that the Minister will not take as long in his response, or we shall never move down the Order Paper.

I would not dare, Madam Speaker, given what you have said.

What plans he has to increase the use of private sector lawyers by prosecution services. [83878]

The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have no immediate plans to increase the use of private sector lawyers. The CPS is working with the Bar to foster closer working relationships while seeking to increase the use of in-house lawyers employed by the CPS who have achieved success in obtaining the higher court advocacy qualification. The aim is to increase competition, improve standards and quality, and achieve best value for money.

Is there not an increasingly good case for hiring the best local solicitors to reduce delays in getting prosecution cases to court and get better results in more complicated cases? Is there not an opportunity to turn some of the poachers into gamekeepers?

All prosecution services can instruct private sector lawyers or in-house lawyers with the higher court advocacy qualification. The decision depends on the circumstances of the case. There has been no significant change in their use recently, one way or the other. My hon. Friend's comment has a certain validity. If there are suitable local lawyers, I am sure that the CPS will consider employing them.

Does the Solicitor-General have any proposals to encourage experienced lawyers in mid-career to join the CPS? Will he assure the House that no stigma will attach to lawyers applying to rejoin the CPS, on the ground that early in their careers they had been members of the service?

I am sure that we would encourage lawyers in private practice to join the CPS. The CPS advertises and has very flexible arrangements for extended leave. That is particularly advantageous to married women who may go on maternity leave and then want to stay away for longer. We encourage outside people to apply to the CPS. No stigma will attach to those who left service some time ago.

How many cases he has been involved in within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the last 12 months. [83879]

I represented the United Kingdom on 10, 11 and 12 May in proceedings brought before the International Court of Justice by Yugoslavia against the United Kingdom and nine other NATO States. My hon. Friend asked about cases "within the jurisdiction" of the ICJ. The question whether the Court has jurisdiction over Yugoslavia's claims against the UK and the other defendants is one of the central issues that the Court has to determine.

As cluster bombs are not very different from landmines, on which there has been international legislation—much to the credit of this Government—has anything been said about the legality of the use of cluster bombs? In particular, was either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General consulted about the dropping of cluster bombs on the centre of the city of Nis? Was either of them told of the proximity of a hospital in Belgrade to a target before permission was given, on the legal basis on which I understand they are consulted, for the attack to go ahead, with the tragic resulting death of patients?

The matters that my hon. Friend raises are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I confirm that I have offered advice to colleagues in relation to some of the legal issues that have arisen during the process of approving targets for attack by UK forces. I am unwilling to be drawn further. I am confident that the Government and UK forces act in accordance with international law. Legal advice is available at every level of the process of approving targets for attack.

How many unduly lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal since 1 May 1997. [83880]

Since 1 May 1997, leave has been sought in respect of 171 offenders, and 117 applications have been heard. Leave was granted in 112 applications and the sentence increased in 96, which is 83.4 per cent. of references that have been heard.

Does the Attorney-General consider that those figures reflect satisfactorily on the sentencing system in this country, or does he think that the number of cases on which he sought to make reference suggests that uniformity of sentencing is not being properly achieved?

Only a tiny proportion of cases before the Crown courts are referred. They are those in which it is necessary so to do to ensure that public confidence is maintained. Over the years, the figures have been roughly the same; there was a dip in 1996 and 1997, and an increase in 1998 to a figure nearer to what it used to be in 1995. Generally, the figure is about the same. I believe that that is right and that it is shown in the results in the figures from the Court of Appeal that I have already given.