HC Deb 02 March 1976 vol 906 cc1203-20

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'persons' in line 7 and insert: '(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that, if proposals submitted to him under this section were implemented, there would be a significant increase in access to fishing for freshwater fish in inland waters to which the proposals relate, he may, subject to subsection (2) below, making an order (in this Act referred to as a "protection order"). (1A) A protection order shall—

  1. (a) be made in relation to such area as the Secretary of State may prescribe, which shall be the catchment area or such part thereof, as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, of any river; and
  2. (b) prohibit'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 3.

Mr. Brown

I am sure that I shall carry my lion. Friends with me in this at least, in view of their helpful approach. What we are doing here is to highlight at the outset that the Bill's primary objective is to make more freshwater fishing available to anglers with no angling rights of their own, not to give protecion just to landlords. It seems reasonable to include a provision making our intention clear.

I concede that this amendment is a result of many representations made to me by hon. Members on the Standing Committee and by other hon. Members, as well as by individual anglers' clubs and associations which have written to me.

The amendment speaks for itself. We are trying to be as clear as possible about our intention. We have been quite happy to consider a revised form of words that are more specific. Our whole purpose is to see that encouragement is given not just to improve the quality of the sport, but to make it more widely available. I hope that the House will accept both amendments.

Sir John Gilmour

By making a major alteration to the first lines of Clause 1 the Minister has made it extremely diffi- cult for us to follow him. He has said that he seeks by his amendment to make certain that more fishing is available to the general public. Everyone who has taken part in the debates in Committee will agree that that is a very laudable objective. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has said, if it had not been for our support, the Minister would not have either Clause 1 or Clause 2. I feel that he is serving us ill by his wording of the amendment.

The Minister says that there should be a significant increase in access to fishing for freshwater fish if a freshwater order is to be made. Since the hon. Gentleman's amendment was tabled, I have been in touch with people interested in fisheries in the west part of Fife, in Loch Fitty and the other reservoirs and lochs, where they were hoping very much to have a protection order. In Loch Fitty in particular there are about 160 acres of water. It caters for roughly 13,000 anglers a year. This has been made possible by stocking and policing the waters, and by keeping down poaching, with great difficulty. I am assured that these waters are being fished to the maximum allowable. If we accept the hon. Gentleman's wording in his amendment, it will not be possible to get a protection order, because it will not be possible to say that there will be a significant increase of access.

I am sure that there has not been time since these amendments were tabled to check, but there must be many other waters where, for instance, hotels have provided fishing for guests from overseas and elsewhere and where they have provided the maximum number of boats that the interests of running a proper fishery permit on a stretch of water.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether it is possible to have greater access to fishing incorporated in the Bill while still making it possible for those who have developed fisheries to obtain protection orders so that they money, time and labour that they have put in will not be wasted? I understand that reservoirs and lochs in West Fife are already being fished to the maximum as well as being poached. Therefore, they are being over-fished. I suggest that they deserve protection orders.

I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. We are not against the spirit of the amendment about access. However, if people have spent money, time and effort in their fisheries and fishing is going on to the limit allowed, it should still be possible for them to obtain protection orders.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

That is a reasonable request. It might help if I try to relate this matter to subsection (2)(a). "Significant" is akin to "reasonable", or "from time to time", or such other words as appear quite frequently in legislation. I am advised that it is not as easy to define as "substantial". In other words, "significant", in the context of the amendment, could mean a small increase. I am not trying to adduce a debating argument. "Significant" could mean virtually no increase in access at all. It is, to some extent, related to the improvement or other information required by the Secretary of State before granting a protection order so that he can make a comparison.

I have given this matter careful thought. I am willing to try to persuade the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) and, indeed, others who, I freely admit, may not have had enough time to consider the matter, that it would be possible for the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred to satisfy the conditions of "significant", because it relates to those who are already fishing and the fact that access is given.

There could be a variation. I am not being devious in saying that people will deliberately get round the provision. I concede that in the special circumstances of a virtually over-fished loch or reservoir "significant" would not mean doubling the number of people fishing there. In more normal circumstances, where we can see that there is a need for improvement and greater access, we think it right to show that clearly in the Bill. That is the object of the amendment and of the Bill.

Mr. Monro

I am not the least bit happy about what the Minister is trying to do here. All this stems from the Golden Lion meeting. The new Bill—the Golden Lion Bill—is so different from what we set out to do and hoped to achieve. I find it surprising that amend- ments should have been tabled without there having been any consultation with those of us who are interested in this legislation. Some of the Government amendments are unacceptable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has explained very clearly the importance of the words, "significant increase". The Minister has now indicated that even a small increase would be significant. Let us consider the figures involved. I have been told authoritatively that 16,000 people fish the River Spey between Grantown and the sea. In the view of those who have managed the fishing in that river that is about the maximum it can take. However, we are anxious that, if it is the wish of those involved in fishing in the Spey basin, it should have a protection order so that the legal position of brown trout is clarified beyond doubt.

However, what would be a significant increase on 16,000 rods? A few hundred is not a significant increase. Yet, because of the wording of the amendment, the Spey might be prevented from having a protection order if it is the wish of those in the area to have one. Because of the inept drafting of amendments, perhaps through lack of time, because of changes of heart by Ministers and policy by the Government, the situation is now so befogged that anyone who tries to read Clause 1 with all the amendments fitted in and out will find it extremely difficult to do so.

Clause 1 is supposed to be the heart of any Bill. This one has become a significant shambles. Would it not be much better for the Minister to say "We have made a nonsense of this. The idea that we took up from the meeting at Stirling—we accept the principle of trying to make more trout fishing available—was so difficult to draft that we just did not have time to do it."? Would it not be much more sensible and fairer to the House and to those of us who have worked on the Bill for a long time for the Minister to withdraw the amendment and table a more adequate one in another place? That would be a more satisfactory approach than making this amendment and a number of others to Clauses 1, 2 and 3 which are far from what we thought we were helping the Government to introduce some weeks ago.

Will not the Minister accept the sensible solution of withdrawing Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to redraft them for the appropriate moment in another place? At present the Minister accepts that what the draftsmen have produced here is just a nonsense.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) feels so strongly about this matter, because I thought I had given a perfectly reasonable explanation of what might be significant.

I cannot comment on the River Spey. I suspect that the figures the hon. Member quoted also included people fishing for salmon. However, I point out to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who said that a lot of poaching was going on, that I assume that if there was a protection order poaching would be greatly reduced and, one would hope, eliminated. In those circumstances it might equally be easy to satisfy the condition that there should be a significant increase in those who would be fishing legally.

The hon. Member for Dumfries said that this was monumental mismanagement. I wish that he would get together with my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who would tell him that nothing came out of the meeting in the Golden Lion Hotel, certainly nothing that satisfied my hon. Friend. I appreciate the attempt to separate me from some of my hon. Friends, but the hon. Member for Dumfries need not worry because we are already divided. I insist, therefore, that the amendment is not unreasonable, given the desire which has been expressed to me by so many people, including hon. Members, and organisations who were not at the Golden Lion that we should make our intentions clear in the Bill. That is what we have done.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Does not my hon. Friend's problem stem from the fact that there are so many different conditions in various parts of Scotland and that to regard Scotland as a single entity in this respect is often unrealistic? Will he say something about the advisory committee and whether these matters would be covered by it?

Mr. Brown

The answer is "Yes", because the advisory committee will be consulted. This is one of the matters that it will have to take into account in giving the Secretary of State advice.

I come back to the main point of the amendment. It is a reasonable approach. Certainly, if hon. Members can give me further details and information based on the practical situation or the practical realities of night loch fishing, I shall be glad to look at them.

Mr. Adam Hunter (Dunfermline)

I should like to confirm what the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said about Loch Fitty, which is in my constituency. Until a few years ago the loch provided free fishing until the weeds grew up to the surface over almost the entire area and made fishing impossible, except for some coarse fishing. I have seen pike 4 ft. long taken from the loch. The free fishing ended when a private firm took the loch over and cleaned out the weeds, poisoning most of the coarse fish. I understand that the company now charges for fishing in the loch.

I know that loch very well because I have walked around it many times and I can vouch for the fact of easy access to it, particularly for fishing at night. It would be a pity to see the loch overfished now, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, East should be taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 3, in page I, line 10, leave out from "in" to end of line 12 and insert: the prescribed area".—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I beg to move Amendment No. 4 in page 1, line 20 at end insert— () he has consulted a body which in his opinion is representative of persons wishing to fish for freswater fish in inland waters in Scotland; and". I have to admit that from my experiences and consultations that anglers—whether they are members of an association, members of a club or just ordinary individuals—are not ready for a body to be brought into being. I cannot foresee its happening in the next few months or even in the next six months without a lot of argument and discussion.

The Sports Council tried to do this in the past few years but the variety of conditions for angling in Scotland has meant an understandable reluctance on the part of some of the Highlands and the North-East to feel that they have any interest in the problems afflicting some anglers in Northern Scotland. That might be unfair, but it is understandable.

Consequently, it is desirable to accept this amendment, which seeks to set up a consultative body. The Secretary of State must avail himself of the requirement to consult. The body would comprise angling interests. I invite anyone who can suggest names or the kind of representation necessary to do so. I assure my hon. Friends that I should like to see on such an advisory body one or more representatives of the unorganised anglers. I am glad to hear some support from hon. Members, but the question is how to organise people who do not want to be organised. That is part of the difficulty.

This amendment does not rule out the future setting up of a body which can receive a substantial sum. It is a serious and genuine attempt in the short term to assure anglers that they are being consulted.

Mr. Dalyell

Perhaps I can put the matter more bluntly. Is not part of the trouble in this business that those who have been writing endless letters to the Minister know that these views were not reflected by angling clubs until a late stage? If angling clubs expect legislation to be introduced which is more to their liking, they should have pulled out their fingers a bit earlier.

Mr. Brown

That might be inelegant but it is absolutely true. I am not complaining. There has been a weakness—and perhaps I have to accept some responsibility for it—in conveying the contents of the Bill to clubs and associations right down to individual members. I received support for the Bill as it stood from the various associations, yet what we seek to do has not been understood further down the line. I fully accept what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has said. It is helpful. The advisory body, which has to be consulted and which will comprise mainly anglers, should go some way towards giving anglers confidence that we seek to make angling available to more people.

Mr. Monro

The Minister has introduced an important new issue and I want to ask him one or two questions about it. Why has he specifically referred to "freshwater" rather than "freshwater and salmon"? He knows that the definition under the 1951 Act—the Act I should have mentioned before—does not include salmon. He will throw away a great deal of expertise if he does not consult those who have experience of managing fishing over many years, who include many members of angling clubs, angling improvement associations and others who are well versed, qualified and skilled to give the Minister the advice he wants.

Why does the Minister wish to discard the interests of salmon fishing when salmon and trout and other freshwater fish go hand in hand when river improvements are considered, because trout cannot be looked at alone?

The Minister has come forward with the suggestion of setting up a committee from which he will get advice and which he will consult about protection orders. We cannot let this matter go in a speech of two or three minutes in support of this important new phase. The Department must have advised the Minister on what sort of body he is to set up, who is to be its chairman, how many people will be members of it, whether it will represent the whole of Scotland and whether it will be consulted about the whole of Scotland. The Minister cannot expect us to accept—I was about to say "hook, line and sinker", but that is not appropriate—the issue of a consultative body out of the blue tonight. It may be another Golden Lion amendment. I think that we are entitled to know far more about what the Minister is recommending, in the interest not only of this amendment but of those who fish in Scotland and who will, we hope, read about what is said in the House tonight.

I wonder whether this is to be one central body or a regional body, or a body for each "river board area"—in inverted commas, because we have not got such bodies, although we would like them in the future. It is the Minister's duty to spell out in great detail what he has in mind, because this body will be consulted in setting up all the protection orders in Scotland. This is a major step. If we have no confidence in what the Minister is setting up, we shall come to endless difficulties on Schedule 1 and the implementation of the protection order system, because no one knows at this stage what sort of body this will be and when it is to be set up. We cannot just let this issue drop in a couple of minutes tonight.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

I should like to add one or two comments to those made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). The proposal contained in the amendment is very vague. Any information which could be given by the Minister would be welcome. The amendment seems to arise out of Clause 1, where proposals are being made for protection orders. Protection orders are by nature local in impact. If, as I read the amendment, the body that the Minister has in mind is one that would be representative of fishing interests throughout Scotland and, therefore, a national body, would it not be better to consider a further amendment to this amendment, in another place, suggesting that the Minister be enabled to consult a body of bodies which are in his opinion representative? If necessary, the Minister could also consider circumscribing this amendment further to relate the consultation to areas which are likely to be affected directly by a protection order rather than in a very general sense.

