| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Specified Risk Materials
10. Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington): What measures he is taking to ensure that controls on specified risk materials do not place additional burdens on the livestock industry. [87925]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The House will be aware that the Government have deferred plans to charge the meat industry for the cost of specified risk material enforcement for a further year. That will save the industry some £20 million.
Mr. Plaskitt: Farmers in my constituency are very grateful to the Government for meeting the costs of the scheme, and I think they accept in principle that the time has come for the costs to return to the industry. Can my hon. Friend say any more about the possible timing, and about whether he is considering any phasing in of costs?
Mr. Rooker: The time mentioned in the announcement was a year. When my right hon. Friend announced the concession, having noted the industry's problems, we indicated that there was a potential for phasing in, probably over two years.
This is a public health measure, and as such it is very important. It does not relate to every single abattoir; it is intended to deal with cattle and, to a lesser extent, sheep. We feel that the industry should take the cost on board, but it would probably be wrong to ask it to take all of it on board in one go.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
I welcome the postponing of the SRM costs, but will the Minister act urgently to reverse the decision to have qualified vets on site at the time of the slaughtering of all animals? This is an unacceptable charge which has more than doubled the cost of the slaughtering of all animals, and poses the risk that small local abattoirs will have to be closed in the coming months.
Mr. Rooker:
We have considered the matter, and are still considering it. We have not yet announced the charging regime for this year. At present the Ministry is bearing about £300,000 of the charges, and the industry is therefore benefiting from the delay. When we present our proposals, however, I hope that they will take on board what the hon. Lady has said about the requirement for full-time veterinary supervision.
Organic Farming
11. Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon): If the Government will introduce targets for the proportion of land that is farmed organically in the United Kingdom. [87926]
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We have no plans to do so at present. To be sustainable, production should be in response to market demand. The Government are committed to supporting the expansion of the organic farm sector, which in the United Kingdom has increased by over 400 per cent. in the past 12 months.
Encouragement of organic farming in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Parliament; in Wales, it is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. I understand that there are no plans to set a target for organic production in Northern Ireland.
Ms Drown:
My hon. Friend spoke of the need to respond to market demand, and then described the huge increase in demand that has taken place. In February this year, supermarkets reported an increase of between 35 and 40 per cent.--yet we are importing 80 per cent. of the organic fruit and vegetables that we consume. Will my hon. Friend consult his counterparts in Austria, which is farming 10 per cent. of crops organically--the figure here is less than 1 per cent.--and in Denmark, which has set ambitious targets, to establish whether there are lessons that we can learn?
Mr. Morley:
We are keen to expand the organic sector for the reasons that my hon. Friend states. However, an expansion of more than 400 per cent. in 12 months is a sign of the success of the extra support that the Government have given to organic farming; there has been a near doubling of aid for organic research. We want organic production to expand up to the market available for it. We are at about the 2 per cent. mark; it is under 2 per cent. Given market demand, there is further room for progress.
Disclosure
26. Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South): What discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions about reforming the law on disclosure in criminal cases; and if he will make a statement. [87904]
The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions routinely to discuss the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. At those meetings, we have discussed the application of law of disclosure. The director recently initiated a programme of work to ensure that the law is applied properly.
Our discussions have not covered reform of the law, policy responsibility for which rests with the Home Secretary.
Mr. Mullin:
Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, when he and I were on the Standing
The Attorney-General:
I do not think that my hon. Friend is reminding the House precisely of what I said. I think that I said that the proposal was a distinct improvement in that both prosecution and defence would be able to focus on relevant material. The director and I share the concern that justice be done, and justice demands proper disclosure.
Although 100,000 persons, in both the CPS and the police, were trained initially, there is need for more training. The director has begun a programme of work and emphasised the importance of the issue to the new chief Crown prosecutors. As regards the police, some of the work may be done together. That is primarily a matter for the Home Secretary, but I reiterate the director's words:
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
What discussions has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had with the DPP about disclosure in cases under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989? In the light of that, why did it take his Department 17 days to advise the Home Department of the errors that were discovered in the recent version of the PTA? Is 17 days an acceptable period of delay when dealing with a matter of that importance and urgency?
The Attorney-General:
I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the translation to his new office. Who knows--his learning curve may turn out to be as long as mine: 18 years.
On the precise question, the position is as follows. I have read the debate in the House. The matter was discovered by one of my staff; the Home Office was informed; it requested advice on 1 June. The Solicitor-General and I took a preliminary view. The advice sought by the Home Office was not solely on the problem that the regulations had not been properly delineated; there were other issues involving the procedure to revive them. It was an unprecedented situation. There was also the knock-on effect in relation to the case that is to be before the House of Lords on 19 July.
In those circumstances, I deemed it right to seek the advice of, eventually, two Treasury counsel. That was obtained on 17 June. The instructions were given to counsel on 8 June. It was important to get it right. We saw a preliminary view from Treasury counsel and, on the day we eventually received the final joint advice, it was conveyed to the Home Office.
There was no unacceptable delay whatsoever. I am sure that, 18 years from now, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing my job, he will do precisely the same to get it right.
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North):
Can my right hon. and learned Friend recollect a situation in which any
The Attorney-General:
The answer is none. Frequently, the problem is not one of non-disclosure but of late disclosure, as in the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). There are also obvious difficulties unless non-disclosure is clearly an unambiguous fault, as opposed to something that has been overlooked. Of course, the Crown Prosecution Service has to rely on material provided by the police; hence the need to continue to be vigilant and to retrain, so that both the police and the CPS can ensure that justice is done.
27. Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy):
What percentage of Crown Prosecution lawyers in Wales are able to conduct trials through the medium of the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement. [R] [87905]
The Attorney-General:
In Wales, 14.08 per cent. of Crown prosecutors are able to conduct trials through the medium of the Welsh language, which compares with the 13.6 per cent. of the population who can speak, read and write Welsh. In fact, it is estimated that the ability is needed in fewer than 1 per cent. of trials.
Mr. Llwyd:
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. In some areas of north Wales, provision is considered very good; but in some areas of Wales, it is considered very poor. Moreover, where provision has developed, it has done so solely on an ad hoc basis. For example, in Dyfed--which, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, is a Welsh- speaking area--three out of 15 prosecutors speak Welsh. There is under-provision in some areas, but proper provision in others.
When the CPS next comes up for appraisal of service delivery, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that such provision is a definite subject heading, so that each and every area will report on this important issue?
The Attorney-General:
I know that the hon. Gentleman regards it as an important issue, and I share that belief. A long time ago, I had the privilege of prosecuting a case--a substantial part of it in Welsh--in his own constituency. Two of the four newly appointed chief Crown prosecutors speak Welsh, and one of them is learning it. All four were born in Wales. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we attach importance to the fact that, if required, 20 of the prosecutors in Wales are able to conduct cases in Welsh. If any case goes to the Crown court, a substantial number of barristers--including the hon. Gentleman--are capable of conducting it in Welsh.
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West):
I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the legal system has progressed quite a long way from the days when it was the instrument of official suppression of the Welsh language in Wales. None the less, does he accept that there is still a long way to go before the principles enunciated in the Welsh Language Act 1993 are realised?
The Attorney-General:
I am not sure whether I follow every material part of my hon. Friend's suggestions;
"Innocent people may be convicted and guilty defendants acquitted if the CPS fails to properly disclose material to the defence in criminal trials."
I attach great importance to that. We can move forward with proper training and proper retraining, if that is necessary.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |