What proposals he has to promote pig farming in Britain. [98836]

In discussions with the representatives of the British pig industry, we have developed an action programme aimed at helping pig producers through this very difficult period.

Every week, I visit in my constituency pig farmers who are suffering and in danger of going bankrupt—some have gone bankrupt. Two of them, Jamie Bell and Christopher Maughan, have given me their figures, which show the serious nature of the problems that they face. Mr. Maughan has a pig farm that produces 5,000 pigs a year. Last year, he lost £25,000. He cannot go on in business for much longer. He will very probably have to make three members of his staff redundant. He is aware that the Government have introduced regulations to help with disposal that allow £5.26 per pig. He urgently requires compensation to stay in business, but he feels that the Government are ignoring his protestations and the problems of everyone else in the pig industry who need help from the Government now before they go bankrupt. What do the Government intend to do?

There is no doubt that the pig industry faces serious problems. The regulations on offal control were introduced in 1996 for an important reason: they were one of the BSE control measures. The Government have introduced measures to assist the industry. We have talked to retail groups about progress on their labelling commitment. We have also proposed new standards of labelling, which have gone out for consultation. An extra £5 million of marketing aid has been provided on top of the £1 million already made available. It has been made clear that we expect the pig industry to have first call on that marketing aid. We are discussing meat and bonemeal controls with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and also what impact they have on the pig industry. We are doing everything that we can to assist, within the state aid rules. We are constrained because we must work within those rules.

Is not the simple truth that, if the British consumer started buying British pigmeat in the form of bacon and other pig products, the crisis would end? It is in their hands. They have a good excuse for buying British, which is that British pigmeat is produced to higher welfare standards.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. At one stage in the current down cycle, British pork and pig products were attracting a 25 per cent. premium compared with other European prices. That was undoubtedly due to the premium for higher welfare and quality standards. We believe that the way forward is through labelling and marketing. It is important to ensure that consumers have that information, so that they can use consumer choice to support our industry and the standards that it applies.

Following the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), does the Minister accept that supermarkets are not showing clearly the source of pigmeat from this country, or, indeed, from where it comes? Unigate, which is the biggest wholesaler of pigmeat, is manipulating the market to depress the price and, in effect, destroy home production by controlled management of imports, which it says it will increase to 50 per cent. of its entire supply. Is that fair competition, and should it be investigated?

As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the issue of supermarkets and competition is being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading, and a report will be published in due course. On the wider issue, we do not want labelling used in a way that misleads the public on the origin of pigmeat. That is why we have put new regulations out for consultation. The proposed regulations would make it clear that misleading labelling will not be tolerated. We have also seconded a full-time member of staff from the Ministry to work with the pig industry, to evaluate and monitor labelling claims and see how retailers are doing it.

After telling the House back in July that he had letters on his desk ready to send to local authorities exhorting them to buy British pork, why did the Minister wait four months before sending them? Has not his incompetence and inaction contributed to the continuing losses in the pig industry now running at over £2 million a week?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. We look forward to discussing a range of issues with him. My right hon. Friend the Agriculture Minister has been dealing with this issue for a long time as part of a co-ordinated campaign to raise the profile of the welfare and quality standards of UK pigmeat. I do not think that any other Minister in any other Government has done as much as my right hon. Friend to draw that to the attention of industry and retail groups and individual MPs, who have a role to play in raising this issue with their local suppliers.

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the impact of the proposed introduction of the integrated pollution prevention and control directive in 2002 on pig farmers and other intensive white meat producers?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue affecting the meat industry, pig farmers and poultry units. Discussions are taking place within Government about the implications of those IPPC charges.

What plans he has to press for compensation for British farmers for loss of exports to France over recent months. [98838]

Compensation is a matter for the courts.

