| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend as shocked as I am to learn, at 8.29 pm, after more than half an hour's debate on the Bill, that despite an extensive search by the experienced staff of the Library no record of the deposit of the legal note to which the Minister referred can be found?
Mr. Forth: The Minister has admitted that the text of the letter claimed that the arrangement had been made as long as three weeks ago, but that that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman was then briefed to tell us that the letter was available, but that is not the case. The matter requires a top-level inquiry and I hope that it will be conducted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to whom I am sure we will all write about this disgraceful episode. I hope that we do not get the Minister into too much trouble, although he looks casual about it now. He will not be smiling so much when we hold his feet to the parliamentary fire.
Tonight's proceedings have been a sordid little episode and the Minister will regret his part in it. I intend to vote against the Bill to show my disgust at what has happened.
8.31 pm
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): At least the Minister had the courtesy and the decency to apologise immediately when he realised that he was in grave danger of misleading the House. If he had not done so before the debate ended, I would have tabled an early-day motion tomorrow, condemning the Minister for misleading the House. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may say that, but misleading the House is a serious charge and I know that the Minister would not do so deliberately. We have had excessive levity from Labour Members tonight, who consider the fact that the Minister referred to an important letter that is not available to the House as a matter of no importance. I know that we have discussed that and points of order have been raised, so I shall merely
say that I thought that it was a convention of the House that if a Minister referred to a document it had to be produced. I understand that Madam Speaker takes a dim view when that does not happen. [Interruption.] If Labour Members think that that does not matter--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter and the right hon. Gentleman should now direct his remarks to the contents of the Bill.
Mr. Maclean: I am happy to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, that was my intention on attending the Chamber tonight. We all thought that the purpose of the Bill was to ensure the validity of certain charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority and by the Herring Industry Board. The latter was abolished in 1981, but its liabilities were transferred to the authority. The Bill relates to charges made by the authority in its administration of certain schemes of financial assistance which had effect under part II of the Fisheries Act 1981.
The Sea Fish Industry Authority was instructed on 3 May 1996 to cease levying such charges because of some advice, a precis of which we have not seen but which may have advised that it was unlawful to levy those charges. That was the issue that I intended to debate on Third Reading tonight. However, in view of what the Minister has said, the suspicion is now gaining ground that the Bill has been included in the timetable motion tonight, and debate on it has been deliberately curtailed, because there are stinking fish out there that are now coming to light. The Government want to curtail discussion because they are concerned that we might manage to get our hands on the precis of the legal advice before the debate ends and discover what the auditors have advised. The debate has been curtailed for the sake of a cover-up to protect the backs of some people who may have been responsible for the administration of the scheme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has suggested that the Bill has been put through with undue haste so as to give retrospective cover to executive decisions that were made about the scheme. Those decisions may have been right, but we can no longer debate that point. On the other hand, the charges may have contravened the powers of the original authority and the Sea Fish Industry Authority may have had no powers to make charges on the fishing boats that it was inspecting. I understand that the total grants allocated since the scheme started total some £88,766,031, including those previously approved by the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority for fishing vessel safety schemes. Of course, the charges that MAFF would have made in return do not amount to anything like that sum. The charges were small in comparison, and were described as technical charges relating to the inspection of the vessels.
I am concerned that a Bill that we were told dealt retrospectively with some small technical charges may be a front for a cover-up. If so, the House should be aware of that before the Bill is bounced through tonight. Perhaps that is why the Government have been so keen on this draconian guillotine. We have not even had a Report stage for the Bill, and there certainly was no debate on it before it became the subject of the guillotine motion tonight.
The Bill took less than one and a half hours in Committee, but the Government want it guillotined in 45 minutes to prevent discussion on it. Why? It cannot be because the Government are embarrassed about the mistakes, because they took place under a previous Government. Therefore, the Government cannot wish to hide from the public the fact that since 1981 previous Governments may have administered erroneously a scheme that is now deemed ultra vires. If that were the case, the Government would boast about it. They would say, "The previous Government got it all wrong, and so did their civil servants and their legal advice. We are now sorting it out--look how good we are." The Government would normally take that line, but tonight they say, "Let's not discuss the Bill. Let's bash it through."
The Minister rattled off his speech and I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is fast on the uptake on such matters and was able to recall so many of the key words from the Minister. My right hon. Friend was thus able to challenge the Minister in his usual erudite fashion, and I followed his points with interest. I cannot go into the detail of the conspiracy that my right hon. Friend suspects in this matter, because I could not follow the Minister's arguments at the breakneck speed at which he delivered them.
I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate and to comment on the loss of the important legal precis.
I conclude with a point on retrospection made by the Home Secretary in 1986. He stated:
- The Government have become slap happy in the use of retrospective legislation.--[Official Report, 23 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 86.]
I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are familiar with international opinion on such matters. You will know that legal opinion in Australia holds that retrospective legislation has "strong negative connotations". We have seen those negative connotations tonight. I came here to vote the Bill through, but instead I shall support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in the Lobby. We must get to the bottom of the matter.
8.39 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked why the Government have brought in this retrospective legislation. The answer can be found in the explanatory notes to the Bill. Paragraph 17 states:
- The total value of the charges levied by the Herring Industry Board and the Sea Fish Industry Authority was about £7.3 million covering some 13,000 cases. By ensuring that these were validly levied the Bill will secure a possible saving in public expenditure in avoiding any obligation that might otherwise arise to fund repayments.
However, the Government do not admit the blame associated with being the successor to previous Governments' faults. They do not want any charge to be levied against public funds. For people who have suffered financially, that is rather shoddy. It would be far better for the Government to admit that a mistake was made--
It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.--[Mrs. McGuire.]
The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 1.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |