House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Mar 1990

Column 1089

the premises. Due to Government under- funding of local authorities, very few have the staff or the resources to ensure that such a visit takes place. None the less, if food premises open without prior inspection and a case of food poisoning or worse occurs, the local authority will be guilty of having failed to pay such a visit and to protect public health. If the Government are serious and want public inspections, let it be clear that they are serious--let them accept that the case for regulation is overwhelming.

If the Government persist in refusing to allow licensing rather than registration, enforcement becomes more important, although by definition it is after the event and therefore less desirable than prevention. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) recognised that in his contribution to the debate.

According to a recent report from the Hereford and Worcester trading standards department, out of a total of 303 food products examined, 114 broke the statutory requirements. A finger from a rubber glove was found in a fish pie, chewing gum in a biscuit, a chicken claw in a Chinese meal, slugs in peas, a fly in a sardine sandwich and a previously sucked sweet in a tub of margarine. That is all very unpleasant, but not so potentially dangerous as other things that were found--a knife blade in a soft drink can, a sewing needle in a loaf of bread and glass in 12 different packaged foodstuffs. With such hazards to contend with, enforcement is clearly a major priority and the inspection of premises which are merely registered without being licensed will go by the board.

Time and again, when I speak to the people at the sharp end--those who see the problems at first hand, and know what needs to be done--I am told that the real problem is lack of staff and resources to implement even the existing legislation, let alone the new requirements. Increased demands and new responsibilities for enforcement action, fewer local resources as a result of cuts in local authority spending and the reduction in EHO vacancies all combine to form a pattern which will undermine the effectiveness of enforcement action. That point was made by the hon. Members for York (Mr. Gregory) and for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). The Bill does nothing to redress the balance.

The question of funding has been raised by many of my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). The Bill states :

"The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991-1992 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's Revenue Support Grant Settlement." The reality behind the phrase "taken into account" is that the new money is unlikely to be found--that is why the Minister chose that phrase. Increased weight may well be given to the food inspection expenditure head in the calculation of the overall revenue support grant, but I have no doubt that it will be offset by reductions elsewhere and by the Government's overall policy of cutting revenue support grant. In other words, the increase will be only notional and authorities will have to finance the new service by reordering their existing priorities. Given the turmoil caused by the introduction of the poll tax and the attempts of embattled councils to minimise the impact of the charge on residents, it is unlikely that the new responsibilities will be properly discharged.

Lest the Minister deny what I am saying, I will ask him a specific question. Will he give an undertaking that the £30 million implementation costs--that is his estimate--will either be added as a specific and identified sum to the

Column 1090

total standard spending calculations, or will be added as a specified and additional sum to the total level of revenue support grant? If the Bill is to mean anything, that is what needs to be done. Without those additional resources, embattled local authorities trying to maintain standards and comply with the requirements placed on them by central Government will be unable to do so.

We are very concerned about irradiation. My hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), as experts on the matter, made compelling speeches. I assure the House--I know that many Conservative Members will want to know this--that we shall table an amendment on irradiation to allow the whole House to decide on the issue.

The Minister claims to be the listening Minister, so why is he not listening now? Why does he not listen to the former Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner)? Having spent seven years in the Ministry, she is clearly unhappy about irradiation. Why does he not listen to the hon. Member for Davyhulme, who made a powerful and compelling speech against irradiation? The Minister was happy enough to say to the National Farmers Union a few weeks ago, "I listened and I acted." He said it three or four times. Why does he not listen to all the consumer groups? Why does he not listen to the 84 per cent. of people who say that they do not want irradiated food? Why does he not listen to all those who are concerned about the quality of our food? Apparently he can listen to the farmers but not to the consumers.

We shall pursue in Committee the other matters about which we are unhappy. The amendment already made, which removes some of the unwarranted secrecy that had been written into the Bill, is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, too much secrecy remains.We shall have more to say about that later. According to the Bill, education and training are to be improved, but the Government's record gives us no cause for confidence. We shall examine later what lies behind their intentions. We shall also want to secure assurances from Ministers that regulations promulgated under the Bill are properly and openly debated when they are made.

I have no doubt that the Bill can be considerably improved before it returns to the House. With that hope, while recognising that the Bill as drafted is but a figleaf to cover the Government's poor record on diet and public health, we give the Bill not a warm but an acquiescent welcome and shall not oppose its Second Reading. 9.45 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman) : I am very glad that the Bill has received a broad welcomefrom Members on both sides of the House. I am sorry that the time available to me, just 14 minutes, will not allow me to answer all the questions that have been raised by hon. Members. I shall write to those Members whose questions I do not answer. I am sure that they will accept my apologies for not dealing with all their points now. The Government welcome the Richmond committee's recommendations, which have been broadly accepted. Its work was thorough. We thank all the members of the committee.

You may be wondering, Mr. Speaker, why a Department of Health Minister is winding up the debate.

Column 1091

It is because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is specifically responsible for food safety--and the Department of Health work closely together on food safety. The Department of Health is responsible for public food hygiene and microbiological contamination. I meet my opposite number at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on many occasions to discuss issues of mutual concern.

The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked a number of questions. Unfortunately, I have time to deal only with the key ones. He asked where we stand in the world league table in terms of food surveillance. We have the best food safety surveillance system in the world. I say that without any qualification. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I visited the public health laboratory service earlier this week. It is responsible for monitoring food poisoning outbreaks. We were much impressed by what we saw. I am pleased that the public health laboratory service is soon to introduce a major new computing system to ensure that information on food poisoning outbreaks reaches the centre in Colindale and that it is then dispersed to the appropriate authorities responsible for food safety. That is a major new advance.

As for the suggestion by the hon. Member for South Shields that there should be an independent food standards agency, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is accountable to Parliament for policy, as are other Ministers. We have independent advice from expert committees. The hon. Member for South Shields has not, I believe, persuaded the House that an independent food standards agency would lead to any improvement.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the food research that has been carried out at Bristol. The two food research centres at Reading and Norwich are now larger and more efficient. The Government are to spend more in the coming year, in real terms, on food research than they spent last year. The hon. Gentleman does not want any change in the organisation of food research. By implication, he denies the Government's responsibility to make food research more effective. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred to the £30 million which is to go to the local authorities. I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) that this is all new money and that all of it will go, by means of revenue support grant, to local authorities. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) misread the Bill or the financial memorandum. I give her the commitment or assurance that she sought. It will be new money, and in fixing the sum or the order of magnitude the Government consulted enforcement authorities and the local authority associations.

The hon. Member for South Shields referred to irradiation, as did many other hon. Members. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) for their support for the concept of irradiation. It is not true to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Column 1092

Food is promoting irradiation. No one is promoting irradiation. The Government are seeking to facilitate irradiation. Several hon. Members have got the issue way out of proportion. If the Bill is passed, and if regulations to be laid before the House are passed, a tiny proportion of British food available for consumption in the United Kingdom will have been irradiated.

The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) were right to draw the attention of the House to the concerns of many, including women's institutes. They will have the right to choose whether to consume irradiated food. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Medway the assurance that she sought : we shall take every step to make sure that the food is properly labelled, and my right hon. Friend the Minister will consult various advisory panels to make sure that the labelling of irradiated food is clear and in no way misleading. The hon. Member for South Shields asked why we were anticipating measures in Europe. The EC bodies do not provide advice on health aspects. The Government have listened to the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations which has said that irradiation is safe, the United Kingdom Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods, the British Nutrition Foundation, the Medical Research Council and many others. Those are the right bodies in which we should place our confidence. The hon. Gentleman also asked why we need to have the process if the food is wholesome. There may be a misunderstanding about the consequences of salmonella and listeria on the wholesomeness of food. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in many food processes it is not possible completely to eradicate those bugs. Irradiation can eliminate them or seek to eliminate them. That will certainly mean that the shelf life of irradiated foods can be longer than would otherwise be the case, but it is a sensible process of treating food, like freezing, canning or curing. It cannot make unfit food fit for consumption. If it is unfit in the first place, my right hon. Friend will ban it.

I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Medway about the public perception. She is right to remind the House that, despite the arguments that the Government have taken into account on the health aspect of irradiation, many members of the public are concerned and will not buy the food. It is their right so to choose. The Government's responsibility is to make sure that the food is properly labelled so that an informed choice can be made.

The Government are also satisfied that there are no health risks to those who choose to buy and consume irradiated food. My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who has apologised for his early departure, raised a number of points. He expressed his concern that the House will not have the opportunity to debate the regulations on irradiation. There will be full consultation on the regulations and an opportunity in due course for the House to debate them under the negative resolution procedure.

Several of my hon. Friends asked the valid question how one can test whether food has been irradiated. There are no tests at present to identify whether food has been irradiated. However, it is quite clear that the process of licensing, the process of official inspection, the process of making sure that there is proper documentation at the few factories that might choose, under licence, to proceed with

Column 1093

irradiation, are sufficient. Indeed, the United States Food and Drug Administration is perfectly satisfied that that procedure provides the correct controls. I cite again the view of the World Health Organisation :

"Irradiation could be of enormous value in dealing with the major food problems of developing countries."

The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who has gone, my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West mentioned the shortage of environmental health officers. We believe that there are about 400 vacancies--about 8 per cent. of the total complement--in the country. Most of the vacancies, of course, are in London and the south-east. However, the number of student environmental health officers entering training increased from 207 in 1985 to 289 in 1989. I hope that that trend will continue. There is also scope to use less qualified staff to carry out some tasks, thus freeing the more highly qualified officers for tasks for which their qualifications are necessary. The Audit Commission is studying environmental health departments to determine whether their organisation and efficiency might be improved.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Shields, mentioned the question of training places for student officers. It was right that they should do so. I have already mentioned the increase in the number of students. A course at Bristol polytechnic, which started in January this year, will provide a new postgraduate opportunity for EHO training. A course at King's college, London university, will start next September, and discussions are taking place about increasing EHO training facilities at Birmingham university, Manchester polytechnic and Hatfield polytechnic. The right hon. Member for Halton spoke also about hygiene training in schools. He might like to know that the new science core curriculum makes provision for such training. Children will have to learn the elements of food hygiene.

My hon. Friends the Members for Medway, Gloucestershire, West, and Ludlow (Mr. Gill) the hon. Member for Rutherglen, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) talked in particular about training for food handlers. This is a vital matter. The Government have issued a consultation document on methods of training food handlers, and we want to receive responses by 30 June. The codes of practice on which the implementation advisory

Column 1094

committee will be advising--perhaps playing a part in drawing up--will deal with the great issue of trying to make standards of enforcement as even as possible throughout the country.

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) talked about registration. I do not agree with what he said. Under our proposals, registration will be as of right. Enforcement officers, the EHOs, will have a great battery of powers- -warning, advice, prosecution, closure--and, indeed, Ministers themselves will have powers to issue emergency control orders. That is the simpler, less bureaucratic way of control, of ensuring high food standards in this country. Notification four weeks prior to opening will allow environmental health officers to visit premises and provide advice.

I hope that I have dealt with the point of the hon. Member for Preston about the £30 million. This matter was raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I hope that I have made the position quite clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, rightly, welcomed the advisory committee--the consumer voice--that my right hon. Friend announced today. My hon. Friend asked about Ministers' powers. Under clause 43, Ministers will have the power to intervene, but we want local authorities to take first responsibility.

The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) raised the question of listeriosis and of the chief medical officer's decision, in February last year, to issue warnings to pregnant women, in particular, about soft cheese. That was a complicated jigsaw. He acted correctly, at the right time, not too late and certainly not too early. The Department supports him. It has taken time to establish that listeria can be carried by food and that it could affect the unborn child. We fully support the chief medical officer in his decisions. The Bill, which I commend to the House, will improve standards of food safety. I am glad that all hon. Members support its Second Reading. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motion relating to the Food Safety Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Sackville.]