Farmers in my constituency are rapidly losing patience with the Minister. They are perfectly entitled to compensation. I know that farmers have taken up the matter personally with the Minister. Can he now tell the House which agency, or which member of his Department, is dealing with it—or is he going to tell us that the love-in between Britain and France has extended to the point at which our farmers will be denied the compensation to which they are entitled? It should be borne in mind that the French are notoriously slow to accept that they must pay compensation, and even slower to pay the compensation to which our farmers are entitled.

If the hon. Lady's constituents are entitled to the compensation to which she says they are entitled, they can obtain it through the courts.

I certainly do not condone the action of the French, but is it not a question of rebuilding confidence, and is not the best way to rebuild confidence to rebuild the local food chain? Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on ways in which we can seek local marketing solutions?

I am strongly committed to helping the industry to market its way through the present difficulties, and I believe that joining up the food chain is one way of achieving that. Like other Ministers, I have made a number of visits to distributors, retailers and producers to demonstrate our commitment to that approach.

The Minister is right to pursue compensation claims. I hope that he will continue forcefully to do so, and that the matter will ultimately be resolved. What farmers now want more than anything, however, is the opening of their export markets in other spheres, such as the Commonwealth. Has the Minister engaged in any discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry about a specific export drive to those markets? If not, what measures is he taking to encourage other countries—now that, hopefully, we have persuaded France—to lift their beef bans, thus providing farmers with more immediate support?

The first thing that we must do is ensure that the decision made last November to introduce the date-based export scheme is implemented properly throughout the European Union, and that is an immediate objective of mine. Next Wednesday, the Prime Minister will host a meeting of all who have an interest in beef exports to discuss strategies and, in particular, to explore ways in which the Government can help.

Does my right hon. Friend recall my bringing to him recently a deputation of representatives from four farms in my constituency? We are very grateful for the hour that we spent with him. Does he recollect that my constituents told him of their fears for the beef industry, as well as for the sheepmeat and dairy industries? That conversation emphasised the difficulties of the family farmer. How has my right hon. Friend attempted to help family farms so far, and how might he do so in the future?

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend was able to bring a delegation of farmers to see me. I consider my contacts with ordinary working farmers to be extraordinarily important to my stewardship. Those farmers did raise the question of support for family farms, and we explored the possibility of support measures under the common agricultural policy, which is the overarching policy instrument. But I also look to the rural development measure, which may provide new ways of producing income streams for family farms.

Does the Minister agree that, although compensation may be necessary to deal with what has happened in the past, we should consider other measures, when no compensation questions arise, so that our farmers can export not only beef but lamb to France and other European Union countries with no let or hindrance? Is progress being made to ensure that lamb exports, in full-body form, are able to reach all destinations, including France?

The right hon. Gentleman is right: far and away the best solution for the livestock industry is to return trading conditions to normal as quickly as possible, and that is the objective of my strategy. We need to be able to market our way through the present difficulties, and the Government will do all that they can to assist. That includes dealing with the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

I refer the Minister to the explanatory note which is attached to his press release of two days ago—in which he refers to the Commission's declaration on the labelling of exports of British beef—and in particular to the sentence which says:

"This will enable them"—

"to require the labelling on their own territory of British beef, if they so wish."

That would not be permissible. I deplore the irresponsible statements that have come from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen suggesting that, somehow, a British label is a stigma on what is a fine product and among the safest in Europe. Labelling is a clear condition of the date-based export scheme. It was also a clear condition of the certified herd scheme, which was brought into being by the previous Government.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his constructive approach and, in particular, on the fact that he has agreed to the labelling of British beef. Can that be reciprocated by our clearly labelling French products in our shops so that our consumers can decide whether they wish to buy products that are of a lower standard or have not been produced to the same welfare standards?

The Meat and Livestock Commission's assured British meat schemes provide a way for domestic consumers to consume to the highest United Kingdom standards. Under consideration in the EU is a beef labelling regime which would apply throughout the EU. The United Kingdom, French and German Governments are supporters of that regime, as is the Commission.

Now that the European Commission has confirmed that country of origin labelling within the EU is lawful, why does the Minister think it right to require British beef to be labelled as British when it is sold in France, but wrong for French beef to be labelled as French when it is sold in Britain?

Answer!

I have just answered that question. If Conservative Members listened to the answers instead of just trying to work out how to ask the same question, we might make a bit more progress. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of labelling schemes. He has wobbled about on this issue like a demented political yo-yo.

What plans he has to ban fur farming in Great Britain. [98839]

A Bill to ban fur farming in England and Wales was introduced on 22 November. I understand that the Scottish Executive will be introducing a separate Bill to extend the ban to Scotland.

I thank the Minister for the part that he has undoubtedly played in persuading the Government to take up my private Member's Bill from the previous Session, which was unfortunately blocked on Report. Does he think that the fur farmers now also support the ban, although they did not at the beginning of the last Session, and is he surprised to hear the Conservative party now calling for compensation for every type of farmer but fur farmers?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in promoting her private Member's Bill. It was through that promotion that we had negotiations with the NFU and the Fur Breeders Association. The Bill that we are promoting is an enabling Bill, which will make provision for compensation. We have had a letter from the Fur Breeders Association which makes it clear that it does not want to be kept in limbo and, if the measure makes provision for compensation, it would like to see that progress.

There is a mink fur farmer in my constituency, so I am interested in what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said because I am keen that there should be full and proper compensation for my constituent. Can the Minister give an assurance that, if compensation is not deemed sufficient, an independent committee or arbitration system will be established so that fur farmers can obtain independent clarification on what compensation they deserve?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There will be two provisions, one for independent arbitration agreed by both sides and, if that is not agreed, a fall-back provision for binding arbitration from the Lands Tribunal.

What action he has taken to compensate UK farmers for the effect of the strong pound on the value of payments under the CAP. [98840]

Up to £264 million in agrimonetary compensation will be paid to livestock and arable farmers starting this year, and a further £132 million over the next two years. That is on top of £133 million in such compensation paid to beef and sheep producers in 1997 and 1998.

Hard-pressed farmers in my constituency will welcome any help that my right hon. Friend can give. Although agrimonetary compensation is complex, it represents real money for real farmers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a sad reflection on the previous Government that they did not pay such compensation to farmers when they had the opportunity to do so, and that the Conservative party is no friend of the British farmer?

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Agrimonetary compensation is an important benefit for British agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Minister was successful in persuading our partners of that, and also in ensuring that some of the money would be obligatory and that farmers would benefit directly from it.

In reflecting on the plight of British farmers, does the right hon. Lady agree that entry into the European single currency at exchange rate mechanism mid rates would be catastrophic for British agriculture?

I seldom agree with the hon. Gentleman about any of the points that he makes, especially on European issues. Stability in financial arrangements is tremendously important for agriculture. If we are not in the single currency, it is important to do what the Government have done and ensure that farmers in this country do not lose out, as they would have done had we not introduced the compensation measures that have been effected.

What has been the overall percentage change in the price of farmland since May 1997. [98841]

The estimated average price of agricultural land sold in England fell by 5 per cent. between 1997 and 1998.

I am a bit surprised by that answer. A recent survey by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors shows that, in the last quarter, land prices increased in England by 6 per cent. and in Wales by 13 per cent. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's policy to join the euro when the time is right, and that, when that happens, we will adopt European interest rates, which are currently 3 per cent? That huge fall in interest rates will mean that house and land values are bound to rise. Is it not in the interests of British farmers that we join the euro?

My hon. Friend makes an important point on the euro. There is no doubt that joining the euro would bring many benefits to agriculture, through lower interest rates, a stable exchange rate, and especially in respect of agriculture prices and agrimonetary compensation. Those matters will have to be considered carefully. Ultimately, the British public will make the decision in a referendum. The Government are considering the matter on the basis of what is best for our country and our economy. In that respect, farmers are not well served by the Conservative party, which made it clear that it would never go into the euro within an arbitrary five-year period, even if was absolutely clear that it was in the interests of this country and of agriculture to do so.

If agriculture prices are increasing, it is nothing to do with farming and everything to do with proposals to build 1.1 million new homes in Oxfordshire and the south-east. Whenever agricultural land becomes available, builders buy up options and drive up the price of farmland. In counties and constituencies such as mine, there is a crazy situation in which farmers are driven out of business through the Government's policies, and any spare fields will be built on, cemented and concreted in the next 20 or so years. That is a disaster for the shire counties. When will the Government wake up to the devastation that they cause to rural England?

The hon. Gentleman makes an inaccurate point. Many indicative housing figures were far higher under the previous Conservative Government; they have been scaled down under the Labour Government. Whatever happens to planning policy in future, planning law will apply to farmland. Buying farmland is no guarantee of permission to build on it.

Is it not a fact that the land value of difficult farmland in the hills—and in the Pennines, in constituencies such as mine—has fallen the most? However, that trend was evident under the previous Government, who showed no support at all for farmers of difficult farmland.

My hon. Friend, who represents large areas of disadvantaged farmland, is absolutely right. The causes of the changes in the price of farmland are complex, and there are a number of reasons for that. In some parts of the country, the price of farmland is holding and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) said, it is increasing in some cases. There are different demands, different types of farm and different sorts of land and we have to take those important factors into account in developing a coherent rural approach. That is why we shall be giving them a great deal of thought in the forthcoming rural White Paper.

What steps he is taking against the restrictions imposed by German Lander on British beef. [98842]

I have spoken and written to the German Health Minister about the German ban. The German Minister has assured me that the German Federal Government are taking the necessary legal steps to lift it, but—because of the necessary constitutional procedures in Germany, including the need for agreement by the Länder—it will not be possible to lift it quickly.

Surely, then, the position is that the House and the British Government can be overruled by European rulings but the German Federal Government can shelter behind the German constitution in allowing the Lander flagrantly to break European law, to the detriment of British farmers. Given that the Government have made much, somehow or other, of their fairly modest efforts with the French, is it not time that they matched that by taking legal action against the Germans?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. This is a matter of European Union law, and the law applies in Germany in exactly the same way as it applies in France and throughout the rest of the EU. The German Federal Government have been completely candid with the United Kingdom Government. They have explained to us how their procedures work and why it will take time to get the ban lifted in Germany. I believe that the German Government are proceeding in good faith in this matter, but they have to deal with regional authorities controlled by parties that are different from those in the federal Government. He will accept that, sometimes, opposition parties can behave unreasonably towards the party in power.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall not be exporting any beef, either to France or to Germany, unless there is consumer confidence in those countries? Is not the best approach to ensure that we explain our BSE safeguards so that the French ban is lifted, with the support of the French and German Governments? Otherwise we might have the ban lifted, but no one will be eating British beef.

My hon. Friend is exactly right; that is the approach that the Government are taking. We are explaining the powerful safeguards—which sit around the date-based export scheme—that are in place in this country. We are taking our potential customers into our confidence because we want them to be our customers. We want them to buy our beef.

Past constitutional disputes between the German Federal Government and the Länder have taken years to resolve. How long will it take to resolve this issue?

This issue is a matter of European Union law. If we cannot get it resolved by discussion, it will have to be resolved by law. Again, we shall look to the Commission to stand our corner.

How much his Department spent on food safety and standards surveys in the last year for which figures are available. [98843]

The Department has a wide-ranging food surveillance programme to protect consumer safety, food authenticity and the nutritional quality of the UK diet. During 1998, it spent more than £10.5 million on those surveys, carrying out more than 190,000 analyses on more than 63,000 food samples.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her helpful answer. Does she agree that what she has outlined represents the sensible steps taken by the Government—as promised at the general election and including the establishment of the independent Food Standards Agency—in order to make our food safe and more nutritious, and to restore consumer and producer confidence, thereby strengthening the economy and boosting our exports of food products?

