| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.50 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in wishing the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) well? We pay tribute to the woman concerned and to Duncan Goodhew for taking action immediately when the right hon. Gentleman was taken ill a week ago.
My views on the matter before us are reflected in the Committee's report, and I will not rehearse them. However, published with the report are the minutes of evidence that were taken before the previous report on my hon. Friend. I should like to quote from one of the replies that she gave on page 4 of the evidence given on 18 May 1999. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), my hon. Friend said:
No one in this debate has challenged the commissioner's fact-finding. That is a good thing. The first question is whether my hon. Friend should have registered information to begin with, the second is whether she should have made a declaration.
When a complaint is made, the commissioner has to ask whether there is a prima facie reason to investigate it. When complaints are put formally to an hon. Member, that hon. Member would have a duty to give the commissioner all the information available so that the commissioner can easily find out the facts. On some complaints, the commissioner finds that there is no case to investigate. On others, there is a case to investigate, but responses show that there is no need to take it any further. If there is a difference of view, or an hon. Member's view has changed, the hon. Member should say that it would have been better to register, do so, and say to the Committee, as my hon. Friend did on 18 May, that she had changed her view.
I do not necessarily agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), but he challenged neither our procedure
nor our conclusions. I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that such matters should go to a tribunal or a court of law. I should like my voice to be taken into account. We are capable of considering the findings of fact by the commissioner, and I believe that we have got it right. Things would have been very different if this inquiry had received the same co-operation as the previous one.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
Order for Second Reading read.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill fulfils a commitment that I made in a written statement to the House on 5 November 1998 to introduce legislation as soon as the programme permitted. The Bill will give statutory authority to charges made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority for handling applications for fishing vessel grants. These charges were discontinued in May 1996, and the Bill does not allow for their reintroduction.
The Bill is very short and straightforward, but the background, as with many legal issues, is complex. Indeed, the background to the Bill is rather longer than the Bill itself. I hope that the House will find my introduction to the issues that required the introduction of the Bill helpful.
First, I should make it clear that the Bill is not a vehicle for introducing financial assistance to the fisheries industry. It is intended solely to deal with the charges levied in the past. In that respect, it is a very narrow measure. There will be further opportunities to discuss those issues.
The Bill's purpose is to ensure that the charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between 1 October 1981 and 3 May 1996 in connection with the administration of certain grant schemes that were made under the Fisheries Act 1981 were proper. It also ensures the validity of the charges made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority's predecessor, the Herring Industry Board between March 1972 and October 1981. The Herring Industry Board was abolished in 1981 but its liabilities were transferred to SFIA.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley:
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to expand on the background to the Bill before I take interventions.
The first charges that the Bill is intended to validate are known as technical charges. Those were levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority to cover the costs of various checks and inspections that the authority carried out during the period from 1 October 1981 to 3 May 1996 in relation to applications under five different fishing vessel grant schemes. No other charges were made by the Sea Fish Industry Authority in administering the schemes during this period.
Under a succession of schemes made under section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1981, grants have been made available to fishermen in the United Kingdom for the construction, improvement or safety of vessels. These have all been administered by the Sea Fish Industry Authority on behalf of Ministers, as provided by section 16 of the Fisheries Act 1981.
The SFIA has surveyors' offices in Hull, Plymouth and Peterhead, but grant payments have always been made from Edinburgh. The technical charges covered the costs incurred by SFIA marine surveyors in inspecting vessels at the application stage. Those inspections checked on what work was needed, including examination of technical specifications and plans, and inspection on completion of work so that the surveyor could satisfy himself that the work, which had been grant-aided, had been carried out properly. The charge was calculated on a sliding scale but on average was around 4 per cent. of the cost of the work, although a maximum ceiling was set to limit the charge applied to larger applications.
The charge was itself eligible for aid under the grant schemes, which meant that vessel owners bore only 70 per cent. of the charge. The SFIA levied its charges by deducting the total charge from the amount of grant paid to the beneficiary.
On Government charging, the guiding principle is that a public body may not generally make a charge for a service without statutory authority or the agreement of the "customer". Questions about the validity of the technical charges were first raised in 1995, when officials were examining material that the SFIA had produced to implement the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1995. Although section 3 of the Fisheries Act 1981 gives the SFIA power to charge for certain services, there were doubts as to whether this power extended to the SFIA levying its "technical charges". When the SFIA administers a fishing grant scheme, it does so, under section 16 of the 1981 Act, on behalf of Ministers. Its powers, therefore, are essentially those of the Ministers for whom it acts. Since Ministers had no automatic power to make charges in relation to the schemes, it seemed doubtful whether the authority had the power to charge.
Against this, it was noted that applicants had signed the SFIA's conditions of approval for the payment of grant, and those referred to the deduction of the technical charge from the overall level of grant. I emphasise that no objections about the deduction of the technical charge were ever received from grant recipients.
The issues were extremely complex and were given thorough consideration. The conclusion reached was that it was doubtful whether the SFIA had legal power to levy its technical charges. In the light of that, the authority was formally instructed to cease levying the charges on 3 May 1996.
It was then decided that the charge should not be reintroduced, because the nature of the grant schemes had changed and much less technical work was involved in processing applications. The Bill, therefore, does not give authority for technical charges to be levied for any period after 3 May 1996; it does not introduce retrospective charges.
My written answer on 5 November 1998, in Hansard, column 660W, announced the Government's commitment to legislate when our programme allowed. That announcement made it clear that MAFF did not intend to meet any claims that were brought before the legislation was in place. There were three reasons for that. First, the charge for administering the grants was reasonable. Secondly, it has never been challenged--no complaints about it have been received. Thirdly, the cost of repaying the charge would be disproportionate to the benefit that such repayment would confer on those who paid it.
There are precedents for the provision of retrospective statutory authority for similar charges. The Birds (Registration Charges) Act 1997 validated charges levied under sections 6 and 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the registration and selling of certain dead birds. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1954 also gave authority to past payments made to the Postmaster General for wireless transmission and receiving licences.
Background work on the Bill raised the possibility that similar charges levied by the predecessor body to the SFIA--the Herring Industry Board--in connection with the schemes of financial assistance made under the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 and earlier legislation consolidated in that Act might also have been of doubtful validity. After careful consideration, it was concluded that the HIB also had no power to levy those charges. Consistent with the treatment of the SFIA charges, it was thus decided to extend the coverage of the Bill to the equivalent HIB charges.
Section 6 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953, as amended, enabled the HIB to make grants to persons engaged, or proposing to become engaged, in the herring industry for acquiring or improving fishing vessels under a certain size limit. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might understand why I thought I should explain the background before I took interventions.
But I perceived the Members' interests Register as a document listing income which I was receiving from elsewhere and where I was not receiving income I did not consider that was a matter that needed to be declared. I acknowledge again that that was an error of judgment on my part for which I am extremely apologetic and sorry, and that is what I want to say.
I think that the memory from this debate and from the second report should be those words--my hon. Friend was right then. I think that the learned counsel who was quoted in one of the letters is wrong. I believe that the learned counsel and others who may follow these debates and consider what to do, especially if we get close to adopting the Nicholls recommendations, should consider paragraph 39 of our report on page xiii, which states:
Members have a duty of accountability under the Code of Conduct and "must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office".
The relevant footnote 61 refers to the House of Commons paper 688, Session 1995-96, page 3.
That this House
(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 260); and
(ii) accordingly suspends Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Member for Billericay, from the service of the House for one month.
5.54 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |