REGULATION OF TWEED AND ESK FISHERIES (Hansard, 4 March 1998)

§ Mr. Godman
Mention is made in clause 99(2) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. May I plead that the Act be revised in the interests of ordinary anglers? At the moment, it favours the interests of riparian owners and very rich fishermen and women. Ordinary anglers from clubs across the country deserve better recognition, and the Act should be changed.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
As the Committee might not reach a later group of amendments that relates to clause 99, it is important to put it on the record at this stage that the clause reflects my many discussions with Lord Sewel and my earlier discussions with the late John Smith about how legislation affecting the River Tweed and its tributaries, especially the Till, 1163 could be amended. Those rivers are governed by Scottish law—Scottish law hitherto made by the Westminster Parliament—although they are in England. It would obviously not be right for criminal offences to be created or modified by the Parliament in Scotland without the consent of Westminster Members representing the areas affected. The same could apply on the other side of the country.
The Government have chosen a course of action that is broadly a reasonable one, which is to require that an affirmative order must go through the House of Commons to effect such a change. The intervention of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) reminds us of the passions that are raised by these issues; they certainly are in my constituency.
An affirmative order might be extremely complex and raise some controversial issues, and it is important that it is widely discussed before a decision is made. Unless we are to have an amendment procedure that a later amendment suggests should be available, it would be a take-it-or-leave-it debate on an affirmative order on a complex piece of legislation affecting people's livelihoods. That is a worrying aspect of what is otherwise a sensible response by the Government.

§ Mr. Godman
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that fishing on the Tweed and the Tay would be helped enormously by the abolition of drift-net fishing that uses monofilament nets?

§ Mr. Beith
No. All the scientific evidence is contrary to that view. Again, that is an illustration of the complexity of this matter and the passions that it arouses.
I hope that the Minister recognises that slapping an order in front of either the Scottish Parliament or this Parliament would not be an adequate response.

§ Mr. Salmond
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that much of this aspect of fishing policy has been led, in terms of initiative, by another place, which has had more than a vested interest in many areas of policy?

§ Mr. Beith
The hon. Gentleman further illustrates how many interests are involved in this issue. It will be possible under the procedures that are outlined for the Parliament in Scotland to take the initiative and bring forward new legislation, but it could not proceed without the consent of the House of Commons. My preference is for the House of Commons to be able to proceed by way of amendable order, as an improvement even on what the Government are proposing. I am grateful for the trouble that they have taken on this important matter.

§ 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 1164 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.