How much agrimonetary compensation has been provided for arable farmers this year. [131261]

Because this is the last Question Time over which you are expecting to preside, Madam Speaker, may I say on behalf of us all that we will miss you very much indeed?

I wish to associate myself with my right hon. Friend's remarks about you, Madam Speaker.

It is true that 20 per cent, of farmers receive 80 per cent, of the support payments under the current structure of the common agricultural policy. That is one reason why we press for reform.

I know that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues who will be lucky enough to catch your eye during Question Time, Madam Speaker, when I say that no one will miss you more than Conservative Members.

I will miss you too.

Not if you aim, Madam Speaker.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking me such easy questions. I readily identify with the tribute that he paid to you, Madam Speaker; and, yes, I agree with the Prime Minister.

If he will make a statement on Operation Gangmaster. [131262]

May I also whole-heartedly endorse the tributes that have been paid to you, Madam Speaker?

During this Parliament, workers' rights have been defended, protected and strengthened, whereas during the 18 years of Conservative Government, workers' rights were massively attacked. Will Operation Gangmaster be targeted at agricultural gangmasters who exploit illegal immigrants? According to a recent "Panorama" programme, forced labour camps have been set up. Will the Government tackle those problems?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are tackling those issues. Just as he rightly says that we have improved employment rights here at home, so we have to be equally vigilant in ensuring that there is no exploitation of immigrant workers, some of whom have made a bona fide entry to this country to do seasonal work on our farms and in our horticulture industry.

On behalf of all my Front-Bench colleagues, may I also say how much we will miss you, Madam Speaker? It has been a positive pleasure occasionally to receive your rebukes when we have mildly transgressed the rules of order, and I hope that I will be rebuked again.

Once again, the hon. Gentleman calls for action which the Government have already undertaken. We have already approached colleagues in the Home Office about this matter, and they are looking sympathetically at the needs of the horticultural sector and at increasing the number of people who can take advantage of that scheme, which can benefit students from eastern European countries and help build good relationships between our countries.

What assessment he has made of the effect of subsidies for farm diversification and innovation. [131263]

This is an important question. Evaluation of the farm diversification grant scheme—which closed in 1993—and objective 5b suggests that well-targeted aid can provide good value for money. It is on the basis of the evaluation of previous schemes that we intend to operate the new rural enterprise scheme in England—I have responsibility only for schemes in England.

Has the Minister seen the comments by the Federated Farmers of New Zealand? It says that the removal of farm subsidies there

has given birth to a vibrant, diversified and growing rural economy. New Zealand's experience over the past 15 years of reform has thoroughly debunked the myth that the farming sector and the environment cannot remain healthy and prosperous without government subsidies.

I have paid careful attention to the New Zealand experience. My hon. Friend is right to say that we cannot carry on supporting agriculture's over-reliance on the supply side support mechanisms under the common agricultural policy. I attach proportionate importance to the diversification element of the new rural development regulation, which is why we have planned expenditure of some £152 million pver the next seven years in England alone. The purpose of that expenditure is to get farm businesses away from an over-reliance on supply side subsidies and closer to the marketplace.

Does the Minister recognise that in his plans to reorganise the regional structures of MAFF, he is making some heroic assumptions about farmers' ability to use advanced technology in applying for subsidies and other applications? Knowing that many farmers are not confident in this area and are elderly, will he ensure that the facilities are available to give practical help to those who cannot master the technology, so that those who depend most on aid are not denied it?

The link is a bit tenuous, but it is an important point. I would be making some even more heroic assumptions if we did not take action in that area. I intend to ensure that there is a presence in each of the MAFF regions so that farmers can continue, during the changeover period, to have direct contact with officials in the Ministry to discuss their concerns face to face, not necessarily via new technology or even by telephone. We have conducted successful experiments in East Anglia on the electronic transmission of data, and I am aware of similar experiments carried out in Scotland by the Department with devolved responsibility for administering those schemes. Those give grounds for optimism.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that belching cows are responsible for 25 per cent, of the methane released into the atmosphere, which is a powerful greenhouse gas? Is he also aware that a UK-invented feed additive can cut down that dreadful belching?

From both ends.

Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, is it not the case that, to encourage farmers to get that innovative product into the market, we should look at a small kick-start subsidy?

A lot of regimes started with small kick-start subsidies. We are looking at non-food crops and some experimental work is under way. We shall provide some funding under the rural development regulation and I am always willing to consider new and innovative ways to enhance farm incomes.

My mother has asked me to tell you, Madam Speaker, that she will miss you very much on the Parliamentary Channel. [Interruption.] It is true!

I wish that the hon. Gentleman's mother would choose the questions that he asks me as well as the remarks that he makes to Madam Speaker.

His mother gives him the answers.

Perhaps she does.

Does the Minister accept that innovation in e-commerce in farm diversification will be hampered by the lack of advanced telecommunication systems in constituencies such as Congleton? What action will he take to ensure equitable access to the super-highway and, indeed, to increase competition in rural areas, where British Telecom currently has the monopoly of provision?

I do not want to stray outside the matters for which I have ministerial responsibility, but I want to ensure that everyone has equal access to the services that the Ministry provides. We are considering making use of the network of rural post offices, for example, as service providers to those running farm businesses, but I assure the hon. Lady that we shall keep a front-line service for farmers in place during the transitional period, with travel distances no greater than they are now.

What representations he has received concerning the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. [131265]

On your last Question Time, Madam Speaker, may I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's remarks? We shall miss your shepherding of MAFF questions.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the fact that the Bill was included in Labour's manifesto and that it has the overwhelming support of the British people, will he assure me that he will not allow Opposition Members to frustrate the Bill and stop it passing all its stages in the House and the other place?

The House passed the Bill without a vote against it. It has had its Second Reading in the other place, and it will, of course, receive proper debate and scrutiny. It is clear that the measure is widely supported in this country; and, indeed, given some of the problems in the fur farming sector, it has certain advantages to that sector as well.

In the light of the recent report of the Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which points up an important human rights implication for the inclusion of income losses in any compensation scheme for fur farmers, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which is currently in the other place, guarantees that mink farmers will be compensated for losses of income by the compensation scheme?

I am aware of the Scrutiny Committee recommendations in the other place and my colleague, Baroness Hayman, will of course consider that issue carefully. We take the opinions of such Committees seriously. The Bill will be debated in Committee, which is the appropriate place to consider all those aspects.

What measures his Department is taking to promote small business enterprise in the farming industry. [131266]

We are promoting small business enterprise in a number of ways through both the action plan for farming and the England rural development plan, including a free farm business advice service open to all farmers, an increase in the budget for the rural development agencies redundant building grant, new expenditure on training, a new rural enterprise scheme and a new processing and marketing grant scheme.

I welcome the Government's decision to provide a free business advice service to any farmer who wants it. What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that those who have to provide that free service are properly trained and fully aware of all the opportunities available under the England rural development plan?

We are looking closely at the qualifications and eligibility criteria for those who will administer the scheme, so that they will be in a position to give informed, worthy and worthwhile advice to the farmers who apply for it.

What guidance has the Minister's Department issued to national parks on farm diversification?

National parks, as well as other organisations, have been involved in the discussions on planning issues that are taking place across government. The hon. Gentleman will know that the action plan for farming, which was announced on 30 March, included examination of the importance of ensuring that there were as few obstacles to farm diversification as possible. In all parts of the country, there needs to be involvement with that programme. We are determined to take it forward.

Far from promoting enterprise, the Government's policies in the two years since the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took up his job have led to an unprecedented collapse in farm incomes, a massive loss of jobs in the countryside, the closure of dozens of slaughterhouses and the destruction of many family farms after generations of hard work. Does the Minister of State agree that only a genuine attack on red tape, the introduction of honesty in labelling and firmer action against substandard imports—the three keynote policies of the Conservative party's fair deal for farmers—will effectively promote enterprise in agriculture?

I have looked at the Conservative proposals for agriculture. They are in three parts: first, action that the Government are already taking; secondly, action that would be declared illegal and would therefore incur heavy fines in the European Court; and thirdly, vague spending commitments that seem to be at odds with what the Conservative financial spokespeople are offering the electorate.

When he expects to open the pig industry restructuring scheme to applicants. [131268]

The outgoers element of the pig industry restructuring scheme will be opened to applicants immediately following European Commission clearance of the scheme. The ongoers element for those who wish to remain in pig production will involve preparing a commercially acceptable business plan. We are pressing the Commission to provide overall clearance as quickly as possible.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for recently meeting farmers—and pig farmers in particular—from my constituency. It was helpful. We are pursuing some of the concerns, but she will be aware that the Tory legacy of BSE has imposed production costs on the pig industry of more than £5 per pig, which has made it far harder for the industry to compete.

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I welcome the interest that he has taken in the industry and in putting forward the views of his constituents. We have sought to help the industry in a number of ways. I am glad that, in terms of the pig industry restructuring scheme, we are talking not just about the £26 million available this year, but the additional £40 million in the two following years.

May I say a special thank you to you, Madam Speaker? You have been a brilliant role model for the ladies in the House, and you will be sorely missed.

The period concerned is likely to begin at the end of August, which marks the end of the period of consultation and clearance with the European Commission.

I shall not take up the House's time by referring to your warm, witty and wise time in the Chair, Madam Speaker.

My hon. Friend is right: the suggested ban would be an illegal and, indeed, dangerous cul-de-sac, given that we export pigmeat products and would risk retaliation if we took the Opposition's advice.

I associate myself with all that has been said about you, Madam Speaker, and about your stewardship in the Chair. I add my thanks.

I look forward to the Government helping agriculture and, indeed, other industries, both before and after the election, whenever it occurs.

What his priorities are for the next reform of the common agricultural policy dairy regime. [131270]

The Government's priorities for reform of the dairy regime are clear and well known. We want an orderly removal of milk quotas in combination with a reduction in the European Union support prices to world levels. We will press the European Commission and our EU partners for that in the run-up to the review of the regime in 2003.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the provision of free school milk is a valuable service? May I take this opportunity to congratulate him on seeing off a European Commission proposal to abolish the subsidy of free school milk? May I also ask him whether he will take the action necessary to ensure the continued provision of free school milk?

I was very pleased that, working with partners on the Council of Ministers, I was able to persuade the Commission to change its mind on the school milk proposal. Rather than abolishing the measure entirely, which was the Commission's original proposal, or moving to co-financing on a 50:50 basis, which was the Commission's next proposal, we were able to negotiate that upwards to the proposal that was agreed on Monday at the Council of Ministers.

Given that the reform deal was described by the Select Committee on Agriculture as a bad deal, that the right hon. Gentleman himself declared that it was disappointing, and that fraud is pervasive throughout the system, why does not the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledge that the CAP no longer stands for common agricultural policy, but for charter for amoral pilfering?

There is actually a good point beneath all that eurosceptic nonsense. The fact is that there is a sound case for a common agricultural policy across the EU. The important thing to do is to secure reform of the current structures so that they are not so oriented towards the supply side. The point to which I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention is that, despite our many differences in this place, there is near unanimity around the Government's proposals for reform of the dairy sector.

If milk quotas went, would there be over-production of milk?

I think that the market would quickly deal with that question, although we are in a relatively strong position compared with our European Union partners.

Does the Minister agree that the only ones who seem to make money out of the current quota system are the quota brokers?

One of the unattractive features of the current quota regime is that the quota itself—the permit to produce—has an economic value. That is an inevitable outcome of the current structure and a part of the underpinning of the case for reform.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is absolutely essential that we reform the current milk quota system before admitting other countries to the European Union? Will he also confirm that, at times, the current milk quota system has led to our importing too many added-value milk products which we could have produced in this country had there not been a milk quota system?

Those are very important points. There are enormous advantages for the industry domestically in reform of the dairy regime. Although I do understand why some diary producers are nervous about it, it is the right way forward. I also think that it is the most intellectually appropriate way of dealing with the problems that are posed by the agricultural component of enlargement of the European Union. The two big questions seem to me to be the digressivity of direct payments and reform of the dairy regime.

I come from one of the prime dairy counties of the United Kingdom—Cheshire, which is in the north-west. Nevertheless, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole of the United Kingdom has the perfect climate to produce good grass, and that good grass is the basis of good milk? Does he agree that any reform should take account of the fact that the United Kingdom as a whole is the right area for milk to be produced? Will he assure me, the House and my constituents that any reform will take that into account—so that the countries which can produce good milk because of their climate and grassland are able to do so, and no system is put in place that will discriminate against us?

I agree with absolutely everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.

Does the Minister agree that one of the biggest effects on the profitability of dairy farming has been the disastrous drop of the price of milk by a third in the past two years? Does not the fact that there is a 20 per cent, advantage to supermarkets in importing milk, because of the euro, mean that the quickest way to get dairy farming back into profitability would be for Britain to join the euro?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the price per litre that the food chain pays the producer is at the heart of the present difficulties in the dairy sector. I have done everything that I properly can to alleviate the burdens on the industry, such as the hygiene charges. We have used agrimonetary compensation to its fullest extent as a countervailing measure. I know that the industry has welcomed cattle passports as well. Further, I have made representations to the retailers and processors—important players in the chain—to try to get them to understand that every component of the supply chain has a vested interest in the well-being and commercial returns of other elements in the chain. Further than that, as a Minister, I cannot go. I have certainly gone as far as I can.

