| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
7.54 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is short and straightforward. It is a very narrow Bill, but it has a complex legal background. Its purpose is to ensure the validity of charges that were levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority between 1 October 1981 and 3 May 1996 in connection with its administration of grant schemes under the Fisheries Act 1981. It also applies to the validity of charges that were made by the authority's predecessor, the Herring Industry Board, between March 1972 and October 1981.
The charges covered the costs incurred by the bodies' surveyors in inspecting a vessel at the application stage to check 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 had been carried out properly. Those charges were ended in 1996.
A couple of points were raised in Committee that I should mention. I was pressed to publish the legal advice that the Government had received--or a precis of it--which led the Government to introduce the Bill. I tried to be as open with the Committee as I possibly could be. A note on the legal background to the Bill was sent to all Committee members and placed in the Library of the House. That gives a full explanation of the legal reasoning, even though it is not quite the legal advice, because of the precedent that Governments have always followed. I shall not go into the details of that legal advice as I did so in Committee.
There was concern that no reference was made in the Sea Fish Industry Authority's accounts to the liability to repay charges. The authority's auditors were aware of the potential liability and made inquiries in 1996 as to how that should be addressed in the accounts. They were advised by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it would not be appropriate to make any reference while issues about legality were still being examined and no decision had been taken on whether validating legislation should be introduced. It was also unclear as to who--Ministers or the SFIA--would have responsibility for any liability arising should it be concluded that the charges were more likely than not to have been unlawfully levied.
The auditors raised the point again the following year. The authority sought a letter of comfort from the Ministry saying that, if it was concluded that there should be a refund of technical charges, responsibility for payment would rest with the Ministry. It was explained that that would not be appropriate because such a letter would require specific Treasury and parliamentary approval, and because the legal issues were still under review.
Once the decision had been taken that the Government should seek to legislate to validate the charges retrospectively as soon as parliamentary time allowed, the likelihood of any contingent liability having to be met was largely removed. Therefore, it was not seen as appropriate to mention it in the accounts.
I stress a number of points that were made earlier in considering the Bill. It is not a vehicle for introducing financial assistance to the fisheries industry; the Government are making a bid for that under structural funds.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): Is the Minister saying that the authority was advised that, on the assumption that the legislation that we are discussing would pass through all its stages in Parliament and receive Royal Assent, it was inappropriate to mention those items in the accounts? That seems a little previous, to put it mildly. Is there not, then, a danger of a gap between the giving of that advice and possible Royal Assent to the Bill?
Mr. Morley: No, the advice was not based on the assumption that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. A decision had to be made in relation to liability and how it was to be dealt with. The legal advice was that the most appropriate way of dealing with it was through such a Bill being put to Parliament.
As soon as lawyers concluded that, in all probability, the technical charge did not have a statutory basis, the SFIA was told to put a stop to it. The Ministry wrote to the SFIA on 3 May 1996 confirming the instruction given over the phone that day to cease levying the charge immediately. At that time, it was, of course, already well aware of the existence of concerns.
It was subsequently decided that the charge should not be reintroduced as the nature of the grant scheme had changed and much less technical work was involved in processing applications. The Bill does not, therefore, authorise the making of any future charges and is limited to charges levied up to 3 May 1996.
The charge concerned was a reasonable one in relation to the work that was carried out. It has never been challenged by anyone and no complaints about the charge have ever been received. I thank all the members of the Committee for dealing with what is a narrow and technical measure so speedily. I especially thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) for his able chairmanship of the Committee.
7.59 pm
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): I think that the House and those who follow the interests of the fishing industry will be disappointed that, as the Minister said, the Bill will not and should not be a vehicle to debate the necessary reintroduction of fishing safety grants.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A few moments ago, in his opening speech, the Minister said that a note on the legal advice that the Government had received on the Bill had been provided to Committee members and that a copy of it had been deposited in the Library. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Library is unable to locate the said note? Should we not be provided with it as a matter of urgency and before the debate continues?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I certainly shall not suspend the sitting. Those are not matters for the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) rose--
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister himself raised as a matter material
to this debate on Third Reading that the legal advice was available to hon. Members in the Library. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has just checked with the Library, but the advice is not available. Therefore, progress of the--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is talking about a ministerial responsibility. It is nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made that ruling, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the matter.
Mr. Leigh: May I just ask a question, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Of course--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are no more questions to be asked on the matter. I shall take points of order, but not questions. I do not think that we should pursue the matter, which is for the Minister deal with.
Mr. George: As I was saying, the House will be disappointed that the Bill was not regarded as an opportunity for debate of the matter and as a vehicle for the reintroduction of fishing safety grants.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. George: I shall finish my point, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The matters are deeply important to the industry, and the sooner they are attended to, the better. I am sure that the Minister will accept that.
Mr. Leigh: Because of timetabling, we have only 40 minutes to discuss the Bill. The Minister is in the Chamber. He could intervene now and say that he will ensure that that legal advice is provided to the House before we finish the debate. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, try to convince the Minister to provide the legal advice to us now? The Minister said that it is in the Library, but it is not.
Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As I was a member of the Committee considering this very important matter, I was a beneficiary of the legal advice, for which I am grateful to the Minister.
Mr. Morley: I may be able to clarify the matter. However, I should first correct hon. Members who are talking about legal advice--I was talking about a precis of the legal advice. The convention is that Governments do not reveal the legal advice that they receive. My information is that the precis was placed in the Library, and I am, at this moment, making inquiries about the situation.
Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I mentioned legal advice--whereas,
in Committee, I asked him for a precis of it. I am grateful to him for circulating it to Committee members, as he promised to do; it was much appreciated. [Interruption.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |