§ Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
§ Order for Third Reading read.
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 précis 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.
744 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. MorleyNo, 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.
§ 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. ForthFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister himself raised as a matter material 745 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 SpeakerOrder. 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. Deputy SpeakerI have made that ruling, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the matter.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. 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. GeorgeAs 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. BercowWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. GeorgeI 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. LeighBecause 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. GeorgeI 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. MorleyI 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 précis of the legal advice. The convention is that Governments do not reveal the legal advice that they receive. My information is that the précis was placed in the Library, and I am, at this moment, making inquiries about the situation.
§ Mr. GeorgeI am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I mentioned legal advice—whereas, 746 in Committee, I asked him for a précis of it. I am grateful to him for circulating it to Committee members, as he promised to do; it was much appreciated. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. BercowIt may come as a shock to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), but some right. hon. and hon. Members think that it is incumbent upon them properly to scrutinise Government legislation. He had better get used to it, because there is much more scrutiny coming.
Does the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) agree that it would be helpful if the Minister would tell the House when he believes that that summary note was deposited in the Library? The admirable and efficient Library staff looked askance at my request for it and were not conscious of the existence in the Library of such a document.
§ Mr. GeorgeThat was not an intervention for me. However, I certainly appreciate the fact that, as the Minister promised, he provided to Committee members a précis of the legal advice, which I should be happy to share with other hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister would not wish to restrict me in doing that.
In our previous consideration of the Bill, on Second Reading and in Committee, I contacted industry representatives both within my constituency and from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to check whether they felt very strongly that hon. Members should table amendments on the matter or that the House should be detained in considering it, to make certain that important legislation is properly scrutinised. I think that I can report to the House that the general feeling in the industry is that the Bill should be passed without unnecessary delay, as it is not causing vexation within the industry.
In his speech, the Minister made a point about the Sea Fish Industry Authority not mentioning the problem in its annual report. In Committee, he said:
However, it was not thought appropriate to make any reference to it, as no decision had been made at that time about how to deal with the issue.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 16.]Similarly, in a promised reply on the matter to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Minister wrote:This view would be consistent with "Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 18" and its successor "Financial Reporting Standard 12" which provide that in those cases where the probability of the ultimate outcome having a material effect on the financial statements (ie those of SFIA in this case) is remote, no disclosure of the contingent liability is required in the accounts.I think that anyone considering the matter, which involves a £7 million liability, would agree that it is a matter of public interest, and that those very guidance documents themselves have to be reviewed. It is a matter of public concern. I think that most people are surprised that the SFIA—no doubt after negotiating with Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials—did not feel that it was appropriate to refer to the matter in its 1996 annual report.
§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, although it was very helpful to receive the Minister's letter, the response—that it was considered to be "too remote a possibility" to 747 warrant inclusion in the annual report and accounts—was quite extraordinary. If the possibility really were so remote, is it not rather surprising that we are debating legislation to deal with it? I think that the charges should have been in the annual report and accounts, and I am very surprised that the advice to Ministers was otherwise.
§ Mr. GeorgeI am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing the line that I am taking. Perhaps Ministers and officials should reflect on the lessons to be learned from this rather shabby affair. I think that the Minister fully admits that mistakes were made and identified in 1996, before the Government came into office. I should hope, therefore, that he will be able to take an objective view of the matter, and perhaps to accept the fact that—in the light of an unacceptable failure to report something that really should have been in the public domain—both accounting practices and the responsibility of Government organisations should be reviewed.
As for the legislation's retrospective nature, perhaps we should have an opportunity retrospectively to review the success of safety grants, which are very important to the industry itself. Perhaps we shall have another opportunity to debate that matter—which I think the Minister will accept is of very deep concern to the industry. Indeed, the unacceptable loss of life in the industry deeply concerns fishing communities around the coast of the United Kingdom. I should hope that we will have an opportunity for such a debate, perhaps in Government time, in the not-too-distant future.
As I said, I asked the Minister to circulate a précis of the legal advice. However, having seen it I am surprised that it took until the Bill was considered in Committee before we could prise that information out of the Minister. The information helped to support his line, which I think we all accepted, that, with the Government's heavily clogged legislative programme, he would not unnecessarily—purely for the sheer hell of it—introduce new legislation. The précis of the legal advice could have been provided earlier. That said, I am grateful to have it, even though we received it rather late.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have no objection to ensuring that this important Bill concludes its stages in the House this evening.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)The more that we hear of the Bill, the more obvious it is that it is a bit of a muddle. It started out as a cosy little consensual matter that was sold to the House as being of little import and almost rather trivial. It was one of those dubious measures that had all-party agreement. Now even the Liberal Democrats—the friends of the Government—have some doubts, although some intimate correspondence has obviously passed between the Minister and his friends in the Liberal Democrat party from which the rest of us have been excluded, because the relevant document is apparently not in the Library. I shall come back to that in a moment.
In one of his moments of transparency and insight in Committee, the Minister said:
The Bill is retrospective. As I said on Second Reading, the Government do not take lightly the introduction of retrospective legislation.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 4.]748 That point has dogged the Bill from the start. In fairness to the Government, they have made no secret of the fact that it was retrospective, but, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) has just said, the argument is whether retrospective legislation is justified to solve a problem that may not have existed. Even now we have not got to the bottom of that. I certainly have not, because I have not yet seen the note on the legal advice that the members of the Committee have seen, but that is not yet in the Library as the Minister claimed that it was. The rest of us who were not on the Committee are in the dark about the content of the note.
§ Mr. BercowIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), together with the accompanying paper, was dispatched on 2 May? In that letter, the Minister said that he was arranging for a copy of the note to be placed in the Library. Can my right hon. Friend think of any good reason why 20 days should elapse without that flimsy little note being deposited in the Library?
§ Mr. ForthYes; Government incompetence comes at the top of my list. That is the most obvious explanation. Conspiracy would be second on my list. The Minister wants to appear, on the record, to be open with the House, but on the slightest investigation that appears to be a false impression.
§ Mr. LeighIt is worse than that. I have obtained a copy of the letter in question—not from the Library, but from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) on the Front Bench. The Minister said in the letter that he had arranged—not that he was arranging—for a copy to be placed in the Library. That was on 2 May. What is going on?
§ Mr. ForthWe must get to the bottom of that. I shall come back to the issue when a little more time has elapsed. We shall see whether the letter emerges from the Library. For the moment, I want to go on to some other serious matters that arose during the previous proceedings on the Bill.
The Minister has revealed something else relatively new to us today. I suspect that the issue was preying on his and his officials' minds and he thought that he had better get it out in the open before it was revealed in some other way, although the more that I look at the Bill and the more that we consider it on Third Reading, the more I suspect that it will need to be examined pretty closely in another place. We may be forced to accept retrospection, but I do not know whether it will go down well at the other end of the building.
As far as I could follow him, the Minister seemed to say that there had been a running debate between the Sea Fish Industry Authority and its auditors about its accounts and whether the charges should be reflected. He then appeared to say that the matter was regarded as being in suspension in some way, pending legal advice. When the legal advice finally emerged, the Minister said, as far as I could tell, that because the matter should be legislated on, there was no need to act on the accounts. I thought that he then said that any need to reflect the matter in the accounts, about which the auditors had previously expressed disquiet, was rendered otiose by the legislation.
749 That worried me, because it seemed to imply that the auditors, the authority or the Ministry—or all of them—had satisfied themselves that, on the possibility of legislation reaching its final stage and receiving Royal Assent, no further action need be taken. I suspect that if the matter were looked at in more detail than we can manage this evening, because of the Government's vicious and arrogant guillotine, a worrying lacuna would emerge. We are dealing with public finance, the auditing of accounts and the relationship between a Government Department dispensing taxpayers' money and a Government agency—the Sea Fish Industry Authority—spending that money. That should be above suspicion, but it appears that there has been a certain amount of foot dragging, to say the least, and that the relationship between the authority, its auditors and the Department was either overly cosy, overly mutually congratulatory or less than rigorous—I put it no more strongly than that.
§ Mr. David HeathI do not know why the right hon. Gentleman suggests that that lacuna might appear this evening on further consideration when it clearly appeared in Committee, when we laid bare the deficiencies of the audit process—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. ForthNot bare enough, as I think one of my hon. Friends behind me said. I have looked at the Committee proceedings, and pretty flimsy and slender they are, because the Minister pulled the same trick on the Committee that he tried to pull on the House tonight—because he said over and over again that the Bill was a narrow and technical measure, he thought he could escape effective scrutiny. That has happened throughout. The Liberal Democrats have obviously fallen for that—if I may use the expression—hook, line and sinker! I have been waiting to say that for some time.
The Bill turns out to be not narrow and technical, but retrospective. It seeks to cover up a gap in the accounting practices that has existed for some time and was sufficient to worry the auditors, which in turn was sufficient for officials to want to put it in the Minister's speech this evening to try to pre-empt the sort of investigation that the House would normally want to conduct. We are now unable to conduct such an investigation because the Government have guillotined the Bill.
A very worrying pattern is beginning to emerge. I was unable to take part in the guillotine debate because so many of my colleagues were so angry about the motion that I was elbowed out of it. In that debate, my hon. Friends asked why on earth the Government saw fit to guillotine this innocent little Bill—as it was thought at the time—of all Bills. Belatedly, in this guillotined Third Reading debate, the truth is beginning to emerge. The Government are desperate that the matter should not be looked at properly. They skated through the Committee stage on the basis that the Bill was narrow and technical. The Liberal Democrats were easily satisfied—as ever they are, I suspect, by their friends in the Government—but we now find that there is a real danger that something very nasty and rather unpleasant is emerging. However, it is too late.
§ Mr. Andrew GeorgeThe right hon. Gentleman is right; something unpleasant is emerging. It was all the fault of the Tories. We thought that we should allow them to get off lightly.
§ Mr. ForthI am intrigued that the Liberal Democrats latest political stance seems to be letting the last Tory Government get away with something of which they disapproved. I for one am very much in favour of being critical of the last Conservative Government where that is appropriate, and I do that occasionally. However, that is not the point—which is that the Minister referred earlier to the relationship between the authority, the auditor and the Ministry. As I am not yet in possession of the legal advice, I am unable to take the matter further. The irony is that Committee members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), have the document, but no one else does. The House is unable to make a judgment on the crucial role of that legal advice.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said:
On Second Reading, the Minister was pressed to convey to the House the basis of his legal advice. He declined to do so then, and appears unwilling to do so today.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 5.]My hon. Friend pressed the Minister, and only under that pressure did the he finally agree that the House could have a note giving a version of that advice.
§ Mr. BercowI am concerned at the attitude of the Minister and of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George). Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for St. Ives, having made a truly risible speech, thought it was funny that my right hon. Friend had not received the note? Despite having ample time to do so, the Minister has still failed to tell the House when exactly the instruction was given for the deposit of the note in the Library and what steps, if any, he took to check that that instruction had been carried out.
§ Mr. ForthIf I were a suspicious type, I would think that the Minister and his officials were watching the clock, conscious that if they spin this out for another 20 minutes they will get off the hook because the Government guillotine will then fall on the debate. At that point, the House will no longer be able to hold the Government to account. That is a matter of great regret to me, and the Government cannot be allowed to get away with it. I suspect that those in another place will want to take a much more rigorous look at the issues than this House has done hitherto.
The Minister said earlier that there was a question of whether the Government should seek to legislate to remove the contingent liability. That brings another factor into play, and it may be one of the reasons for the Bill. In Committee, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, concerning the Minister,
I still think that there are considerable gaps in his explanation of the advice that he has received about the necessity for these retrospective provisions.The doubt arose on the narrow point whether a Minister of the Crown had the powers that were delegated to the Sea Fish Industry Authority at the time.751 I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that he has received a satisfactory answer to that. He added that the Minister should share his advice, in whatever form, with the Committee so that it could consider the Bill properly and
advise colleagues in the House who will have to consider it in due course.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 14 March 2000; c. 10.]The hon. Gentleman—playing the part that he should play—raised an important point in anticipation of Report stage of the Bill. Not only has there been no Report, but Third Reading has been arrogantly reduced to almost nothing. As a result, neither the hon. Gentleman nor I have been able to get an explanation of the legal advice, which has still not appeared.