If he will make a statement about Government support for fanners co-operatives. [131271]

Co-operatives and other forms of collaborative activity can provide a significant boost to the competitiveness of our farmers and growers. Government and industry are working together in a number of ways to facilitate and promote such working together.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Farmers First co-operative has done a great deal to help the industry, especially with the opening of a new abattoir in Kenilworth, which is used by many of the farmers in my constituency? Does he agree that the objective 1 funding that the Government have secured for Wales provides great opportunities for further co-operative work in investing in abattoirs and other new infrastructure that is needed to support the industry?

I strongly support my hon. Friend. The Government have been supporting the development of collaborative marketing and co-ops through the agricultural development scheme, and further funds will be available through the rural development programme. Match funding has been provided for objective 1 programmes. The nature of the programmes is a matter for local people to determine, but there is no doubt whatever that there are great advantages for farmers and growers in coming together to try to add value and market their produce so as to get a greater share of the market. Objective 1 funds are certainly one way of helping them to do that.

The great dairy processors of the world, such as Parmalat, Danone and, recently, MD and Aria in Scandinavia, all began as farmers' co-operatives. What is the Ministry's view of co-operatives and farmers' groups attempting to buy Unigate?

One of our views is that the previous Government should have thought a little more carefully about the effect on the dairy sector before they destroyed the Milk Marketing Board. There are, however, issues to be considered here. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Competition Commission conducted an investigation that was responded to by allowing the development of three co-ops with the freedom to invest downstream in processing. There is no doubt that that brings advantages for dairy producers.

If he will make a statement about his policy towards small and medium-sized abattoirs. [131273]

The Government recognise the importance of small and medium-sized abattoirs to the rural economy and have therefore put in place a number of measures to help, including the deferment of charges for specified risk material removal; freezing of Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges last year and maintaining them at no more than the rate of inflation this year; promoting with the European Union Commission a risk-based approach to meat hygiene legislation; reviewing 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.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the urgency of the Government and the Food Standards Agency responding to the Maclean report on veterinary inspection charges, which recommended a change from hourly payments to headage fees? Given that such a change would benefit small and medium-sized abattoirs and give them a real bonus for their future, will she give the matter some real priority?

I assure my hon. Friend that we will do so. Obviously, that involves different agencies and Departments considering the Maclean report recommendations, but we are very conscious of the importance of those recommendations to a vital sector of the industry.

I am aware that Agriculture Ministers are looking at alternative approaches to charging for meat inspection in small and medium-sized abattoirs, and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said. For many abattoirs, the sands of time are running out. According to figures recently provided to me by Health Ministers, there has been a pronounced acceleration in abattoir closures during the past six months. I am also told by Health Ministers that, ironically, at a time when abattoirs are being forced out of business, the number of veterinary officers employed in the veterinary service has increased from an average of 486 in the first six months of 1999 to an average of 516 in the last six months. In other words, there are 30 extra vets at a time when operators are being driven out of business by the imposition of charges that they simply cannot sustain.

I recognise the personal interest that the hon. Gentleman has taken in the issue and I welcome the number of times that he has raised it. Perhaps he should have raised it with his right hon. and hon. Friends when they were in government and presided over a huge number of abattoir closures—far more than the present Government. I hope that he welcomes the recent statements by Commissioner Byrne on moving towards risk-based assessment and being sensitive to some of the cost implications of the European system. We can help to solve some of the problems and redress the balance in terms of future costs by working with the Commission and responding to the recommendations in the Maclean report.

The growth of organic farming, particularly in my constituency, means that there is a real need for locally based abattoirs selling directly to the market and producing the added value that we want in Wales. Will the Minister seriously consider the move towards headage payments and bear in mind the lack of clarity in respect of other European countries? If I can put it this way, it seems that other European countries are getting away with it in respect of the hygiene standards that we apply and that there is no level playing field in respect of abattoirs in other countries.

On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I know that Commissioner Byrne is very much focused on the need for a level playing field, and that approach partly lies behind some of the initiatives that he has announced. Obviously, there is an important responsibility for the devolved Administration in Wales. The hon. Gentleman and others will want to know that we are supporting the development of mobile abattoirs, particularly in remote rural areas, and that we are working with the Humane Slaughter Association to help bring about that service.

What recent discussions he has had with staff at his Department's office in Exeter about reorganisation of his Department; and if he will make a statement. [131274]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on Monday 24 July, Official Report, columns 472–73W. As he knows, because he was present, I last met union officials in Exeter on Saturday 8 July and I have met and corresponded with other hon. Members who have a direct constituency interest in the reorganisation.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wise decision to keep the Exeter MAFF office open and convey on behalf of the staff in Exeter and the wider community their heartfelt thanks for his vote of confidence in their work. Will he say something about the reports that we might get even more jobs in Exeter as a result of the restructuring? That would be extremely welcome in a city that suffered so grievously under Government job cuts under the Conservatives, particularly in respect of defence.

The sites that will be the basis for the new—CAPPA—Common Agricultural Policy Payments Agency proposals can expect an inflow of employment, although the numbers are not yet finally decided. Clearly, however, all the jobs that are at present on the site are safe and there is a real prospect of new jobs being created.

On behalf of all farmers in Cornwall and Devon I also welcome the Minister's announcement. Will he take a step further in recommending to the Government generally that the way in which the regional service centres operate must be more closely aligned to the work of other Government agencies in the south-west as in other regions? I also congratulate the Minister's staff in the regional service centres on the work that they do. Does he recognise that they too have a problem in that they are often unable to use their own discretion and common sense in deciding on the issues that come before them? All too often they feel that they are too restricted by the regulations and prevented from using their intelligence.

A number of things struck me in making this series of difficult decisions. First, all Members of Parliament with a legitimate constituency interest perfectly properly made representations on behalf of their area offices, as did hon. Members representing neighbouring constituencies. Secondly, I was deluged with representations from user groups speaking up for the services that they received from their regional offices. In part, that conditioned the Government's response to the representations received.

What discussions he has had with representatives of the police on prosecution policy in respect of football hooligans. [131293]

The Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes those accused of football-related offences whenever appropriate. It also plays a key role in seeking suitable bail conditions to prevent further offending and in reminding the courts of their powers and duties to make orders to prevent hooliganism, both at home and abroad. I have received no representations from the police on the subject.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer, which was a triumph of diplomacy over candour. I hope that he will now answer the question that I posed instead of the one that I did not. What discussions has he had, or does he intend to have, with the police? What criticisms of Government policy does he expect to hear? Why, given that anti-social behaviour orders have become a non-event under this Government, should we take the Government's intentions on this matter remotely seriously?

The hon. Gentleman does not often allow facts to stand in the way of rhetoric, but the Government have pursued the matter since the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 came into force. The CPS has prosecuted cases involving ordinary offences arising from football hooliganism, such as assault, public disorder and criminal damage. The police refer cases to the CPS, which deals with them as the law requires—by looking at the evidence and taking into account the public interest.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many football clubs now have more police-free matches than ever before, because discussions with police have led to a reduction in violence? No one condones the actions of the minority hooligan element, but people want action to be taken where necessary to ensure that hooligans do not deter normal supporters from going to games and do not cause disturbances in town centres.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In the Football (Disorder) Bill, which the House will consider again today, the Government have taken what we regard as the minimum steps needed to deal with the public order problem that has infuriated and shamed the nation. The Opposition have been playing games with the Bill, but I hope that it will be dealt with efficiently and effectively this afternoon.

Does the Solicitor-General agree that if the police and judges were half as tough in dealing with hooligans and miscreants as Madam Speaker has been in dealing with the parliamentary variety of the species, the world would be a better, safer and saner place?

On this, Madam Speaker's last Question Time, I have only words of commendation about her, especially as we both represent part of the Tipton area in the west midlands.

What criteria the Law Officers apply when determining whether or not to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal. [131294]

The Attorney-General and I have the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal if we consider them to be unduly lenient. An unduly lenient sentence is one which is not merely lenient but falls outside the range of sentences that a judge, applying his or her mind to all the relevant circumstances of the case, could reasonably consider appropriate. The appropriate range must be determined by consideration of the principles of sentencing and other guidance laid down by the Court of Appeal.

I have been prompted to ask the question by unduly lenient sentences for sex offences, and sex offences involving children. No doubt many right hon. and hon. Members have received representations from families and victims who rarely believe that a sentence is appropriate. Are families and victims consulted in these distressing cases, and are there any plans to extend powers in relation to sex offences and sex offences against children?

Unduly lenient sentences come to us for referral from the Crown Prosecution Service or, in some cases, from victims and relatives of victims who write asking for the sentence to be considered. We act at the prompting of victims and relatives and of the CPS.

Can the Law Officers take any steps in respect of judges who persistently pass inappropriate sentences, whether too lenient or too harsh? I have in mind the recent case of a headmistress who slapped a pupil who was attacking her in the classroom and was threatened with jail. Does that not show that some judges are almost as out of touch with public opinion as this Government are increasingly seen as being?

If anyone is out of touch with public opinion it is Conservative Members.

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that it is rare to be able to talk to the victims of crime or to those who apprehend the criminals. However, they raise the problem, as they perceive it, of overly lenient sentences. I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say that action was taken only if the judge strayed outside the prescribed range of sentences. That must cover a multitude of possible degrees of guilt. Is there not a case for allowing the questioning of a sentence, even when it is within the prescribed range, if it is not appropriate?

Sentencing depends on particular circumstances. A whole range of circumstances applies to manslaughter, for example—a death might be akin to murder, or it might follow from fortuitous circumstances. The range of circumstances in any particular case is quite wide. Therefore, the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal are similarly broad, giving a range of sentences. It is only when the sentence falls outside that range, given the particular circumstances, that we refer the matter. My hon. Friend is right that the courts sometimes do not seem to take into account the facts of the case. However, the facts are often mediated through the press and we do not get a full report.

At the risk of giving you praise, thanks and congratulation fatigue, Madam Speaker, may I add my own heartfelt and sincere thanks, praise and congratulations on your long and successful period in office and wish you a very long and happy retirement from your duties in this House?

In our manifesto, we said that we would look at the matter. We considered it, and the three areas that I identified came immediately to mind for extension. There are problems in terms of resources and work load, in that the Attorney-General and I have to consider each application. The number of cases coming to us from victims, relatives and the CPS is tending to increase every year. However, we certainly have not excluded a further extension of the offences that can be referred.

As a member of the Magistrates Association, I am concerned about judicial inconsistency. Is there not a strong case for more use to be made of fixed penalties, whether they are applied through an administrative mechanism or through the courts themselves?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are a certain number of mandatory sentences. Fixed penalties have been effective in terms of a number of less serious offences. There is no reason why other offences should not come within the net.

If he will make a statement on the CPS's success rate in prosecutions in south Staffordshire. [131295]

In the year ending March 2000, the south Staffordshire branch of the Crown Prosecution Service secured 11,228 convictions in magistrates courts, representing 98.7 per cent, of all cases proceeding to a hearing. A further 596 convictions were recorded in the Crown court, amounting to 87.8 per cent, of hearings. These figures indicate that the service is making a strong and effective contribution to criminal justice in that part of the country.

The Government are becoming renowned not only for their contempt for Parliament, but for their contempt for traditions. The Solicitor-General will be aware that the magistrates court in Lichfield closed a few months ago, after 600 years of progress. When will he meet the witness service in Staffordshire, which tells me that it is becoming increasingly difficulty to get witnesses to travel from Lichfield to Tamworth and other parts of Staffordshire and the west midlands to give evidence? When will he accept that his Government's decision to close Lichfield magistrates court was the wrong decision?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned strongly on this matter, although the strength of the argument does not increase with repetition. There is a tension between efficiency and effectiveness in the processing of cases through the courts on the one hand and local justice on the other. A balance has to be struck and, in the case of Lichfield, the balance was struck by a decision to close the court. That was only after a careful evaluation of the need for witnesses to travel distances to other courts. I believe that the decision was a right one.

Does my hon. Friend recall the times that I have pressed him to increase the funding for Staffordshire's CPS? Will he say how last week's magnificent settlement in the spending review will help the CPS to employ more prosecutors and be more effective in prosecuting offenders?

I cannot disagree that the settlement was magnificent, and the result is a 12 per cent, real-terms increase for 2001–02, which will continue over the three years of the comprehensive spending review. The result for front-line services in Staffordshire, and elsewhere, is that the CPS will now be able to prosecute more cases. When the CPS was established by the previous Government, it was underfunded. We have redressed that problem.

Presumably the success rate of the CPS in south Staffordshire is among the matters considered by the chief inspector of the CPS, will the Solicitor-Given arrange for the chief inspector to make an urgent report into CPS efficiency and morale, publish it as soon as possible?

As a result spending on the CPS, morale has risen enormously. The CPS is now in a position to play its role in the criminal system.