DEALER LICENSING IN ENGLAND AND WALES (Hansard, 23 October 1986)

§ Mr. Rowlands
I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 25, line 30, leave out 'may' and insert `shall, within six months after the coming into force of this section of this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 25, in page 25, line 30, after `may' insert `after consulting representatives of such interests as appear to him to be affected'. No. 26, in page 25, line 35, leave out `such person as may be so specified' and insert 'a water authority'. No. 27, in page 26, line 15, at end insert 'by a water authority'.

§ Mr. Rowlands
The amendment stands in the names of a large number of hon. Members, including many who represent Welsh constituencies. It has been an advantage to have had a Scottish period, so to speak, in debating the amendments; we began with Welsh affairs and now we return to those matters. In the interim, those of us who represent Welsh constituencies have had time to reflect on the Minister's arguments in rejecting our new clauses 4, 5 and 6.
The Minister spoke of what he regarded as a series of practical problems against tagging. In his view, licensed dealers will help conservation. The Minister clearly reached that view as he proceeded along the road to conversion. We, too, believe in salvation, and if licensed dealing is the salvation of the nation's salmon stocks, that salvation should come as quickly as possible, and the amendment would ensure that the scheme commenced within six months. Perhaps we should adopt the form of words that the Minister used earlier and say that the scheme should begin "prior to the next season". To what time scale is he working for the introduction of the licensed dealer system?
Secondly, who will be responsible for the licensing? The amendment recommends that the responsibility should lie with the water authorities for England and Wales, and it would not make much sense for a Welsh local authority to be the licensing or enforcement authority. Bearing in mind the experience, professionalism and knowledge of the water authorities, I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of the amendment. Surely it would be unimaginable to vest responsibility for such a licensing system in a Welsh district authority or county council. 1416 Counties and districts are not uneager to accept powers in our communities, but in this instance I do not think that they would contend that they would be the appropriate bodies to accept the licensing responsibility. I speak chiefly for the Principality, and I believe that the Welsh water authority would be the obvious body to undertake licensing and enforcement responsibilities.
I should like to know how the proposed system will be financed. What sort of expenditure is envisaged or expected following the introduction of the licensing system? I hope that the Minister will tell us rather more of the Department's thinking about the system of payment apart from enforcement, licensing and the proposed timescale.
The Minister has argued that the tagging system that we propose would involve many practical difficulties. We are discussing anti-poaching measures that are vital to conservation, and any new system will be difficult to implement. We know the sophistication, scale and character of poaching, and when I listened to the Minister I thought that an accommodation could be reached by substituting "licensed dealing" for "tagging". In any event, how will a licensed dealer identify whether the fish that he is being sold has been caught legally or illegally? That is a simple question and I hope that the Minister will respond with a simple answer. Tagging offers at least a possibility or probability of some identification of legality or legitimacy of the catch. Will the dealer be expected to ask whether the seller is an authorised dealer? What sort of documentation will a seller have to present?

§ Mr. Onslow
rose—

§ Mr. Rowlands
We support the licensed dealer system and we are grateful that the system will apply in England and Wales. The Bill would be entirely Scottish if that were not the position. I have no reason to wish to undermine confidence in the licensed dealer system. However, as the Minister has argued strenuously against the scheme that we proposed, which was complementary to licensed dealing, we are entitled to pose a series of genuine queries and questions on behalf of the many anglers and others who are interested in the conservation of salmon in the Principality.

§ Mr. Onslow
It would be helpful to have an answer to another question. Let us suppose that someone is fortunate enough to catch a big salmon in a Welsh river, he brings it to London and sells it to a restaurant in the Kings road. Must he have a licence to buy and sell salmon? Where will the restaurant get its licence and how will the proceeds go back to where they belong — the water authority?

§ Mr. Rowlands
I look forward to an answer to that question.
When we press the Minister it is not in a spirit of trying to undermine the proposed system. We want to make it work. I believe that the water authority will be able to make it work. We want a practical answer to the question. This is our salvation. Let us operate the system as quickly as possible.

§ Mr. Beith
I am in favour of the extension of dealer licensing to England and Wales. I understand why in July the Minister was unable to say in Committee who would operate the system in England and Wales and why he was 1417 unable to put the details in the Bill as they were set out for Scotland. For Scotland the powers are given to local authorities under existing legislation.
It is not satisfactory, however, that at this stage we still do not know to whom the powers are to be entrusted. One of the amendments argues that the powers should be given specifically to the water authorities. I believe that the water authorities should have the powers, but that would not remain my view if the water authorities were privatised. I am relieved that the Government have had to abandon their intention to privatise the water authorities. If they were privatised they would not be appropriate bodies to operate the dealer licensing scheme, any more than some of the other functions ascribed to them under the Bill which involve a public body regulating who shall be allowed to carry out certain activities. That is not a suitable power for a private organisation.
The Minister should by now be able to say to which public body these functions are to be given. Because he has been unable to decide, the Bill contains enabling provisions which give him the opportunity to implement his decision later. He is given wide powers. Partly because of that I tabled an amendment to force him to consult relevant interests. But my concern goes wider than consultation. An amendment in the next group involves criminal offences.
I hope that the Minister can tell us who will carry out the dealer licensing and how quickly the scheme can be introduced.

§ Mr. Gummer
The water authorities will be asked to carry out these requirements. I hope that the House will not find it necessary to press the amendment to that effect because if at some future time the constitution of the water authorities becomes different, or if it is more sensible that some other body be involved, I should not like to have to change primary legislation. It is more sensible to leave matters as they are, but the House has my assurnace that the water authorities will have the powers.
The cost of the scheme will be paid for by the water authorities from their resources. They will levy licences and the money so raised will help pay for the scheme.
Other matters have to be sorted out and we shall look at the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). It would be wrong for me to hide from him the fact that in our discussions we shall have to accept that one problem with the water authorities carrying out the responsibilities is that some have a much greater interest in the matter than others. I know that the authorities are keen to find an appropriate system.
My answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is that I hope very much that there will be no delay in the implementation of the dealer licensing scheme. I am committed to it, I was happy to insist on its extension to England and Wales and I was pleased that my colleagues in the Welsh Office agreed to the change. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has my personal support for the speediest possible introduction of the new scheme.
However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to those who say that there are a number of problems about which we shall need to have considerable discussions. I ask him not to press the argument that we should be bound to a date, because a date would be necessary only if we were unwilling to move as fast as we can and we are willing to move as fast as possible. However, we must make sure that 1418 the system will work and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is not always easy to ensure that. I do not want a system that falls down because we have not prepared it properly. After all, we are giving licences to people who have not hitherto had to have licences, sometimes for anything.
That is the wrong time of night to go through the various ways in which the scheme will be able to be operated satisfactorily, but a licensee will have to ask the sort of questions that will protect him from the change in the law that provides that he can be found guilty if it would have been reasonable for him to believe that salmon that he was buying had been illegally taken.
To take the example quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, the Kings road restaurateur offered a good fat salmon from Wales will have to satisfy himself that the salmon had been properly caught and had not been taken illegally. There will be a number of ways in which he can do that and one will be to satisfy himself that the man had the right to take the salmon. If he is knowledgeable about salmon and there are gill marks on the fish that lead him to believe that it was taken improperly, he will have to take account of that. He will keep records and they could be checked by the water authorities.
I assure the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil arid Rhymney that we are making every effort—

§ Mr. Onslow
Will my right hon. Friend deal with the linked point of how the Thames water authority, which will presumably have sold the dealer's licence to the Kings road restaurant, will be made to remit the proceeds to the Welsh water authority which would have been responsible for producing the salmon?

§ Mr. Gummer
We shall be discussing that issue with the water authorities which have already discussed it among themselves because they have problems of enforcement. They have pooling arrangements in other areas and no doubt they will be considering such an arrangement in this area.
I assure hon. Members that we intend to get the new system into operation as rapidly as possible. Indeed, we must do so. I have given a number of assurances arid the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is right to say that if we cannot get the system into operation rapidly enough everything else will fall.

§ Mr. Rowlands
I am grateful to the Minister for his response to our amendments. I am more than happy to accept his personal assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Beith
I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 26, line 33, at end insert— '(7) A person guilty of an offence under any Order made under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum or to both:

(b) on conviction on indictment, to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.'.

One of the consequences of the wide powers given Ito the Minister in clause 30 is that he can create criminal offences consisting in the contravention of, or failure to comply with, provisions made under this section". I do not believe that Ministers should be given the power to create criminal offences by statutory instrument. Such 1419 offences should be created by primary legislation. Whatever extenuating circumstances one can produce in any given case, it is bad practice for the House to make criminal offences by statutory instrument. That is why I have tabled an amendment which tries to specify one aspect of the matter—what the punishments for these criminal offences could be.
One of the consequential provisions that the Minister has power to put into effect is to decide what the punishment should be. He has tremendous scope and anything from a small fine to the death penalty seems to be within the range of possibilities open to him. When he has finally made his decision, it comes before the House in a statutory instrument that cannot be amended. All that the House can do is vote to approve or disapprove of it. No other choice is available to the House and that is not a satisfactory way in which to create criminal law or to decide upon penalties. Despite the reasons that can be advanced for doing it in this case, the House should protest whenever it is attempted. My amendment is designed to limit the Minister's ability so to legislate because it is an improper way to create criminal law.

§ Mr. Gummer
The kind of amounts and the matters that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has put forward are far from the sort of order one is thinking about. I ask him to accept that when one is trying to work out a new system like this in response to the pressures of the Committee, it must be right to try to fix the amounts after the system has been produced. He is right to say that it will have to be presented to the House. Hon. Members can refuse to accept the order and it is unamendable. He is right about those things, but given the arguments that we have heard and the precedents and other examples in the Bill, it is difficult to say that this power is likely to be used in any extraordinary way.
I promise the hon. Gentleman that we will not reintroduce the death penalty for this issue. It is rather overdoing it to suggest that the Executive will suddenly get their heads down and do something appalling. That will not happen. To give us no opportunity to change the punishments when the value of money or the situation changes considerably will only take us back to the point where some of the things that we are amending this time have not been amended since 1862. That is a reasonable argument and I hope that the House will accept it.

§ Mr. Beith
There is now a system of scale fines which gets over the difficulty of inflation, making fines unnecessary. The principle remains that these offences should be created not by statutory instrument but by primary legislation.