| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
13. Mr. Rendel: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the administration and financing of the over-30-months slaughter scheme. [7289]
14. Mr. Chope:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about his decision to reduce compensation payments to beef farmers with effect from 4 August. [7290]
Dr. Jack Cunningham:
I have received a number of representations from farming interests about the decision to reduce the compensation payment for cull cows slaughtered under the scheme and to cap compensation payments by introducing a weight limit of 560 kg. The over-30-months scheme is administered by the Intervention Board executive agency and is co-financed by the European Union.
Mr. Rendel:
When the Minister was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), he said that he saw no crisis brewing in the scheme. Does he not realise that many farmers, in my constituency and throughout the country, would regard that as remarkably complacent--perhaps even as complacent as the attitude of the previous Administration? Although the halving of the number of abattoirs and the reduction in compensation to farmers may lead to some reduction in costs for the taxpayer, it will certainly mean an increase in costs to farmers and more distress for the animals involved because of the longer distances that they will need to be transported.
Dr. Cunningham:
I made the point earlier, and I make it again to the hon. Gentleman now, that the Intervention Board has introduced competitive tendering precisely so
Mr. Chope:
Why is the Minister discriminating against the farmers with the fattest old cows? What message does he have for my constituent Mr. Farwell, who has a herd of fine Friesians and is extremely aggrieved by the 560 kg limit? A fine Friesian that has become barren will probably weigh 700 kg, so my constituent will lose a lot of money as a result of the arbitrary change.
Dr. Cunningham:
I recognise that farmers, too, have difficulties as a result of the mismanagement of the whole crisis by the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member. Perhaps I should remind him that the scheme is subject to EU legislation and is not completely within the control of Her Majesty's Government. Decisions have to be approved by the Beef Management Committee in Brussels, precisely because of the mess created by the Conservatives.
Mr. Stevenson:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the basic principles of the over-30-months scheme was that the reductions announced in the compensation have been part of the plan all along? Was not one of the guiding principles that farmers and producers would have the time to plan ahead? They knew full well that the time was coming when the compensation would be reduced and measures such as those that my right hon. Friend has announced would have to be adopted.
Dr. Cunningham:
Yes, I agree with that. I should also point out that there is absolutely no reason, given the time that has elapsed, why any clean cattle should continue to go into the scheme.
Mr. Tipping:
Will the Minister look closely at any arguments or suggestions from farmers' organisations or other bodies trying to meet the needs of beef and suckler farmers, provided that any further action is met within existing resources?
Dr. Cunningham:
Yes. I met the president of the National Farmers Union and a representative group of farmers from all over the United Kingdom a couple of weeks ago. They said that they would put some counter-proposals to me on how the scheme might be administered. I said that I would consider any such proposals that were put to me. As yet, I have not received them.
Mr. Thompson:
Will the Minister confirm that it was pressure from the Treasury that led the British Government to make this request to the Beef Management Committee and that that request was to reduce the price
Dr. Cunningham:
The Ministry of Agriculture is not immune to the need to stick within budgeted public expenditure--any more than any other Government Ministry is. A number of proposals were put to the Beef Management Committee in Brussels, and the final decision was made there. That is a consequence of the European Union legislation to deal with the crisis in beef farming caused by the previous Administration.
Serious Fraud Office
27. Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had since 1 May with the director of the Serious Fraud Office concerning the future of the office. [7305]
The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): The director and I meet regularly to discuss matters of departmental interest. In 1996-97 the Serious Fraud Office had a highly successful year. Eight major cases were concluded, with 12 out of 14 defendants being convicted. The new director will continue to build on that foundation.
Mr. Jenkin: Do the Government have a strategy to rebuild the reputation of the Serious Fraud Office after it foundered on a series of high-profile cases during the past decade and earlier in this decade? May we have some idea of the kind of reforms that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider?
The Attorney-General: The figures that I have just given the House speak for themselves. There have been difficulties in the past, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that many of the cases with which the SFO has to deal are difficult and complex and need a great deal of investigation. Once they are prosecuted, of course, the SFO is in the hands of the courts. However, the hon. Gentleman should be reassured by the figures that I have given.
Amsterdam Treaty
28. Mr. Gareth Thomas: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement as to the implications of the Amsterdam treaty for his Department. [7307]
The Attorney-General: The Amsterdam treaty does not have any specific implications for the work of my Department, but as a member of the Government I welcome the outstanding achievement of my colleagues in securing such a treaty which meets our key objectives.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that a strong and effective European Court of Justice is essential if this country is to gain the maximum advantage from
membership of the European Union and essential to the interests of British industry if it is to take advantage of the single market?
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A strong European Court of Justice is essential if we are to ensure compliance with the rules of Community law, such as the rules governing the internal market. As my hon. Friend says, the overwhelming majority of those rules benefit us--so I endorse his views.
Mr. Burnett: Can the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty be used to enable United Kingdom judgments more easily to be enforced in other European Union countries?
The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, I made my Department's responsibilities quite clear in my main answer, and the implications are as I have said. I could tell him what objectives we achieved, but the details of the treaty are matters for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I would respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts the question to him.
Crown Prosecution Service
29. Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the effect of restrictions on rights of audience on morale in the Crown Prosecution Service. [7308]
The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service has no statistical information about this issue, but there is enthusiasm among Crown prosecutors to exercise rights of audience in the Crown court.
Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that morale in the Crown Prosecution Service is extremely important, and that it is a matter not only of resources but of career prospects, which include the possibility of appearing in the higher courts? Does he further agree that until the service is in good heart there is no point in contemplating a public defender system?
The Attorney-General: I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in these matters, and on the first part of the question I agree entirely: the morale is vital. On the second part, the review that we have set up has been warmly welcomed. Given that welcome, I hope that when the results come out, the review will play a major part in the question of morale that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises. The question of rights of audience and employed solicitors has already been decided, and it was clarified as recently as April this year. The question of employed barristers has not been resolved: it is before the designated judges for consideration, and has been for a little time.
30. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to introduce measures to reform the Crown Prosecution Service. [7309]
The Attorney-General: In addition to the restructuring of Crown Prosecution Service areas to correspond with police areas, which l announced on 21 May 1997, Sir Iain Glidewell has been appointed to conduct an independent review of the CPS and expects to report to me by the end
of the year. Further consideration will then be given to whether and what changes are necessary to provide for the more effective and efficient prosecution of crime through local public prosecutors.
Mr. Mackinlay: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that, although it is quite fair for the morale of the Crown Prosecution Service to be referred to by the Tory hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), it is far more important to consider the morale of our constituents, who are sick to the back teeth of having court cases delayed by the old existing service, over which the Tories presided? We want news of when Mr. Justice Glidewell's report will be published. Will the public be able to make representations? The people of this country want my right hon. and learned Friend to take a grip on the service, which is badly letting down the criminal justice system.
The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the paramount consideration must be the British public as a whole; I endorse that view. I hope that Sir Iain Glidewell's report will be published by the end of the year. The public will be invited to make their representations. In the years that have gone by, I have been aware of the feelings of many Members of Parliament and many petitioners about the Crown Prosecution Service.
I hope that hon. Members such as my hon. Friend and others will give their evidence to Sir Iain Glidewell, who will issue a general invitation to staff and to anyone else to come along and give their views on what they regard as the shortfalls. Matters such as downgrading, delays and discontinuances are specifically within Sir Iain's remit.
Mr. Baker:
Is the Attorney-General aware that many of my constituents feel that the barrier set by the CPS before it decides to initiate prosecutions is set absurdly high and that on some occasions it appears that the reason is a backlog in the courts rather than a decision as to whether an action will be successful? Is he also aware that for many minor offences it appears to be almost impossible for the CPS to initiate proceedings and, for matters such as vandalism, only in exceptional circumstances does an action proceed?
The Attorney-General:
Those are some of the matters of concern to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred. Those matters will come within the remit of Sir Iain Glidewell. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that those who are guilty of offences are successfully prosecuted. The CPS has to take an independent judgment on the chances of conviction in each case, and that is what it does. If there are any shortfalls, they will be examined by Sir Iain and his inquiry.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
Does the Attorney-General recognise that we welcome Sir Iain Glidewell's review, but is he also aware that those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind? Does he recall that he and, in particular, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went up and down the country prior to the election putting out the idea that the CPS was constantly dropping or downgrading cases wrongly? They went on to say that the CPS rather than the police should have the job of informing victims, but the present Government have put no money forward to
The Attorney-General:
I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the report will be published in full. If he had not shut his eyes over the years to the grave concern expressed by judge after judge, prosecutor after prosecutor and by Members of this House and members of the public, something would have been done years ago. He may recall that when the Bill which became the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 was first introduced I moved an amendment and said that the issue should be reviewed in five years' time lest we might--all of us--have got it wrong. I do not think that we got it right. Hence, I immediately asked for 42 Crown prosecutors to be appointed in each area, to be coterminous with chief constables, so that the public would know where they stand.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |