| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): Given my right hon. and learned Friend's experience of procedure in the House, will he tell the House whether it is normal to table a Ways and Means motion in respect of a new clause that has not even been put to the relevant Committee?
I understand that the new clause was tabled on Friday and the Committee will have its first opportunity to debate it tomorrow.
Mr. Hogg: To be fair to the Government, if it were necessary for them to table new clause 8, and if it is fundamentally different from clause 39, in all probability it is necessary, in procedural terms, to come forward with a Ways and Means motion--otherwise, to be honest, they would not be doing so.
The central question is, why have the Government got themselves into such a mess in the first place? What is it about new clause 8 that is so successful and attractive that clause 39 becomes irrelevant and should be disposed of? That is the key question, which we want the Minister to answer.
Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight):
I do not want to prolong this debate, because it is getting late.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
We have all night.
Dr. Brand:
The hon. Gentleman may have all night.
It is important to put on record that the Liberal Democrats support the Food Standards Agency, which is being set up to protect the public. The public have the right to have the agency funded out of public funds rather than, as has been suggested, by a levy. I am pleased that the Government have got into a bit of a muddle and that this has not all been pre-scripted, because it shows that there has been some flexibility on their part and that they have listened to some of the points that have been made, not only in the Chamber, but in Committee.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
In the time available, I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that have been asked. However, virtually all the questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) are, as he well knows, answered by documents available from the Vote Office and have been no secret whatever. To take his point about research, the figure has not changed since we published the White Paper in January 1998. It is approximately £25 million. It is not new money, it is the existing spend transferred to the agency. Indeed, that is the case with most of the money involved.
I want to put on the record, for hon. Members who are naturally suspicious of the Government, that this is not a back-door method of raising new money. It is not even a front-door method, because it is not new money. Neither is it in any way, shape or form a system for raising a new
charge or a levy in disguise. The Ways and Means motion is purely a technical requirement, arising out of the amendment to the Bill. I shall explain why the amendment is required.
We must ensure that the financial provisions in the Bill correctly reflect the post-devolution position, which was not possible to plan and forecast. Thus the amendment does nothing new to the Bill. It does not change the policy, which we set out after several rounds of consultation. It introduces no new charges or new powers to charge. That is clearly and specifically spelt out. It puts right some technicalities, which were not quite right in the Bill simply because of the new devolution arrangements.
We made it clear in the White Paper from the outset that we wanted the Food Standards Agency to be a United Kingdom body in a devolved context. That makes sense, because it is clearly better, more efficient and in the interests of consumers and business to have consistent advice on food safety and standards across the UK. Food safety is a devolved matter: the House decided that when it agreed to devolution last year. We built into the Bill the necessary arrangements for ensuring that the agency will be accountable to the devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to the UK Government and this Parliament, while remaining a UK body.
We have made no secret of the fact that the devolved authorities will retain their freedom to legislate differently if they wish. It is ultimately for them to decide, according to local circumstances. They will all obtain advice from a common source: the agency. The agency will be the shared responsibility of the four devolved authorities and the House. That policy was endorsed by the new Scottish Parliament, to the best of my knowledge with the votes and support of its Conservative Members.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
So what?
Mr. Rooker:
I am merely making the point. It was also endorsed by the National Assembly for Wales.
Mr. Paice:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rooker:
No, I shall not give way because I want to get this on the record.
Members of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales recognise the advantages of proceeding on a common basis. It is ironic that the first decision of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament was to create a UK body. They did so freely, knowing the circumstances and recognising the positive advantages. However, we do not take their continued participation for granted, so there are provisions in the Bill to deal with the consequences should either Scotland or Northern Ireland decide in future to exercise their legal right to withdraw and have separate arrangements. I do not think that that is likely. We have established excellent working relations, and they are a model of how we should continue with our common interests under devolution.
We must recognise the fact that we have a devolved system of government. We need to ensure that the financial arrangements for a UK body in a devolved area work properly. That is the reason for the amendment, which is the subject of the motion.
Mr. Rooker:
I shall give way to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in a moment.
It is proposed that the agency will be funded not only by moneys voted by Parliament, but by moneys provided by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, when or if it takes its powers, and granted by the National Assembly for Wales. That is only right and proper, as this is a devolved matter and there must be local accountability. In practice, the costs of the agency's main headquarters in London and its activities in England will be met by money provided by Parliament, and the cost of its executive bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and of activities carried out on the ground in those parts of the UK will, generally speaking, be funded by those devolved authorities.
There will be separate votes before the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and grant aid from the National Assembly for Wales. There will be a separate vote in this Parliament, because as a non-ministerial Department it will have its own vote. No one will be able to claim to have been short-changed by any present or future Secretary of State for Health: everyone will know exactly what the vote is.
The agency must be able to account separately to those bodies. This is a new and unusual arrangement. We are in the early days of devolution, and this is the first time that a UK body has been set up to deal with a devolved matter. The traditional financial provisions that we are used to seeing in Bills do not deal with the interests of other legislatures when Parliament legislates on an area for which policy responsibility is devolved. We have had to be careful to ensure that all the elements of the picture fit together. It has taken a certain amount of head scratching. The Bill has been examined to see whether we need a Ways and Means motion and whether payments should go into the Consolidated Fund.
Parliamentary draftsmen and others, along with various bodies, have tried to produce legislation that is workable and practical, while also drawing clear lines of accountability in regard to the flow of money. That is why we wish to remove clause 39, and have tabled an amendment.
The amendment to the financial provisions includes the traditional provision to authorise payments by Parliament, but also expressly provides for sums to be paid by the National Assembly for Wales, from the Scottish Consolidated Fund, or by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was implicit in our original proposal; it is now explicit, and it could be said that it is because of the explicit nature of the reference to the Consolidated Fund that this motion is required.
Mr. Paice:
I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation. It is a pity that the Government have sought to avoid giving such explanations.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |