If he will make a statement on the future role of small abattoirs in the rural economy. [122400]

The Government recognise the importance of small and specialist abattoirs to the rural economy. We have therefore put in place a number of measures to help small and medium-sized abattoirs, including the deferment of charges for specified risk material controls, the freezing of Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges for 1999-2000 and an increase confined to the rate of inflation for the current year, a review of the level of inspection in low throughput abattoirs, and setting up a taskforce to explore a capping approach to meat hygiene charges for small abattoirs.

Bearing in mind the fact that small abattoirs are going out of business right, left and centre and that many of them will not survive another year, will the Government use their considerable influence with the Meat Hygiene Service and others to ensure that cost recovery for inspections in abattoirs is moved to a headage payment system, as happens elsewhere in Europe? That would guard against further disadvantaging small rural abattoirs, producers, animal welfare, consumer choice on organic and locally produced meat, and the preservation of rare breeds.

I understand the hon. Lady's concerns and I know that there are several small abattoirs in her constituency or the surrounding area. I hope that she will welcome the reviews of meat hygiene prices and of the Meat Hygiene Service, both of which were important elements in the action plan for farming announced by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister at the end of March. She charges us with causing the closure of abattoirs right, left and centre, but the majority of abattoir closures took place under the Conservative Government. It would not be possible for us to close as many abattoirs as the Conservatives did even if we wanted to—which we do not—because there are not that many left.

May I concentrate on regulation? Anyone with connections with the trade knows that there is a problem. The tension can be seen by anyone who visits an abattoir. How will the Food Standards Agency impact on the operation of the Meat Hygiene Service, and how likely is a reduction in the level of regulation?

The Food Standards Agency is taking the issue seriously. The reviews encourage a reduction in regulation. Ministers have a responsibility to negotiate with our European partners to reduce unnecessary regulation and ensure that the regulations that are necessary are as simple and straightforward as possible. As my hon. Friend knows, we are pursuing a number of initiatives on that.

I welcome the changes in the Meat Hygiene Service charges. Is it not time to quicken the pace in reacting to the reports of the red tape working parties? The Pooley report was published in December. In February, the Government announced that they accepted a large number of its recommendations. When will the pace of bringing in those recommendations be increased so that we see real action on the ground? Is there a firm timetable so that we can know when all the recommendations will be realised in farmers' daily lives?

We are making a lot of progress on the measures that we announced and the timetable that we are working to. The independently chaired taskforce to look at meat inspection charges is to report by the end of this month. The red tape review, including the Pooley recommendations, was always designed to be taken forward quickly. The last thing that we wanted in setting up the red tape review was to start another long, bureaucratic procedure. The way in which the red tape review reported and the timetables that were subsequently proposed show that we are serious about addressing those issues.

Now that the responsibility for the Meat Hygiene Service has passed to Health Ministers, can the right hon. Lady give us an assurance that her Department will be much more robust and aggressive in defence of rural abattoirs, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)?

Given the measures to which I referred in my original reply to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), the hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have already undertaken a considerable number of initiatives and important measures—for example, in terms of the deferment of charges for specified risk material controls. That is worth some £44 million—a considerable amount. However, the hon. Gentleman makes the good point that giving responsibility to Health Ministers allows us, as Agriculture Ministers, to look at the issues of how farmers and rural communities are affected, without any suggestion of a clash of interests, and therefore I welcome it.

In order to help the hard-pressed abattoir sector, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to relax the restrictions on the date-based export scheme? When did the Minister last raise with the French Government their illegal ban on British beef? Will she confirm that this matter will be discussed with the French Agricultural Minister in the meeting scheduled for tomorrow?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, representations have been made on many occasions in private meetings at the margins of Agriculture Councils, in public and in the French media about the illegality of the action that the French have taken. However, that action is now before the courts. Commissioner Byrne has said that he wants the process to take place as quickly as possible. We believe that the French will lose the case, and those are the procedures that should be adopted.

If he will make a statement on profitability in the pig sector. [122401]

Market prices for pigs continue to recover, having risen by 25 per cent. since the end of January. With the market price at around 95p per kilogram, most pig producers will be breaking even, at least. The measures that the Government have taken to help the sector have helped to bring about this outcome.

Twenty-four thousand jobs have been lost in this sector. The problem with the pig industry has not been that it is inefficient—it is not—but is that it must abide by animal welfare standards that do not apply to its competitors. Does the Minister acknowledge that his restructuring grant may actually lead to more jobs being lost? How does he intend to use the grant, and to what purpose? Is not the real problem with the industry the fact that imports do not have to abide by these standards? What is he going to do about it? Will he be tougher? Can he imagine the French putting up with this sort of behaviour? We want a Minister who is less nice and acts more like a Frenchman.

Bonjour, Madam Speaker. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to these exchanges, to which you have been treated at just about every Agriculture questions for almost a year now. The answers to his questions are well known. The real problem in the sector is twofold—supply exceeds demand and the classic pig cycle has plummeted, and that recession has been prolonged. To help the industry through the recession, the Government have taken a range of actions with which most hon. Members will be familiar, because we have discussed them at great length.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that the price has risen and that what we should do next is reduce costs in the supply chain, add value to the British market and develop marketing in Europe? Those are not my words, but those of Mr. Mick Sloan from the British Pig Executive, reported in the Farmers Guardian this week. Those are the steps that are necessary, not the illegal activities promised by the Tories, which would ruin the industry.

There is no protectionist solution to the problem. The answer for the industry is to get closer to the marketplace. We have worked closely with the industry to get it to work together, rather than just as individual businesses, and to bring it closer to its real customers. I also welcome the Meat and Livestock Commission campaign which has just been launched to bring home to British consumers the real difference between the strong animal welfare measures that we have in place and competitors' products. The battle will be won in the supermarkets.

Sadly, Winnie the pig has left Parliament square and the fount of all our knowledge and wisdom on the subject has gone. Before the pig went, a question was raised with me about research and development in the industry, and the fact that the Minister's package of help measures does not appear to include anything to assist further improvements in the way in which the British industry operates. Has he any positive proposals to put to the House on that matter today?

The industry operates efficiently and it has a good story to tell on meat and bonemeal and on animal welfare. The right hon. Gentleman is making a bid for my research and development programme. If the industry submits projects, they will be considered as other bids are considered and will take their place in the priorities. When the industry applied for marketing support, it received the overwhelming bulk of the support that was available. We are willing to consider bids from the industry across the range of the different projects that the Department sponsors.

What representations he has received from pet owners concerning the operation of the pet travel scheme. [122402]

What steps he is taking to ensure that pet owners are fully aware of the requirements of the pet travel scheme. [122404]

We have received numerous representations on the pet travel scheme. The helpline and website are widely advertised in the national press and have been widely used. In addition, every veterinary practice has been sent fact sheets and posters.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for ensuring that pet owners in this country are aware of the pilot scheme. When will the full scheme be rolled out, and can she speculate as to when it will be extended to other countries?

We aim to implement the full scheme by early next year and I hope that that will be achieved on time. Originally, the existing pilot was estimated to take up to three years, but the Government delivered it in half that time, so we have a good record in that respect. The last time the issue of extension to other countries was raised in the House, the question related to Cyprus. I understand that all problems have been resolved, and it will be possible to include Cyprus in the main scheme. I welcome that, because it is important for our service personnel.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the scheme has received very broad support so far from those who have participated in it? There is considerable enthusiasm at the fact that the Government have broken the logjam at last. Is she aware that reservations remain about the extent of the additional vaccination that is needed, and especially about the short time scale available for that before pets re-enter the country? Does she accept that a balance must be struck between the scheme and the need to protect the population against infection? Will she review these matters carefully when the pilot scheme ends?

We do monitor the scheme. Before the main scheme is introduced, we shall review the results of the pilot scheme in the various areas that my hon. Friend has set out. However, the measures to which he has referred—in particular, the tick and tapeworm treatment, and the time scale available for it—have been chosen for good animal health reasons. The aim is to prevent the importation to this country of contagious diseases and of diseases that we do not have and do not want.

What is the expected administrative cost of the pet travel scheme? On the principle that Ministers ought to practise what they preach, at least in a leap year, will the right hon. Lady tell the House which Ministers have expressed an interest in participating in the scheme? Specifically, has she heard from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he expects his dog Bobby to be an early beneficiary?