Column 1095

Food Safety Bill [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified--

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Safety Bill [ Lords ], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--

(1) any remuneration or allowances payable to the chairmen of tribunals constituted in accordance with regulations made under the Act ;

(2) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act ; and

(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.-- [Mr. Sackville.]

10 pm

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : You were in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, for the earlier part of the debate and you will have heard questions being raised about the £30 million. Paragraph (3) of the money resolution refers to

"any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment."

I assume that that is a reference to the additional £30 million. I think that I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health for his statement that it will be new money. I want to press the point further because I am not sure that we have had an adequate explanation.

The part of the preamble that deals with the financial effects of the Bill says :

"The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991-1992 onwards. This will be taken into account in next year's Revenue Support Grant Settlement." That means in effect that, when the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, in consultation with other Departments, are assessing the total acceptable expenditure on which the revenue support grant is based, they will have to give different weightings to different expenditure heads. For example, if Parliament, under the new Environmental Protection Bill, gives additional responsibility to local authorities in respect of environmental protection, additional weighting will be given to that expenditure head. I assume that equally in the case of the Food Safety Bill additional weight will be given to the heading of environmental health protection.

That is different from providing new money. The Bill does not say that new money will be available ; it says that consideration will be given to it. That means that additional weight may be given to that expenditure head. But if lesser weighting is given to, for example, refuse collection because the Government consider that privatisation will lead to savings, that will mean that the Government will assess a lower level of expenditure for the year that the Act is in operation than for the previous year when it was not in operation. Taken with the impact of expenditure cuts, it may mean that, once the legislation is in operation, local authorities will receive less money, even though they have extra responsibilities.

The Minister may be able to clear the matter up. He may be prepared to give us further information. I shall put specific points to him and hopefully we can then complete the rest of the business with expedition. Can he explain why the second paragraph on the financial effects of the Bill does not read : "The additional cost for local authorities is likely to be of the order of £30 million a year from 1991-92 onwards and an additional sum will be added to the Revenue Support Grant settlement in respect

Column 1096

of that expenditure"? We would know precisely what that meant. It would mean that the Government have calculated that the additional cost will be £30 million and that the money will be provided. The preamble does not say that. Can the Minister explain why? Obviously the Minister has had discussions with local authorities and has done a calculation. Can he tell us how much of the £30 million will go to county councils for trading standards enforcement and how much will go to district councils? If he has done a calculation and knows how much it will cost, he must have some idea of the burden that will fall on the counties and on the districts, because both will have additional responsibilities under the Bill. Can he tell us the division between trading standards officers and environmental health officers?

Thirdly, will the Minister give an undertaking to explain this matter? During the past couple of days I have spoken to many local authorities and local authority associations. Frankly, they do not have a clue about how the money will be provided or distributed. They know that they will have additional responsibilities, but they do not know whether there will be any new money or whether the money available will be so allocated that the authorities that, at present, have a lower level of service will use it to bring themselves up or authorities with a good level of service will be penalised because they already meet the standards.

Will the Minister give an assurance that he will meet the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and COSLA and explain to them precisely what will happen, what his calculations are and how the money will be allocated and distributed? If the Minister can give some satisfactory answers, we might not have to push this matter to a vote.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are debating the money resolution and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has raised matters which are directly relevant to it. There is no Treasury Minister on the Front Bench to respond to those points, a number of which directly relate to the Treasury's responsibility-- particularly the allocation of money in terms of the revenue support grant for future years, of which the £30 million is a part. What Treasury authority has the Minister who is to reply to this debate to make his response? Will he be unable to answer the points made by my hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker : Who the Government put up to answer the debate is not a matter for the Chair.

10.6 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : Perhaps I can help the hon.Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), although that I feel he was trying to make bricks without straw. I found it extraordinary that when the statement was made that the £30 million would be taken into account in the revenue support grant, he and other Opposition Members asked whether that was new money. When, in winding up the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister made it quite clear that it was new money, the hon. Gentleman sought to get even greater promises and commitments from the Government.

Column 1097

The hon. Gentleman asked why we expressed the issue in the Bill in that way. That is the normal way in which we always express it. [Hon. Members :-- "That is the problem."] I do not know why hon. Members suddenly want us to break new ground in this Bill. We have made the commitment and chosen to express it in the time- honoured formula, and I am content to do that.

As for how the money will be carved up between the district and county councils, it is far too early in this financial year to come to a firm conclusion now. We have calculated what we think is the appropriate amount of money for the extra responsibilities that the Bill will entail. Of course, through the normal revenue support grant rules, we shall have discussions with the local authorities nearer the time, to go through the details of the matter. It would be inappropriate of me to make any comments or commitments on that tonight, when we are some time away from implementation.

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro) : I understand the Minister's problem, but surely the real problem is that one would assume that some estimate of how the money was to be divided among the various authorities would have to be made in order to make the calculation. It is hard to understand how the calculation could otherwise be made. Will the Minister also respond to the question that I asked during the debate : how much allowance has been made for setting up the new facilities, which is a different cost from the on- going cost?

Mr. Maclean : We have made no calculations-- [Hon. Members :-- "That is the problem."] Let me rephrase that. The calculations for which the hon. Gentleman asks and the issue of how we shall disperse the money are, at this stage, premature. We have made calculations on the cost of implementing the Bill's details. We have been thorough in those calculations and consulted the local authorities involved. Nearer the time, we shall again consult the local authorities. My colleagues in the Department of the Environment, who will carry out the normal consultation processes with the local authorities, will discuss with them how the extra £30 million--the new money that my hon. Friend described--will be allocated towards the different responsibilities which the Bill will entail. The Government may make the calculation that the additional costs are £30 million, but the local authorities may decide to spend that money in a different way.

Opposition Members would not find it acceptable for the Government to dictate to the local authorities exactly how that money should be spent. We can allocate money and make calculations under various headings, but if local authorities decide to use that money for other measures, we have no real power to do anything about that.

Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South-West) : If the £30 million-- which has somehow been estimated without making calculations--is new money, will the Minister assure the House that no local authority that has functions under the Bill will receive less money in the next financial year than it has in this financial year?

Mr. Maclean : What an extraordinary question to ask at this stage. My Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, introduced the Bill to improve food safety. We have calculated that, because of the increased powers that we are granting and because of the

Column 1098

improvements that the Bill will make, there will be a requirement for additional resources. We have made the firm commitment of an additional £30 million, which will be taken into account in the rate support grant.

It is inappropriate for the hon. Gentleman to ask me at this stage--many months ahead of the calculations on the full extent of the £5 billion that will go to local government--how it will be allocated and what the allocations will be to individual councils. In preparing the Bill, it has been our duty to calculate the additional resources that will be required. In my opinion, we have done that job exceptionally well.

Although Opposition hon. Members may carp about it now, I was at the press conference when the Bill was launched and I saw the expressions on the faces of those who did not think that there would be any money for enforcement. I saw the look of pleasure when they heard about the £30 million that they had not expected. It is late in the day for Opposition Members to pick holes in it now. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has given a clear commitment about the £30 million and there is nothing that I can usefully add to what has been said.

10.11pm

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) rose--

Mr. Speaker : It is the Minister's reply, but I shall call the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Martlew : The people who were at the press conference with the Minister must have been naive. This sort of thing has happened before in local authorities--it is called funny money. The Minister announces £30 million for health, and then says that he is allowing 5 per cent. for inflation--but inflation is running at 8 per cent. Surely there is a better way to allocate resources to local authorities.

There should be minimum standards, with the number of environmental health officers in local authorities set by the Government. There is another word for those people--the food police. Their job is to police standards in various authorities. We should have a system similar to that for the fire brigade, where the Government lay down minimum standards and the number of environmental health officers to be employed in each district. That must be carefully calculated, as in some districts, such as mine, although there are no major restaurants or cafes because it does not have a tourist industry like that in Blackpool, there are many food processing plants that need to be policed carefully. Therefore, my area should have a greater allocation than some of the suburban London areas, where there are many restaurants but not many food processing plants.

