| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Connarty: Will my hon. Friend the Minister say specifically whether the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 could be debated, discussed and amended in the Scottish Parliament, or would that have to be done in the House of Commons?
Mr. McLeish: It is indeed a wide and diverse Bill. The 1975 Act can be amended within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Important issues have been raised and I can understand the passion that they can arouse.
The clause provides for the making of an Order in Council for regulating fishing for salmon, trout, eels and freshwater fish in the two cross-border rivers, the Tweed
and the Esk, thus enabling continuation of fisheries management of the whole rivers following the devolution of fisheries matters to Scotland. The Order in Council would be an affirmative instrument in both the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments.
I take on board the issue of consultation. If the Scottish Parliament or the Westminster Parliament is moving on an issue, there should be maximum consultation with all concerned. I cannot give an assurance of what the Scottish Parliament will do, but I sincerely hope that consultation will be taken on board.
The clause provides a means to ensure continuation of a coherent legislative framework for the two border rivers. This is considered necessary to ensure effective fisheries management for the river systems, including their tributaries, and also to take on board access difficulties.
Mr. Grieve:
I think that I understand correctly that any attempt at unilateral amendment by one Parliament, whether at Edinburgh or London, would be unsuccessful because it would be outside the scope of the legislation that we are passing.
Mr. McLeish:
We are making it clear that the spirit and substance of what is proposed lies with orders in both Parliaments. That requires some consultation with those affected. It is important, in a sensitive part of the United Kingdom, that that be the case.
Mr. Godman:
As a member of a fisherman's family, I would not want to see one drift-net fisherman lose his livelihood without substantial compensation. That has always been my view, in the House of Commons and before I became a Member.
Mr. McLeish:
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I do not want to become involved in the question of compensation. Suffice it to say I understand the comments that have been made. We are trying to provide a framework for a logical and coherent debate about the future of issues affecting both the Tweed and the Esk. I think that that is the best way forward. I commend the clause to the Committee.
ion put and agreed to.
Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Dalyell:
It is deeply unsatisfactory, although no one's fault, that, with six minutes to go, we are racing through such tricky minefields as clause 100, which deals with:
Mr. Dalyell:
I am referring to the notes that we have been given on subsection (5) of clause 100. These are the Government's own notes and I am giving as an example--
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means:
Order. They may be the Government's own notes, but I am looking at the Bill before me. The hon. Gentleman mentioned social security, but the clause has nothing to do with social security--perhaps the Government's notes are mistaken. I rule that, according to the information I have, it has nothing to clause 100.
Mr. Dalyell:
If you refer to the volume entitled, "Scotland Bill: notes on all clauses and schedules (except schedule 5)", Mr. Martin, you will see that under the heading "Details of Provisions", in relation to clause 100(5) it states:
The First Deputy Chairman:
I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. McLeish:
Clause 98 does in fact deal with social security and the matter of social security and the taxation base, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that it is a matter-of-fact approach to the tax-varying issues we have discussed. There is a link to social security for assessment, but it is very straightforward. Again, I am willing to write to my hon. Friend to make the implications clear.
ion put and agreed to.
Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Beith:
I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 44, line 23, after '29', insert '33,'.
The First Deputy Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 38, in page 45, line 10, leave out '33'.
No. 465, in page 44, line 29, at end add--
Mr. Beith:
The purpose of amendments Nos. 39 and 38 is to move orders made under clause 33 from negative procedure to affirmative procedure. To stop a Bill going forward for Royal Assent, which is what clause 101 is about, is a serious matter and because it involves the Secretary of State forming a view or belief, he ought to be obliged to come before the House to explain his grounds and seek positive approval for that belief.
Amendment No. 465 would give effect to the wish I expressed earlier that both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament should have the opportunity to propose amendments to legislation on complicated fisheries matters. There is ample precedent for that: for example, the census legislation allows such amendments to be moved, and I have moved such an amendment to that legislation. In reviewing the matter, we ought to consider allowing some more flexible procedure, given the complexity of the matters and the amount of technical dispute which they invite.
Mr. Heald:
I hope that I may make a speech yet, despite the circumstances. Clause 33 has been described as the governor-general clause, because it allows the Secretary of State to strike down laws that have been passed by the Scottish Parliament. In my view, it is doubtful whether primary legislation should be struck down by secondary legislation--it is an odd concept and it is not fundamentally democratic. However, one thing is sure: if he is going to do that, the Secretary of State should come to this House to explain why, and not try to put it through via the back door. It is interesting to note that, under the negative resolution procedure in this House, only three out of 738 instruments have been discussed in the past year.
Mr. McLeish:
I am certainly impressed by the hon. Gentleman's last comment. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would require orders under clause 33 to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of the Westminster Parliament. As the Bill is worded, such orders would be subject to negative resolution procedure in both Houses.
Orders under clause 33 are likely to be short-lived. In the limited circumstances provided for in that clause, they would prevent a Bill from being submitted for Royal Assent and give the Scottish Parliament an opportunity to reconsider the Bill. If the Parliament does that and amends the offending provision, the order can be revoked and the Bill can proceed for Royal Assent.
The Government have taken the view that there is no need to insist that such orders should require the approval of Parliament every time. Parliament will always have the opportunity to annul an order after it has been made.
The orders under clause 33 would need to be made quickly, within the four-week period. That would also be necessary to avoid uncertainty. It would be difficult for an affirmative instrument to be drafted, laid, debated by both Houses of Parliament and made, all within the four
weeks allowed--even assuming that Parliament is sitting. That is why the negative procedure was chosen. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
Mr. Beith:
The Minister has not really answered my query--
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [23 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Amendment negatived.
The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
Amendments made: No. 306, in page 44, line 23, after '29', insert ', 59'.
No. 330, in page 44, line 29, after '29' insert ', 59'.
No. 232, in page 44, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 331, in page 45, line 11, leave out first 'to'.
No. 308, in page 45, line 23, leave out '59'.--[Mr. McFall.]
Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 102 to 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
It being after Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.--[Mr. McFall.]
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
"section 98--treatment of individuals as Scottish taxpayers for social security . . . purposes".
4 Mar 1998 : Column 1165
The question of who is or is not a Scottish taxpayer is a difficult subject, and it is unsatisfactory that we should have to hurtle through all sorts of clauses in a quarter of an hour--
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. Clause 100 does not relate to the matters that the hon. Gentleman is raising. It deals with the exercise of powers to make subordinate legislation under the Bill.
"section 98--treatment of individuals as Scottish taxpayers for social security etc. purposes".
I am simply saying that that subject is a minefield and, in normal circumstances, if this was a normal Committee stage, we would be asking some questions about that, because it is a mighty important subject.
'(3A) Either House of Parliament or the Parliament shall have the power to amend a statutory instrument containing subordinate legislation under section 99, but no instrument shall be made as so amended without the consent of both Houses and of the Parliament.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |