| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My eye also alighted on that statement in paragraph 11 of the notes. As that doubt is the entire justification for the Bill, would it not have been helpful if the legal advice on which that doubt is based was vouchsafed to the rest of the House, so that we could form our own opinion?
Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which should be addressed to the Minister rather than to me. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that important issue when he winds up.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I reinforce the comment of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important that the legal advice should be published, for it is not inconceivable that someone who disagrees with the Government's conclusion might seek to protect himself under the European convention on human rights? It is important that the House should know to what it is giving its approval.
Mr. Moss: I agree with my hon. Friend. No doubt the Minister will have access to the published guidance, which I am sure is at hand, and he could refer to that when he winds up the debate.
One cannot help but feel that the Bill is not the stuff of primary legislation on the Floor of the House, especially as it is taking up valuable parliamentary time, which I and many others believe could be put to more meaningful use.
The total charges levied by the Herring Industry Board and the SFIA since 1972--that is, over 24 years to 1996, when the last technical charges were made--were £7.3 million, covering 13,000 cases. To put that into perspective, the SFIA was approving safety grants alone at the rate of more than £1 million a year up to 1996.
The fishing industry will be dismayed to learn that, of all legislation seeking to help its parlous situation, the Government have produced this Bill. Yes, it purports to block a perceived loophole, but even the Minister was not convinced of the existence of the loophole. Yes, it deals retrospectively with the problem, and yes, ironically, it touches on the vexed and pertinent issue of grant aid to the fishing industry.
Given the content of the Bill and the promises made by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister to reintroduce safety grants for the industry, why did not the Minister do the decent thing this evening and table additional clauses to the Bill to right the wrong and reintroduce safety grants?
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
I begin by responding to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). We have an excellent Minister. There is no way that I can be described as a sycophant--
Dr. Godman:
I do not have to grovel--not when I am speaking about the fishing industry, about which I know something, as does the hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend), even if the Opposition's official fisheries spokesman knows little or nothing about the industry.
The industry has been badly served by both Tory and Labour fisheries Ministers down the years, but my hon. Friend is a good Minister.
Mr. John Townend (East Yorkshire):
Did I hear the hon. Gentleman correctly? Did he say that I knew little or nothing about the fishing industry?
Dr. Godman:
I would not dare say that about the hon. Gentleman. He is one of the few Opposition Members who attends fishing debates. I am sure he will agree that we do not have enough debates about the fishing industry. In no way would I suggest that he knows little or nothing about the industry. I know that he is a committed supporter of fishermen and their families in his constituency. I have offered that compliment to him in the past.
My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that the Bill is narrowly focused. I acknowledge that, while agreeing with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that the industry deserves a wide-ranging debate in the near future. As I said earlier, I speak as a member of a fishing family. We have served the industry badly in the House until recently, when my hon. Friend assumed responsibility.
I need to ask my hon. Friend a couple of questions, if he will forgive me for making him work. The Herring Industry Board was set up in 1927 or thereabouts, even when the herring industry--I speak as the son of a fisher girl--was in decline. The board had to be wound up many years ago.
According to the Minister, who referred to both the Bill and the explanatory memorandum, the relevant period is from 1981 to 1996. The sum that we are discussing is £7.3 million, relating to 13,000 checks and inspections conducted by officials of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I have considerable respect for the SFIA's officials, who, I believe, are located in Young street, Edinburgh. Apparently, the original Herring Industry Board plaque is still on the wall.
I feel that I must comment on the absence of certain political day trippers--members of the Scottish National party who are Members of the Scottish Parliament, and who receive £20,000 over and above their normal salaries. Although the Bill is narrowly focused, it is of more than passing interest to all our fishing communities in Scotland. I need hardly remind hon. Members and others that, in terms of the overall economy, the fishing industry in Scotland is much more important than the industry south of the border. Anyway, the day trippers have gone back to Edinburgh.
What documentary evidence is retained by the Ministry, or by the authority in Edinburgh, concerning the 13,000 inspections? What power did the inspectors have in terms of recommending, say, that a fishing vessel should not be allowed to put to sea? What power was given to inspectors assessing safety equipment? Were they able to say that a vessel was so unseaworthy, or that its safety equipment had been so badly neglected, that it should not be allowed out?
The Minister may say, "Hold on: the arrangements ended in 1996." But who has the power now? I tabled three questions for answer on Monday 13 March, asking how many fishing vessels had been banned from putting out to sea because of inadequate safety gear, or because they were unseaworthy. Questions are now being asked in relation to the dreadful loss of the seven-man crew of the Solway Harvester, a vessel owned by a company in Hull. I believe that the House should be told who now has that power. I believe it is exercised outwith the Ministry, by the Coastguard Agency, but, in the context of safety checks, does the Ministry liaise closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings):
Given his renowned knowledge of these matters, the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the findings of the inquiry into sea fishing by the Agriculture Committee, which were published last year. I was fortunate enough to serve on the Committee during part of the inquiry. It
The Committee made two recommendations--recommendations 37 and 38--in regard to prosecutions for fishing infringements. It recommended that the Government
Dr. Godman:
Thank you for rescuing me from what seemed to be an interesting speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech later, but he will need to hearken to what is said by the Chair in regard to the narrow focus of the Bill.
I thought that the Agriculture Committee produced a very good report, but, although I am not a lawyer, I think I am right in saying that in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, the penalties for fishing infringements--this certainly applies to those who are dragged before the sheriffs courts in Scotland--are much heavier than those imposed on owners for failing to protect their crews in relation to adequate safety measures. There is a hell of a difference between the two, and I think that that is a scandal. I have said it often enough before, but I will say it again.
Dr. Godman:
The hon. Gentleman is going to have another try.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is going wide of what is a very narrow Second Reading debate.
Dr. Godman:
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was carried away. You know what I am like when I start talking about the fishing industry. I need to be more rational and logical.
Let me ask this in relation to the Bill, and in relation to the question of safety checks. Between 1981 and 1996, were the inspectors able to recommend to the SFIA the legitimacy of an application to buy survival suits for the crews of fishing vessels? Life rafts were purchased during that period, along with other essential safety equipment. Some of the provision for that was introduced by Albert McQuarrie, a famous Tory Member and an old friend of mine, in a private Member's Bill concerned with the safety of fishing vessels, which later became an Act. But were the inspectors allowed--in the context of the inspection referred to specifically in the Bill--to sanction the purchase of survival suits?
commission a review of how the prosecution process for fishing offences could be made more efficient, more speedy and more consistent,
and how the penalties for serious breaches of the regulations could be increased. The Committee was referring principally to regulations affecting the taking of fish--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |