HL Deb 02 March 1971 vol 315 cc1255-8
LORD HOY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvements) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme approved by this House on February 12, and withdrawn by Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons on February 25.]

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, my right honourable friends are currently considering the position of this Scheme in the light of the Report by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place. I am sure the House will agree that it would be wrong for me to anticipate at this stage the outcome of their deliberations, but I hope to be in a position to make a further statement as soon as possible.

LORD HOY

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his Answer. This is a difficult matter. This House approved the Order on February 2 and apparently it is found to be ultra vires. I should like to ask the noble Earl what the position of the trawler owners is in this respect. Are they to be allowed to claim grant at the old rate of 40 per cent., or are they going to suffer the 25 per cent. cut which the Government have laid down'? The Order for the cuts has not been approved. May I put a second question to the Leader of the House? Inasmuch as the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place have found an Order approved by the Special Orders Committee of this House to be ultra vires how does he propose to resolve that question'?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the situation is precisely the same as it was before the Order was placed in front of the House. The Order was passed by your Lordships' House, and of course it has now gone to another place, where the Select Committee have requested that it should be looked at again. Of course the Government have had respect for the Select Committee, and are having another look at the Order. With regard to the question of what happens to the trawler owners, they are in the same position as they were before the Order was first introduced.

LORD HOY

My Lords, are they in the same position? Is not the noble Earl now saying that any owner who applies for a grant under the old Scheme will receive 40 per cent., and that this Order, which has proved to be ultra vires, and which grants only 30 per cent., will not be operative? Is he in fact now telling your Lordships' House that the old grant of 40 per cent. will be available to owners who make application?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the noble Lord is digging an elephant trap into which I have no intention of falling. I can assure the noble Lord that that was not what I intended to convey. In fact, the Order was designed to make alterations from a specific date, and because it was designed to make alterations from this date all applications for grant have been held up until this Order has been given Parliamentary approval. Until that time, these applications will continue to be held up.

LORD HOY

My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that no grants at all are being paid at the present time, and that from October 27 of last year until now no single grant has been available to the fishing industry of this country?

EARL FERRERS

No, my Lords, that is not correct. Anyone who has applied for a grant for a fishing vessel can continue to apply for it, and the White Fish Authority can continue to go through all the processes which are necessary before payment of grant is made. The actual payment of grant, however, has not yet been made.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, this is a very important matter for the fishing industry. In view of the grave uncertainty that arises because of the views that are held in another place, will the noble Earl undertake that a statement will be made by the Government as soon as possible?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, that is what I said in my original Answer.

LORD HOY

My Lords, may I repeat my question to the noble Earl the Leader of the House? In fact, we are in dispute—

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for the noble Lord to repeat his question. I was going to intervene at this stage, and I should like to reaffirm what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, that naturally we will make a statement on this matter as soon as possible. I clearly recognise that, in the situation that has arisen, it is necessary to allay any natural anxieties which may be felt. But, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, as the Chairman of the Special Orders Committee, to say a word on this technical point.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

My Lords, out of courtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, as he asks a question about the Report of the Special Orders Committee on this Order, I should explain what that Report was. The Report was merely a draft description of the Order, which I will not repeat to the House because I do not wish to weary it with this description. The Special Orders Committee made no comment on the vires of the Order. The reason why no comment was made was that the Committee took the view that this Order was not ultra vires, because it was within the power of the Minister retrospectively to reduce the amount of grant paid because it had not been approved. That was the view that was taken by the Special Orders Committee.

LORD HOY

My Lords, I do not want to continue this discussion any longer, but I must ask the noble Earl whether it is not a fact that, before the Special Orders Committee reported to this House, they had to study the Order and say whether or not it was in order?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, the Order has been very carefully considered by the Special Orders Committee and I do not think the noble Lord has revealed any new facts. The decision in another place was of course different; but both Houses of Parliament are entitled to express a view on any Affirmative Order which comes before them for consideration, and the views taken by the two Houses may be different.