| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): Section 3 of the 1981 Act refers to charging for any services; it does not specify services under part I, part II or part III of the measure.
Mr. Morley: I understand that. However, Ministers must grant the power to make charges, and they must initially have authority that they can pass on to agencies that subsequently make the charges.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked about legal advice and whether the Ministry would publish it. According to precedent, no Government have ever published the legal advice that they received on legislation. However, having said that he may want to raise that issue during consideration of the Freedom of Information Bill.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
I was a member of the Freedom of Information Bill Committee and I pressed the Minister's colleagues strongly for that to be included. It was, of course, resisted by the Home Department. Can he provide as much clarity as possible? All that we seek--in much more explicit terms than he has been able to use in either the explanatory notes or the debate--are the outlines of the advice that was given. That would satisfy all Members that the Bill is necessary. We are not satisfied simply because we have not received the outlines.
Mr. Morley:
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and will consult my officials to see whether there is any scope for providing more information, although he must bear in mind what I said about the accepted precedent on legal advice.
I was asked about the HIB's role in inspecting vessels and deciding whether they were seaworthy. I understand that it could refer a boat that it thought to be unseaworthy to the relevant authority, which was the Department of Transport. That is the case for its successor--the Sea Fish Industry Authority--and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde rightly said, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is now the relevant authority. I understand his point about survival suits. He has great experience of the fishing industry and has made his case before. I was also asked whether Scotland has been consulted. The Scottish Executive are content to support the Bill being passed as United Kingdom legislation and it might be useful to remember that the charges are a pre-devolution measure.
Safety grants have also been mentioned and I say to my hon. Friend that the Bill deals with them and with past inspections. Safety and a safety culture in the fishing industry are of paramount importance and, although it is easy to make political points about the safety grants situation, these are serious issues. Incidentally, the old safety grants scheme did not apply to all fishing vessels and the majority of the smaller ones were completely exempt. There are questions to ask, such as why, despite the scheme, the fishing industry's safety record is so bad compared with that of the Merchant Navy, whose record has improved.
The Government have to address those issues and we in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are doing so. We are considering the possibility of establishing a successor scheme to the safety grants system or a safety scheme system under European Union structural funds. The old system was financed under structural funds, but I do not think that it delivered its objectives. We need a better scheme.
My hon. Friend referred to lifejackets, survival suits and training. We must consider those issues.
Mr. Moss:
Can the Minister tell the House unequivocally whether he is giving a commitment to reintroduce safety grants for fishing vessels?
Mr. Morley:
The debate is very narrow and we are not dealing with that. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that we take safety seriously.
We are considering the Government's role in working in partnership with the industry, which also has to take responsibility, and ways of improving the safety culture.
Mr. Morley:
I am about to conclude.
The measure is narrow and technical, but we have to take safety seriously. I was asked why we have to introduce it if no one has taken legal action against the Ministry. No one has taken action, but I must point out what happened when the previous Government introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.
The Factortame judgment followed. It was illegal legislation that was poorly thought through. It means that the taxpayer is liable for large sums of money, which will have to be paid in compensation. Those are issues that the Government have inherited, are addressing, will resolve and sort out properly.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time tomorrow.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
Ordered,
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
I present petitions on behalf of my constituents in Vale of York, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). There are more than 40,000 signatures from the whole of north Yorkshire. Almost 7,000 come from Vale of York.
The petition is raised in view of the threat to post offices and sub-post offices in rural locations and market towns from making payments of benefits and pensions by automated means only through banks, when most banks in north Yorkshire villages and small towns have already closed. The petition states:
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 20th April, do adjourn till Tuesday 2nd May 2000.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.
That, at the sitting on Thursday 20th April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Ordered,
That:
(i) the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee:
(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 9th March at half-past Two o'clock, to consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
(3) in respect of the sitting on Thursday 9th March, Standing Order No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) shall have effect with the substitution of the word 'three' for the words 'two and a half' in paragraph (2) of the Order--[Mr. Jamieson.]
10.31 pm
I beg to submit to the House of Commons the petition of residents of the Vale of York constituency, of the Richmond constituency and of the Ryedale constituency in the names of myself and right hon. and hon. Members, declaring that we are concerned at the Government's plans to pay benefits directly into bank accounts instead of over the counter at post offices as this will have a serious impact on local post offices and endanger a mainstay of village life.
To lie upon the table.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to rethink these proposals
And the petitioners remain, yours faithfully, Mrs. Caroline Patmore and others.
| Index | Home Page |