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. We believe that all Ministers, as well as all citizens of this country, are eligible to benefit from the pet scheme. It is not surprising, therefore, that all people, apart from one or two Conservative Members, should have welcomed the scheme as they have. The pilot scheme has proved very effective, and we want to make sure that we learn the lessons from it.

Would the Minister agree that the British sovereign bases in Cyprus should be included in the scheme?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber, or whether he was simply not listening earlier when I announced that the problems in relation to Cyprus had been resolved. We look forward to Cyprus being part of the full scheme.

What evaluation he has made of the value of the countryside stewardship scheme to rural conservation. [122403]

We believe, as do most environmental organisations, that the countryside stewardship scheme is of considerable value to rural conservation and I recently announced a significant expansion to the sector. An independent study to assess the environmental benefits of the scheme in more detail is due to report shortly.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the countryside stewardship scheme is of great value to rural conservation. It is also a valuable source of income for hard-pressed farmers. The Ministry has told me that, at present, there is only one such scheme in Amber Valley. What steps has my hon. Friend taken to make sure that farmers in Amber Valley and throughout the country are able to have access to countryside stewardship?

The schemes are very popular, and until recently they have been heavily over-subscribed. Thanks to the measures announced under the rural development programme, we will be able to increase the number of applicants to the scheme from 1,600 last year to 3,000 in the coming year. I have emphasised the benefits of the scheme in meetings with farmers, and many farm and environmental organisations have stressed those benefits too. I have no hesitation in asserting that many more farmers will want to join the scheme, and I am sure that many will be from my hon. Friend's constituency.

Does the Minister accept that there is a catch in the small print of the scheme? Income is based on income forgone, which means that if the market price of cereals, for example, falls, farmers will lose money. Indeed, Strutt & Parker has estimated that farmers who enter the scheme will be worse off than those who stay out of it.

I would like to see those figures, because I do not think that that is necessarily the case. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that the scheme is based on income forgone, although I do not think that that is the best method of calculation. Nevertheless, that is the European rule.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that this type of scheme is essential in areas of the Pennines like mine, where land is extremely difficult to farm? It is wild and rugged, but very beautiful, and farmers can be helped considerably by the scheme.

I can confirm that. Areas in my hon. Friend's constituency benefit particularly from stewardship schemes. They have the flexibility to cope with different regions, demands and areas. I am glad to say that the Government will be increasing spending in real terms by £16 million every year for the next seven years.

It is a pity that the Minister did not say that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the stewardship scheme. We are very proud of the way in which it has developed.

On the first point, the Government are increasing spending on agri-environmental schemes by £1 billion over the next seven years. We could perhaps have increased it even more, were it not for the fact that the European Union contribution towards the rural development programme is 3.5 per cent., based on historically low levels of spending on countryside programmes by the previous Government.

It is true, as the Minister says, that the doubling of funding for countryside stewardship from the niggardly levels bequeathed us by the previous Administration has been warmly welcomed by such organisations as English Nature and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which I am a member. Does he agree that this a worthwhile step towards obtaining modern and efficient financial support for farming and countryside development? Is he hopeful that we can take more substantial steps by thoroughgoing reform of the common agricultural policy in similar ways?

I agree with my hon. Friend that, under this Government, spending on countryside programmes has increased by 60 per cent., compared with under the previous Government. In relation to the common agricultural policy, there is no doubt that we need to move funds away from production-based support into agri-environment-based support and support for the wider countryside and rural economy. That is our objective. We have made some progress by putting in place the rural development programme, but we recognise that there is more to do in relation to reforming the CAP, and we are committed to doing that.

Question 6.

Has the Minister seen the letter in today's—

Thanks for the clue about the supplementary question, but I had anticipated it.

What recent representations he has received about the use of subsidies for arable farming. [122405]

A number of representations have been received about the position of arable farmers in the United Kingdom. Arable farmers receive more than £1 billion in direct aid payments each year. The arable market continues to be supported by intervention and export refunds. In addition, arable farmers have just received £170 million in agrimonetary aid and will receive a further £57 million in the autumn.

Has the Minister seen the letter in The Times today from a farmer who sowed a crop of rape seed that, unbeknown to him at the time, was GM-contaminated? When he sowed that crop, the Government had already known for several weeks that there was GM-contaminated seed, but it was several more weeks before that was eventually made public. He has now destroyed the crop and resown, but obviously at additional cost to himself and with a lower yield. In view of that farmer's experience and, no doubt, that of other farmers at sowing time, was the Minister for the Cabinet Office right to say that the Government probably made a mistake in delaying that announcement for so long?

When the company discovered what had happened, it was its responsibility to be candid with its suppliers and customers, so the responsibility is on it. Important issues of civil law are involved, which the Government are considering carefully. There are other issues that relate to the Government's legal responsibilities, which I also have under active consideration, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. It would be unwise to say more now, but as soon as I can tell the House about the legal issues involved, I will.

Will my right hon. Friend agree to consider the possibility of extending the subsidy system to include farmer cover, were we to go down the path that the Swedish Government announced yesterday? They instructed all their farmers to plough up their fields of contaminated oilseed rape by 7 July. Will he also extend that examination to the implications that that may have for GM-contaminated maize? The subsidy system that I hope he will consider ought not to preclude the primary responsibility, under the "polluter pays" principle, of returning to the seed suppliers and ensuring that they are not able to corrupt the food system where they have not been able to persuade consumers, farmers or retailers that that is the wisest course of action.

Knowingly to corrupt seed products is of course an offence in this country, as is knowingly releasing them into the environment. That remains the case. I intend to raise the issues about oilseed rape to which my hon. Friend refers with Commissioner Fischler when I meet him on Monday. It is an informal ministerial meeting so we shall have a chance to discuss those issues as Ministers with the Commission. My hon. Friend mentions maize. The Government have had no indication that any conventional maize seeds imported to the United Kingdom contain modified varieties.

Does the Minister accept that, irrespective of whether one generally supports GM technology or is hostile to it, there appears to be an incoherence in the British Government's response to the issue not merely because it is divided between two Departments but because the Cabinet Office has a role as well? The producers of rape seed, negotiators in the Commission and overseas companies need to know which door to knock on, and where the buck stops and where it starts—preferably in the same place. Will the Minister review with his colleagues whether there is not a strong case for a much clearer system of governance of the issue so that people know where they stand and where to go in case of problems?

It is not the process that is at fault. The issues are these: is there any danger to the public, or is there a risk to their health? The Government found the answer to that early on—it is clearly no, and no-one has alleged anything different. Is there any danger to the environment from what has happened—an accident which should not have happened—with oilseed rape? The answer to that question is also no. Does the matter raise wider questions about seed purity? Yes, it does. As we have said in our answer, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in her written answer, and as I amplified in my statement to the House last week, on a range of fronts the Government are taking those issues forward as a matter of urgency.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way forward now on seed purity is for him to work with his European colleagues to establish a proper protocol whereby these matters may be determined? Will he also accept that while our farm-scale trials are under way a 1 per cent. contamination of conventional crops with genetically modified crops is absolutely unacceptable? Frankly, Advanta must have known that when it was willing to sell suspect seed in Europe.

I cannot comment on the last matter. We have not agreed contamination levels for the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend is right to say that European Union Ministers should discuss these matters and, if we can, agree a common approach. Certainly, I am willing to play my part and I discussed the matter with my colleague Jean Glavany, the French Minister, on the telephone yesterday. His view is similar to mine.

The Minister believes that contaminated oilseed rape crops are so environmentally safe that he did not think it necessary even to consult English Nature—and the issue is not even on the published agenda for today's meeting of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. Why did he take a whole month to warn farmers and consumers that these crops are now being grown extensively in Britain? Will not farmers whose crops have been damaged, communities whose environments are threatened and consumers whose ability to choose a GM-free product have been jeopardised all rightly blame the Minister for keeping that information secret for a whole month and failing to take any action?

I am not keeping any information secret. I have gone out of my way to be candid with the House. I put the technical note in the Library and I have now also put the advice from ACRE and from the Food Standards Agency there, so that hon. Members may see it for themselves. They will find that it confirms what I have told the House. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is concentrating on the process, which is, of course, because he has nothing to say on the substance.

Is the Minister saying that today's reports that large areas of GM-contaminated maize are growing in Britain are not true? Has his Department not received any warning that they may be true? Should not farmers who may have unwittingly planted a GM-maize crop at least be contacted about the possibility? Does he agree with the Environment Minister that the 1 per cent. threshold for GM contamination of seeds proposed by the European Seeds Association is totally unacceptable to consumers and potentially dangerous to the environment?

I have already answered the question of whether I agree with the Environment Minister; yes, I do. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering from what I can only describe as Liberal Democrat disease, because I also answered his main question. However, for the avoidance of doubt, let me repeat the answer word for word. We—meaning the British Government—have no indication that any conventional maize seeds imported into the United Kingdom contain modified varieties. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had any warning. I think that he is referring to a letter circulated by the seed industry—he can correct me if I am wrong—dated 22 May to agriculture departments and other public representatives throughout the European Union. If he is referring to that, it is a letter that all hon. Members should be entitled to read and on which they should be able to make up their own minds, so I am placing a copy in the Library. The letter does not bear the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

What his priorities are for the next round of reforms of the common agricultural policy with respect to set-aside. [122408]

The Agenda 2000 agreement provides for a further review of the cereals regime by 2002. Subject to what the Commission proposes, we will use the opportunity to press for an end to obligatory set-aside.

I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments on obligatory set-aside—I am sympathetic to that. However, one thing about set-aside that I do appreciate is the number of lapwings, skylarks, buntings and curlews that are now breeding. If there is a change, how will we cope with the fact that nature prefers some aspects of set-aside?

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the benefits of set-aside—especially for farmland birds. The Ministry has given free guidance to farmers on how they can maximise the nature conservation benefits of set-aside. We have no objection to voluntary set-aside being used for nature conservation—that fits with our broader approach on the management of agricultural land for environmental use as well as for food production. However, as a mechanism for food production control, it is expensive and inefficient. The way in which the measures are applied causes a bad image of farmers in the public eye.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that set-aside will not be used as part of the bid game between northern member states such as Britain, Denmark and Ireland and the Club Med countries? What assurance will he give the House that the future of British interests will be seen in the next common agricultural policy reform?

The Government have always put the interests of our country to the fore in negotiations on changes in the CAP. We are not alone in that; we have supporters because we have tried to find consensus and common ground. That contrasts greatly with the policy of the previous Government.

What is the total amount of unclaimed match funding relating to agricultural support available to the UK since 1997. [122410]

A total of £2,155 million in agrimonetary compensation has become available from January 1997 to date, in several three-year packages. Of that total, £595 million has been or will be paid, of which £584 million is EU funded and £11 million UK funded. However, because of the Fontainebleau abatement, the UK Exchequer contributes about 71 per cent. of the cost—and the total cost to the UK taxpayer is therefore about £426 million.

Can the Minister confirm that, last year, about £224 million was available through the agrimonetary compensation scheme but only of that £66 million was allocated and drawn down to provide compensation for hard-pressed farmers? Why was the Ministry unable to guarantee that 100 per cent. went to the farmers who needed it, so that they received support when they needed it and were not put out of business because they had not received it?

The regime is permissive; we have the option of drawing down those sums. As I have just said, an overwhelming part of the cost of doing so falls on the UK taxpayer, so any use of that instrument must take its place among competing claims for public expenditure. I have to fight hard in Government the case for making use of that instrument. For the longer term, because agrimonetary compensation is being phased out, the industry—all sections of agriculture—must become more oriented towards the marketplace. There is no future for the industry in continuing to call for supply-side measures to help it from one crisis to the next.

Returning to the real purpose of Question 6, which was about subsidies for arable farming—

Order. We do not go back to other questions. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to ask a supplementary on this question, I shall listen to him.

It is a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.

I am more than willing to meet members of the NFU; indeed, I think I have met most of them personally over the past few years. If I have not done so, it certainly feels like that. The Government have made use of agrimonetary compensation to try to provide some short-term support for the industry, but that is not the long-term answer to the industry's problems. I am more than willing to join my hon. Friend to discuss the way forward with local farmers in Scarborough.

At the recent No. 10 summit, the Minister made great play of the fact that he was giving £66 million in agrimonetary compensation to farmers. However, he should surely have also said in the same statement that he was taking away £110 million of exactly the same agrimonetary compensation. Is it not a classic case of taking away rather more with one hand than he is giving with the other? The agriculture summit was a classic public relations con.

That is completely unfair. The agriculture summit, which pulled together from right across government a wide range of issues that affect farmers, was broadly welcomed by the industry and received a positive response—the more so when people have had the chance to consider the details. The fact that we do not make use of a permissive instrument to spend British public money does not mean that we have taken it away from people who might have been the beneficiaries. One could take that argument to an absurd degree if one wanted, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might want to.

What contribution the Crown Prosecution Service will make towards the Lord Chancellor's review of the criminal courts system. [122430]

The Crown Prosecution Service is playing its full part in Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts. An experienced CPS prosecutor, Nasrin Khan, has been seconded to the secretariat to Sir Robin Auld for the duration of the review. Staff from across the CPS are attending the seminars being organised by Lord Justice Auld and there are other contributions to his deliberations.

Is my hon. and learned Friend able to tell the House what have been the key topics and priorities discussed with Lord Justice Auld about the work done by the Director of Public Prosecutions?

One of our main concerns is listing in the courts. The CPS has found in the past that magistrates courts often adopt listing procedures that do not take into account the need for an efficient operation of the CPS. Appeals in cases of judge-directed acquittals is another important topic. In some cases, judges have decided on abuse-of-process grounds that charges should be dismissed and we take the view that that matter should be subject to review. The Home Office has referred it to the Law Commission, but a whole range of features involving management and other aspects of the operation of the courts is being considered.

May I be assured by the Solicitor-General that the CPS will tell the criminal courts review the wholly uncontroversial point that the Government's plans for the reform of the jury system will lead to court delays, increased appeals, loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system and a great deal of extra expense?

The matter will be subject to some examination by Sir Robin Auld. He is considering the whole procedure of the courts, and the operation of the jury system is one aspect of that. Our proposals will certainly not have the consequences that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. On the contrary, they will lead to a more efficient operation of the courts, which is one aspect of the review.

If he will make a statement on the application of the public interest test by the Crown Prosecution Service in drugs cases. [122431]

The Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are guided by the code for Crown prosecutors in relation to offences involving controlled drugs, as with any other offence. Therefore, they must decide whether a prosecution should be brought in the public interest. First, a Crown prosecutor has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction. Once that test is satisfied, the public interest test must be considered.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. May I suggest to him that it is very much in the public interest to continue the fight against all kinds of drugs and not to ease off in any way? May I urge him not to be enticed by the arguments pushed and pedalled by those who make the case for legalisation or decriminalisation? Does he agree that, at a time when we are trying to ban smoking, it makes no sense to take a softer line towards people who mix tobacco with cannabis and then smoke that?

As I said, the CPS acts in accordance with the code. There must be evidence before consideration of the public interest test can take place. Parliament has not decriminalised cannabis, so the CPS will prosecute those offences. In some circumstances, of course, the police will simply issue a caution and the cases will not come to the CPS. When cases do come to the CPS, public interest factors may sometimes militate against prosecution. For example, in areas in which prosecution for possession of cannabis may lead to adverse community relations, the CPS may decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute. However, possession is a criminal offence and the CPS proceeds on that basis.

Where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a repeat drugs offender, in what conceivable circumstances could it be against the public interest to do so?

Repetition of behaviour is one factor that would be taken into account and would certainly point towards prosecution.

How many applications with regard to vexatious litigants the Law Officers have dealt with over the past 12 months. [122432]

In the past 12 months the High Court has considered 11 applications made by the Law Officers under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Of those 11 applications, nine resulted in orders being made, one application was refused and one, although heard, awaits judgment. In the same period, the employment appeals tribunal made two orders under section 33 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996, which prevents applications to the tribunal.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Obviously, it is not without interest for the House, given this week's proceedings.

The Attorney-General and I give these applications close consideration when they come before us. One of my constituents is a vexatious litigant, and he constantly reminds me, in the nicest possible way, of the implications that the order has for him.

If he will make a statement on the findings of Ms Sylvia Denman in her interim report on racism within the Crown Prosecution Service. [122433]

Sylvia Denman presented her interim report on race discrimination in the Crown Prosecution Service to the Department on 10 May 2000. The report recognises that some of the most glaring deficiencies in race equality in the CPS have been remedied recently, but concludes that there is evidence that some forms of race discrimination and institutional racism have operated to the disadvantage of black and Asian staff within the service. The report recommends various areas for future work, which will now be addressed by the CPS in consultation with Sylvia Denman and the Commission for Racial Equality.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply and recognise his personal commitment to dealing with racism in the CPS. Does he agree that Ms Denman has clearly identified a trend within CPS management to downplay the possibility of racism, look for innocent explanations when those may not exist, and indeed, on occasion, blame the victim? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that something must be done to change the culture at the top of the CPS so that it recognises that there is a real and immediate problem to address?

As I have told the House on previous occasions, we take the matter seriously. A number of steps have been taken, which I have explained to the House. One matter that I have not mentioned is the fact that all CPS area plans must now set out clearly what is being done to address issues of diversity. There is no doubt that the report makes uncomfortable reading for those at the top of the CPS and those in senior management positions. Something must be done. There is not a sufficient number of black and ethnic minority persons at senior management levels. Now that benchmarks have been established, the CPS must meet them and ensure that the problem is remedied.

Can the Solicitor-General confirm that Ms Denman's final report will review the impact on the CPS of the change in the burden of proof imposed by Labour MEPs voting in the European Parliament last week?

That has nothing to do with the law in this country. We operate under the Race Relations Act 1976. We have made it clear that internally, the CPS must lift its game. With regard to the external behaviour of the CPS and the prosecutions that it undertakes, the recently published Mhlanga report showed clearly that there was no racial discrimination.

If he will make a statement on measures to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service. [122434]

The Crown Prosecution Service has a number of initiatives in place to improve efficiency within the service. A major programme of IT modernisation will provide basic IT tools and enable staff to be connected electronically to each other, the police and the Government secure intranet.

The Solicitor-General missed out the victims of crime. Who measures whether they are happy with the efficiency of the CPS?

As I have said on previous occasions, victims are central to the policies that we are adopting. We take into account the role of victims. We have instituted pilot studies so that the CPS can operate more effectively with victims and with witnesses. I confess to the House that the pilots have revealed some difficulties in the CPS adopting a more central role, but we are working on that. We hope that, with more resources, we will be able to put the CPS at the centre of a more victim-oriented criminal justice system.

Would not the efficiency of the CPS be improved if there were fewer vexatious prosecutions, such as those that I listed to one of my hon. and learned Friend's fellow Ministers? I refer to prosecutions against people who use natural cannabis for severe pain. Of the last prosecutions, every one has been thrown out by the juries, who exercised good sense and decided that people who were seriously ill and seeking relief from pain should not be regarded as criminals, prosecuted and imprisoned. When will there be a simple change in the law to allow natural cannabis to be prescribed in the same way as heroin is prescribed legally now?

I refute my hon. Friend's suggestion that there are vexatious prosecutions. The CPS acts in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. There must be evidence, and public interest considerations must be taken into account. As I explained in an earlier answer, the law provides certain offences in relation to drugs. My hon. Friend knows that clinical trials are being held and that money is going into research on the problem that he raises. I refute the notion of vexatious prosecutions.

If the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) seeks an Adjournment debate, he might get a shorter answer.

Last Tuesday on Second Reading of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill, the Solicitor-General told the House, at columns 885-86, that the Attorney-General was making great efforts to improve the funding for the Crown Prosecution Service and that in that endeavour he was being supported by the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. It would assist the collapsing morale of the CPS to know exactly when those negotiations will be over. Furthermore, it would assist the House and the CPS to be assured that the rolled-forward deficits will not continue to be rolled forward in future years.

I said the other day that I hoped to bring good news to the House very soon. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is dealing with those matters expeditiously.