Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords] [Money] (Hansard, 5 March 1985)

§ Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)
This is the first time that I have used the opportunity afforded in a money resolution to draw the attention of the House to an important matter in a Bill. The resolution should always be considered at some length so that we know precisely the financial implications involved in the Bill, and should not simply go through on the nod.
The Food and Environment, Protection Bill [Lords] is an excellent Bill and I welcome it, having heard my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary.
However, we should consider the implications of the money resolution, and the House will need to refer to clauses 21, 12 and 17. The money resolution is on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not think that he is here, so perhaps my hon. Friends representing the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will listen to what I have to say and will be able to answer some of the questions that I should have wanted to put to the Treasury if there had been a Treasury spokesman here to answer it.
The resolution says: That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(i) of all sums required for the purpose of making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the international organisations mentioned in the Act;

(ii) of any expenses of a Minister of the Crown or government department incurred in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of the receipts of a Minister of the Crown or government department under the Act."

Clause 21 of the Bill gives rise to some questions that I wish to pose to the Treasury, if necessary through my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Clause 1(1) states: There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament all sums required for the purpose of making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the international organisations. On Second Reading, of course, I would not expect my hon. Friends to go into the sort of detail that can be covered when considering a money resolution. However, one has to consider the sort of international organisations to which 865 the Government in the name of the United Kingdom pay sums of money. For example, it is appropriate to draw a parallel with the problems that the United Kingdom is encountering in regard to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. It has been argued that, because of the rather squalid use of moneys paid to that organisation, the Government may conclude that the annual subscription to UNESCO is unjustifiably high.
I do not know what sort of international organisation might benefit after the enactment of the Food and Environment Protection Bill. Presumably a number of international organisations might hold international conferences at which the Government wished to be represented. Parliament should have some indication from the Treasury or the Ministry of Agriculture of the amount of money involved in sending representatives of the Government to discuss food and environment protection issues at such international conferences.
Might such international conferences be organised by the European Community? Might they involve the Third world? The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) drew attention to the implications of the Bill for the Third world. It is reasonable to assume that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might wish to send a representative of the Department or a Minister to a conference attended by participants from the Third world to consider the effects of food and environment protection. If such an international conference involved all the countries in the world — that is, not only member countries of the European Community and of the Western world, but possibly member countries of the Warsaw pact, the Soviet Union and Third world countries — where would such a conference be held, how frequently would it take place and would attendance at it benefit this country?
We tend sometimes to be a little glib as a Parliament in authorising the attendance of representatives of Government Departments and Ministers to attend conferences of this nature—although I am sure that they make some contribution to food and environmental protection in the world. On the other hand, there are a number of examples, to which my hon. Friends and Opposition Members may point, of Government representatives attending international conferences at considerable expense under the terms of an Act of Parliament that was passed some years ago. When one is in the process of considering the provisions of an apparently innocuous Bill, one is not always aware of the amount of money that is involved.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)
Clause 5 refers to the advisory committee and the number of members of that committee who might be eligible for allowances, as determined by Ministers, with the Treasury's consent. Is that not another example of a large sum being expended in the interests of the advisory committee when we have no idea of those sums or of the number of people on the advisory committee?

§ Mr. Brown
I must be careful, because the money resolution is narrow and I do not wish to be out of order. Clause 21(2) of the Bill covers that matter, which is also referred to in clause 12. I shall discuss that later. At present I am discussing clause 21(1) which was not written into the Bill for the fun of it. The parliamentary draftsmen who have been advising Agriculture Ministers obviously 866 realise that the Bill, if it is to have international relevance—bearing in mind that pesticide control has international repercussions—must recognise that it might be necessary for the British Government to be represented on some kind of international organisation.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
I am sorry to stop my hon. Friend in mid-flow. I do not want to make a long intervention. My hon. Friend talks about United Kingdom representatives on international organisations. Can he put the House out of its misery? If one of those international organisations had something to do with the European Economic Community would the funds be provided by the EEC or would the British taxpayer have to find the money? That might have an effect on how we feel.

§ Mr. Brown
Clause 21(1) is specific. If the international organisation came under the umbrella of the European Community all sums required for the purpose of making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government would be paid out of money voted by this House. There is no question but that the British taxpayer would pick up the tab. The clause could not be more clearly drafted. There is no question of money being paid by the European Community, indirectly. The Government, under the authority given under clause 21(1), would be able to make whatever payment they were asked to make by an international organisation if that organisation came under the auspices of the European Community.
The clause refers to "the international organisations." That implies that such organisations are already established. Perhaps the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have already been represented on them. I hope that the Minister can explain which international organisations already exist, whether the Government already participate, and in what international organisations, as a result of the Bill, the Government might participate in the future.
It is clear from this that there must be a whole range of no doubt very worthy international organisations already established which probably play a vital role in maintaining the protection throughout the world that this Bill seeks to apply in the United Kingdom. I think it right to use the opportunity afforded by this short debate to find out what sort of costs are involved. We are just two weeks from the Budget.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
Could my hon. Friend refer to the excellent brief on this Bill sent out by the National Farmers Union and the section of it that relates to pesticides? With regard to the particular concern about the way this Bill might affect imports into this country it says: The Government must ensure that the new system will in no way hinder competition through the international trading of safe products, and must provide the resources to ensure the rapid clearance of safe products imported from abroad. Bringing my hon. Friend back to the home scene, has he any idea, and has the Minister given any indication, whether the resources to ensure the rapid clearance of safe products imported from abroad are to be provided and if so in what amount?

§ Mr. Brown
Again, I must be very careful, because it is a very narrow resolution to which we are speaking. There is some relevance in the point made by my hon. 867 Friend in that the question of pesticide imports and exports from countries such as the United States, which export pesticides banned in their own country, would be a legitimate subject for an international organisation to consider.
This Bill refers to a considerable extent to imports of pesticides, and a number of Opposition speakers, in particular the hon. Member for Workington, have drawn attention to the fact that some countries produce and manufacture pesticides that they are not able to use because of their own domestic law, but which they export to other countries. Thus the United Kingdom could well be the recipient of such pesticides.
That is entirely legitimate material for an international organisation of the kind referred to in clause 21(1) to consider and I do not think that one should necessarily object to the fact that the Government would want to be represented at meetings of such an organisation.

§ Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)
Assuming we were to be represented at such a conference, can my hon. Friend tell me whether he can discover from the Government whether any substance, whatever its form, in sufficient dilution would be beneficial if added to the water, and in any other concentration would not be?

§ Mr. Brown
My hon. and learned Friend, as always, puts temptation in the way of all of us. That is the great problem about giving way to him — one never quite knows what is coming. My concern tonight is not what is a dangerous substance in a liquid form. It may well be that my hon. and learned Friend, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we move on to another subject, may speculate on that question.
The crucial point here is that there are dangerous substances—possibly even the substance which my hon. and learned Friend had in mind—referred to in the brief quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), which clearly have international repercussions. Therefore, I accept that it is in order and right and proper for the Ministry of Agriculture to ask Parliament to give some kind of authority for Her Majesty's Government to be represented in such an international forum. That is perfectly legitimate. I do not quarrel at all with the implications behind subsection (1), but the House is entitled, having spent six hours on the Second Reading debate, to have some indication as to the nature of the international organisations, who is represented in those bodies, and the extent to which those bodies represent a continent or countries from all over the world. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will take the point that I am raising seriously.
I thought that there would be no reference whatsoever to the financial implications of the Bill, but, in fairness to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, she referred to them in the closing moments of her speech. She said that no financial implications would be involved in part I unless there was an emergency. We must take that statement on trust. Who knows what the scale of an emergency might be, when the Bill might apply? You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in a previous incarnation in the House I represented the constituency known as Brigg and Scunthorpe. In that constituency is a famous village that the whole House will know, called Flixborough. If such a dreadful accident, which occurred 868 in 1974, were to recur, perish the thought, after the Bill reached the statute book, there is no question but that its provisions would be effective. The measure might be effective in preventing such an accident, but if it occurred, it would be possible to deal more adequately with such an event.
An emergency on that scale would incur grave financial consequences under part I, which presumably would have to be borne by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred to an emergency fairly glibly—I do not blame her, because one hopes that an emergency of the sort that I have described will happen once in a lifetime, if at all. However, even part I has some financial implications, certainly to any hon. Member who either represented or now represents the constituency containing the magic name "Flixborough".
The Parliamentary Secretary said that she did not foresee any financial implications in part II because the Government would make certain charges in respect of granting licences. She felt that the charges would ensure that any costs of the Bill in terms of the granting of licences would be borne by the revenue that was so generated. I come therefore to subsection (2) of clause 21, which is the relevant subsection.

§ Mr. Marlow
Unfortunately, I was unable to be here, as so often happens, when the Bill itself was being discussed, because I was in Committee. My hon. Friend has been passing through the subject of licences, and no doubt the cost of licences and of administering them. I wonder whether we know, and whether my hon. Friend can tell the House, what the licence fee is likely to be, and whether it will cover the cost of administering the licence. Would my hon. Friend prefer the licence to be a net revenue raiser, in which case in what fields should that revenue be raised, and how much should be raised?

§ Mr. Brown
That is one of the small weaknesses of the Bill. If one wanted to nit-pick, one would say that that is a weakness of the Bill. I would not expect there to be any such indication, because it is largely an enabling Bill. I believe that all hon. Members will acknowledge that it is only right and proper for a Bill of this kind to be an enabling piece of legislation. The Government, quite rightly, would not expect to set out the kind of questions posed by my hon. Friend until they introduced secondary legislation by means of the statutory instruments or Orders in Council which are provided for in the Bill. However, in this debate, it is legitimate to be given a hint by my hon. Friends about the scale of the licence fees. Since no such hint was given in the speech of my hon. Friend who opened the debate or in the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the end of the debate on Second Reading, it is during this debate on the money resolution that matters of the kind that my hon. Friend has raised should be raised with our hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

§ Mr. Marlow
The point I am trying to make is whether it is intended that, net of administrative costs, the licences should be revenue-raising or whether they should be neutral.

§ Mr. Brown
If one looks at the financial effects of the Bill in the explanatory and financial memorandum, one sees that the intention is that the effect should be neutral. It says: 869 Expenditure on licensing of deposits and testing of substances for treating oil spills under Part II and on approval of pesticides under Part III (including the costs of the advisory committee, which will replace a non-statutory body) would be small and would be offset by income from fees. The implication is that it is not intended to be a revenue raiser, that the expenditure would be entirely offset by the income from fees.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary used the word "small", which is contained in the explanatory and financial memorandum. Many Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and advised the House that the sums of money that the House was being asked to vote were small. But what is small? A layman would ask, "How long is a piece of string?" In any discussion of the financial implications of a Government measure that the the House is asked to approve, Ministers, whether Conservative or Labour, always say that they will be small. So how small is small? What figure would my hon. Friends insert in place of the word "small"?

§ Mr. Fairbairn
I am disturbed by even the concept of "small". Another measure may be considered tonight which it is alleged has no financial implications. What are we talking about?

§ Mr. Michael Meadowcroft (Leeds, West)
The wrong Bill.

§ Mr. Fairbairn
If there is anything I can do to discomfort the idiocy of the Liberals and upset them I shall do so. [Interruption.] On a financial resolution, how do we discuss the concept that in one measure it is suggested that there are no financial implications and that in another there is a small financial implication? Who is to be the judge of that mad implication?

§ Mr. Brown
My hon. and learned Friend has raised an important point. For that reason, when every Second Reading debate takes place, there is usually an opportunity to raise such a question. It is invariably our own fault if we do not take the opportunity afforded by the money resolution to ask the question that has been asked by my hon. and learned Friend.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
Part I relates to the contamination of food. My hon. Friend referred to the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. She talked about some "small" cost, to pick up the word used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). Will my hon. Friend seek to solicit from my hon. Friend the parliamentary Secretary the amount of compensation that might be paid to those who imported perishable foods that were alleged to be contaminated? There may not just be a Flixborough; there could be many smaller incidents of contamination. It would be wrong for a person whose supply of food is alleged to be contaminated but is ultimately found not to be so contaminated to be responsbile for losses that in some cases might well ruin his business.

§ Mr. Brown
I am conscious of the limited scope of the debate. I have to be careful when responding in detail to the point raised by my hon. Friend. If he were to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he might be able to develop his point and remain with the rules of order.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels
rose—

§ Mr. Brown
I am raising two serious points.

§ Mr. Marlow
Get on with it.

§ Mr. Brown
I am anxious to get on. My hon. Friends are making it difficult. I am used to having difficulties with sedentary and genuine interventions from the Opposition.
Clause 21(2) provides: Any expenses of a Minister of the Crown or government department incurred in consequence of the provisions of this Act shall also be paid out of money provided by Parliament. That is the hat under which we are being asked to vote money for the purposes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). We should concentrate upon the Bill's provisions and ascertain from my hon. Friends at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what those expenses might be.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary hinted that there would be income from fees. We need to know at what level the fees will be set in secondary legislation. It will be important for those who will be affected by the Bill — manufacturers of pesticides and those who might apply to benefit from the legislation and who would have to pay money to the Ministry. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Marlow
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) is trying to ham up this thing. This is a serious debate and there ar some serious points to be made.
The Bill states: In determining whether to issue a licence a licensing authority … may have regard to such other matters as the authority considers relevant". The Bill also states: Subject to the following provisions of this Part of the Act, a licence is needed— (a)for the deposit of substances or articles in United Kingdom waters". One of the matters that the authority may consider relevant is the raising of revenue; and, as the Bill is drafted, the deposit of substances or articles in United Kingdom waters could include the clearing of a ship's bilges.

§ Mr. Meadowcroft
I do not believe it.

§ Mr. Marlow
It is very difficult for me if the hon. Gentleman keeps up a running commentary. I am trying to make a short intervention. If the licensing authority wanted to charge a fee for the clearing—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Billericay)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to follow the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I cannot do so because of the sedentary interventions.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
This is a short debate, and interventions should be brief.

§ Mr. Marlow
I am trying to make my intervention brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If a licensing authority can charge a fee to clear the bilges of any ship in United Kingdom waters, one must ascertain how that fee is calculated. The Bill states: Fees under this section shall be determined on principles settled by the Ministers with the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with organisations". We have potentially—I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reassure the House on this point — a vast revenue-raising mechanism without the 871 need for further recourse to the House. The House should be concerned about that aspect. I should be interested to learn what my hon. Friend has to say about that point.

§ Mr. Brown
I think that I would be out of order if I were to dwell at any length on the implications of clause 8. I think that you would have pulled me up on this point by now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were wrong. Unfortunately, those implications do not fall within the terms of the money resolution.

§ Mr. Marlow
They do.

§ Mr. Brown
I am sure that if I dwelt at length on those implications I would be at the outskirts of order. I am trying to debate a narrow point. The money resolution is concerned with clauses 12 and 21 and, to some extent, clause 17. I must resist the temptation to go down the road of clause 8, which is more a matter for a Second Reading debate.

§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels
We are obviously not talking about a small sum. We are considering a substantial sum. Are any funds coming from the EC? I should have thought that some funds would come from the EC because, no doubt, we have had to co-operate with the EC on the Bill.

§ Mr. Brown
My hon. Friend is some way from the subsection with which I am dealing. He has been a little unfair to the Ministry of Agriculture, because I have not at any stage suggested that the expenditure will be vast. The terms of the money resolution hint that the commitment that Parliament is asked to give us is open-ended. It is worth raising that point in this short debate so that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench can reassure us. If millions of pounds were involved, the Ministry would presumably have mentioned that expenditure in the money resolution. The Ministry has committed itself by saying that the expenditure is small. I wish to find out how "small" is small. That is a difficult question.
The question whether money will come from the EEC is outside the scope of the money resolution. We are asked to give parliamentary authority to expenditure to send Government representatives to attend meetings of international organisations. I believe that it is fair that the Government should be given authority by Parliament to send representatives to an EEC gathering. I do not think that we should expect the EEC to make moneys available. I do not like moneys being voted to the EEC and then being spent elsewhere. All moneys spent on behalf of the country should be voted by the House. That is why it is legitimate for the Government to ask for parliamentary authority under British, House of Commons legislation to defray such expenditure as might arise under the Bill, if it becomes an Act.
To return to subsection (2), we are concerned with a small amount of money, most of which the Ministry of Agriculture hopes will be covered by the fee income generated from the granting of licences. It would be helpful to have a hint as to the extent of the licence fee that will have to be paid by those who will be affected by the Bill. Obviously, it will be significant to producers of pesticides. I represent the company now known as Norsk Hydro, which used to be known as Fisons. It is the largest employer of labour in my constituency. It will be greatly affected by the provisions of the Bill. The licence fee will have an effect—

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
May I ask for clarification? My hon. Friend has said that he represents that company. Does he mean that he has the honour to represent it in the House because it is a company located in his constituency where many of his constituents work, or that he has a vested interest and is declaring it to the House, or that he seeks to represent the company as a parliamentary consultant?

§ Mr. Brown
I can assure my hon. Friend on that point. I have no pecuniary or financial interest whatsoever in the company, nor do I expect to have. Any Member of Parliament who has a company in his constituency with 700 employees, as Norsk Hydro has, has an indirect financial interest in that company to the extent that if that company feels that the expenditure to be incurred under the provisions of the Bill are such that it has cause to attack the Government, obviously the work force will take it out on the MP at the next general election. To that extent I have a personal interest, but my interest is as one who represents a large number of chemical factories on the south Humber bank. Those companies will have to pay the licence fee. If companies are producing pesticides and are to take advantage of the provisions of Government legislation it is right that they should be expected to pay for the time of the inspectors employed by the Ministry of Agriculture.
In my constituency there is not only Norsk Hydro but SCM Chemicals, which produces titanium dioxide. There is considerable concern about the pollution that is generated from the production of that commodity in the area — a concern that I do not share because the manufacturers produce the chemical in a responsible way. There will be charges to that company under the provisions of the Bill. It will want an indication from me as its Member of Parliament when I next go there to discuss the passage of the Bill as to what those charges will be. It will want to know how much the legislation will cost it as a company.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor)
As my hon. Friend has conceded that this is an excellent Bill, I am a little puzzled as to why he is labouring the point so much. Perhaps in due course he will sit down to enable me to answer one question to add to the many that he has already answered himself.

§ Mr. Brown
I apologise to my hon. Friend. I had forgotten that there was a time limit on this debate, and I would very much like to hear—

§ Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Brown
I will not. It is probably appropriate for me, having drawn attention—

§ Mr. Golding
rose—

§ Mr. Brown
I must press on, because time is short and the whole House is waiting to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to say. I shall not give way, but I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion and ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take seriously the points that I have raised about the money resolution. I hope that he will turn his attention to the points that I have made under subsections (1) and (2) of clause 21.

§ Mr. MacGregor
As I said, my hon. Friend, by referring to the financial memorandum, has answered most 873 of the questions that he raised. He will be glad to know that the cost of the Bill is modest, which is another reason why I am a little surprised that he has spoken for so long. His first point, which he made a long time ago, related to the subscriptions to the international organisations that are mentioned in clause 21(1). I should make it clear that this subsection makes available money to pay subscriptions to two organisations, or indeed only one. There are two organisations under the Bill—the London convention and the Oslo convention—and the payment is made to the secretariats of those conventions. I am glad to say that both are in London.

§ Mr. Golding
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. MacGregor
It is not necessary for me to give way, because the hon. Gentleman is achieving his purpose. In practice, we make a specific payment under the Bill only to the Oslo convention, which continues a provision in the Dumping at Sea Act 1974, which the Bill replaces, since subscriptions to the London convention are covered by membership of the international maritime convention, which provides a secretariat and whose 874 subscriptions are covered elsewhere. I hope that that rather involved description will enable my hon. Friend to see that there is very little—
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food and Environment Protection Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(i) of all sums required for the purpose of making payments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the international organisations mentioned in the Act;

(ii) of any expenses of a Minister of the Crown or government department incurred in consequence of the provisions of the Act;

(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of the receipts of a Minister of the Crown or government department under the Act.