I recognise that the Minister has some difficulties here. If he had accepted earlier proposals for area fishery boards, many of these problems would have been solved. However, he is still saddled with the need to provide a little more information and to give some assurances that local opinion will be consulted as well as opinion in Scotland generally.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Canavan

Reference has been made to the famous Golden Lion meeting. Has anything good arisen from it? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) was present, but I did not see him. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for attending the meeting and, as it were, putting his head into the lion's mouth.

I forewarned my hon. Friend that it might turn out to be a stormy and hostile meeting- I had received many representations from my constituents and from people elsewhere in Scotland to the effect that they considered this to be a bad Bill. They were especially perturbed that it was introduced by a Labour Government elected on a Socialist manifesto.

I raised the various points that had been made to me in Committee. My hon. Friend thought that I had misunderstood the Bill, as had the people who had written to me. The one good thing that emerged from the representations which were made by myself and many other hon. Members was the Golden Lion meeting. My hon. Friend kindly agreed to attend the meeting, at which all interested anglers were to be present. Despite the fact that my hon. Friend is a seasoned politician and campaigner, I had the impression that the mood of the meeting was an eye-opener even for him. From the beginning it was clear that there was a great deal of hostility towards the Bill. I hope that the amendment will go some way towards pleasing those who were at the meeting.

One of the evils of the Bill in its original form was that there was little, if anything, in the way of consultation with anglers about the terms of protection orders. They were not asked whether the price or the terms of access were fair. Anglers were involved only if they owned fishing rights or occupied fishing rights as individuals, or happened to be fortunate enough to be members of a club which owned or occupied such rights. At least there will now be consultations between anglers' representatives and the Secretary of State.

I do not think that the amendment goes far enough. To establish a body which is merely consultative is not enough. I believe that it will be impotent. However, I am grateful for small mercies. At least the amendment improves the Bill in its original form, but what plans does my hon. Friend have for ensuring that it will be a truly representative body? The amendment leaves the matter to the opinion of the Secretary of State. That leaves the Secretary of State with quite a lot of latitude.

Has my right hon. Friend formulated any ideas as to how he can ensure that this body will be as representative as possible of all sections of the angling community? It will be a difficult body to set up. From what I can gather, there are two national associations—namely, the Scottish Anglers' Association and the Scottish Angling Clubs Association. However, there are a great many anglers who have nothing to do with either association. There are many anglers who are not even members of angling clubs. Very often that is not because they do not believe in them or do not want to join one but because they live in rural areas and it is too difficult to travel to meetings and to take part in a club's activities.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind that there are two sorts of club. There was a breakdown in communications at an earlier stage on the issue of whether the Bill was fair. Representations were received from only one section of the angling community. Perhaps that was why the Golden Lion meeting gave a completely different impression from the evidence that had been received hitherto.

There are angling clubs which own fishing rights and angling clubs which do not. Possibly club members cannot afford to buy fishing rights. Nevertheless they consider that they have a right to fish for brown trout, and, therefore, they should be considered as possible members of this consultative body.

I believe that we should give the consultative body a name. Bodies tend to be a little more respectable if we call them something rather than merely refer to them in an anonymous fashion. Will the organisation qualify for the type of grant mentioned in Clause 5? That provision also mentions no particular body by name.

In Committee the Minister, when discussing possible grants under Clause 5, referred to "body" in the singular and "bodies" in the plural. Does he envisage a plurality of organisations covered by Clause 5? Will the body referred to in the amendment qualify for money so that it may be able to set itself up on a proper basis and become strongly organised?

Although I appreciate that the amendment does not go far enough, it would at least get the body off the ground if we were to give it a name. Why not call it, as we suggest, the Scottish Anglers' Trust, fund its operations and give it a strong constitution so that it represents all sections of the angling community? Despite the imperfections of the Bill, such a body could in future grow into a powerful organisation representing the interests of all Scottish anglers.

Sir John Gilmour

I wish to underline the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for a little more information. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) made an interesting point. I agree that it might be an advantage to have one organisation for the Highlands and another for the Lowlands. That would make it easier to bring people together in various areas so that they would have sufficient knowledge to reach reasonable decisions.

However, if organisations are too large and cumbersome, they may not carry out their functions so well. I hope that the Minister will give the House a little more information on this subject.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that I intend to make the body truly representative within the limitations of a committee which I envisage as including 10 to 12 members. I am not committing myself to that figure, but that is the kind of committee size we envisage.

The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked about the chairman. It is a little early to say who might be a suitable chairman for that post. I am not referring to the body mentioned in the Financial Memorandum or to the body mentioned in Clause 5. I am referring purely to an advisory body that will operate until such time as the new organisation—call it, for the sake of argument, the Anglers' Trust—comes into being.

The secretariat duties of the consultative body or advisory committee will be serviced by the Department and it will be a central consultative body. I know that many Conservative Members are familiar with some of the advisory bodies in agriculture. I have never known them to raise any objection to the general principle of advisory bodies which the Secretary of State consults.

Mr. Canavan

The Minister referred to the body mentioned in Clause 5 and implied that it was different from the organisation mentioned in the Financial Memorandum. We see in the note beside Clause 5 that it relates to Exchequer contributions towards organisations developing salmon or freshwater fisheries. There appears to be a possibility under Clause 5 of various bodies benefiting. Why should this consultative body not benefit from a grant under the clause?

Mr. Brown

My hon. Friend has not been following this matter. There is nothing to stop the organisation, which I hope will ultimately be set up, from handing out any of the money at its disposal to other clubs or groups, especially if they are, for instance, improving access.

We are talking about two bodies. In the amendment we are referring to the advisory committee which the Secretary of State will be obliged to consult. In the Bill we are dealing with the organisation we have referred to by names such as the Anglers' Trust. That body will bring together angling organisations and will be able to distribute to other organisations the sums mentioned in the Financial Memorandum.

In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), I can say that it will be the intention of the advisory committee to consult local interests, particularly anglers, whether or not they are members of a club. But I cannot give a specific assurance that every area, region and local authority will be represented on the committee. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not expect that. We intend that the committee will consult as many local interests as possible, because consultation is the key to getting co-operation from people who may not understand the provision in Schedule 1 for seeking a protection order. There will be consultation with those in a local area who are directly involved.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'proposals' to 'were' in line 23.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 25, after 'available', insert '(i)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we are to discuss Government Amendments No. 8 and No. 9.

Mr. Brown

Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 8 ensures that protection cannot be given unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposals submitted to him will, if implemented, meet within reason the demand for fishing within the area of an order from persons wishing to fish for freshwater fish there, who have no rights in the waters covered by the proposal. This is a fairly minor amendment, but it is the only one of the group of any consequence.

Sir John Gilmour

I find this a little difficult to understand and I hope that the Under-Secretary can help me. Amendment No. 8 refers to: persons who are neither owners nor occupiers of a right of fishing for freshwater fish". By including those other people, are not the Government making it very difficult to keep the co-operation which I thought we had agreed to be so necessary? If we do not take with us the owners and the people who have fishing rights but seem to be catering for persons who have no fishing rights, we may risk losing that measure of co-operation which the Minister and I both want to achieve.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I do not think so. It was impressed on me that many people have consent but not a permit to fish. There may be a club which is allowed by an owner to fish, although it has no statutory right to do so because it is not an occupier and has no rights. It is all part of the process of giving information and submitting the proposal. I am sure that most landowners and clubs will willingly give that information. A club or individuals may be given permission to fish with the consent of the owner. It is a co-operative approach.

Mr. Monro

I wish that I felt as confident as the Minister does that this is a satisfactory arrangement. The Director of the Recreation Leisure Committee of the Lothian Regional Council is of the opinion that people living in the Lothians, where there are comparatively few rivers for fishing, would welcome an opportunity to be involved in protection orders relating to other parts of Scotland where they do most of their fishing.

Is the main purpose of the amendment to give people living in, say, Central Scotland the opportunity to request a protection order on the Borders or in the Highlands in respect of water within motoring distance at weekends? That could cause disharmony. I may be reading into the amendment something that is not there, but if someone who was far removed from the river involved tried to promote a protection order through the Secretary of State under the procedures of Schedule 1, a great deal of dissatisfaction might be caused.

We should like a little more explanation of how the Minister envisages this procedure and how under Schedule 1 a person such as I have described will initiate the protection order. That person's knowledge and practical experience of the river may be limited. A person applying for a protection order should have some connection with the river concerned and should not just turn up out of the blue and ask for a protection order so that he can have some brown trout fishing.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

The hon. Member is under a misconception. These people will not be involved in initiating proposals for a protection order. The amended Bill will make this clear. This matter relates to existing demand. Where a club or other owner knows the people who fish with permission on an ad hoc basis, that information should be included in the information given to the Secretary of State. They will not be initiating anything, but we want to know what part of the demand for fishing they represent.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 2, line 2, after 'demand', insert 'by persons who are neither owners nor occupiers of a right of fishing for freshwater fish in the waters to which the proposals relate nor members of a club which is such an owner or occupier in those waters'.

No. 9, in page 2 line 2 at end insert '(ii)'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'The Secretary of State may require that'. This amendment is in response to an assurance I give in Committee. It makes it obligatory for proposers to give full information on the matters specified in the subsection. It removes discretion from the Secretary of State in respect of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) but permits him to specify other matters under paragraph (d).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 22, leave out from 'may' to 'the' in line 24 and insert 'have regard to'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government Amendment No. 12.

Mr. Brown

Amendment No. 11 provides that, while the Secretary of State may take account, for the purposes of comparison, of the standards of facilities available in other areas, he is not to be limited by them but may require better facilities than those which exist elsewhere before approving a protection order.

Amendment No. 12 relates to our discussion in Committee of the word "other". I am happy to accept the point which was made then.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 2, line 25, leave out 'other waters' and insert: 'waters other than those to which the proposals relate'.—[Mr. Hugh D. Brown.]

Mr. Monro

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 27, after 'charges', insert: 'which should be related to the expenditure already made or forecast in the application'. I thank the Under-Secretary for the amendments that he has just made.

This amendment relates to a comparatively small point but it will add to the clarity of the Bill. It is about time we got something out of the Government. It would make it clear that the charges should be related to expenditure which has already been made for fisheries improvement and to what is forecast by whatever committee will be in charge of further improvements under a protection order. This amendment would be a valuable addition to clarity.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I have to ask the House to oppose this amendment which we discussed in some detail in Committee. I would hope that the advisory committee would take this feature into account, but it would create more trouble if we were to provide that the charges would be specifically related to expenditure.

In spite of what I might have said about some of them, I am sure that most anglers are reasonable and if there were an application for a protection order, it would be reasonable to take expenditure into account. But it would be totally wrong to tie charges specifically to expenditure, because other items need to be brought in to make an adequate comparison. I should have thought that anglers themselves, recognising that expenditure had been incurred in relation to improvements, would be sufficiently understanding to accept that they were getting better value for money.

Sir John Gilmour

I wonder whether the Under-Secretary is right in saying that. If people saw what the expenditure was, they would more readily accept an increased charge. Already I have seen from local papers in Scotland that there is considerable discussion as to why, for instance, the charge levied by the Tayside Regional Council for fishing is at one level while the charge made by another regional council is at another level. Would it not help to explain to everyone the cause of the difference in charges, that, for example, the difference arose because in one area expenditure of some hundreds of pounds was incurred while in another area expenditure was very low?

There are certain waters where, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter), a lot of money has to be spent cleaning out weed and getting out pike. In other and faster flowing waters it is possible to stock with fish for very much less. If people are told the reason for the amount of the charge for providing facilities, the result might be more co-operation, making the operation easier.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 32, at end insert: '(g) the number of persons permitted to fish who are neither owners nor occupiers of a right of fishing for freshwater fish in those waters nor members of a club which is such an owner or occupier in those waters; and (h) any other matters which the Secretary of State considers relevant. (4A) The Secretary of State may at any time require an owner or occupier of a right of a fishing for freshwater fish in a prescribed area to furnish him with information regarding the implementation in that area of proposals in so far as they relate to that right'. This amendment, with Amendment No. 8, which we have already dealt with, emphasises that in considering the value of the proposals account should be taken of the needs of anglers who want to be able to fish in the waters of local clubs, hotels or other owners. Proposals from such sources will be of little consequence except in so far as they offer fishing to outsiders on reasonable terms and irrespective of the number of club members or hotel guests wishing to fish. New sub-paragraph (h) recognises that there may be other matters to which the Secretary of State may on occasion wish to pay regard in considering proposals. It is a general saver.

New subsection (4A) emphasises the need for proposals to be fully adhered to if protection is not to be questioned and, if warranted, withdrawn. It will also, in practical terms, enable the Secretary of State to obtain full information at any time as to the extent to which proposals are being implemented. The fear has been expressed to me that certain people can put forward proposals and within months renege on them, not complying with the intention. We are trying in a fair and proper way to tighten up in this respect. It should not cause the slightest difficulty to the vast majority who will be operating their proposals if given protection——

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Back to