BYELAWS AND SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT 1966 (Hansard, 23 October 1986)

§ Mr. Onslow
I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 30, line 11, leave out 'Subject to subsection (3) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 37, in page 30, line 17, at end insert land must be exercised if the water auhority whose area for the purposes of functions relating to fisheries includes the whole or any part of the committee's sea fishery district have requested that committee so to do'. No. 38, in page 30, line 28, leave out '(1) or'.
No. 39, in page 30, line 32, at end insert `or, such consent having been withheld, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, shall have given his consent.'. Government amendment No. 40.

§ Mr. Onslow
My right hon. Friend the Minister will remember that we established in Committee that where their spheres of responsibility meet in a number of important estuarial and coastal waters, the interests of the water authorities and the fisheries committees do not always coincide. It is not the duty of the fisheries committees to promote salmon conservation. I have no wish to stir the pot further tonight. My amendment is simply designed to ensure that fisheries committees do not obstruct salmon conservation by refusing to make the bye-laws that are required for that purpose and so leaving unscrupulous sea fishermen free to catch salmon illegally under the cover of fishing for white fish.
The real answer is to have an integrated policy for the management of in-shore fisheries. We do not have it. If my right hon. Friend can show me that he has a better method of achieving progress towards that end than my amendment I shall be happy to withdraw it. However, I should like to hear what he has to say.

§ Mr. Beith
I supported the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in Committee on this point. However, the Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee says that it does not agree. It takes the view that the amendment proposed would remove any element of discretion — from the Sea Fisheries Committee inconsistent with and repugnant to the whole concept of the giving by Parliament to Sea Fisheries Committees of powers to make bye-laws. The view I took in Committee, and the view I still hold, is that where there is an overlapping interest between the fisheries committee and the water authority, cases could arise in which one or other body was not having proper regard to the interests of salmon conservation. It could work either way, which is why my amendment No. 39 is in the same group. That amendment allows the fisheries committees to appeal to the Minister if they have met with objections from the water authority. That quid pro quo might make the proposal of the hon. Member for Woking a little more acceptable. The Minister should consider that if one of the bodies refuses to use the powers available or tries to prevent the powers from being properly used there should be some recourse for them.

§ Sir Michael Shaw (Scarborough)
I realise that there have been considerable debates on this subject. I have received a letter from the North-Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee, and I have talked the matter over with the chairman of that committee. There is a difficulty, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). What we have seen in the way of conservation and protection of the sea fish industry has not convinced me that on this issue the water authorities know better than the local fisheries committees—certainly not in the area that I represent.
1423 The Bill goes a long way towards ensuring that the fisheries committees cannot produce byelaws unless the local water authority gives its consent. To go further and insist that the local fisheries committees should carry out instructions from the water authority would be unwise. The fisheries committees should be encouraged in the task of conserving salmon in the sea. They are much better qualified to do so, and in many cases the water authorities are concerned with inland waterways rather than with the sea. The fisheries committees would do a far better job if they had complete control of dealing with poaching.
Under another part of the Bill, an advisory committee will look into the matter again, and I hope that it will be looked at with a view to seeing whether the fisheries committees might, in the end, be in charge of this important aspect of conservation.

§ Mr. Rowlands
It is nice to take off one's tribal hat, and I can do so in this case because there is no such Welsh point. We do not have the problem of conflict of interest, which the amendment seeks to get round, and there is no doubt that there will be a conflict of interest. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) spoke about the fisheries committees being enthusiastic about salmon conservation, but the people they represent may not be interested in such an aspect. It is a worry of water authorities that the committees will do nothing to promote the byelaws.
The future of conservation lies in enforcement, as has already been said, and in the need for a proper bailiff system. What manpower do the fisheries committees have to enforce such byelaws? The water authorities have a bailiff system, which we have said we should strengthen and improve, but what sort of manpower will the committees invoke to enforce the agreed byelaws? There is a problem, and the water authorities have every right to say that they are concerned and worried that such byelaws will not be promoted, and will not be properly policed and supervised if they are. The water authorities will have as much interest as the fisheries committees in committing themselves to that task, and so should have the manpower to do it. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has put a valid point, and I shall support his amendment.

§ Mr. Randall
Like other hon. Members, I have a letter from the Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee, but it was passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown). The committee has great reservations about the two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), particularly amendment No. 36. It feels that, where there is a conflict between the fisheries committees and the water authorities, the Minister should be able to resolve that conflict. The clerk of the committee gave as an example the fixed engines which the committee is desperately anxious to keep, but under this arrangement the water authority could impose its veto and prevent it from doing so. The Northumberland Sea Fisheries committee also made a strong criticism of amendment No. 37. The committee believes that the earlier decisions of Parliament to give powers to the sea fisheries committees to create byelaws would be undermined because water authority permission would have to be sought. I thought that it would be right to put those two points on to the record.

§ Mr. John Townend
I should like to add my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw). There is great concern among the fishing industry in Bridlington at the possible reduction in the power of the sea fisheries committee. I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister does not accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Gummer
It is obvious from the debate that there is a difference of opinion between two perfectly reasonably constituted bodies. We cannot resolve that problem by granting the kind of powers presented in the amendment. It is increasingly important for the two bodies to work closely together. I should reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that that is precisely what is happening. The intention of amendment No. 40 is to increase the powers of the sea fisheries committees so that they can do more effectively what they have been excluded from doing. The sea fisheries committees, even when they so wished, were specifically excluded from dealing with salmon and sea trout. Amendment No. 40 will correct that position and I hope will grant the committees that power.
Sea fisheries committees differ, so I cannot give a general statement of their resources. However, many committees have considerable resources for dealing with the regulation of matters apart from their main business which is, of course, the regulation of sea fisheries. Those resources can also be applied, and would be appropriate to be applied, to enforcing the byelaws that we are considering now.
I understand the worry expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking about the overlap. However, I do not think that that overlap can be overcome by creating unwilling partners. We must have willing partners. My view which has been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) is that in many cases the sea fisheries committees and the water authorities are working more closely and effectively together. We must encourage that rather than get the whole process off to a bad start by changing the position and make the committees feel that powers given to them by Parliament were now going to be downgraded in that area.
If we find in the light of experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking has been right and that I have been wrong, we will reconsider the matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough suggested. However, the outcome may not be as he wished.

§ Mr. Onslow
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.