FOOD STANDARDS BILL [Ways and Means]

HC Deb 12 July 1999 vol 335 cc123-36

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(b), That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Standards Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Betts.]

10.2 pm

Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire)

I am sorry that the Government chose to move the motion formally.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has kindly written to me and the rest of the members of the Committee considering the Food Standards Bill to explain a series of amendments and a new clause that he has tabled, and which have given rise to the need for this Ways and Means motion.

I hope that the Minister will tell us some of the reasons why we are facing such a shambles in the financial aspects of the Bill. We are talking about very large sums of money—close to £300 million. Most of it, we have always been told, was to be met by the taxpayer. The £90 per business levy was to raise £41 million. We have said before and we say again that we very much welcome the Government's back-down as a result of the widespread anger at the imposition of that charge. The Minister and the Department have had to eat humble pie.

On 22 April, the Minister said: We seek an accommodation and a method of charging that is seen to be fair and acceptable to the industry and to the wider public … some new money must be raised, otherwise there will be no Food Standards Agency. The question is how we collect that extra money"—[Official Report, 22 April 1999; Vol. 329. c. 1037–38.] On 20 May, he said: Unless the levy raises some £40 million we will not have a Food Standards Agency. Therefore, we have to raise that sum".—[Official Report, 20 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 1206.] We have seen how the Government have had to back down—they are not raising that money, they are taking it, too, from central public expenditure. Of course, that was not the first time the Minister has found that speaking straight, for which he is renowned and for which we normally show our appreciation, causes him some difficulty.

After Second Reading, there was a money resolution. Now that the Bill has been in Committee for two weeks, the Minister proposes to remove an entire clause that deals with the financial basis of the Bill and to replace it with another, which has given rise to the need for this motion.

The justification for that shambles, given in the letter that the Minister has sent to the Committee, is: we are entering into new territory post-devolution". Well, any witness to the Committee's proceedings will understand that. There is total and absolute confusion over the impact of devolution on the Food Standards Agency relating to the issues of accountability, advice and ministerial power.

However, devolution was legislated for a year ago. The White Paper was produced about 18 months ago. The draft Bill appeared six months ago, yet now, near the end of the Committee's consideration of the Bill, we are being asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution to sort out yet another bit of shambles because a few weeks ago, when the Government introduced the Bill, they could not sort out what the financial implications of devolution were going to be.

Now we are told in the Minister's letter to us all—an amazing couple of sentences—that part of the amended provisions does not however require the devolved Administrations to pay money to the Agency … though if they fail to pay an appropriate share, there are arrangements in the devolution Acts whereby the Treasury could recover money from them to make up the short-fall. Advocates of devolution and those who believe, for example, that the powers of the Food Standards Agency in Scotland now fall to the Scottish Parliament would be very surprised to read that they are going to pay for the agency, like it or not.

Before the Opposition help the Minister out of his muddle, I hope that he can give us some answers. It appears from his letter to us that the Scottish, Welsh and national insurance moneys will effectively be top-sliced off the amount of money going to those authorities. That is the opposite of devolution. But if that is the case, what will happen about England? how much money will come from England and how much will come from Scotland, from Wales and from Northern Ireland? Will the amount of money that each pays be calculated on a per capita basis? If not, how does the Minister justify any alternative approach to dividing the money?

Where is the English money coming from—not just the large sum that is already allowed for in public expenditure, but the extra £41 million that was due to come from the levy? What will be the impact on the planned spending limits for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of health? Now that the agency is to be funded directly from the Treasury, can the Minister assure the House that neither MAFF nor the Department of health is to have its plans cut in order to find the money? Do the £1.207 billion allocated to MAFF next year and the £43.271 billion allocated to health still stand? Or are we going to find those sums cut in order to pay that money? How many of our hospitals may go unbuilt or how many operations may not be carried out in order to find that money? The House deserves to know where the Government are finding that money.

We already know that ministerial largesse—or, indeed, extravagance—means that cuts will be made elsewhere. Very recently, the ever rising cost of the BSE inquiry led to cuts in research and the grants to various aspects of the fishing industry.

Equally, the Minister should explain what the impact would be if Scotland decided to go it alone. He has told us in Committee that the Scots and the Welsh have debated the matter and accepted that the agency is to be a UK-wide agency. That is fine. But part of devolution means that—as I am sure the Minister will accept—they could decide to change their mind at some stage. When they took those decisions recently, were they told what the cost to them would be? If they were, why is not the House being told? Will we be told tonight?

If the Scots and the Welsh change their mind, what will happen about the money? If Scotland, for example, decides to take back all the devolved powers relating to food safety and food standards, will it automatically be reimbursed the money that it would have paid? If it is not being charged on a per capita basis, does that mean that England will be left carrying a bigger share, or perhaps a lesser share?

The Minister has so far avoided answering a series of questions, partly by trying to get the motion through on the nod. These are important questions to which the House deserves answers. I hope that this evening the Minister will take the opportunity to give us accurate answers to all the points that I have raised. We shall feel able to support the Government only if that is what happens.

10.10 pm

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), I have real concerns about the Bill's financial implications. It is right that we should have the opportunity this evening of scrutinising what the Government have done.

We join the Government in welcoming both the Food Standards Agency in itself and the principle that lies behind it. We believe that it is right that its main objective should be protecting the public from food risks. However, the initial decision to impose a flat-rate charge to fund the agency was ridiculous. It is only right that it should have been dropped, thanks, to a large degree, to pressure from the Opposition. The thought that small shops should be penalised for the hefty annual levy was unsustainable. I am amazed that the Government came up with the notion in the first place, and I am delighted that they have been persuaded to drop it.

We were to have an agency that would be part funded by the very people on whom the agency might later pass judgment. That would have undermined its integrity. I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on having pointed out the difficulties. They initiated a petition, raised a popular move against that way of funding the agency, and persuaded the Government to fund it out of taxation.

Despite the removal of the fundamental problem with the way the agency was to be funded, I have three fundamental concerns about the financial aspects of the agency. There may be—I use "may" carefully—a worrying conflict when it comes to the funding of the Labour party by sectors within the food and drink industry. After all, the agency will regulate those very sectors, and the people within them may be making substantial contributions to the Government party.

When the Minister replies, I hope that she will tell us whether some sort of register of interests will be set up for the FSA, declaring who is making contributions to the Labour party among those whom it is attempting to regulate—

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the motion. His remarks are interesting, but I would be grateful if he would confine himself to the motion.

Mr. Gray

I shall do so, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will. I am following his remarks very carefully. I have allowed him a great deal of latitude but he must now contain himself.

Mr. Gray

I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for your latitude. There were important points to make, but I accept what you have said.

The most fundamental and central worry about the financial aspects of the Bill concerns devolution. If the Scots want to run their own food policy, fine. It is up to them. However, surely it is only right that they should pay for it. Why should English taxpayers subsidise a Scottish Parliament that is able to alter the advice of the Food Standards Agency? Visitors to Scotland will potentially be eating food that has not been prepared in the same way or to the same high standard as food that they would expect to eat south of the border—I am not referring only to haggis.

We are all well aware of the Scottish Parliament's tax-raising powers. If the Government are to insist on devolution when it comes to FSA advice, and if it is right that the Scottish Parliament should be given the right to ignore and breach the principle of the agency's being a UK body, let the Scottish Parliament raise its own funds to pay for that Scottish advice.

As so often when it comes to devolution, the Government's approach is entirely inconsistent. It is extraordinary that they are proposing to set up advisory committees for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, but not for England. That is odd. The Linlithgow question raises its ugly head time and time again when it comes to devolution. Here we have it with the Food Standards Agency. Why should there be advisory committees for the three other nations but not one for England? If the Food Standards Agency is to be set up simply as an advisory committee for England, the Minister must say so tonight and end the pretence that there is to be a single UK body.