My hon. Friend makes some important points, particularly on building consumer confidence and ensuring consumers that we are taking the issue of safety standards as seriously as we are. I am delighted that, just before Prorogation, the Food Standards Act 1999 finished its passage in the other place and in the House, after we considered further amendments, paving the way for the agency's early and successful establishment.

As the Select Committee made clear in its report, successful establishment of the Food Standards Agency—which the Minister just mentioned—depends very much on effective leadership. Is she able to confirm reports in the Financial Times that Professor John Krebs will be appointed to run the new agency?

As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the appointment is a matter for the Department of Health. We are very confident, however, that the arrangements being made for the agency's establishment will help to ensure consumer trust and confidence, about which the Agriculture Committee and other hon. Members have been very concerned. We are also pleased that both the Government and the agency will be committed to openness and accessibility of information, as the sharing of information is a very important part of building consumer confidence.

On the subject of food safety, will the Minister tell us whether it is true, as reported in The Mail on Sunday—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Labour Members will undoubtedly be delighted to hear whether it is true that European inspectors have not inspected a single Thai chicken factory. Is it also true that Ministry of Agriculture officials have inspected Thai chicken farms and found problems that have not been resolved? How much longer will British producers have to compete with lower standards overseas, and British consumers have to accept importation of sub-standard products from countries that do not have British standards?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that national and Commission experts work closely together, and write reports for each other, so that informed decisions may be taken on suppliers from third countries to European countries. I confirm that our officials and Commission officials have both investigated those issues, to ensure that European consumers are protected. The situation, however, is on-going: we cannot have a once-and-for-all investigation. We have constantly to make checks—not only in liaison with authorities in the countries concerned, but in investigations made by Commission and national authorities—and to monitor, in the interests of our consumers and European Union consumers generally.

If he will make a statement on the labelling of imported agricultural products. [98844]

Food labelling rules are harmonised at European Union level and apply to home and imported produce alike. We are pressing for a number of improvements in European Union rules and consulting on improved national guidelines aimed at clamping down on labels that mislead consumers about country of origin.

Following discussions that I had last Friday with pig farmers in my constituency, at Battisford, I shall ask the Minister a simple question. Will the Government reform food labelling regulations to make it illegal for labels to describe food as British when that food has not been reared or grown in Great Britain?

The hon. Gentleman should know that we are going through that process now, in consultation with the industry and the European Commission. Labelling is partly a matter over which we can have national influence, and partly one where there is European Union responsibility. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Ministry in promoting clear and accurate labelling. I have discussed this matter with the pig industry recently, and we are determined to clamp down on misleading labelling and to make sure that food that is described as British actually is British.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents would like to buy British products in recognition of the higher quality and higher welfare standards of British food producers, but find it difficult to do so because of labelling that implies that a product is British when it is not? What can we do to assist consumers in my constituency and across the country?

We hope and expect that the verification officer we have appointed precisely to deal with this issue will be successful in his work. He has already had important meetings with supermarkets and others in the food supply chain. The Government's record on labelling is excellent and contrasts strongly with the lack of effort of the previous regime to get labelling systems in Europe or to consolidate labelling systems at home.

Will the Minister confirm that much of the meat sold in this country—whether it is poultry meat from the far east, pigmeat from Holland or Denmark or meat from illegally fed cows from France—is produced under conditions which are against the law here? Why do the Government not think it necessary to draw that to the attention of consumers on the label?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman checks on the rules because he does not seem to know them. Meat coming into Britain has to conform to European standards. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman on the "Today" programme a couple of days ago, and he simply does not seem to understand the moves that have already taken place in the European Union on the labelling of beef, for example. I suggest that before he asks other questions on this subject, he checks out the facts first.

What measures he is taking to ensure that controls on specified risk materials do not place additional burdens on the livestock industry. [98845]

The Government have further deferred plans to charge industry for the cost of specified risk material enforcement until 2002–03 at the earliest. In addition, the meat industry red tape working group is examining the impact of the SRM controls in the industry. I expect its report shortly.

Hard-pressed farmers in Shropshire will welcome the waiving of SRM charges and the fact that the working group is reviewing farming regulations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government seek to reduce red tape for farmers, unlike the last Tory Government who, while they scrapped 77 MAFF regulations, introduced 331 new ones? Do not the Tories say one thing and do another?

And they then change their minds and say something else—we are all familiar with the scenario. During my stewardship of this office, I am determined to bear down on the regulatory burden on the industry and to make certain that regulations are proportionate and justifiable.

The Minister will be well aware of the consequences of the regulations imposed on the beef industry, as they affect the pig industry—the pig industry has been the innocent victim of controls imposed on the beef industry. He has been given a long period of notice. If he would authorise the dedication of pig-rendering offal plants, it would help the industry financially and would mean no extra cost to the taxpayer. However, at least 18 months after this suggestion was first made, there has been no progress. Does he recognise that by the time there is any progress, a lot of the pig farmers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) referred will have gone out of business? This inaction by the Government is not acceptable.

It is important to point out to the House that the regulations that the hon. Gentleman denounces were introduced in 1996 under the Conservative Government. Nevertheless, as he knows, I think he is on to a good point, but it is not fair to say that the Government have done nothing. I have already approached SEAC—the Government's advisory committee—once on the issue to see whether the rules could be relaxed, so that some commercial value could be returned to the sector for the pig farmers. SEAC said no, so I have gone back to it, together with the Meat and Livestock Commission, to try to find some way to get trade back in a way that is acceptable to the Government's scientific advisers. The report that I have submitted with the MLC will be considered by SEAC at its meeting this month—by which I mean November.

What discussions his Department has had with education authorities regarding food hygiene education in schools. [98846]

The Department is collaborating very closely with the Health Education Authority and others on the development of food hygiene teaching resources, which are being supplied free to all UK primary and secondary schools.

When I was at school, we had domestic science once a week—that is, the girls did. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the potential new millennium nightmares is of a generation living from cradle to grave on pre-packaged, pre-cooked meals? Does she agree that her answer shows that the Government are working in a joined-up manner to promote healthy living and food safety, in the wake of the disastrous scares—including those involving salmonella, E. coli and BSE—of the past few years?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her comments. She must have gone to a more enlightened school than I did, because I had to choose between domestic science and Latin. Domestic science was not compulsory, but it would have been a good thing. [Interruption.] I am not sure that either my Latin or my domestic science is up to standard.

Late last year the European Union suspended the use of zinc bacitracin in animal feed, which has led to the wholly unwelcome consequences of increases in the incidence of necrotic enteritis and cholangiohepatitis in poultry and—with implications for food safety and children—to farmers having to turn to the use of amoxycillin and penicillin to keep their poultry free of those—

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been keen to get in on questions that relate to the subject that he is speaking about, but this question concerns food hygiene education in schools.

I believe it is relevant.

I am not sure that it is, and that is the point that I am making. I would be grateful if we could continue with food hygiene in schools.

Is the increased use of penicillin and amoxycillin in poultry as a result of the Government's policy a good thing for food hygiene in schools and, if not—

Order. That was not a good try, so we will find somebody else.

What assessment he has made of the annual cost of the common agricultural policy to (a) consumers and (b) taxpayers in the UK. [98847]

The cost of the CAP in 1998 was £6.7 billion to consumers and £3.4 billion to taxpayers, equivalent in total to around £3.30 per person per week.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the existing production-based support system under the CAP is bad for consumers because it means that we pay excessive prices? Is it not also bad for the taxpayer, who is paying those sums for the CAP? Does my hon. Friend agree that it fails to meet the Government's policy objectives because it does not support the farmers in most need of support, especially those in upland and other marginal land? Is there not a growing consensus in favour of a reform of the CAP that would move it away from production-based subsidies towards a system that met social objectives?

I strongly agree. We have made some progress with Agenda 2000, which has reduced costs to consumers by about £1 billion. Clearly, however, there is much more to be done. We believe that we must move away from production-based support—which increases costs to consumers, distorts markets to the disadvantage of farmers and does not always help those in most need—to more broadly based support that would assist agri-environmental programmes. We think that a broader, rurally based policy would be more beneficial for the rural economy—and, in the longer term, for farmers.

What changes he intends to make to the Crown Prosecution Service's complaints procedure. [98866]

The Crown Prosecution Service has a three-tier complaints procedure which is accessible and well publicised and ensures that a full and fair investigation takes place. It is speedy and ensures that when a complaint is found to be justified, prompt action can be taken. The CPS complaints procedure complies with the Government's service first standards. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that last year the CPS in the Staffordshire area achieved a 90 per cent. response rate within 10 days of a complaint being received—better than the national average.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Yes, I am aware that the CPS in Staffordshire is good at dealing with complaints, but would it be fair to say that at the national level its attitude has been a trifle defensive? Does he agree that complaints should be viewed positively, as part of the management information that any organisation needs to improve its service? I hasten to add that I would say the same about people who make other comments, including compliments. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the CPS should change its attitude towards making use of the information that comes from the public in those forms?

I think that the record is good, but it can be improved. As a result of the changes in the inspection arrangements, the inspector will examine the complaints procedure and ensure that it is up to standard. I take my hon. Friend's other point that complaints can be used positively. The complaints made by victims and witnesses underline and are central to our concerns.

In view of the public pronouncements of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is the head of the CPS, and those of the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord Williams, about the damaging effect of the Government's proposals on jury trial, to which tier of the complaints system will the Solicitor-General go? Is what the Government are doing part of a unified policy, or is their policy on the jury system all at sea?

I am not sure that I understood what that question was about. Inasmuch as it was a question about what the DPP said—I have seen the transcript of his interview in The Times—my answer is that he did not condemn the Government's proposals. He gave a dispassionate account of the jury system in England and Wales. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, our changes have been introduced to improve the system, there will be an appeal mechanism, which we introduced as a result of consultation, and the higher judiciary support the changes.

If he will make a statement on the current performance of the Crown Prosecution Service. [98867]

During the year ending September 1999, the Crown Prosecution Service secured convictions in respect of 9,700—no, 9,000, or rather, that figure should be 972,518—defendants in magistrates courts, amounting to—[Interruption.] Let me continue. That means that 98.3 per cent. of defendants had their cases proceed to a hearing. Convictions were also secured in respect of a further 67,509 defendants in the Crown court, amounting to 88.5 per cent. of hearings.

I am most grateful for that muddled answer. The Government propose to take away the British citizen's ancestral right to trial by jury, ostensibly in the name of efficiency and modernity. How much money will be saved for the Crown Prosecution Service?

These changes are not being introduced primarily with financial considerations in mind. The figures that I read out were not muddled at all, but demonstrate that the CPS achieves a very high conviction rate: even among contested cases, 73.5 per cent. achieve convictions in magistrates courts. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the changes that we have introduced since 1997 to join up the criminal justice system. Under the previous Government, the different agencies in the system operated separately. We are joining them up, and the system is operating more efficiently.

How are we to measure the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service in the treatment of the case of the so-called Lord Archer, who now stands accused of perverting the course of justice? Surely the CPS has a role in dealing with such matters. When will a statement be made?

In every case, it is for the police to investigate matters. Once an investigation is made, the matter will come to the CPS which, of course, provides advice to the police if requested. I am sure that that is happening in the case to which my hon. Friend refers.

I was a little surprised that the Solicitor-General's comments on the performance of the CPS contained not a word about the speed at which the service is bringing people to trial. The Labour party election manifesto insisted that people would be brought to trial more quickly. Are young people being fast tracked by the CPS? How is the service performing under this Government?

The hon. Gentleman refers to one of the Government's five key election pledges, on which we have achieved a great deal. Before this Government came to office, the national average for bringing persistent young offenders to trial was 142 days. That figure is coming down very substantially. We have said that we will reduce it to 71 days, but in some areas we have in fact achieved better than that.

If he will make a statement regarding the developments in working relationships between the North Yorkshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service in Scarborough and Whitby. [98868]

The CPS and the police in north Yorkshire continue to build on their excellent working relationships through the successful implementation of the Narey measures to reduce delay. They are currently working closely together in the planning for the implementation of the Glidewell criminal justice and trial units.

Will my hon. and learned Friend say how effective the CPS has been in the Scarborough and Whitby area in delivering the Government's key manifesto pledge to reduce the time taken to bring persistent young offenders to trial? When I meet law enforcement officers in the area, I get the impression that we are doing better than merely delivering on that pledge. Is not that an example for the whole country?

My hon. Friend is right. I just happen to have with me the figures for Scarborough, which show that the average time for bringing persistent young offenders to trial there has fallen to 36 days. That is well below the target average of 71 days, and gives the lie to the point made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) a few moments ago. I should add that the Scarborough office's record has been very good in that regard, and was used as an example for the Narey provisions.

If he will make a statement on the application of the tests of public interest by the Crown Prosecution Service in respect of minor crimes. [98870]

The code for Crown prosecutors is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions as required by section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This public document sets out the fundamental principles to be applied by Crown prosecutors promoting fairness, consistency and independence.

I welcome that answer because there is a widespread belief in my constituency that so-called minor crimes are simply not carried through to prosecution. Vandalism, for example, may not be regarded as a serious crime, but it is a cause of intimidation and it underlines people's fear that other crimes are being committed, although that is not necessarily true. I understand that the police have not been passing on cases for prosecution because they believed that the CPS would not act on them. Does the Solicitor-General's answer mean that the CPS will now pursue prosecutions against minor crimes, which is what my constituents want?

The CPS has always prosecuted minor offences. An ambiguity in the code might have led to a misconception that the service was not taking minor offences as seriously as the graver offences. However, the change in the code makes the position absolutely clear.

If he will make a statement on progress in the reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. [98872]

We have made substantial progress in the reform of the CPS. As from April this year, CPS area boundaries now reflect those of police forces, encouraging closer liaison and co-ordination between the CPS and the police and enabling a better service to be provided to local communities. More work is being done and a major change programme is in progress, building on the Glidewell report and the new structures.

Will my hon. and learned Friend tell me more specifically about Sir lain Glidewell's recommendations on criminal justice units and on witness warning?

We have accepted the recommendation about criminal justice units, and local areas are in the process of submitting plans. We decided that the police should retain their responsibility for witness warning, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), witnesses and victims are now at the centre of our policy. Unfortunately, witnesses have not been taken seriously in the past and were pushed from pillar to post, but without witnesses we cannot conduct successful prosecutions, and we are now taking that point seriously.

What representations he has received on the statement made by the Director of Public Prosecutions on the right to trial by jury. [98873]

I have received no representations on the matter. As I told the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I have read the article in The Times of 15 November and a transcript of the interview. Neither the substance of the article nor the DPP's comments in interview justified the article's headline.

In that article, the DPP expressed his grave concerns about the Government's proposal to curb trial by jury. In The Guardian today, the eminent Professor Bridges describes those proposals as likely to cause further delay and as deeply unfair. The Attorney-General and the Home Secretary both denounced those proposals three years ago. The Solicitor-General's constitutional role is to safeguard the interests of justice. Will he therefore intervene with the Home Secretary to ensure that the proposals are abandoned? They are unlikely to save time or money, and they will deny justice to many of our fellow citizens.

The proposed changes accord with the recommendations of the royal commission. The hon. Gentleman can produce one professor, but I can produce others, such as Professor Zander of the London School of Economics, who support the changes. The changes are justified and I support them.