What support he will give to pig farmers seeking compensation for the costs of BSE-related food safety measures. [103771]

My overall priority is to remove BSE from the cattle herd in order to maintain confidence in the whole of British agriculture. I recognise, as the previous Government did, that pursuing that policy imposes additional costs on the British livestock industry, including the pig industry. I have twice asked the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to look at the issues, particularly as they apply to the pig industry.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that way back on 20 October he said:

"The problem requires a further considered response from the Government. I am working very hard on it, and I hope to have something new and comprehensive to tell the House in a matter of days."—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 465.]

"I want to explore everything the Government can do that will help".

My officials are in touch with the Commission and we are exploring those matters. It is not true to say that nothing has happened. Together with the Meat and Livestock Commission, I went back to SEAC to see whether there was some way of achieving a commercial value of the meat and bonemeal for the industry consistent with the need for public protection measures. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, at the end of December the advisory committee said, disappointingly from the industry's point of view, that it was not willing to recommend that.

Like all hon. Members, I recognise the desperate plight of the pig industry. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the response to his efforts to increase awareness of the higher pig production welfare standards in this country? Like the measures that relate to BSE, those higher standards inevitably increase UK production costs. Or do people who are prepared to write to Members of Parliament asking them to vote for higher welfare standards then prefer to buy cheap imports when the laws are passed?

I am not satisfied that we are doing enough to secure the premium that the industry ought to be able to gain in the marketplace. I have secured some extra money for marketing initiatives and made it clear that the pig sector has a first call on it. I hope that it will be possible this year to do more to explain to consumers the advantages of UK production methods—not just the fact that the process is free of meat and bonemeal, but that the pigs are raised free of stall and tether systems. Those are the animal welfare standards that our constituents asked us to vote for back in 1991.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that British pig farmers are unique in facing extra costs because of the BSE crisis? They are going out of production while their international competitors stay in production. When the market picks up, yet another British industry will no longer exist to supply it. Will he assure the industry that if any way can be found in Europe to see our farmers through the crisis by helping with their BSE costs, he and the Treasury will find the money?

As I said in my answer to the initial question, I acknowledge, as the previous Government did, that this country's public safety measures impose extra costs on the livestock industry. Those costs are not confined to the cattle sector, but impact on the pig sector. The Government have never sought to disguise the fact that the sector is in crisis. I have tried to devise workable measures that will help to get the industry through. We have discussed a range of measures in the House. I intend to continue with my efforts.

Many people would choose to buy British if they could be sure that the labelling was correct. What progress is being made to ensure that labelling accurately reflects the country of origin?

As the House will know, I have put the trading standards guidelines issued by Department out to consultation. We have the results of that consultation and I hope to have more to say about that within a matter of days. My hon. Friend is right. If we are asking consumers to support the industry, they must have clear and accurate information.

The Minister of Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland recently announced £1 million of European state aid to pig farmers there, particularly relating to the border counties. What does the Minister know about that? If the Republic of Ireland can get state aid from the European Union for its pig farmers, why cannot he get it for our pig farmers in the United Kingdom?

I am meeting my counterpart, Joe Walsh, this month to discuss these and other issues on which we have a shared interest, but I suspect that Minister Walsh will say that the United Kingdom Government paid out aid following the fire in Northern Ireland and that the industry in southern Ireland is claiming to be similarly affected. I suspect that that will be his reply, but I await discussions with the Minister.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that as pig farmers are going out of business in the United Kingdom, an increasing number of people are going into the pork industry elsewhere in the EU. Given the strength of the pound, would not this be a good time for us to subsidise pig feed as the cost of grain is a significant factor due to the health and welfare standards that have rightly been introduced? Would not subsidising the cost of feed be a good way of helping the industry at this time?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are unique features to the crisis in the United Kingdom, but the crisis itself is not unique to the United Kingdom. The EU market is oversupplied and there are difficulties in the pig sector in the United States and eastern Europe. The problem is not confined to the EU. I cannot unilaterally introduce specific state aids just for the United Kingdom as that would breach the agreement that we have made in the EU.

The Minister is presiding over the biggest fall in the United Kingdom pig herd and the largest number of job losses in pig farming in any recent period. It took him a year even to issue a consultation document about guidance on labelling; it took him four months and a great deal of prodding by the Conservatives—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to find it amusing,—before he troubled to carry out his promise to the House to write to public authorities urging them to make their pig meat purchases from sources which meet UK standards. He misled the House, or very nearly, on that matter—[Interruption.]

Order.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The charge of misleading the House is a very serious one. I have not misled the House.

Exactly. I am about to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

I withdraw the charge of misleading the House. Let me recount the facts. On 1 July the Minister told the House that he would have letters on his desk ready to go out to public authorities. When Conservative Members questioned him four months later, those letters had not been sent. I am happy to put those facts on the record now, but the question is how many more hundreds or thousands of pig farmers will lose their businesses before the Minister offers any practical steps to meet the £5 a pig in extra costs that have been imposed on farmers for public health reasons.

The last Conservative Government, who introduced the meat and bonemeal regulations, did not meet the costs either. In a previous debate on the matter—this is much trawled ground—when I asked the hon. Gentleman why not, he said that the economic circumstances were different. Of course that answer ruined any case that we might make to the Commission as, on the hon. Gentleman's own definition, it would be a case for economic aid. The Commission would have to reject any such request.

What assessment he has made of the impact of proposed changes to the hill livestock compensatory allowances on hill farmers' incomes. [103772]

There will be some changes in support between producers but the impact will vary according to their individual circumstances. The changes are being introduced gradually so that producers have time to adjust, but we believe they are part of the positive agricultural and rural development strategy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his statement to the House on 7 December 1999.

I am sure that the Minister will recognise that Aldershot is not over-endowed with hills, let alone hill fanners, but my family have fanned the hills of the borders of Scotland for centuries. Is the Minister aware of the serious crisis that is affecting hill farmers throughout the United Kingdom? Their incomes are forecast to fall to a mere £2,000 and only 15 per cent. of hill farmers are aged under 40. The industry has also been hit severely by the huge rises in petrol and diesel taxes. Will she confirm that the Government will not reduce the level of financial support to those custodians of our remote rural heritage until such time as average incomes have returned to acceptable and adequate levels? If so, will she set out what she considers those levels to be?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the important question of hill fanning, despite the fact that hill farmers are not numerous in Aldershot. I hope that he will recognise that the Government have shown commitment to hill fanning through the measures that we have taken. Indeed, the maintenance of the £60 million increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowance this year is a clear example. The measures that we have announced recognise the environmental and social role that hill farming plays in our countryside as well as the important question of the livelihoods of hill farmers.

What new research has my right hon. Friend initiated into the future of the communities on the upper slopes? Does she acknowledge the great difficulties in growing meat on those hill sides, which are cold, wet and sour, and where family farms are now at considerable risk? Does she agree that the greater problem is the very communities on the uplands, not least in Wales? What new initiatives can be taken, bearing in mind that it is obvious that the Ministry wishes to help?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. We have pursued the issue in several ways—partly by direct support and partly through the consultation that the Ministry undertook on the future of the hill farming sector and payments to hill farmers. We believe that the proposals that we made strike a good balance between economic and environmental considerations and we are aware that great concern is felt throughout the House, my right hon. Friend's constituency and the country that we get those considerations right.

Does the Minister accept that her consultation paper was a tribute to the literacy of British farmers? Does she agree that the amount available for the scheme in England is falling from £42 million to £27 million? Does she further agree that if she really wants to gain environmental benefits from the scheme it will eventually have to be differentiated according to land cover and the carrying capacity of the land? Otherwise, one flat rate scheme will simply be replaced by another and the Minister's aims will not be delivered.

The latter point is a serious and important one, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of those considerations. The consultation process was worth while because of the responses that we received. Indeed, the written consultation was only part of the process, because we also had consultations about the implementation of Agenda 2000 generally in meetings throughout the country with hill farmers and others. We are determined to keep that dialogue going. What is being proposed is only one element of the support for hill farming. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, most of the subsidy that goes to hill farmers will continue as livestock payments.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the cost to taxpayers in direct payments to hill farmers is some £700 million a year? Despite that sum, hill farmers are still in a difficult situation. Is not it time that we looked again at the way in which supporting hill farmers has not been as helpful as we would have expected and hoped it to be and that we tried to make that support more effective?

I can confirm the figure that my hon. Friend quoted, which shows that hill farmers receive a large amount of financial support. However, I should also like to commend to the House the direction in which Government policy is moving. In the negotiations in which we have taken part we have achieved some success in changing the thrust of common agricultural policy support, away from direct payments and towards more general rural development. Our proposals in relation to the UK will help hill farming change the basis of its finance and support in the future.

The Government are very proud of their introduction of the national minimum wage, but most hill farmers earn nothing like that amount. They farm some of the most difficult areas of our countryside, which would be a lot poorer without their stewardship. They ask me what their future will be: how would the Minister respond to that question?

The answer is that the Government are providing substantial levels of support for such farmers, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I. We are delighted to have introduced the national minimum wage. The Conservative party opposed that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a dissident on the issue. However, we have also supported the continuation of minimum arrangements for agricultural workers.

What plans he has to increase support for organic farm conversion. [103773]

On 7 December 1999, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the Government's plans for spending on the rural development programme for England. Under these plans, £140 million will be available over the life of the programme for aid for conversion to organic farming.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking organic farming seriously—something that the previous Conservative did not do in their 18-year dynasty of agricultural disasters. However, will he confirm that the legacy of neglect from those years still leaves the UK with less than 1.5 per cent. of its agricultural land devoted to organic farming production? That is less than half the European average, in terms of investment in organic farming.

The latest figures show that 3 per cent. of land has been converted to organic farming. Since last April, the area of such land has increased by 400 per cent. In the five years up to last April, only 400 fanners undertook that conversion, but since last April, 1,200 have done so. That shows the depth of the Government's commitment to organic farming.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that £140 million is nothing like enough? Given the increased demand in this country for organic food, and the fact that the high prices militate against poorer people who are excluded from buying these products at a time when more and more people are concerned about additives, does not the hon. Gentleman think that he should reassess the budget and support for organic farmers? The Government must recognise that times have changed and that more money should be made available.

We are currently reviewing the organic sector and the rates of payment. However, I remind Opposition Members that the Government have doubled the rates of conversion payment, which is why there has been a massive increase in organic conversion. We see this as the beginning, not the end. This substantial amount of money allows great expansion. We will keep the situation under review.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very large increase in money for conversion? But may I remind him that the money that the Government give to research and development in organic farming is just one third of the money given to research in genetic engineering in agriculture? Given the huge demand for organic food in recent times, particularly by people who wish to avoid eating genetically modified organisms, will my hon. Friend consider raising that research and development budget to reflect the concerns of consumers and give a very much needed boost to British agriculture?

I know that my hon. Friend has been very active in promoting the organic sector. However, I must correct her on one point: the actual budget for genetic research is very similar to that for organic research. I think that my hon. Friend is confusing that with the biotechnology budget, which covers issues such as research into the effects of pesticides on food.

In the light of the Minister's plans to support organic farming, would he consider protecting organic farmers from cross-pollination from GM crops? Is he aware of today's independent report from the National Pollen Research Unit, which indicates that there is a high risk of cross-pollination between source and recipient fields for as much as up to 4 km? Farmers converting to organic production need protection as well as aid. In advance of the spring planting, will the Minister take action to increase the very inadequate isolation distances between such fields?

The separation distances between organic and GM crops are based on current best practice, which has been in place for many years. The Government are funding detailed research on cross-pollination and potential cross-contamination. The research is being carried out by a consortium led by the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology. It is looking into the whole issue, including aspects such as headlands and field margins. Wildlife will also be sampled, including vascular plants, arthropods and, on the ground, so will plants, caterpillars, slugs, snails, bees, butterflies, seed banks and earthworms.

If he will make a statement on the progress in talks to liberalise world trade in agricultural products. [103776]

Negotiations on the further liberalisation of agricultural trade were mandated by the 1994 World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture. The negotiations will go ahead this year in spite of the suspension in Seattle of talks on a wider round of trade negotiations. The agricultural negotiations are based on article 20 of the agreement on agriculture, which follows the Uruguay round.

I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification. Does he agree that trade liberalisation poses many challenges and threats, and offers many opportunities to United Kingdom food and farming industries? That is why the Agriculture Committee has made it one of its major subjects of inquiry in this Session. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a major threat to UK animal welfare standards? Will he give the House a reassurance that he will put at the centre of his negotiating strategy the concerns of British farmers who wish to maintain high standards of animal welfare, but risk being undercut by cheaper imports from countries with much lower standards?

As the hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, he will know that I take animal welfare issues very seriously indeed. I have raised the point that he made at the Council of Ministers—formally, on behalf of the UK Government, and separately, in the margins, with the Commission and with other Ministers. There is a view among EU Ministers that animal welfare issues are important, but that we must protect the EU from exporting its industries. As we set higher standards internally, we must put our industries at a competitive advantage. The task for Ministers is to find a way of preserving the animal welfare polices for which we strive and of improving them, but to do so in a non-trade distorting manner.

When my right hon. Friend holds negotiations on the world trade in agricultural products, will he push for a change in the classification of livestock from agricultural products to sentient beings—as has already been done in the EU? If that change were adopted worldwide, it would not only be a tremendous boost for British farmers, but would be widely supported throughout the whole country.

There are several possible ways forward. The important point is to achieve our objectives and to do so in a non-trade distorting way. The danger for the EU is that we increase standards within the EU, but find that we have exported our industries. That would be a defeat for animal welfare as well as for farmers. We are trying to avoid that.

The right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that when animal welfare considerations have been raised at previous World Trade Organisation discussions, they have always eventually been used as a trade-off for issues that other people regard as more important. Will he give the House an absolute assurance that animal welfare—to UK standards—is at the top of his agenda, and that it will not be used merely as a bargaining chip for other issues?

Animal welfare is an important—indeed integral—part of the UK's agenda for these complex discussions on agricultural reform and trade liberalisations; it most certainly is not a bargaining chip for other pieces of the negotiation.

If he has been consulted on the European Commission's proposals for a food standards agency; and if he will make a statement. [103777]

The European Commission published a White Paper on food safety yesterday, outlining proposals for such a body. The Government support the idea in principle, and will consider the detailed proposals in the White Paper carefully.

That is good. However, over recent years we have all been sickened by stomach churning tales of sewage in animal feedstuffs, dioxins in meat in Belgium, antibiotic growth promoters, salmonella, listeria and BSE—what a catalogue. Following yesterday's announcement, there are suggestions in the press that this new European food standards agency is neither fish nor fowl—[Interruption.] A louder groan please. But seriously, what will be the relationship between the European food standards agency and the domestic Food Standards Agency? Would the Government prefer the European agency to have regulatory powers, or simply to be advisory?

We need to ensure that European decisions and our national safeguards are complementary. We also need a system whereby European rules—once agreed by all member states—are properly implemented. In introducing his proposals yesterday, Commissioner Byrne expressed confidence that they would deliver a more effective system both as regards consumer confidence and for the operation of the EU market where EU rules had clearly been agreed. We welcome those assurances, but as more detailed proposals will be submitted, which will be discussed by national Governments as well as by the European institutions, it will be important to ensure that the detail is correct.

Yesterday's announcement presages a European food authority. Can the Minister confirm that the initial proposals envisage the appointment of 150 officials in the short term, rising to a total of 600, and that one of their tasks will be to produce something like 84 additional legislative measures, including a new hygiene directive? Does the Minister accept that it is most likely that all of that new legislation from Europe will override national legislation? Is not this another instance of competence passing from this House to the European Community?

Order. I think that those are enough questions to be going on with.

The hon. Gentleman's comments have left me mystified by the Opposition's policy. Is it a policy of allowing each country to do what it wants, which seems to be a recipe for chaos? Or is it one of seeking to have an effective system in the internal market, which the Opposition tell us they support? What the hon. Gentleman says is at enormous variance with what the Conservative party's agriculture spokesmen in the European Parliament seem to be saying. They want a bigger European Union body, not a smaller one.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the improvement of food standards across Europe is of great importance to my constituents, who are concerned about the safety of food coming into this country? Will she assure me that our Food Standards Agency will play an important role in ensuring that the standards across Europe—with or without its own agency—will be improved? I welcome the appointment of Sir John Krebs, as having such an eminent scientist at the head of our FSA will be extremely important in driving up standards across Europe, as well as at home.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, particularly the latter ones. We believe that the appointment of Sir John Krebs—and the rest of the governing body of the FSA—is good news. There is a good balance, and there are people with excellent qualifications to ensure a successful start to the FSA. I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents, and I can assure her and the House that we have been proactive in this respect. We have worked with the Commission and given it information about our work on food safety and on the way in which the Government have implemented our manifesto pledge on setting up our own Food Standards Agency.

At a time when the European Commission cannot even make the single market rules apply to France on the issue of British beef exports, why does the Minister believe that it is sensible to establish a huge new costly and bureaucratic agency, whose advice would no doubt be followed meticulously in Britain at great cost to British producers, but would be ignored by many producers abroad—and thus would reinforce the unlevel playing field that is already doing so much damage to British industry?

Again, the hon. Gentleman's comments seem to be completely at variance with what Conservative MEPs are saying. They say that they want a bigger and, presumably, more expensive body. We want a system whereby countries which have accepted rules actually respect and implement them. In that respect, I very much welcome some of the ideas in the Commission's White Paper, which will be looked at in detail. For example, there is a proposal that the European Commission be empowered to fine members for breaching EU food standards, without having to wait for a court ruling. That is particularly relevant, given our present dispute with the French.

What action he is taking to assist in the development of economically viable farm businesses. [103778]

As I announced in the House on 7 December 1999, I am redirecting some farming support and the Government are providing new funding to provide more help for fanners to modernise, to diversify and to farm in a more environmentally beneficial way. I am also providing support for improved marketing. I am studying the reports of the three working groups that I set up to review regulatory burdens.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the rural development plan—and, in particular, the extra money that he has secured from the Treasury—has been widely welcomed. Does he accept that the knee-jerk reaction of the Opposition in calling for more subsidies and fewer taxes is not the way forward? Will he require, under the forthcoming rural White Paper, organisations such as regional development agencies, planning authorities and so on to pay more heed to farmers' voices?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the way forward for British agriculture is to get closer to the marketplace. It should consider the demand side rather than try to supplement the supply side of the common agricultural policy.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I, like many Members, have hundreds of upland farmers in my constituency whose businesses are no longer viable. What positive advice and assistance can he give such farmers in the midst of this crisis? If he has none, is not it time for him to step aside and make way for a Minister who will take the crisis seriously?

In view of the substantial amount of support that I have announced since I became the Minister responsible for those who farm less-favoured areas, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are unfair and unworthy. The truth is that there is a great deal in the rural development plan for hill farmers. They should proportionately be the beneficiaries of what has been announced.

The rural development plan is most welcome in country areas, such as those that I and my colleagues represent. Is my right hon. Friend optimistic that it will herald the end of the annual emergency aid cycle of packages to farmers and replace that with sustainable support that will produce a viable and profitable method of agriculture?

It is my objective to get away from emergency aid packages that consider the supply side—they have been the only way of providing immediate assistance to the sector—and to move towards sustainable policies that will give the industry support in a way that is decoupled from production and less vulnerable to the short-term effects of the marketplace. That is the thinking behind the rural development measure.

I want to return to consideration of the pig industry, which is one of the least economically viable of all agricultural industries. Twice in his earlier comments, the Minister said that the BSE controls on pigs were to do with public protection and public safety. Those were his words, and I think that that will be proven in Hansard. Therefore, will he explain the difference between a British pig farmer who, for public safety, suffers innocently from those BSE controls but receives no support from the European Union or the Government, and a Belgian pig farmer who suffered equally innocently from the dioxin controls but received compensation from the EU?

If the hon. Gentleman believes so passionately in the case that he has just put, why did not his Government do precisely that when the regulations were introduced? [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members shouting that that is not the question—it is precisely the question that the Commission would ask me if we were to make such a request. In speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said that it viewed such an intervention as economic aid. That would rule out the Commission giving permission for it.

What progress he has made in securing the support of his European counterparts for the reform of the common fisheries policy. [103780]

What steps he is taking to reform the common fisheries policy. [103781]

The Government will continue to take every opportunity to secure improvements to the common fisheries policy, to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks while securing the best possible conditions for the UK industry.

I am sure that the whole House endorses what the Minister has just said about the tragedy of the Solway Harvester.

Minimum landing sizes are an important issue, but they must be associated with technical conservation measures. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong—we reversed the minimum landing size reduction on plaice, for example, and we negotiated with other European countries to make it possible to do that unilaterally if the Commission did not agree.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that he made at the Fisheries Council because he did an extremely good job in a difficult situation. Fishermen in Hastings and Rye are in any case natural conservationists and they acknowledge and accept the need for some reductions. How will my hon. Friend make sure that other nation states are equally effective in enforcing the new provisions?

When I met fishermen from my hon. Friend's constituency they made several important points about conservation, which influenced the recent consultation on the inshore sector, and which we have extended to the whole UK sector. To ensure that there is equal enforcement, the new control measures introduced by the European Union will, for the first time, ensure that the same standards of enforcement and control are applied across all member states, and there is an element of independent inspection by the Commission itself to make sure that that is the case.

rose—

Order. It is very disappointing that in three quarters of an hour we have reached only eight questions. I am sure that many Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers are very disappointed, too. I am sorry that I have not been able to call many of the hon. Members who have been rising, wanting to speak on most of the issues. I hope that we can make better progress, not only at Agriculture questions, but at all questions, and that questions as well as answers are not as long as they are now tending to be.

If he will make a statement on rights of access to prosecuting lawyers by victims of crime. [R] [103802]

There are professional rules of conduct that govern how much communication a prosecution advocate can have with a witness in a criminal case. In some circumstances, however, direct contact between the victim and the prosecutor is both important and necessary either before or after the trial. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Law Officers are committed to ensuring that direct contact does take place in appropriate circumstances.

I declare an interest because I was a witness in a case in which the conditions were skewed greatly toward the defendant because he had direct access to his lawyers, whereas I, as the alleged victim, had little or no access to the lawyers bringing the prosecution case. If the Solicitor-General is saying that he is satisfied with the present situation, I must tell him that many victims of crime are not. Will he consider more closely ensuring access by victims of crime to the lawyers who are supposed to be bringing the prosecution, with a view to evening up that unjust imbalance?

The House will know that we take very seriously the position of victims, and we are considering a range of measures to improve that. There has been extensive discussion with the hon. Gentleman, who was the subject of untrue and scurrilous allegations. A prosecution was undertaken, but unfortunately that failed for technical reasons on appeal. I explained in my answer, and it has been explained to the hon. Gentleman, that the prosecutor is acting not for the victim, but in the public interest. There has to be some access to those lawyers, but the situation is not the same as with defence counsel, who represent a particular person.

The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has a good point. One way to open a channel of communication with victims would be through the use of victim impact statements. If we could avoid the excesses of the American system of using statements, they would be a valuable tool to enable the courts and prosecutors to understand the victims' point of view and the effect of the crime on them. Are any discussions taking place to try to introduce a reasonable system for using victim impact statements in British courts?

The Home Office is considering a range of measures, including victim impact statements. There has been a pilot project and a report was produced shortly before Christmas. There are difficulties, but they are not insuperable. The Home Office is considering those and other measures.

When (a) he and (b) the Attorney-General last met the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss the implementation of the European convention on human rights. [103803]

The Attorney-General and I regularly meet the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers to discuss matters of common interest, including human rights. In addition, I am a member of the human rights task force, which is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and which includes representatives from a range of human rights groups.

Will my hon. and learned Friend counsel my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there is a serious deficiency in our statute law in relation to our obligations under the European convention on human rights? European judges will note that the Crown has been reminded of this by the British legislature. We have no public interest defence under the Official Secrets Act 1989. No doubt the Ponting jury took account of that.

The Human Rights Act 1998 does not amend the Official Secrets Act 1989. My hon. Friend will know that all legislation, including the Official Secrets Act, must be interpreted in conformity with the Human Rights Act. In addition, all public authorities, including the security services, must act in conformity with that Act. In any prosecution, including one under the Official Secrets Act, the defendant can raise a human rights point. That three-pronged attack does not exactly address my hon. Friend's concern, but it may give him some comfort.

In the interests of open government, will the Solicitor-General explain to the House the process adopted by the Government before a statement of compatibility with the convention is added to a Bill?

Every Minister must sign a certificate and every Minister receives detailed advice from his or her lawyers. In some cases, my Department will be involved. There will be a detailed statement, which will go to the Cabinet Committee on Legislation. The section 19 statement is backed by a detailed analysis undertaken by Government officials.

Does not the European convention on human rights give the right to parents to ensure that their children can be educated in accordance with the philosophical convictions of those parents? Might not the convention prove an invaluable tool and defence mechanism in the event that the malicious and stupid regulations of the Government were to lead to the abolition of a single grammar school?

Some of the hon. Gentleman's comments are tendentious—[Interruption.] In fact, all of them are. He is right to say that parents have a right to educate their children as they wish. However, there is a range of other rights as well, all of which are important.

What measures are being taken to ensure that the views of the Crown Prosecution Service at all levels are taken into account as the reforms of the CPS are implemented. [103804]

Proper consultation with all staff is essential for the reform programme. The CPS is approaching that in an open and inclusive way. The trade unions have been consulted throughout and the membership of the working groups steering the reforms in the CPS has been drawn widely from across the service. The CPS has also set up a sounding-board network, which is designed to provide an additional regular forum for staff at all levels to inform and monitor the reforms.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. When I visited the CPS office in Canterbury before the reforms were announced, I found the staff there very much looking forward to the reforms and wanting to be closely involved in making them work. Will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that senior CPS staff will be visiting local area offices and talking to staff at all levels to receive their feedback? Will he also assure me that trade unionists in local branches will be involved? Will there be anything more formal and objective than the sounding board appears to be, which will ensure that the views of all staff are taken into account?

I thank my hon. Friend for visiting his local office. I received a detailed report of that visit, which was obviously useful. More detailed work than I specified in the initial answer is being done. A survey and stress audit among all members of staff is to be carried out. The trade unions are closely involved—for example, trade union representatives sit on the equality committee and the working group on race. There is a regular programme of visits by managers, and the Attorney-General and I also have a regular system of visiting all offices around the country.

One of the matters that the Solicitor-General will no doubt want to take into account is the current and future budget of the Crown Prosecution Service. How much will the CPS have spent on its own behalf and on behalf of Spain in the Pinochet case, and what proportion of the CPS's annual budget does that sum represent?

I cannot give the detailed figures, but I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Questions have been answered on the matter. As a result of a decision of the divisional court, the arrangement in this country is that the CPS acts as the agent of a foreign state—in the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised, Spain—and accepts instructions, as does any lawyer from a client. That arrangement was laid down by the divisional court. Some may question that policy, but that is the law. I will come back to the hon. and learned Gentleman with the detailed response to his inquiries.

My own visit to the local Crown Prosecution Service left me less than overwhelmed by the support provided by information technology. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that efficient IT, which any modernised prosecution service needs, will be available to the CPS?

Again, I commend my hon. Friend for visiting his local CPS. IT is important. The CPS does not have sufficient IT. At a previous Question Time, I said that under the modernisation programme from the Treasury, the CPS has £12 million to introduce IT. That will be done in the near future. There is also a more detailed programme to ensure that the criminal justice system is joined-up, IT-wise, so that the police can communicate with the prosecutors, the courts and so on.

What measures his Department uses to monitor the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service in terms of cases taken forward for prosecution. [103805]

The performance of the Crown Prosecution Service is monitored against a range of measures. Those include the proportion of dismissals—no case to answer—in magistrates courts and non-jury acquittals in the Crown court, where the outcome is attributable to failure in the review process. Information on the number and proportion of cases resulting in an adverse outcome, and on the reason for that result, is collected by the CPS and is used to identify areas requiring improvement.

I listened carefully to the Solicitor-General's answer and to the answers he has given previously, which have been of a general nature. What practical steps are being taken specifically to liaise with the victims of crime and to keep them informed of the progress of cases? How about a weekly or fortnightly telephone call, e-mail or letter? That contact should be measured, so that victims of crime can monitor how matters are progressing from their point of view.

I can tell the House that we are piloting recommendations made in the Macpherson and the Glidewell reports that the CPS should be the contact with the victim. At present, the police are the contact. That means that sometimes messages may be garbled. We are working towards a system where the prosecutors will be the point of contact with victims, which should greatly improve the arrangements to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred earlier.

Can the Solicitor-General examine the processes that resulted in the possibly malicious prosecution of two people in Cambridge—known as the Cambridge Two—

Order. The case is subject to appeal and is therefore sub judice.