| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): In order to ensure that the debate is not intelligible only to those who have participated on previous occasions, will the hon. Gentleman do me the good turn of assisting the House by explaining the formula--in some detail, if necessary--for the elucidation of right hon. and hon. Members?
Mr. Morley: As I said in my introduction, I realise that this is a complex, technical and narrow measure that relates to charges. I am presenting a full explanation to the House. With the leave of the House, I am willing to clarify any points that hon. Members raise in the course of the debate.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham): From the hon. Gentleman's description, it sounds as though the charging
has come about through custom and practice, rather being made than on a statutory basis. He has traced it back to the HIB. Was it custom and practice then, or did the charging scheme exist before the HIB?
Mr. Morley: No, the charge goes back to the HIB--that is far enough for anyone. It was not based on custom and practice; it came about in relation to the administration of grants. When grants were paid out, the boats were inspected to ensure that the money was being correctly used--that the work had been done properly and that the grant conditions had been upheld. That is right in order to protect public funds, and is normal when any local authority or Government grant is made.
The question was whether the HIB and its successor--the SFIA--actually had the authority to charge for those grants. The Bill makes it clear that they did have that authority, even though it will be applied retrospectively under the measure.
Mr. Forth:
The Minister will be aware of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951. Section 15(2)(a) states that the then authority
If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to trace the history of the Act from 1951 to the present, because there is a continuum. Does the Minister agree that authority may arise from the 1951 Act--not to mention its successors?
Mr. Morley:
In an earlier debate today, we heard of the benefit of engaging the best legal brains to give advice on such issues. I am advised that the matter has been examined carefully to find which provisions are applicable. The feeling was that, in order to ensure that there is no doubt about the situation, a measure could be introduced, because it would make it clear where matters stand--both to the industry and to the Government--and that charges were levied with the proper authority.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire):
The Minister referred to the legislation on the HIB. Will he tell the House how the White Fish Authority and legislation linked with the HIB are germane to the Bill?
Mr. Morley:
It is germane because the HIB was the predecessor to the SFIA. The HIB administered charges that were, in essence, the same as those administered under the SFIA and for the same kind of grant administration. There was thus an element of doubt. If there is doubt as to the legal status of the SFIA in relation to charging, the same doubt must apply to its predecessor.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley:
I should like to make progress with my remarks. I realise that this is not one of the most scintillating speeches ever made in the House, but it is important that I explain what is at stake, and the technicalities of the measure.
The total amount of money levied in charges was £7.3 million; it covers 13,000 cases over about 30 years. On average, that amounted to about £560 per case. However, as up to 30 per cent. of the charge was offset by grant, the cost to the applicant was about £390. A small part of many of the charges was for technical advice--such as assisting applicants to choose the appropriate equipment--and was not directly connected with handling the grant application. The SFIA did, and does, have powers under the Fisheries Act 1981 to charge for such of advice, but it would now be extremely difficult to separate that from charges for the work that necessitated the Bill.
Because of the time delay, it is difficult to be more precise about the exact amount of the charge than the figure of £7.3 million. I am sure that the House realises that, even if we wanted to trace the owners of boats on which charges were levied, it would be impossible to do so.
The Bill's first main operative provision is in clause 1(1). It will ensure the validity of the charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between October 1981 and May 1996 in connection with its administering four fishing vessel grant schemes made under section 15 of the Fisheries Act 1981 and also the 1976 scheme to which I have already referred. Under the 1981 Act, the responsibility for administering the latter scheme passed to the SFIA. The schemes are the five specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of clause 1(2).
Clause 2(1) makes provision to ensure the validity of the same technical charges levied by the HIB between March 1972 and October 1981 in connection with its administering the two fishing vessel grant schemes specified in subsections 2(a) and (b).
Clause 3 cites the full name of the Bill. No charges were levied for the administration work after 3 May 1996 and clause 3(2) is necessary to make it clear that the Bill does not facilitate the reintroduction of any charges after that date. Clause 3(3) is necessary to establish that the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom including Northern Ireland.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire):
In the light of the fishing industry's parlous state, it is incredible that, at his first opportunity to speak to the House since the Fisheries Council met in December, the Minister should have chosen to introduce a Bill that is at best obtuse, as he readily agreed: he also said virtually nothing about the industry's problems, and certainly proffered no short or long-term solutions to them.
Although I accept that the Bill is narrowly drawn--and I am sure that the occupant of the Chair will exert his responsibilities in that regard--I have to say that we have very few opportunities to discuss fishing in all its facets on the Floor of the House. The bulk of the legislation is a devolved European matter. At the time of the annual fishing debate in November last year, there was
considerable disquiet about the short time afforded for discussion. After the Minister made his contribution, only two Back Benchers were able to speak.
The problem was recognised by the Leader of the House at business questions on 19 January. The right hon. Lady was asked about the loss of this Bill on that day's business and she said:
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend will be aware that the explanatory notes to the Bill refer to the Fisheries Act 1981, which is the key to the whole thing. Section 15 mentions schemes of financial assistance
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill does not provide the platform for the wider-ranging debate for which he had hoped. I cannot allow hon. Members to go down that path.
Mr. Moss:
Such is the critical nature of the issues facing the fishing industry that I think that almost every Member representing a fishing constituency will have been lobbied hard about its difficulties. The industry is almost in despair at the increasing level of regulation and cuts. Such are its fears for the future that it has launched a most unprecedented attack on the Minister by demanding his resignation. It has set a six-point plan in front of him, and criticises him on two counts relating to the detail in the Bill.
The criticisms relate to the Government's lack provision of any grants for fleet modernisation, the very points that were made--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am afraid that I have to repeat my advice. Members cannot have a general debate about the state of the fishing industry, however much they crave one. It is a narrow and technical Bill.
shall have power . . . to raise by means of a general levy
the moneys necessary. It then refers to voluntary payments.
I was not pressed to find more time for the Bill that was debated this evening, I was pressed to find an opportunity to discuss fishing issues. My hon. Friend will know that one of the Bills that has been lost for today's business, as a result of the activities of Opposition Members, would have offered an opportunity to discuss fishing issues.--[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 941.]
That was her view of the Bill.
for the purpose of reorganising, developing or promoting the sea fish industry.
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the whole point behind the series of Acts--to say nothing of the statutory instruments--that lie behind the Bill was, among other things, to promote the sea fish industry? That should have given the Minister the opportunity to tell us how the Bill contributes to that broad purpose.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |