HC Deb 02 March 1976 vol 906 cc1229-31
Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 7, leave out 'salmon or'.

This issue has caused widespread misunderstanding outside. I have had to say repeatedly that the reference to salmon was necessary only because of fish farming and some of the technicalities which were discussed. Here we are deleting the reference to salmon to make it clear that the advisory committee and the organisation in question will be mainly involved in trout fishing. It will not prevent them looking at salmon, but it is better to make it clear that the aim and object of the Bill concerns trout fishing.

Sir John Gilmour

I understand the purpose of the amendment, but it seems to involve a retrograde step. There must be many occasions when in working to improve a river it will be difficult to avoid having some effect on the other fish, and these might be salmon and sea trout.

Mr. David Steel

It would be best if the Minister did not press this amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) that the Bill is not improved by it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir John Gilmour

I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 8, at end add— 'The sums which the Secretary of State pays under this section shall not exceed £160,000 in the three years immediately following the making of the first protection order under section 1 of this Act except so far as any excess over the said sum of £160,000 has been authorised by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament'. In Committee we discussed the availability of this money. Several times the Minister said that the Explanatory Memorandum stated that £160,000 was to be made available. The Explanatory Memorandum, however, is not incorporated in the Bill when it is enacted. With the sort of difficulties that the Minister will face in getting the Bill off the ground and the bodies mobilised to help administer protection orders, it could be that to restrict the spending of the money to three years after the passing of the Act might be too short a period. The alternative which I am suggesting is that the three years should follow the making of the first protection order. In view of my co-operative approach to the Minister, I hope that he will reciprocate and accept the amendment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I am sorry that I cannot be as co-operative as the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) would like. We have now introduced a new concept with the advisory committee. In those circumstances, it would be even more unrealistic to put a strict time limit on the handing out of this money. We shall reject this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Back to
Forward to