| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.
Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill
Postponed proceedings on Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, resumed.
10.10 pm
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives, North): It is surprising that a matter that was not considered sufficiently important for the annual report at the time is now considered important enough for primary legislation. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly, so that we may proceed with the Second Reading debate?
Mr. George: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The question that I raised earlier was whether it was appropriate for a public body to behave as the Sea Fish Industry Authority had done in not referring to the concern about the grants issue in the annual report. It was considered not important enough for the annual report, yet the Government consider it important enough for primary legislation.
This is a narrow issue, and the House should move on as quickly as possible so that at a later stage we shall have the opportunity to examine the legal advice that the Government receive. We must not put the future of the SFIA, it charges or its grants in jeopardy, as it is important, especially for sea safety, that we get the matter right.
In view of recent tragedies at sea and the fact that the Wolfson report has raised questions about the stability of beam trawlers, those issues need to be properly investigated. Concerns have been raised about single- handed fishermen and about whether it is appropriate for single-handed fishing boats to go to sea without those fishermen wearing life jackets. There are still questions pertaining to the Government bringing forward a code for under-12 m vessels.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
I do not think that the Minister did full justice to the Bill when he introduced it. Although he took great pains to explain the details and the technicalities, I was disappointed that he did not refer at any length or in any depth--indeed, he may have mentioned it hardly at all--to the element of retrospection that is hidden in the Bill.
In fact, it is not all that hidden. In a written reply on 5 November 1998, the Minister himself said:
I believe that, in normal circumstances, that principle would deserve a considerable airing, but on this occasion I simply cite it as an element that I think may have to be explored during the Bill's subsequent stages. I am putting down a marker: I am saying that I do not think that that element should be allowed to pass unmentioned or unnoticed, or, indeed, unjustified.
Traditionally, retrospective legislation is frowned on in the House. When I first came here, not all that many years ago, I was told that in parliamentary terms it was taboo, or forbidden. Here it is, however, sliding into the practices of the House--and certainly those of the Government--without so much as a by your leave, and with barely an explanation.
Paragraph 17 of the explanatory notes states:
I was surprised by one aspect of the Bill. I shall not dwell on it unnecessarily now, but I want to make the point. As far as I can tell, the Bill's legislative origins date back to at least the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951 and its successor Acts: I think that there have been seven or eight.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
No.
Mr. Forth:
I should appreciate a brief explanation from the Minister of why that is not the case.
Section 15 of the 1951 Act explicitly refers to the charging of "fees for services rendered". I should have thought that it would be at least possible that--given the way in which the measures have appeared over the years, one succeeding another, setting up a succession of authorities--authority for charging might have been carried forward from the explicit reference to fees in 1951 to current legislation. In our short debate, some doubt has been expressed about whether the problem described by the Minister really exists to that extent, and, consequent to that, whether the Bill would solve the problems.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
I want to answer some of the points that were made about a narrow and technical Bill. The hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), for St. Ives (Mr. George), my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) dealt with the thrust of the Bill and understood the purpose of the measure.
The Bill will make legal charges that were levied under the previous Administration. The main period of time that the Bill covers is 1981 to 1996. It includes the Herring Industry Board, but that is inevitable in a catch-all Bill that applies retrospectively. I accept that retrospective legislation is not desirable, but the Bill applies retrospectively to tackle a problem that we inherited from the previous Administration.
Questions were asked about the White Fish Authority and whether it had the authority to make charges. The White Fish Authority had that ability, but it was the predecessor of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. There is no problem with the charges that were levied before 1972.
I was also asked about the ability of the White Fish Authority and the SFIA to make charges. They were deemed to have made charges on behalf of Ministers. I dealt with that point in my opening speech. Ministers may require charges to be made on their behalf, but if they give an agency the authority to levy charges, they must initially have the authority to grant the agencies power to do that. We have been advised that there was some doubt about whether Ministers had the authority to do that in the case that we are considering.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
As someone who does not expect to be invited to serve on the Standing Committee, I remind my hon. Friend--[Interruption.] He is nodding at me; he has me worried. However, we are considering a serious matter and I remind my hon. Friend that the White Fish Authority distributed millions of pounds in grants to Humber trawler companies to enable them to build vessels. Those companies treated their men abysmally when they lost their jobs.
Mr. Morley:
Those comments stray wide of the Bill, but my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, which the National Audit Office has picked up.
The Government intend when the legislative programme allows, to introduce legislation to provide retrospective statutory authority for technical charges levied.--[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 660W.]
1 Mar 2000 : Column 528
The Minister, then, has told us that the Bill has retrospective effect--and, indeed, clause 1(1) says that
This is an explicitly retrospective measure--a Bill that looks backwards, in which the Government are saying, "We want to ensure that what has been happening is now legitimised."
The Sea Fish Authority shall be taken to have had power to make . . . charges.
By ensuring that these charges were validly levied the Bill will secure a possible saving in public expenditure--
which I would normally support--
in avoiding any obligation that might otherwise arise to fund repayments.
In fairness to the Minister, he made some reference to that, but I think we may want to explore--perhaps in Committee, or perhaps later--the question of what the Government are trying to slide away from in that seemingly innocuous phrase. It is not in itself a sufficient justification; it is a statement avoiding any obligation--which makes me rather nervous in any event--and I feel that it requires a much fuller explanation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |