If he will make a statement on the change in farm incomes over the past three years. [113368]

From 1996 to 1999, total income from farming fell by 56 per cent. in real terms. Total income from farming increased by 100 per cent. in real terms between 1990 and 1995, before dropping 60 per cent. between 1995 and 1999.

I am grateful for that honest answer, at least. However, does the Minister yet realise that, in the past three years, farmgate milk prices have fallen by a third, more than 5,000 dairy farmers have given up work, the cost of milk production is 11p per pint and the farmgate price paid is less than 10p a pint? Mr. Micawber would tell the right hon. Gentleman what that means. How long can he remain complacent? Will he be satisfied when the only milk that we can buy in the United Kingdom is frozen milk from France?

I am not complacent about the difficulties in the dairy sector. The Government are examining what they can do to help. As the House will know, the remedy lies in the supply chain and in the marketplace.

As my right hon. Friend knows, agriculture receives more subsidy than the rest of British industry put together, and it has the lowest incomes for a long time. Is he confident that we are taking genuine and radical steps to move farming away from its dependence on subsidies and transform the common agricultural policy into something that resembles more closely a rural development policy?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The supply side of the CAP, although it is extraordinarily expensive, does not serve United Kingdom agriculture well. That is why, last December, I announced the new direction for agriculture and our making much more use—something that is a departure for the UK Government—of the new second pillar of the CAP, which provides support for farm businesses that is decoupled from production and directed much more to the marketplace than to the CAP's traditional structure.

With dairy farm incomes continuing to fall, with milk prices the lowest in Europe and with supermarkets pushing their three-for-two offer—they buy three litres of milk and pay farmers for only two—is it not time for more action? Will the Minister look again at agrimonetary compensation before it is too late? Will he think about the over-30-months scheme and will he talk some sense into his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry on milk co-operatives and on concerted efforts to increase milk prices?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been a strong advocate of farmer co-operation working through the supply chain. I believe that real benefits accrue to farmers if they are able to exercise some influence further down the supply chain. As for the over-30-months scheme, surely the Government's real objective should be to work towards an unwinding of the scheme. That is clearly obtainable in the medium term. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear at the National Farmers Union conference, the door is not closed on agrimoney.

Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), I am sure that the House has recognised that more money has gone into farming through this Government than through any previous Government. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the plight of dairy farmers in Lancashire, who are being paid the lowest prices. Will he have discussions with supermarkets and other middle men paying low and unjustified prices? All that they are doing is putting our poor farmers out of business. I am sure that, with my right hon. Friend's good offices, we can improve the plight of farmers.

My hon. Friend is right. The answer to the problem lies in the supply chain and ultimately in the marketplace. There are not sufficient sums available under the agrimonetary compensation regime, for example, to compensate farmers for the difficulties that they are going through. Of course there are measures at the margin that the Government could take to help. However, we must focus on the real problem, which is the marketplace.

Given that many dairy farmers are selling their milk at a price below the cost of production, does the Minister support the plan announced today by Safeway and Waitrose to increase the price of milk—yes or no?

I have made it absolutely clear in all my answers that the difficulties can be resolved only through the supply chain and in the marketplace. That is why I support the initiatives of retailers that are designed to help their own producers. They have my support and encouragement, but these are private sector arrangements. The hon. Gentleman has listened carefully to my answers, and I notice that those on the Opposition Front Bench are not coming forward with a remedy of their own.

What recent assessment he has made of the benefits of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme for wildlife in rural areas. [113369]

Detailed monitoring has taken place since the scheme was introduced in 1987. The results have been used to adapt and refine the scheme to increase environmental benefits.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The environmentally sensitive area scheme has been welcomed in my constituency. Baroness Young, the chair of English Nature, has described it as the most important decision on the countryside for 20 years. However, can my hon. Friend help my constituent, Mr. Graham Tibbot of Belle Vue farm in Delph, who faces an apparent contradiction over stock density between the ESA scheme and the proposed hill farm allowance scheme? Will my hon. Friend examine that case?

I support my hon. Friend's comments on ESAs, which are valuable and provide genuine benefits. The scheme involves some restrictions on stock density, and I appreciate that that can cause anomalies in payments such as hill livestock compensatory allowances. I assure my hon. Friend that we are only too pleased to examine the matter in detail. I shall write to him.

However beneficial the scheme may be, might it not be thoroughly undermined if hedgerows were grubbed up? Will the Minister put on record the remarks that he made earlier when I tackled him in the water closet, where he said that there is some prospect of seeing off the European directive?

I need to be careful about giving the hon. Gentleman privileged access.

What action he is taking to halt the decline in the number of wild birds in rural areas. [113370]

The Government's strategy for sustainable development includes a headline indicator on the populations of farmland and woodland birds, which have declined significantly in the past 25 years. Halting and reversing the decline will take time, but our recently announced switch of funding from production support to environmental measures is evidence of our determination to improve that important indicator.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Does he know that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has recently bought a lowland arable farm, aptly named Hope farm, to develop agricultural methods that are economic and good for farmland birds and other wildlife? I welcome the increased investment in countryside stewardship in its broadest sense, but will my hon. Friend tell the House his plans for drawing on the lessons of that important research?

I agree that that is important research. The RSPB should be congratulated because we must consider the most appropriate changes in agricultural practice to tackle the decline in many farmland species. Those changes can be supported through schemes such as countryside stewardship. I am glad to say that we are increasing the number of schemes that we intend to accept from 1,600 last year to 3,000 this year.

Is not the policy of ripping up English hedgerows and destroying field margins crazy? It is especially crazy given the Bill on access to the countryside that we will consider on Monday. When I was a Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, the Commission endorsed the use of Ordnance Survey maps and satellite monitoring. We should not be considering finding a fair and reasonable compromise, but seeing off the Commission, and pointing out that it agreed to something several years ago and asking how it can accept ripping up English hedgerows. The present policy simply gives ammunition to some of my Euro-sceptic colleagues. Will the Minister tell the Commission that that policy is crazy?

It should be remembered that the root of the problem is subsidies to the CAP regime and the way in which they work. However, we believe that the Commission should take into account the practices that have been established in our country. It has agreed to a tolerance of 2 m either side of OS boundaries. That effectively creates a 4 m boundary.

In reading the tea leaves, may I take it that my hon. Friend believes that there are alternatives to the pesticides tax, or is it still under consideration?

The Prime Minister announced at the National Farmers Union conference that the pesticides tax is not under consideration. There is an argument for various forms of financial instrument, but we must consider the impact that applying them would have on the sector and balance that with the potential benefits. A pesticides tax could have detrimental effects; in addition, more advanced and more environmentally friendly pesticides could be introduced.

Now that the Government are preparing to compromise on section 28 in the teaching of the birds and bees, will they do another U-turn on an issue affecting the real birds and bees? Given the 15 May deadline for the integrated administration and control system applications, does the Minister appreciate the urgent need to reverse the recent rule change that is forcing farmers to destroy hedgerows and their habitats, on which wild birds depend for food and cover?

Let me make it perfectly clear that this is not a rule change, but an interpretation following a visit from the Commission and the auditors in relation to the application of arable area payments through the IACS scheme. It is not a change in respect of the area that is cropped and the area that is paid and we believe that any change or interpretation that could have a detrimental environmental effect on hedges and field boundaries is to be deplored. We are working with the Commission and my right hon. Friend the Minister has had a meeting with Franz Fischler. We were encouraged by the Commissioner's sympathetic response.

How many applications he has received for grants under the agricultural development scheme to date; and how many were successful. [113371]

The scheme was designed to support farmers and growers to improve marketing and 161 projects were put forward. We were pleased to make 47 awards of grant totalling £2 million to the best of them. Partly because of the interest shown, we intend to make new marketing awards available later this year under the rural development plan.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The scheme is imaginative and makes a big difference. That contrasts with the Opposition, who presided over a crisis when they were in government. What are her proposals for taking the scheme forward in other farming sectors?

We are keen to take the scheme forward and believe that the rural development plan is by far the best way to do so. The scheme has provided support to sectors that are ineligible for other assistance and, for that reason, I am glad that the pig industry has received a substantial proportion of the awards that have been made. I am also glad that awards in the dairy sector go hand in hand with other initiatives that we are taking, such as facilitating the generic promotion and advertising of milk.

I am sure that the House welcomes any help with marketing that farmers can receive, but is not the biggest problem with all these schemes the fact that, having invested their money in marketing excellent British products, farmers often cannot label them to show where they are from? The Government made sure that the Food Labelling Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was talked out on Friday last. Having established excellent schemes, surely the Bill represents a way of ensuring that farmers can use such labelling.

I contest strongly the allegation that we talked out a Bill—given that the promoter, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), spoke for one and a quarter hours but I was allowed only 12 minutes to respond to the huge number of points that were raised. The Government had already made clear their view of the Bill. The Bill's substance was incompatible with European law. As the promoter was arguing for European Union aid, it seemed foolish to pass a Bill in clear contravention of EU law. This Government have been much more active on labelling issues than the previous Government. The action that we have taken domestically in MAFF and with trading standards officers and our initiatives to change the labelling regime within the European Union bear ample testimony to that claim.

What recent assessment he has made of the environmental advantages of organic farming. [113372]

Evaluation of the environmental impact of organic farming is one of the three main objectives of the Ministry's organic research and development programme. For example, studies on biodiversity, soil fertility and nutrient cycling are in progress. Earlier work has indicated that organic farming has a positive effect on biodiversity.

Given that the demand for organic food continues to rise rapidly and we are still importing 70 per cent. of the organic produce sold, will the Minister further increase the amount of Government support for farmers who wish to convert to organic farming methods, and set clear targets for the proportion of land that could be farmed organically, to reflect consumer demand, the environmental advantages of organic farming and the Government's desire to promote sustainable farming methods?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that the Government are committed to providing more support for organic conversion. We are committing £149 million in the rural development programme over the next seven years to assist farmers who want to convert. I understand my hon. Friend's points about targets. I was pleased to meet the promoter of a private Member's Bill on this matter, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). Although the Government have concerns about the potential effects of targets, which can be negative as well as positive, there is no doubt that the Government and the Bill's sponsors have in common the objective of promoting and increasing organic conversion.

Organic farming may have some environmental advantages and be a great talking point for Labour luvvies round Islington dinner tables, but it is not the answer to the deepest crisis that has hit British farming for 60 years. We need long-term solutions but also short-term solutions for farmers such as those who lobbied Ministers yesterday, and those at a dairy farm in my constituency that I visited on Sunday. If all farmers transferred to organics, the price depression that has hit regular farming would also hit organics. May we have some decent and honest answers to the crisis hitting farmers now?

When one hears comments such as that, one can understand why organic farming got virtually nowhere under the previous Government. No one is pretending that organic farming is the answer to all aspects of agriculture. However, we want our farmers to have a share of the huge demand for organic products. To refer to the many farmers who have converted and the many more who are queueing up to convert as Islington Labour luvvies is an insult to the people who are trying to maximise their business.

What assistance he has provided to hill farmers in the past two years. [113373]

Hill farms received £600 million to £700 million in total in livestock headage payments last year. A significant proportion of the £235 million purchase costs under the over-30-months scheme and various sums under other schemes, including for environmentally sensitive areas, also went to hill farmers.

I repeat the welcome that I gave to the Government policy of putting environmental schemes at the heart of their grant programmes for hill farming and other purposes, because that will improve the countryside in hilly areas. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, often, hill farming is not big business? Do not small businesses need greater simplicity built into countryside stewardship schemes so that smaller applications, as well as larger integrated projects, are also given favourable treatment?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in hill areas, especially those in her part of the country. I accept the validity of what she said about the size of hill farms and their present circumstances, but we believe that our approach is right. In particular, the review of red tape that we have undertaken, and our keenness to simplify the advice system, will help to meet her requests.

What, in the Minister's view, is the future for hill farmers—bright or gloomy?

The Government recognise the role that hill farmers play in agriculture, and the economic, environmental and social aspects of hill farming. We believe that our rural development plan, and developing the second pillar of the common agricultural policy, will help hill farmers, because those measures recognise their multi-functional role. Hill farmers have an environmental role, and are also an important part of the social fabric of the countryside.

One of the things that sicken me about the whole question of subsidies from the Common Market is that, according to research and calculations over the past 12 months, 80 per cent. of subsidies went to 20 per cent. of farms—the conglomerates—whereas only 20 per cent. ended up with the hill farmers and the rest. We never hear the Tories talk about subsidies of that kind. I propose that we start dividing the subsidies more equally, and stop the fat cats from getting them.

Such as Livingstone.

Yes, including him.

I firmly believe that the existing common agricultural policy provides support in an inefficient way—a way that distorts markets, helps some sectors but not others and is backward-looking rather than forward-looking. That is why the Government have adopted a rural development approach rather than the backward-looking traditional common agricultural policy approach.

What recent representations he has received on the state of pig farming; and if he will make a statement. [113374]

Ministers have received a number of representations. I am pleased to see a strengthening of the producer price for pigs over recent weeks, although I realise that it is not yet at the level that many producers require. I attribute the rise, at least in part, to measures taken by the Government and the Meat and Livestock Commission. Nevertheless, we continue to examine possible ways of helping the sector.

When will the Government stop telling porkies to the pig farmers? Will the Minister tell us what progress, if any, the Government have made in regard to an application for state aid for those farmers? Does he accept that there is a BSE-equivalent tax of £5.26 per pig on each pig farm, and will he make good the promise given by the Prime Minister both at the NFU conference and on his west country tour that compensation for the tax would be paid?

As I have said, the Government are exploring what more we can do to help the industry. I have been as up-front and candid as any Minister has ever been in tackling the problems. Every suggestion that has been made to me—by Members in all parts of the House—has been considered and, where we have been able to help, we have helped. We have taken a number of steps, such as writing to public sector purchasing bodies, writing to local authorities, and reviewing the labelling regime—a subject that Conservative Members raised earlier. If it was deficient, they had 18 years in which to remedy it, but they did absolutely nothing.

When I met farmers from Cumbria yesterday, they were discussing the problems in the pig, meat and milk industries in the county. I told them that my view was that, when we join the euro, many of the problems will be resolved. If my right hon. Friend had been sitting at the meeting with me, would he have been shaking his head or nodding in agreement?

It is true that the current exchange rate between sterling and the euro exacerbates the problem of supply and demand in the single market.

Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the report from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the livestock industry in Northern Ireland, which highlights the tremendous problems that farmers have there, especially pig farmers? More than half of them have gone out of business and the rest are up to their ears in debt. Will he consider not only that report, but the fact that the pig breeding herd has gone down by more than 40 per cent? Will he examine the document carefully, take it to heart and, above all, expeditiously accept and act on its recommendations?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his efforts in this place to raise the problems of pig farmers in Northern Ireland with UK Ministers. There is a crisis in the sector throughout the European Union. It is particularly severe in the UK. Within the UK, it is particularly severe in Northern Ireland. He is right to remind us of that. I will study the report and see what more I can do to help farmers in the UK and especially in Northern Ireland.

Why does Labour care so little about Britain's pig farmers that it talked out the Bill that would have let consumers know whether the bacon that they were buying was British or not? Why does Labour care so little that it took the Minister four months and much Conservative prompting even to send letters to public authorities asking them to buy from suppliers who meet British standards? Why does Labour care so little that it will not even ask the European Commission about helping Britain's pig farmers to pay for public health measures, as Belgian farmers were helped last summer? Commissioner Fischler has confirmed to many Conservatives that that could be done for Britain.

You have had to listen to that offensive nonsense from Conservative Front Benchers at a number of Agriculture questions, Madam Speaker. Each and every one of the hon. Gentleman's questions has been answered before. If he cared so much about the labelling regime, he would have done something about it in the 18 years that he was in government. The present Government care so much that we have addressed the issue by issuing new guidelines to trading standards officers, who enforce the law. It is not a polite request from the Government. It is a requirement. That law is to be enforced.

If the Minister were a little more honest about his analysis of what has happened—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark. We cannot have that.

I withdraw the implication that the Minister has not been honest.

Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark.

I withdraw my remark about the Minister's honesty.

Good, now begin again.

If the Minister analysed what happened in the 18 years before he took office, he would know that at no stage were British pig farmers losing money by as much and going out of business as rapidly as they are now. I asked him three simple questions. The fact is that, unfortunately, we know the answer. Two Fridays ago, the Minister of State talked out the Food Labelling Bill. It took four months and a lot of prompting from me and my colleagues for the Minister even to send the letters, when he told the House that they were ready to go at the beginning of July last year. We have confirmation in writing from Commissioner Fischler that he would be willing to find a way in which to make payments to meet the public health costs that are crippling Britain's pig farmers, and the Minister will not even go to Brussels and discuss it.

The hon. Gentleman's remarks are both offensive and disingenuous. The Commission is not willing to support a subsidy scheme for offal disposal costs. It might be willing to consider a restructuring scheme similar to the one that it agreed for Belgium, but that would not keep the industry going. It would effectively downsize it.

If he will make a statement on the rate of growth in organic production in the last three years. [113375]

Organic farming has undergone a rapid expansion in the past three years. The area of land in the United Kingdom, both in conversion and fully organic, has increased from just under 50,000 hectares in December 1996, just before the Government came to office, to an estimated 540,000 hectares in November 1999.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the action that the Government are taking to support organic farming. That action is in stark contrast to the gratuitous insults offered by Conservative Members to consumers of organic products—whose money is as good as anyone else's, particularly when it is going into the pockets of British farmers. I should have thought that point would not be lost on Conservative Members, but apparently it is.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We are very keen to work with farmers who wish to go organic. I certainly recognise the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in schemes launched in his own constituency. He also makes a good point when he speaks of the need to link our priorities for organic farming and those for the future of agriculture with regional development initiatives. We are very keen to ensure that regional development agencies, when they are examining the economic potential of their region, take full account of the agricultural and rural sector. That must include growth and expansion in organic farming.

I welcome the growth in organic production in the United Kingdom, especially in milk. However, does the right hon. Lady recognise that, although grant aid is extremely welcome, it is limited, and that many milk producers, particularly in Cheshire, who might like to convert to organic milk production to obtain the premium price, will not be able to do so? They cannot convert not least because the industry is in crisis—and to convert, farmers have to be sound financially. What advice can she give to those farmers?

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already spoken of the huge increase—a tenfold increase—in financial support to the organic sector that has occurred under this Government. I note that although Conservative Members keep calling for an increase in that money, there seems to be a lot of amnesia on their part, given the very small sums that they provided and the very little interest that they took in the organic sector when they were in office. I encourage the farmers in the hon. Lady's constituency and others who are interested in these schemes to consider aspects of the rural development plan. Although money is specifically earmarked for organics, farmers should also be considering other relevant schemes.

People in my inner-city constituency want to eat organic foods because of its quality. She will be aware that in 1998, on the advice of the chief medical officer, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave advice to the public on peeling and cleaning fruit and vegetables that had been conventionally grown, because of variable levels of pesticide residue. Will she confirm that advice is still in force? Has she had any reason whatever to refer to the chief medical officer any consideration of problems with human health caused by the consumption of organic food, or to seek advice from him on any such problem?

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in promoting the benefits of organic food. She has consistently drawn attention to the potential of the organic sector. There is increasing recognition of the health benefits of organic food. I am not aware of any substantial change in the advice, but I shall write to my hon. Friend about the current situation and place a copy of the letter in the Library. I assure her that the Government take her general concerns about the organic sector very much to heart.

What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the impact of the backlog in applications for organic conversion grants on Britain's balance of trade in organic products, notwithstanding the important and worthwhile points that she has just made? Does she accept that one of the inevitable effects of the cessation of grants for 18 months is to enable foreign producers and competitors to strengthen their stranglehold on the British market?

We allocated £10 million specifically to tackle the backlog that the hon. Gentleman mentions. We were motivated not just by the importance of expanding the organic sector for its own sake and its economic potential, but because we were aware of how much organic produce was imported and how beneficial it would be to UK agriculture if our producers were able to replace much of that imported produce. That is one of the factors behind the dramatic expansion of organics that has taken place under this Government.

What plans he has to apply for agrimonetary compensation for livestock farmers. [113377]

A total of £397 million in agrimonetary compensation has already been paid over the past 3 years, of which £227 million has gone to beef and sheep farmers. Up to £132 million will be paid this year and next, of which £93 million will be to beef and sheep farmers. No decision has yet been made on whether to pay further compensation.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the high level of sterling partly reflects the Government's sound management of the economy, but that it is greatly disadvantaging the farming community, for whom agrimonetary compensation is one of the key measures that could help in the present crisis? Will my right hon. Friend work with the Prime Minister and Ministers at the Treasury and do all that he can to maximise the amount of agrimonetary compensation that can be paid to UK farmers?

My hon. Friend is right to point to the reasons why the policy instruments are in place. His remarks highlight why the Government have already made such extensive use of them. I cannot announce any further extension today of the use that the Government are making of the agrimonetary regime. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we are keeping the issue under review.

I fully support the request made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). I met the Macclesfield and district branch of the National Farmers Union on Saturday morning in an extremely well-attended but very sober three-hour meeting. Throughout my time in the House, I have never known livestock farmers to be more depressed. Will the Minister take seriously his hon. Friend's request, which is endorsed in all parties, that agrimonetary compensation should be used to the maximum to help British farmers to overcome a uniquely serious crisis? I make a special plea from the Conservative Benches. Will he and the Prime Minister please respond?

The Prime Minister has very carefully not closed the door on making further use of that instrument, of which we have already made extensive use. My meetings with farmers, particularly livestock farmers, have exactly the character that the hon. Gentleman described. He is right to say that the livestock sector is going through difficult times. There are particular problems in the dairy sector, but the agrimonetary regime alone does not provide sufficient money to deal with those current difficulties.

Notwithstanding those comments, does the Minister accept that his Government have made less use of the agrimonetary compensation scheme than have other European Governments, and that there is an opportunity to make greater use of it? If the problem is the Fontainebleau agreement, negotiated by the previous Government, does he accept that that should not stand in the way of helping some of the most deprived rural areas, such as my constituency where farm incomes have fallen by nearly 140 per cent. in the last year?

The hon. Gentleman is right to make the case for his constituency, but I do not accept what he says about the relative use of the agrimonetary regime. As he correctly points out, we are constrained by the Fontainebleau agreement, negotiated by the last Conservative Government. I can say confidently to the House that we are making more use of the compensatory regime for farmers than the last Government did, because they did not draw down a single penny.

How often the Law Officers meet their counterparts from other countries. [113398]

The Attorney-General and I frequently meet our counterparts from other countries, on a bilateral basis and at meetings and conferences. Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General from countries in the Commonwealth and beyond regularly call on us when they are in the UK.

It seems that as the borders come down, we make it much easier for criminals to ply their trades—for example, trafficking drugs. Is it not important that we stay one step ahead of the criminals? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there is room for more co-operation between the criminal justice and criminal intelligence systems across Europe?

I know that the trade in hard drugs has had serious ramifications in my hon. Friend's constituency. There is always scope for more co-operation, and the Government are dedicated to improving that. At an operational level, the co-operation involves mainly the police and Customs and Excise. As regards the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, co-operation is crucial and occurs at the level of mutual legal assistance and the provision of evidence. The SFO plays an important role in respect of international fraud.

When the Law Officers meet their counterparts from other countries, do they talk about the administration of local justice? Is the Minister aware of the growing concern about the closure of magistrates courts in rural areas? What will the Government do about it?

It is a bold move from international matters to magistrates courts. Certainly, we can learn from other countries about local justice and how it is administered. That matter has featured from time to time on the agendas of those meetings.

Given highly mobile capital flows and sophisticated information and communications technology, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is essential for law enforcement agencies to work together internationally to detect and deter serious financial crime, such as money laundering, market manipulation and scams?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The SFO is concerned about international fraud. These days, in such centres as London, fraud is almost by definition international, and the SFO is active in this regard. Money laundering is on the agenda for improvement of the law. The SFO pursues international fraud in other ways, and sometimes comes up against barriers in other countries. Sometimes we find it difficult to get the necessary evidence to prosecute in this country. However, I agree with my hon. Friend.

What discussions he has held with the European Commission on matters relating to European Community law. [113401]

I have held no discussions with the European Commission on matters relating to European Community law. However, Government Departments have regular discussions with the Commission on such matters, and I am aware of those discussions. In particular cases, I am asked for legal advice in relation to them. I have also been involved in litigation before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

I thank the Solicitor-General for that reply. In the context of the intergovernmental conference negotiations, can he give the House an undertaking that criminal law will not form part of the competence of the EU and will remain the jurisdiction and preserve of the national legal systems of England, Wales and Scotland?

Criminal law falls within the competence of member states and will continue to do so. There is scope for co-operation between prosecuting agencies and we have said that we will further that. However, in relation to the wider issue, criminal law remains—as far as we are concerned—a matter for individual states.

Does the Solicitor-General have discussions with the European Commission on matters such as legal procedure? Does he believe that cases such as the European Commission v. France, on the ban on British beef, take far too long to resolve? Does he believe that any damages from such proceedings should accrue to those who have suffered—in that case, the hard-pressed British farmer?

There is a case for the procedure of the European Court of Justice to be more flexible and, at present, there is a considerable backlog. On the particular issue of beef, the approach of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was right, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know from experience that it is better to try to effect a non-legal solution than a legal solution. However, the non-legal solution failed, so the Commission began proceedings. We believe that it has a watertight case because freedom of movement is a fundamental aspect of the treaty, and in that sphere member states have no competence because the European Union has taken measures that pre-empt that competence. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and hon. Friends acted impeccably in the matter.

Does the Solicitor-General recognise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), in which he said that he had no such meetings or discussions, will be greeted with astonishment well beyond the House? Does he recognise that that is indicative of the supine attitude that the Government have adopted to every pronouncement of Mr. Prodi, Commissioner Kinnock and their ilk? If the Government will not stand up for British sovereignty in beating off the attempt to impose Napoleonic law and corpus iuris, the Opposition must do it, and we shall wish to put pressure on the Commission. I hope that the Solicitor-General will recognise that we will continue to press him and his colleagues and ensure that they are encouraged to fight for Britain.

I am sure that the European Commission will be quaking in its boots after that. I have set out the position clearly. Discussions continue day to day, but they are the responsibility of the policy departments to which we provide legal advice.

What steps he is taking to make the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service more accessible to people with hearing impairments. [113403]

The CPS is committed to equality of access to justice, and that includes equality in its day-to-day dealings with others in the criminal justice system, including defendants, victims and witnesses. Together with others from other criminal justice agencies, the CPS works closely with representatives of associations involved with deaf people or those who are hard of hearing to ensure that their needs are addressed. The CPS is aware of its responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and is a user of the Employment Service's "Positive About Disabled People" symbol. It has a programme of action on disability and has a network of equal opportunities officers.

I greatly welcome that reply. I speak as someone who, some five years ago, wrote a book on how deaf people can better access public services. When I heard that the CPS was interested, I sent it a copy, so it has the book to help it.

I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his book "Sound Practice", which has been used widely in Government agencies, including the CPS.

How can the CPS facilities be made more available to people with hearing impairment? Local CPS offices are being closed, and their facilities moved further away from people. The same is happening with magistrates courts and their administrative offices. Is that the way to make the operations of the CPS more accessible to people with disabilities, especially those with hearing impairment?

I am surprised by those comments. To my knowledge, no CPS offices have been closed. The CPS is getting out into the community, through the criminal justice units, and CPS officials now attend regularly at police stations.

If he will make a statement on the grounds on which Law Officers intervene in charities litigation. [113404]

The Attorney-General's function in relation to charities is to represent the Crown and so to act as protector, both of charity in general and of particular charities.

Will my hon. and learned Friend explain what happens if a gift is willed to a charity called Cancer Research, when no charity exists under that name?

There is a provision under which the sovereign, acting under the sign manual, can allocate moneys in such a case as that. That power has now been delegated to the Attorney-General and to me. If there is a general charitable interest such as cancer research, the Attorney-General or I can assign the moneys to charities with that interest. That is a very valuable power, and it is used regularly. People often will money to a general charitable interest such as cancer research, or to charities that no longer exist. If a general charitable intent can be found, we will allocate the money to an interest close to the original interest of the testator.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that his initial answer and his answer to the supplementary question from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) were both very self-contained and intelligible only to a tiny minority of persons with a particular interest in a given case? For the general enlightenment of right hon. and hon. Members, would the hon. and learned Gentleman care to tell us in how many cases, either specifically or roughly, during the period in which he has held office Law Officers have had reason to intervene in charities litigation matters?

I am sorry that the answer went over the hon. Gentleman's head. We intervene on a regular basis. For example, last week I appeared in the Court of Appeal in an important charitable case which will, I think, set the law for the future. It is a regular aspect of our work, involving, for instance, telling my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) how the testator's intention can be affected. It also involves, in some cases, important and large charities.