Why should the English taxpayer be expected to foot the bill for setting up all those committees, when none of them will be accountable to this Parliament? Why should my constituents in North Wiltshire pay for the Scottish advisory committee, when that committee will not be accountable to them through me, their representative in Parliament, or my fellow English Members of Parliament?

If we are to have an annual debate in Parliament on the annual report of the Food Standards Agency, who will answer for the Government and who will be responsible for the agency as a nationwide body? No one. The Minister will be able to answer only for the agency and its work in England. There is a substantial anomaly which I hope that the Minister will deal with when he winds up the debate.

My third concern about the agency serves as a word of warning for business in a wider sense. The Institute of Directors reported today that the Government have already cost British businesses at least £5 billion. Although I welcome the fact that the agency will be funded out of general taxation, I hope that the Chancellor will not be able to change his mind about that in future. It is important that the Minister should confirm that the method of funding the agency is now set in stone, and that at no stage in the future may the Chancellor once again introduce a levy on business. Furthermore, I hope that the Food Standards Agency will not go on to increase costs unreasonably for those involved in food production, on whom there is already a heavy burden.

The Government's natural inclination seems to be to introduce taxes by stealth. I am glad that we persuaded them to drop the stealth tax on corner shops and food retailers. None the less, the Bill has many financial implications that worry the Opposition considerably.

10.17 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I support the questions posed by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

The resolution before the House is somewhat unexpected. On 21 June, the House passed a money resolution couched in the ordinary terms, which provided the necessary parliamentary cover for the expenditure incurred by the agency under the Bill, should it be enacted, and also provided cover for expenditure incurred by Ministers under the Bill, should it be enacted. Now we face a Ways and Means resolution which provides for the cover necessary to pay money into the Consolidated Fund.

Therefore, my first question to the Minister is why, at this late stage of the Bill's passage through the House, it is necessary for the House to be asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution, when apparently it was not necessary to pass a Ways and Means resolution at the time of or before the money resolution. The relationship between the money resolution and the Ways and Means resolution needs to be clarified. Why are we being asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution tonight?

I understand, because of course I had consultations before the debate, that this has something to do with new clause 8. All right. I have read new clause 8. The House will expect the Minister to tell us why new clause 8 is triggering a Ways and Means resolution. What is it about new clause 8 that triggers a Ways and Means resolution? I do not understand.

I shall be interested to know, too, why late in the day and in Committee, new clause 8 was tabled when, so far as I can see, there was a perfectly serviceable clause 39. One of the questions that we expect the Minister to answer is why new clause 8 has been tabled now, when we had a perfectly serviceable clause 39, which has been taken out of the Bill. Why?

That leads us to the question set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire regarding money. We have asked why; now I want to ask where the money is coming from and how much.

Where is the money coming from? I expect the Minister to tell the House in detail and in respect of each head of expenditure—to which, Madam Speaker, I shall come in a moment—whether it is additional money or existing money within programmes that is being transferred over. If the latter, am I right in supposing that there will be a public expenditure survey transfer? The House is entitled to an answer on that matter.

Critical to all that—a point that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for North Wiltshire—is how much money is involved. A useful guide to that difficult calculation is to be found in the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 21 June. At that stage, he itemised the agency's functions and I have nothing against them. I would have skinned the cat in a slightly different way, but I am perfectly willing to accept that he has a perfectly good case in favour of the Food Standards Agency.

I have nothing against the agency, but I should like to know how much each of its functions will cost. That is pure curiosity—parliamentary control, it is called—but when I read Hansard I find no estimate of any kind of how much it will cost. That is lamentable. Indeed, the money resolution was taken on the nod, without Ministers vouchsafing an assessment of cost, so this is the opportunity for those on the Treasury Bench to tell us how much. I recommend the Minister to follow me as we go through the functions, because each head of expenditure deserves to be separately costed.

In the third paragraph of column 787, we find the Minister setting out the appointments, the creation of the board, the payment of board members and the necessary infrastructure. How much will that cost, pray? Is new money involved or will the money come from an existing programme? Will there be a PES transfer? At the bottom of column 787 one finds the bald statement: The agency's functions lie at the core of the Bill. Indeed they do. We find that those functions will include drafting and making recommendations on legislation, negotiating in the European Union and internationally on behalf of Ministers and so forth. How much will that cost, please? Will the money come from the existing programme or not?

At the bottom of column 788, the Minister said: The agency will provide effective advice to those who prepare and sell food. I am jolly glad that the advice will be effective rather than ineffective, but we are entitled to know how much that will cost and whether the money will come from the existing programme spend or not. In column 789, he said: The FSA is an enforcing agency". That is normally a fairly expensive business and we want to know how much that enforcement will cost. I imagine that the cost will be fairly considerable, or the thing is not worth doing in the first place. How much money is involved and where will it come from? The House is entitled to know.

Half way down column 790, I find that the entire Meat Hygiene Service is being transferred to the agency. That will be a whacking great cost—how much? Where will the money come from? Will there be a PES transfer? At the top of column 791, I find that the Minister said that he wanted to draw attention to the significant budget that the agency will have for commissioning and carrying out its own research and surveillance. That was very good of him, but he did not quantify the budget or tell us how much it was. He merely said that the agency will have a budget. I should like to know how much it will be. I find in column 792 that the Bill provides for the agency to operate throughout the food chain and that it will have an input into other farm-related decisions that affect food safety."—[Official Report, 21 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 787–92.] That sounds pretty expensive to me. Again, we are entitled to know how much.

I am pleased to let the Minister off the hook at this point. I understand that the Bill provides the basis for the agency to publish its advice and information to Ministers, and so forth.

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.

I am conscious that you, Madam Speaker, would not want me to rabbit on at this late hour and that many other hon. Members want to speak. It is very important that the Minister gives us a comprehensive answer and we look forward to hearing what he has to say.

10.27 pm

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.

If we want the agency to be successful—if anything, I am worried that it is underfunded, rather than overfunded—we must vote the means for it. We shall therefore support the ways and means motion.

10.28 pm

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. Paice

rose—

Mr. Hogg

rose—

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.

If I understood him rightly, the Minister said that the headquarters would be paid for from the vote in this Parliament. The headquarters, however, will affect the whole agency, not just the bit in England. Am I right in concluding that the other authorities will not bear their share of the cost?

The Minister has explained that there will be separate votes by different authorities. Can he put some figures on that, and tell us how much is likely to be voted for the first year by the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly? The Minister referred to the decision to make the agency a UK body. Did the votes in those authorities take place in the absence of any knowledge of what the costs would be?

Mr. Rooker

We do not have the agency now. It will effectively be operated by two Departments—mainly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but with a substantial input from the Department of health.

When MAFF is in the lead on a GB-wide issue—at present, I say GB rather than UK—MAFF will pay. There will be no flow of money across the borders. In other cases, decisions will be taken separately in Scotland. It is a question of splitting up some of the areas of responsibility and policy initiative that are currently on a GB basis, so that they can be put together on a UK basis in a devolved area, and, when the appropriate time comes, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can see what is happening to the money.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked about the headquarters. The money for the UK headquarters, and for activities in England, will come from the vote in the House of Commons. That does not mean that—in the rather juvenile words of an Opposition Member—the English are paying for the Scots' work. Let us raise the debate to a more adult level. There must be practical considerations, because there is only one central headquarters. That is stated in the White Paper. The Philip James report, on which the whole edifice is constructed, suggested that the national headquarters should be here in central London so that the agency was not marginalised from the rest of Whitehall. Moreover, agency staff will be responsible for negotiations in Brussels, drafting legislation and other such matters.

The vote will be split up, but it will be done in the way that I have described. The work in England, in the national headquarters, will be paid for from the vote in this Parliament, while the work in other areas will be paid for from the votes of the bodies involved. It is important for there to be a degree of accountability.

The arrangement must deal with the receipts of the agency, which is why the motion is required. The agency is likely to have two types of receipt. It will have the statutory receipts from any charges made under existing legislation—no new charges—of which receipts from the Meat Hygiene Service will be the major component, because it will be a sub-agency of the Food Standards Agency. However, the agency may have other minor receipts from fees for its services—the copying of documents and, occasionally, consultancy fees for giving information to certain bodies, as arranged in one of the clauses. Those minor receipts could be other income that it receives as a result of exploiting intellectual property rights.

Under existing legislation, those receipts would normally be paid into the Consolidated Fund. There is no need for the Bill to say that explicitly, but, as some of the agency's expenditure is to be met by the devolved authorities in the way that I have explained, there has to be provision for receipts to be paid to them as appropriate.

In the case of the non-statutory receipts—intellectual property rights, fees for consultancy or copying of documents—the Bill will provide a mechanism for the Treasury, acting jointly with the devolved authorities, to determine whether sums should be paid into the Consolidated Fund, the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland or, indeed, to the National Assembly for Wales.

For the avoidance of doubt, before anyone says, "Where is the English Consolidated Fund?", I specifically listed the Consolidated Fund, which we all know and love so well—that is, this one—the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland and the National Assembly for Wales. The statement in the amendment that sums are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund means that the motion is necessary, even though, in practice, it does not alter what would happen under the Bill as presently drafted. The same arrangements will take place. It is simply because of the declaration and the reference to the Consolidated Fund that we need the motion.

Mr. Gill

What we have just heard amounts to a reason why the Ways and Means motion has been introduced, but it does not amount to an excuse for the Government having failed to anticipate that complications would arise from devolution, which they might have thought about.

The Minister has been keen that the Bill should reach the statute book. It has been his baby. I am amazed—I think that the whole House is—that he has not delayed a little longer to get it right, rather than come back in the middle of the Committee stage with such a motion for the reason that he has given, which, I repeat, is not an excuse for the Government having got themselves into such a mess. Before he responds to that question, may I remind him that he has not yet answered the questions from several of my colleagues about the actual costs of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan haselhurst)

Order. With so little time left, that was far too long an intervention.

Mr. Rooker

We made it clear in the White Paper published in January 1998, in the draft Bill and in notes on clauses in January 1999—it was explicitly pointed out in the draft Bill and notes on clauses, which were scrutinised by a Special Select Committee—that the arrangements for devolution were not clear and could not be clear until much later, because the timetable had changed.

When the White Paper was drafted and published in January 1998, there was an expectation that we would be able to introduce the Bill for draft consideration last summer. That did not prove possible. In the meantime, the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly came and went and the bodies have been legitimately set up, so the action is right. We knew that there would be changes.

If hon. Members think that it is the last time that a Bill will come to the House that needs tweaking in Committee—which is what I thought the Committee stage was all about—to get it right and to take account of the new arrangements for devolution, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. It was the first occasion. There are bound to be many others, but that is the whole point of the exercise: to get it right in Committee and on Report, so that we do not give all the barristers and slick lawyers, who occasionally parade as hon. Members, the chance to earn a shilling or two.

I emphasise again that the amendment does not change anything in practice. There is no question of it providing any new way of raising any new money. I have said that several times, so it cannot be misrepeated or misquoted either in Committee in the morning or in any of the Sunday journals that follow our proceedings so closely. The amendment will simply make technical changes that are necessary not only to uphold in legislation the traditions of the house, but—although some hon. Members may not like it—to adapt to the new requirements of operating in a devolved context, which is what we must do.

As for demands for information on costs, charges and new money, with all due respect I say that the debate on this motion is not the appropriate time to debate those issues. All the figures were given in the consultation paper on the levy proposal—which we have dropped. Although there is still a need for new money, it will come from the Government. We shall not rob the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the money—it does not have any money anyway. The decision was taken that central Government would provide the extra money.

All the moneys, other than that extra money, will be provided for in current central Government public expenditure. However, as I have tried to explain, in relation to MAFF and the Department of health that money is sometimes expressed as Great Britain money, which—in the context of devolution, as a national United Kingdom agency will be working in a devolved sphere—must be identified.

In the morning, I shall do my best to explain to Committee members the amendment that has given rise to the motion. I invite hon. Members who are not Committee members to come to tomorrow's sitting and sit in the Public so that they might be better educated on the matter.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 2.

Division No. 232]	[10.46 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Benn, Rt hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Alexander, Douglas	Bennett, Andrew F
Allen, Graham	Benton, Joe
Atkins, Charlotte	Bermingham, Gerald
Austin, John	Best, harold
Barnes, harry	Blackman, Liz
Barron, Kevin	Blizzard, Bob
Battle, John	Boateng, Paul
Bayley, hugh	Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Begg, Miss Anne	Brand, Dr Peter
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Brinton, Mrs Helen

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Illsley, Eric
Browne, Desmond	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Burden, Richard	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Butler, Mrs Christine	Jamieson, David
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Jenkins, Brian
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)	Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)
Caplin, Ivor	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Caton, Martin	Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Cawsey, Ian	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Chaytor, David
Chisholm, Malcolm	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Clapham, Michael	Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Keeble, Ms Sally
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Kemp, Fraser
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Khabra, Piara S
Clelland, David	Kilfoyle, Peter
Coaker, Vernon	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Kirkwood, Archy
Cotter, Brian	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Cousins, Jim	Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Cox, Tom	Laxton, Bob
Crausby, David	Leslie, Christopher
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Levitt, Tom
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Llwyd, Elfyn
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	McAvoy, Thomas
Dalyell, Tam	McCabe, Steve
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Dawson, Hilton	McDonagh, Siobhain
Dean, Mrs Janet	Macdonald, Calum
Dobbin, Jim	McDonnell, John
Donohoe, Brian H	McFall, John
Doran, Frank	McIsaac, Shona
Dowd, Jim	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Drew, David	Mackinlay, Andrew
Drown, Ms Julia	McNamara, Kevin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	McNulty, Tony
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	McWalter, Tony
Efford, Clive	McWilliam, John
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Mallaber, Judy
Ennis, Jeff	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Etherington, Bill	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Flint, Caroline	Martlew, Eric
Flynn, Paul	Maxton, John
Foulkes, George	Meale, Alan
Fyfe, Maria	Merron, Gillian
Gardiner, Barry	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Gibson, Dr Ian	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Godman, Dr Norman A	Mudie, George
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Mullin, Chris
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Grogan, John	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Hain, Peter	Norris, Dan
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Olner, Bill
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	Öpik, Lembit
Hanson, David	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Palmer, Dr Nick
Healey, John	Pearson, Ian
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Pendry, Tom
Hepburn, Stephen	Pickthall, Colin
Heppell, John	Pike, Peter L
Hesford, Stephen	Plaskitt, James
Hopkins, Kelvin	Pope, Greg
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Hoyle, Lindsay	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Primarolo, Dawn
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Purchase, Ken
Humble, Mrs Joan	Quinn, Lawrie
Hutton, John	Rammell, Bill
Iddon, Dr Brian	Raynsford, Nick

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Rooker, Jeff	Temple-Morris, Peter
Roy, Frank	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Ruane, Chris	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Ruddock, Joan	Tipping, Paddy
Sanders, Adrian	Todd, Mark
Sarwar, Mohammad	Touhig, Don
Savidge, Malcolm	Trickett, Jon
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Singh, Marsha	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Skinner, Dennis	Tyler, Paul
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Walley, Ms Joan
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Wareing, Robert N
	Watts, David
	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Wills, Michael
Spellar, John	Winnick, David
Squire, Ms Rachel	Wise, Audrey
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Wood, Mike
Stevenson, George	Worthington, Tony
Stewart, David (Inverness E)	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Stringer, Graham	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stuart, Ms Gisela	Mr. Clive Betts and
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Mr. Robert Ainsworth

NOES
	Tellers for the Noes:
Swayne, Desmond	Mr. Douglas Hogg and
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)	Mr. Christopher Gill

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Standards Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.