§ Mr. MorleyI appreciate that a lot of bogus points are being made. Nevertheless, there was no obligation on me as Minister to provide that advice, but I did so in an attempt to be open and transparent with the Committee. Also, the information from my officials is that they cannot trace the document in the Library of the House. In that respect, I apologise profoundly for the statements I have given. I will make sure that copies are placed in the Library tomorrow.
§ Mr. LeighOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are limits to how much the House of Commons will take. The Minister has said that the legal advice is there when it is not, but the Government intend to proceed with their timetable. We should suspend this debate until we can get the legal advice—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)Order. That matter has been dealt with by the Chair.
§ Mr. ForthFurther down the track, perhaps, but, before then, the hon. Gentleman is inviting the other place to look at this matter seriously. The other place may be able to get hold of this advice, although the House of Commons has not. Hopefully, it will be in the public domain by the time the Bill passes to another place, where I hope it is given a thorough going-over. The Minister has been complacent and has not attempted to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who anticipated Report and Third Reading. He thought that we would have much more information than the Committee did when it gave its perfunctory examination of the Bill.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman turned his mind to the contents of the Bill.
§ Mr. MacleanWill my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that this is retrospective legislation? It is seldom 752 that this House passes such legislation in such a slap-happy manner, and without having before it the documents described by the Minister.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Before the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) responds, I would he grateful if he remembered that the House has dealt thoroughly with that topic as well.
§ Mr. ForthIndeed, and I have been trying to pick up on points raised by the Minister. I am a traditionalist about Parliament, and I thought that these were called debates. In a debate, one listens to what the Minister or other hon. Members say, and then deals with those points. If the Minister has led me astray, I can only apologise. He referred to the auditor and to contingent liability. He mentioned the note, which he has admitted bare-facedly is not in the possession of the House, putting us all at a disadvantage.
This has been a shocking episode and the House should be ashamed of itself for allowing it to happen. However, as part of our great parliamentary process, if we in this House are unable to deal adequately with this matter due to the arrogance of the Government, there is a further parliamentary stage which I almost invite to deal with it. I shall send a copy of the Bill to my friends in another place and invite them to look more closely at it.
§ Mr. BercowIs 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. ForthThe 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.
§ 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 753 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 SpeakerOrder. This is a serious matter and the right hon. Gentleman should now direct his remarks to the contents of the Bill.
§ Mr. MacleanI 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 précis 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 précis 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.
754 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 précis.
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.]If the right hon. Gentleman were here tonight he would recognise a slap-happy Government who put through retrospective legislation and laugh when documents are unavailable for the House to study.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.
§ 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.That raises a serious question about the retrospective nature of the Bill. It seems to be generally accepted that the legal advice—which is not yet available to the House—states that the Government, and not the public, are responsible for the misdirection with regard to these charges. I fully accept that the fault may lie with 755 Governments other than this one. [Interruption.] I am not trying to be partisan. This Government are trying to put right law that has caused financial loss to members of the public. In effect, Governments have acted illegally in the past.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.
757| Division No. 203] | [8.42 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainger, Nick | Casale, Roger |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
| Alexander, Douglas | Clapham, Michael |
| Allen, Graham | Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shield) |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Clark, Paul (Gillingham) |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) |
| Ashton, Joe | Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Austin, John | Clelland, David |
| Ballard, Jackie | Clwyd, Ann |
| Banks, Tony | Coaker, Vernon |
| Barnes, Harry | Coffey, Ms Ann |
| Bayley, Hugh | Cohen, Harry |
| Beard, Nigel | Coleman, Iain |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Connarty, Michael |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Corbett, Robin |
| Bell, Martin (Tatton) | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) | Cotter, Brian |
| Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) | Cousins, Jim |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) | Crausby, David |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Cummings, John |
| Berry, Roger | Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) |
| Betts, Clive | |
| Blackman, Liz | Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Darvill, Keith |
| Blizzard, Bob | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Davidson, Ian |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Dawson, Hilton |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Denham, John |
| Breed, Colin | Donohoe, Brian H |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Doran, Frank |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Dowd, Jim |
| Browne, Desmond | Drew, David |
| Burden, Richard | Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth |
| Burgon, Colin | Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Edwards, Huw |
| Caborn, Rt Hon Richard | Efford, Clive |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Ellman, Mrs Louise |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) | Ennis, Jeff |
| Etherington, Bill | |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Fearn, Ronnie |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Field, Rt Hon Frank |
| Cann, Jamie | Fisher, Mark |
| Caplin, Ivor | Fitzpatrick, Jim |
| Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna | Laxton, Bob |
| Flint, Caroline | Lepper, David |
| Flynn, Paul | Levitt, Tom |
| Follett, Barbara | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Lewis, Terry (Worsley) |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen |
| Fyfe, Maria | Linton, Martin |
| Galloway, George | Livsey, Richard |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) |
| Gerrard, Neil | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Gidley, Sandra | Lock, David |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | McCabe, Steve |
| Godsiff, Roger | McCafferty, Ms Chris |
| Goggins, Paul | McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | |
| Gordon, Mrs Eileen | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Gorrie, Donald | Macdonald, Calum |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | McIsaac, Shona |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Grocott, Bruce | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Grogan, John | MacShane, Denis |
| Hain, Peter | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | McWalter, Tony |
| Hanson, David | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet | Mallaber, Judy |
| Harvey, Nick | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Martlew, Eric |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Maxton, John |
| Heppell, John | Meacher, Rt Hon Michael |
| Hesford, Stephen | Meale, Alan |
| Hill, Keith | Merron, Gillian |
| Hinchliffe, David | Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) |
| Hoey, Kate | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Mitchell, Austin |
| Hope, Phil | Moffatt, Laura |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) |
| Howarth, Alan (Newport E) | Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Morley, Elliot |
| Howells, Dr Kim | Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) | |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Mountford, Kali |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Mudie, George |
| Hurst, Alan | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Hutton, John | Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | Norris, Dan |
| Illsley, Eric | O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) |
| Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | Olner, Bill |
| Jamieson, David | O'Neill, Martin |
| Jenkins, Brian | Öpik, Lembit |
| Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) | Organ, Mrs Diana |
| Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) | Pearson, Ian |
| Pendry, Tom | |
| Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) | Perham, Ms Linda |
| Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) | Pickthall, Colin |
| Jones, Helen (Warrington N) | Pike, Peter L |
| Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW) | Plaskitt, James |
| Pond, Chris | |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Pope, Greg |
| Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) | Pound, Stephen |
| Keeble, Ms Sally | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
| Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) | Prescott, Rt Hon John |
| Keetch, Paul | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) | Prosser, Gwyn |
| Khabra, Piara S | Purchase, Ken |
| Kidney, David | Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | Quinn, Lawrie |
| King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) | Radice, Rt Hon Giles |
| King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) | Rammell, Bill |
| Ladyman, Dr Stephen | Rapson, Syd |
| Lawrence, Mrs Jackie | Raynsford, Nick |
| Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Rendel, David | |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Rooney, Terry | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Rowlands, Ted | Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion) |
| Roy, Frank | Timms, Stephen |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Tipping, Paddy |
| Salter, Martin | Todd, Mark |
| Sanders, Adrian | Touhig, Don |
| Sarwar, Mohammad | Trickett, Jon |
| Savidge, Malcolm | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Shaw, Jonathan | Turner, Neil (Wigan) |
| Sheerman, Barry | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Tyler, Paul |
| Short, Rt Hon Clare | Tynan, Bill |
| Singh, Marsha | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Skinner, Dennis | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | Wareing, Robert N |
| Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) | Watts, David |
| Webb, Steve | |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Soley, Clive | Williams, Rt Hon Alan, (Swansea W) |
| Starkey, Dr Phyllis | |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Stevenson, George | Willis, Phil |
| Stewart, David (Inverness E) | Winnick, David |
| Stewart, Ian (Eccles) | Wood, Mike |
| Stinchcombe, Paul | Woolas, Phil |
| Stoate, Dr Howard | Worthington, Tony |
| Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin | Wray, James |
| Straw, Rt Hon Jack | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Stringer, Graham | Wyatt, Derek |
| Stuart, Ms Gisela | |
| Stunell, Andrew | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Sutcliffe, Gerry | Mrs. Anne McGuire and |
| Mr. Tony McNulty. | |
| NOES | |
| Leigh, Edward | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Mr. Eric Forth and | |
| Mr. David Maclean. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.