Rural Affairs Committee, 03 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Friday, December 3, 1999

Official Report 234KB pdf

---

Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill 1999

We therefore progress to item 4. The minister is here to answer questions on the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill 1999. Does any member want to comment on the bill to initiate this discussion?

I want to comment on the general principle of the bill. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that we were to examine a bill that would have retrospective effect, as we have had many discussions on whether bills can do that. Does the minister want to comment on the fact that, although a bill can retrospectively correct an error or area of doubt in the law on charges that are made by Government, that is perhaps not so easily done when the boot is on the other foot?

I hope that members will forgive me if I say that it is strange to find myself trying to explain the actions not only of the previous Administration, but of the Government before that. Rarely can a minister have been brought before any committee to engage in that rather curious process, so I crave your indulgence.

In response to Lewis Macdonald's question, I am advised that the bill is perfectly competent to do what it seeks to do. I am content for the measure to be passed as UK legislation, as it does not attempt to introduce a principle of charging that would affect Scottish business. If there was any suggestion that it would introduce charging, I would have rejected it out of hand. Clearly, any legislation that would impose charging on Scottish fishermen could properly be contained only in a Scottish bill for discussion in the Scottish Parliament. This bill does not seek to impose charging; it seeks merely to remedy a flaw in the way in which the legislation was originally drafted and to provide cover as it legalises actions that since 1996, when charging ceased. For me, that is the biggest issue.

There are other practical issues. The bill is intended to cover the activities of both the Herring Industry Board and the Sea Fish Industry Authority. If this committee decided that it would be preferable to have a separate bill, an English bill would still be needed to deal with the Herring Industry Board, which is a creature of the United Kingdom, and that bill would have to extend to Scotland. To rectify the problem, and to deal only with correcting the error that has been made, I believe that this is the most sensible way in which to proceed.

Do members have any other comments?

I fully take on board what the minister says. Has the fishing industry been consulted on this move?

My understanding is that it has. The change was first intimated some time ago and the industry has been made well aware of it. A commitment was given on 5 November 1998 to proceed in this way.

When I asked whether any complaint had been made about the charges, I was informed that, in so far as the charges were made for marine inspections—to ensure that the work that was to be undertaken would meet safety requirements—there has been no complaint either from the industry as a whole or from the individuals who have been affected.

The final assurance that I seek is that the bill has no bearing on the reintroduction of a safety improvement grant scheme or on the timing of such a scheme.

No. Matters that affect Scotland will be determined by the Scottish Parliament and this committee. The sole purpose of this legislation is to deal with an anomaly. It does not create a charge, nor does it prejudice what might take place in the future in relation to safety.

The bill is short, which we welcome. I want to put on record the fact I would normally vigorously oppose any Westminster bill that dealt with a devolved matter. In this case, however, as the bill clearly deals with a mistake that was made by the Westminster Parliament, I am delighted to support it.

I am delighted to have such support, which Alasdair Morgan has voiced much more eloquently than I could have done.

If members have no other comments, I shall read through my documentation so that we know what we have to do at this stage.

The bill received its first reading at Westminster on 22 November. Its second reading is scheduled for the week commencing 13 December. The consent of the Scottish Parliament is required before second reading. Our Parliament, in Edinburgh, will consider an Executive motion on this issue on Wednesday 8 December. The motion reads:

That the Parliament accepts the need to establish the validity of charges levied by the Sea Fish Industry Authority and the Herring Industry Board as set out in the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill and agrees that the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

I understand that that motion will be taken without debate. Time has not been allocated for a full debate, but members will have the opportunity to investigate the proposal here today.

Are we content for this matter to be dealt with by the Westminster Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

That draws our consideration of item 4 to an end. I am grateful to the minister for all his efforts.