There are varying standards. Some authorities--mainly Conservative authorities--have only a few environmental health officers. Others, such as my authority in Carlisle, have high standards. It would be wrong for the Government to allocate more money to Conservative authorities--which, in the past, have neglected food safety and environmental health--at the expense of authorities that have taken an interest in health over the years.

I am deeply worried that, next year, we shall be listening to the Minister saying, "We gave the district health authorities and the county councils an extra £30 million and they did not spend it on that."

Column 1099

First, by next year, there probably will not be the correct number of environmental health officers available. Secondly, as they have already this month, other Ministers will come to the Dispatch Box complaining about the level of the poll tax. There will always be a temptation not to spend the money on environmental health, but to use it to keep down the poll tax. The Government are always saying that local authorities are overspending.

I do not believe that the £30 million will be enough. There are not sufficient safeguards to ensure that it is spent on environmental health workers. The Bill will be a failure because there will not be the resources to implement it.

10.15 pm

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro) : It is worth saying that the Minister's response was deeply inadequate and that should be on the record. I referred earlier to the difference between strawberry flavour and strawberry flavoured, and I said that there were strawberries only in the latter. This is calculation flavour rather than calculation flavoured. The Minister cannot explain how the Government came up with a figure of £30 million. I have no objection to guesstimates, but the Minister should say that it is a guesstimate rather than a calculation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Safety Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--

(1) any remuneration or allowances payable to the chairmen of tribunals constituted in accordance with regulations made under the Act ;

(2) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act ; and

(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.

FOOD SAFETY BILL [Lords]

Ways and Means

Resolved,

That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Safety Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges in accordance with regulations made under the Act.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Resolved, That during the proceedings on the Matter of Welsh Office Policies and Provision for 1992, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meeting of Standing Committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Column 1100

Liverpool (Open Space)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

10.16 pm

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to place before Parliament today an important issue which affects my constituents and many other citizens in Liverpool-- the future of the public open spaces and parks in my city. I also wish to take the opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, for being in his place to answer my questions. In passing, I also thank him for our correspondence on this important issue in the past few months, and for the help and advice that he has given to people concerned about the future of our parkland.

I must say at the outset to hon. Members who are not familiar with Liverpool that there is a caricature of the city which gives a distorted impression of broken-down buildings, acres of dereliction and festering decay. No doubt, as in any urban area, there are such features, but a more balanced picture of the city emerges when visitors discover many of the fine buildings in Liverpool, and when they see Liverpool's rich heritage and, above all, the pride of parks bequeathed by our Victorian forebears.

Liverpool's parks and open spaces have traditionally provided a much needed lung for residents trapped in congested living conditions--people who may not have the advantage of a private garden. For other people, they provide a green wedge breaking the urban sprawl. For others still, the parks are a place to enjoy leisure time and recreation. The playing fields, especially, are much used by members of amateur and junior football teams.

King John gave Liverpool its charter. Since medieval times, there has been a park in the Toxteth area of Liverpool. The poet William Roscoe was a Member of Parliament for three months in 1807, before he was thrown out for voting against the slavery laws. He was an eminent member of the anti- slavery movement, which was a brave thing in Liverpool in those days. Roscoe wrote a number of poems describing the beauty of Liverpool and its parkland on the riverside in Toxteth.

That parkland was rapidly eroded in the 19th century expansion of the city, and it then became municipally owned and administered. Sefton park, in the heart of my constituency, is its last vestige. It and other parks and open spaces in my constituency, such as those at Calderstones and Otterspool, Wavertree playground and Wavertree park, along with other important sites such as Childwall woods in the neighbouring constituency are all now subject to planning developments which will destroy their character.

I am staggered that when we hear such a vast amount of rhetoric from politicians of all parties about our responsibility towards the environment, Liverpool civic leaders should have such scant regard for environment destruction which will assist only the speculator and the profiteer.

In the heart of my constituency, in the Aigburth area, it is proposed to rip up the central reservation of a beautiful suburban area and to put there instead a trunk road bringing yet more heavy vehicles into that part of Liverpool. Similarly, it is suggested that the M62

Next Section

Home Page