| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Match Funding
10. Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam): What is the total amount of unclaimed match funding relating to agricultural support available to the UK since 1997. [122410]
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): A total of £2,155 million in agrimonetary compensation has become available from January 1997 to date, in several three-year packages. Of that total, £595 million has been or will be paid, of which £584 million is EU funded and £11 million UK funded. However, because of the Fontainebleau abatement, the UK Exchequer contributes about 71 per cent. of the cost--and the total cost to the UK taxpayer is therefore about £426 million.
Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister confirm that, last year, about £224 million was available through the agrimonetary compensation scheme but only of that £66 million was allocated and drawn down to provide compensation for hard-pressed farmers? Why was the Ministry unable to guarantee that 100 per cent. went to the farmers who needed it, so that they received support when they needed it and were not put out of business because they had not received it?
Mr. Brown: The regime is permissive; we have the option of drawing down those sums. As I have just said, an overwhelming part of the cost of doing so falls on the UK taxpayer, so any use of that instrument must take its place among competing claims for public expenditure. I have to fight hard in Government the case for making use of that instrument. For the longer term, because agrimonetary compensation is being phased out, the industry--all sections of agriculture--must become more oriented towards the marketplace. There is no future for the industry in continuing to call for supply-side measures to help it from one crisis to the next.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Returning to the real purpose of Question 6, which was about subsidies for arable farming--
Madam Speaker: Order. We do not go back to other questions. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to ask a supplementary on this question, I shall listen to him.
Mr. Quinn: It is a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
On Friday evening, I attended a meeting of the National Farmers Union in Scarborough, where there was much concern about the effect of agrimonetary compensation and the impact of the weak euro. Can my right hon. Friend find time to come with me to meet members of the NFU in Scarborough to talk about that subject?
Mr. Brown: I am more than willing to meet members of the NFU; indeed, I think I have met most of them personally over the past few years. If I have not done so, it certainly feels like that. The Government have made use of agrimonetary compensation to try to provide some short-term support for the industry, but that is not the long-term answer to the industry's problems. I am more than willing to join my hon. Friend to discuss the way forward with local farmers in Scarborough.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): At the recent No. 10 summit, the Minister made great play of the fact that he was giving £66 million in agrimonetary compensation to farmers. However, he should surely have also said in the same statement that he was taking away £110 million of exactly the same agrimonetary compensation. Is it not a classic case of taking away rather more with one hand than he is giving with the other? The agriculture summit was a classic public relations con.
Mr. Brown: That is completely unfair. The agriculture summit, which pulled together from right across government a wide range of issues that affect farmers, was broadly welcomed by the industry and received a positive response--the more so when people have had the chance to consider the details. The fact that we do not make use of a permissive instrument to spend British public money does not mean that we have taken it away from people who might have been the beneficiaries. One could take that argument to an absurd degree if one wanted, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might want to.
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The Solicitor-General was asked--
Criminal Courts
28. Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): What contribution the Crown Prosecution Service will make towards the Lord Chancellor's review of the criminal courts system. [122430]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service is playing its full part in Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts. An experienced CPS prosecutor, Nasrin Khan, has been seconded to the secretariat to Sir Robin Auld for the duration of the review. Staff from across the CPS are attending the seminars being organised by Lord Justice Auld and there are other contributions to his deliberations.
Mr. Quinn: Is my hon. and learned Friend able to tell the House what have been the key topics and priorities discussed with Lord Justice Auld about the work done by the Director of Public Prosecutions?
The Solicitor-General: One of our main concerns is listing in the courts. The CPS has found in the past that magistrates courts often adopt listing procedures that do not take into account the need for an efficient operation of the CPS. Appeals in cases of judge-directed acquittals is another important topic. In some cases, judges have decided on abuse-of-process grounds that charges should be dismissed and we take the view that that matter should be subject to review. The Home Office has referred it to the Law Commission, but a whole range of features involving management and other aspects of the operation of the courts is being considered.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): May I be assured by the Solicitor-General that the CPS will tell the criminal courts review the wholly uncontroversial point that the Government's plans for the reform of the jury system will lead to court delays, increased appeals, loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system and a great deal of extra expense?
The Solicitor-General: The matter will be subject to some examination by Sir Robin Auld. He is considering the whole procedure of the courts, and the operation of the jury system is one aspect of that. Our proposals will certainly not have the consequences that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. On the contrary, they will lead to a more efficient operation of the courts, which is one aspect of the review.
Drugs Cases
29. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): If he will make a statement on the application of the public interest test by the Crown Prosecution Service in drugs cases. [122431]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are guided by the code for Crown prosecutors in relation to offences involving controlled drugs, as with any other offence.
Therefore, they must decide whether a prosecution should be brought in the public interest. First, a Crown prosecutor has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction. Once that test is satisfied, the public interest test must be considered.
Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. May I suggest to him that it is very much in the public interest to continue the fight against all kinds of drugs and not to ease off in any way? May I urge him not to be enticed by the arguments pushed and pedalled by those who make the case for legalisation or decriminalisation? Does he agree that, at a time when we are trying to ban smoking, it makes no sense to take a softer line towards people who mix tobacco with cannabis and then smoke that?
The Solicitor-General: As I said, the CPS acts in accordance with the code. There must be evidence before consideration of the public interest test can take place. Parliament has not decriminalised cannabis, so the CPS will prosecute those offences. In some circumstances, of course, the police will simply issue a caution and the cases will not come to the CPS. When cases do come to the CPS, public interest factors may sometimes militate against prosecution. For example, in areas in which prosecution for possession of cannabis may lead to adverse community relations, the CPS may decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute. However, possession is a criminal offence and the CPS proceeds on that basis.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a repeat drugs offender, in what conceivable circumstances could it be against the public interest to do so?
The Solicitor-General: Repetition of behaviour is one factor that would be taken into account and would certainly point towards prosecution.
Vexatious Litigants
30. Mr. David Drew (Stroud): How many applications with regard to vexatious litigants the Law Officers have dealt with over the past 12 months. [122432]
The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): In the past 12 months the High Court has considered 11 applications made by the Law Officers under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Of those 11 applications, nine resulted in orders being made, one application was refused and one, although heard, awaits judgment. In the same period, the employment appeals tribunal made two orders under section 33 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996, which prevents applications to the tribunal.
Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Obviously, it is not without interest for the House, given this week's proceedings.
What are the implications for the individuals concerned? Clearly, if an order is served on someone, that can lead to considerable restriction of his or her activities. Is that compatible with the European convention on human rights?
The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General and I give these applications close consideration when they come before us. One of my constituents is a vexatious litigant, and he constantly reminds me, in the nicest possible way, of the implications that the order has for him.
We carefully consider such applications, which must then be considered by two High Court judges sitting in the divisional court. On the human rights aspect, Strasbourg has considered the matter on two occasions and said that the orders are compatible with the ECHR. The test is very high. The statute requires habitual and persistent behaviour, and it must be reasonable in the circumstances for the court to make that order. As the figures that I gave my hon. Friend indicate, the number of applications is not significant.
An order does not prevent vexatious litigants from litigating, but they have to seek the leave of the court to bring an action.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |