§ House again in Committee.
§ Lord KIRKHILLI turn now from the abrasive world of transport to the gentle climes of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. I should like to confirm that I have great sympathy with the noble Lord's wish to see a system of area fishery boards set up in Scotland. This Government have indeed maintained that this must be one ultimate objective for the administration of inland fisheries as a national resource: though any system of area boards set up by us would be comprehensive in its cover. It would not be confined in its interest to freshwater fisheries, leaving salmon and sea trout to the present district boards to look after.
One of the main advantages of a comprehensive system of area boards is that it would administer both salmon and brown trout resources in the broad interests of the whole community in contrast to the present arrangements for district boards which were designed to manage the salmon and which represent the proprietors of salmon rights exclusively.
To go back to the general concept of area boards—but remembering what I have said about their comprehensive cover—much as the Government would like to see these brought into being, I do not have to remind this House that no Administration since 1965, when the Hunter Committee finally reported, has 2071 been able to find the Parliamentary time to introduce the lengthy and complicated piece of legislation which this would entail. This is not for want of trying on the part of this and previous Administrations. Unfortunately, however, more pressing matters have pre-empted the inevitably precious Parliamentary time.
It was with this very much in mind that the Government introduced this present and indeed small Bill. Its intention is specifically to increase the availability of trout fishing for the ordinary angler who has to rely on obtaining the permission of those who are riparian owners. The noble Viscount may doubt that riparian proprietors—and he touched upon this point—will be sufficiently interested to organise themselves properly and submit their own proposals. I have every respect for his knowledge of fisheries management—it is well known in Scotland—but I am advised that the carrot is probably juicy enough to persuade many proprietors to stir themselves, not only trout proprietors but—and perhaps this is more to the point—those who own waters with stocks of both salmon and trout.
§ Viscount THURSOMay I put one point right with the noble Lord? I do not think I ever said that I did not think that riparian owners would bestir themselves and seek the protection of this Bill once it becomes law; I am sure they will. I said that there is no provision in the Bill once it becomes law for any continuing on-going association of riparian owners, anglers or anybody else to see to the proper on-going implementation of any agreements reached.
§ Lord KIRKHILLI have already indicated this afternoon that the Bill is really a first stage type Bill. I should have thought myself that the noble Viscount was somewhat pessimistic. My own view and that of the Government tends more towards optimism at that point. I suppose it is only fair to say that time will tell. I was going on to make the point that I consider, as do the Government, that many owners may still wish to seize this opportunity which is being offered to them, one which will close the door more securely against those who use trout fishing as a cloak for salmon poaching—not that my right 2072 honourable friend will be willing to meet their wishes unless he is fully satisfied that there is real benefit for trout anglers in their proposals. For the other side of the administration—the policing of the protected fishings and their management—we have decided that this can properly be left to the proprietors themselves. We are not proposing to nationalise them and would get little thanks if we tried to interfere with the income they will derive.
I should stress that the present Bill does not automatically extend protection to all parts of Scotland. The main action will wait until it is triggered off by proposals. For some areas these may come in straight away, long before the two years lapse permitted by this Amendment. For other areas proposals may not be made for many years to come. It is therefore out of balance to suggest that a uniform system of administration be imposed in two or three years' time. To have extended the Bill as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, would wish is, I am afraid, not within the realm of practical possibilities at this point in time. I regret, therefore, that while we in Government accept that sooner or later—and I think there is general agreement on this—and preferably sooner rather than later, the administration of Scottish inland fisheries needs to be completely reorganised, I cannot accept that this is the time to attempt so large a step towards that objective. Apart from the Parliamentary difficulties, I very much doubt whether the rates envisaged in the noble Viscount's Amendment would either be acceptable to many or suffice to meet the considerable costs involved which in my view would, like Topsy, inevitably grow and grow.
In any case, in the Government's view this Amendment is unusually imprecise when it comes to authorising the raising of the rates. Salmon fisheries are worth far more than trout, yet the Government still get complaints from district boards about their poverty and inability to finance their operations. The Government doubt very much whether trout boards, on the basis as envisaged by the noble Viscount, which would exist on very much smaller rates with a levy on trout proprietors, could be sustained. In the light of my remarks, I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
§ 4.35 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYWe are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for having fully described his idea which he has put forward in this Amendment. Three or four questions arose in my mind while he was speaking. I should like to put them to him now, although he has given a wide description of his idea. He is proposing to add a fairly large "chunk" to the Bill. First, from what he said it sounded as though it was only in those areas where protection orders had been confirmed, and where protection was to be provided, that the Secretary of State would consider these area boards. If that is so, should this not be written in somewhere? So far as we can see, it is not in the new clause as drafted. Arising from that, can the noble Viscount give any indication of how much of Scotland is likely to be covered by protection orders within the next two years, the time in which the Secretary of State is due to put forward a scheme for area boards? I have no estimate, on the Government's proposals, how quickly proprietors are likely to put forward schemes. In a year and a half's time when the Secretary of State for Scotland would be considering this scheme, it could well be no areas will have come into existence where protection has been granted; a few might be under consideration. The two-year deadline needs to be related to the noble Viscount's expectations.
Another question is whether it is to be left to the Secretary of State to decide where it is appropriate that an area board should be set up. I see the noble Viscount is nodding his head; it appears that the answer to my first question is that it would be in protected areas. Is it left to the Secretary of State to decide, where it is appropriate, within protected areas where there are rivers or catchment areas, or large parts of them, which are protected or about to be protected? Some discretion is necessary and, if so, perhaps it ought to be written into the new clause. There could well be protected areas where it was not necessary or appropriate to have area boards of this kind, the persons concerned considering that it was not necessary to set up a scheme and finance it.
I should like to ask a question about composition. In the draft at present before 2074 us, the Secretary of State has to invite the public within eight weeks from the date of his notice to make suggestions as to the composition of the area fishery boards. Does that mean that they should make suggestions as to the representation of various interests, or does it mean that they are going to put forward the suggestion of individuals? I presume the former, but I think it ought to be clear what suggestions should come forward from the public. My understanding is that this new clause is similar to the proposals for the setting up of community councils. I see in the process of setting up community councils there could well be suggestions sought from the public as to the kind of representation that there should be, particularly if, as in that case, it is not to be an elected body.
From the Minister's reply, it sounded as though he was viewing the area boards as dealing with fish other than trout, whereas the noble Viscount, in putting forward his proposal, is putting this forward as trout area boards.
§ Lord KIRKHILLIf I might intervene, I was attempting to suggest that the Government in the long term envisage the creation of comprehensive area boards dealing with all species, but not at this time and certainly not an area board for brown trout at this time, as envisaged in the noble Viscount's Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYThat clarifies it. I wanted it to be made absolutely clear that the noble Viscount is putting forward a proposal that at this stage there should be area boards for trout fishing only. As he has pointed out, in the future they could work with the existing fishery boards which deal with salmon and sea trout. Eventually, as the Minister has said, there could well be an amalgamation, but at this stage we are considering only boards for trout. As I see it, the advantages of this proposal are, first, that there would be co-ordination of trout management and of the fisheries in a large area. The noble Viscount gave the example of how the wardens to be appointed under the Bill would operate together. I am sure that noble Lords can think of other matters in the management of trout fisheries where coordination could take place.
The concept of area boards was one of the recommendations put forward by 2075 the Hunter Committee in page 94 onwards of their report. They, however, suggested that the area boards should cover salmon and sea trout as well as trout, and most of their duties were to be concerned with salmon. It may not be clear in the draft clause, but from what the noble Viscount said it seems to me that it would be left to the Secretary of State to do as much or as little as he thought appropriate in connection with this clause. Although he would be obliged within two years to put forward a scheme, it is left to him very much as to which parts of Scotland he thought appropriate. If that is so, this would make the suggestion rather more acceptable to the Government than the Minister's first reaction suggests but in that case it probably ought to be written into the new clause so as to be made quite clear.
At a later stage, there is provision for a public inquiry, if necessary, into the scheme which the Secretary of State has put forward. So to that extent, again, it will be a matter for the Secretary of State's discretion and something which he could take into account in putting forward his proposals. If these did not meet with enough local agreement in the area, he could withdraw the scheme. Therefore, given that this is a scheme where the Secretary of State has discretion to put forward proposals or not, as he sees fit, those proposals can be scrapped at a later stage if they do not meet with general approval in the area. Such an arrangement should not cause the Government as much trouble as the noble Lord has suggested. I think the clause ought certainly to have something like that written into it if that is to be the position. Another advantage, as has been pointed out, would be that no public expenditure is involved, and that is very important. These boards would be self-financing.
As regards the objections from the Government which have just been voiced by the noble Lord, he has said, as I understand it, that to set up area boards of this kind really comes within later legislation, which would have a much wider scope and would cover salmon and sea trout. Thus they would carry out most, if not all, the objectives of the Hunter Report. I know there has been difficulty in finding time to bring for- 2076 ward that kind of Bill. I can tell your Lordships that before I left the Office of Secretary of State for Scotland in March 1974, a long Bill was being drafted which would have covered all the subjects referred to in the Hunter Report. I was taking a personal interest in that Bill, and before that I issued a White Paper indicating my views on the main points.
I recognise, of course, that it is difficult to find time for a long Bill of that kind when there are other pressing subjects, but I wonder whether it is really necessary to wait. That is the real question: is it necessary to wait until we can deal with the whole subject before being able to add a clause of this kind, simply dealing with trout boards? That is something which the Minister so far has not made clear. So I would put to him: while I accept that this clause is not necessary for the Bill at present, would it be helpful and beneficial for area boards to be set up and indeed to be started at this stage, even though they will deal only with trout? Would this mean that other matters would have to be brought in?—because from what the noble Lord has said it would appear that he thinks this would raise other questions with which this Bill would have to deal. Therefore it would mean that the Bill would have to be a much longer Bill covering a wider area.
Can this matter, therefore, be dealt with in isolation? We should like to know more from the Government about this because, as the noble Lord said, the Government are well disposed towards the idea. What they are saying is that this is not the time to do it because this goes wider than the purposes of the present Bill and might raise subjects which ought to be dealt with in later legislation. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could elucidate that and tell us more about the complications. I do not think there is any difficulty about Parliamentary time as regards this new clause, but I accept that there is difficulty in the next two years or so in finding Parliamentary time for a 70-clause Bill dealing with all the other matters concerning the subjects raised in the Hunter Report.
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDI do not really favour this Amendment, although I agree with some of the suggestions contained in it. Area 2077 boards might be all very well in a few years, but the time of two years seems to me quite unrealistic. We might perhaps draw a parallel from the Act concerning the Countryside Commission. Under that Act, so far as I remember, landowners in Scotland could apply to their county council—though my memory may be at fault—to declare their land a closed area at certain seasons of the year, such as during the lambing season, and at other times for a specific purpose on condition that those areas were declared "open" for the remaining period. So far as I am aware, very few landowners have taken advantage of this, and therefore I feel it could be quite a long time, and certainly more than two years, before the majority of owners of trout fishing rights apply to the Secretary of State for a protection order. I do not like speaking against the noble Viscount's Amendment, but I feel that this period of two years does rather damn it.
§ Lord BURTONThere seems to be a great deal of agreement so far today, and there was also agreement over what was said in another place. The biggest flaw in the proposals of the noble Viscount is that there would still be two bodies administering the same piece of water. I was very pleased to hear the Government's view that an overall board was required. There are many areas where there is no existing fishery board and I feel the Government are making very heavy weather over what appears to be a largely non-controversial matter. If the Bill goes through as it stands at present, I am sure there will be chaos. Various people will be doing one thing and others will want to do something else. Fishing is a very important asset, and I hope that subsequent legislation will not come too late. It would appear that all Parties agree on the need for area boards and thus we should be dealing with non-controversial legislation.
Could the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, see whether something might be done to introduce a small Bill here in the next Session to deal with this matter? Your Lordships' Chamber is the ideal place for introducing matters leading to the general good without too much political background. I would hope that if we started something in this Chamber it might get 2078 through fairly comfortably in the next Session.
§ 4.50 p.m.
§ Lord BALERNOWe must be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for this addendum to our Committee, which would otherwise have petered out half an hour or more ago. If he has elicited from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, an assurance that there will eventually be legislation for a comprehensive board, it is the sense of the Chamber that that should come in the end. However, I very much doubt whether legislation to this effect will ever be brought forward in this House. Long as we have debated this Amendment to this small Bill, it is as nothing to the time and prolixity with which it will be debated in the Scottish Assembly.
§ Lord STRATHCLYDEI have not hitherto intruded into the discussions on this Bill and it may be that I am speaking out of turn at this stage, but I am induced to do so because of words used by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. He spoke of the need to reconcile the interests of various bodies of people. Your Lordships will recall that it was the late right honourable gentleman Tom Johnson who set up the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and in doing so he had to increase very largely the amount of water which was available for people to fish on and for other purposes. He was absolutely horrified, because he wanted the fishing to be available for the local population and the tourist industry, and what did he find? He found that at the weekends, and at most other periods, buses crammed full of people from the industrial area of Scotland arrived, they lined up their backs two or three paces apart, and the result would have been, and probably has been, that there was no fishing for anyone else and all the fish departed elsewhere. When we are thinking of the interests of different people, I hope that we are keeping in mind the local population and are not allowing them to be completely deprived of a sport which—subject to the approval of the people concerned—has been theirs for many generations past. I hope that that is being paid attention to, and that the local population will not be deprived of the fishing which they enjoy at the present time.
§ Lord HOYThere are just one or two points which I wish to raise, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, the noble Viscount introduced this Amendment very thoroughly. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said that the noble Viscount has had an assurance from the Minister that this is the first step, and eventually there will be legislation which goes much further. But the noble Viscount is trying to introduce into this Bill another Bill of a much larger kind. Indeed, the provision with regard to the supervision and training of wardens would extend the present Bill, because under Clause 2 the owners of the property will have the right to nominate wardens. They will carry out the supervision of these wardens. If certain duties of the Secretary of State for Scotland are to be superimposed, then, as a consequence, money will be involved for both training and paying wardens and I should like to know who will provide it. The Amendment provides for raising money, but there is no indication of how it will be found or of the amount.
I can understand what the noble Viscount is driving at in regard to the elections of the boards, but they will have to pay for all these services. Paragraph (h) of the Amendment states:
such other information as, in the opinon of the Secretary of State, would help the public to make a reasonable appraisal of the scheme".It is very difficult to think of a Minister who could give information which would help to make a reasonable appraisal in regard to fishing. Perhaps it could be done in the case of other subjects, but I do not know whether it could be done here. Then the noble Viscount used the words, "The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit". Of course, if the Secretary of State does not think fit he does not need to do anything. So while I appreciate what the noble Viscount has been attempting to do, this Amendment will not stand investigation in its present form. So with the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, agreeing that we have had an assurance from the Minister of State in regard to further legislation in connection with this problem, perhaps we should be grateful that we have at least got that assurance out of the debate on the Amendment.
§ Lord KIRKHILLPerhaps I may intervene in this debate for the last time, to say that the Government are gratified at, the very generous support which this Bill has been given by your Lordships and somewhat surprised to find what they consider to be a measure of carping criticism upon a Bill which, for the first time, has begun to open the door to some kind of comprehensive assessment of the brown trout angling problem in Scotland. Indeed, the only intention behind the Bill is to increase the availability of brown trout fishing in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me whether I thought the Government could take on board the essence of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because he did not think that would greatly enlarge the scope of the Bill, nor did he think it would lead to a considerable increase in Parliamentary time. The reason why the Government will not be able to accede to that request is that they consider—and they dispute with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on this point—that if these boards were created they would hardly be self-supporting. Thus the kind of provision contained in his additional clause would not cover the point as it was debated in Parliament. The Government consider that, eventually, public money would be involved. For that reason they consider that, as and when that was possible, further legislation would be necessary.
I have to emphasise that, while I indicated earlier that the Government would in the long term hope to deal with this matter comprehensively, at this time they do not see the need to create an additional area board. There is a divergence of view between the Government on the one side and the noble Viscount on the other, and from the Government's point of view it is a divergence which cannot be resolved by any Government move from their previously announced position.
§ Viscount THURSOThe noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, is quite right; there is indeed a divergence of view. If I may deal with some of the points that have been raised, I can show how my view still diverges from that of the Government. First, the noble Lord, Lord 2081 Kirkhill, said that Scottish district salmon fishery boards are constantly making to him, or to the Secretary of State, claims of poverty. But I can assure him that he has never had a claim of poverty from the Thurso district salmon fishery board, nor—
§ Lord KIRKHILLIf we are to debate this matter with continuing seriousness, I must intervene to say that I never at any time mentioned the Thurso board.
§ Viscount THURSONo, but the noble Lord said that there were frequent claims of poverty and I can assure him that there is one board of which I have knowledge which has never made a claim of poverty. Nor, to my knowledge, has any Scottish district salmon fishery board, no matter of what size, suffered from inability to carry out its duties due to poverty.
§ Lord BURTONMay I interrupt the noble Viscount. We held our fishery board meeting only last week, and as we were in considerable financial difficulties we had to fix a rate of £1.80 which is very high indeed. I do not think that we can accept what the noble Viscount has said about this matter.
§ Viscount THURSOThe noble Lord may be in difficulty in that his rate is £1.80, but my experience is that it is rare for any district board to be in such difficulty. However, I do not make this as a carping criticism; I am trying sincerely to make a constructive addition to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked how many areas are likely within the next two years to seek protection under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I think that a very large part of Scotland will quickly seek protection under this Bill when it becomes an Act because, as the noble Lord pointed out, it does not take many people to ask for it. It wants only one or two people within an area to see an advantage to themselves to make the initial request.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYI wonder whether the noble Viscount would give way. I am very grateful to him for his estimate, but I was referring to the completion of the procedures. I do not think it would be enough just to take into account that some applications had come in by ones or twos. I asked 2082 how much of Scotland the noble Lord thought would be covered by protection orders in two years' time, or in a year and a half when the Secretary of State would have to consider the scheme.
§ Viscount THURSOObviously this is a fair question and one about which, without a crystal ball, I cannot have any knowledge. However, I estimate that the response to the Bill will be fairly immediate and that a very large number of fishery areas will fairly quickly seek protection under the Bill. I am only too ready to admit that any Amendment of this size is bound to be imperfect in certain respects and that even if your Lordships' Committee were to agree to this Amendment as it now stands being added to the Bill, at a later stage of the discussion it might be necessary to modify it. No doubt this would improve certain parts of it, but the main structure of the Amendment, as I suggested, still commends itself to my mind and I still think that it would be an improvement as well as an addition to the Bill. The fact that it has been admitted that area boards will be necessary shows that at this stage we ought to start to include them in the structure of the control of trout as well as salmon fishing. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that we want an overall board, but it is also quite clear that if at this stage one went for an overall board it would be a massive operation. Because we have a board for water purification and because we have a board for salmon, when bringing in legislation for the protection of trout we ought also to have a board to cover the problems connected with trout.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, raised the question of supervision and the training of wardens and suggested that public money would be necessary for this purpose. In fact, public money is not used for the purpose of supervising and training water bailiffs on salmon rivers. It would be the board acting as a focus which would help to provide the necessary supervision and training instead of each warden being separately appointed by a separate riparian owner and separately supervised and trained by him. For that reason, I think it is perfectly possible for the boards to supervise and train wardens.
§ Lord HOYThe noble Viscount is wrong about this. Wardens are not appointed by the boards. Clause 2 makes it perfectly clear that
…the Secretary of State may appoint as wardens such persons as he thinks fit from persons nominated to him by or on behalf of an owner of land.Therefore, it is not the owner who makes the appointment. The owner merely submits a list and the Secretary of State makes the appointment.
§ Viscount THURSOThat is quite true, and exactly what I understood and read out of the Bill; but thereafter the owner supervises and trains the warden. The Secretary of State does not exercise that function; there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that he supervises the activities of wardens. The Secretary of State can appoint the wardens, but there is nothing whatever in the Bill to say that he pays them, or that he looks after their day-to-day activities, or that he tells them how to do their job. We do not need to go into this question much further, but can stand upon what is written in the Bill. It is perfectly clear that wardens obtain their certificate from the Secretary of State and their orders from their boss.
Despite all that has been said. I still think that it is a matter of great importance to include in the Bill an Amendment such as this. If we were to pass this Amendment, I am perfectly prepared for the fact that at a later stage it might require to be further amended; but it is a grave omission from the Bill and I think that we would not be serving as we should the anglers or, indeed, the trout fisheries of Scotland if we were not to press it.
I am not alone in saying this. I have here a letter from the President of the Scottish Anglers' Association supporting me on the stand which I took on this matter during the Second Reading of the Bill. We have already heard in the House many expressions of opinion that area boards will eventually be needed. I am still of the same opinion as I was when I put down this Amendment and I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment as it stands in the Marshalled List of Amendments.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYWhen the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, spoke about there having been carping criticism 2084 of the Bill during the course of the debate on this new clause, I hope he was not including me, because in its amended form the Bill is a very limited measure. I hope that I made it clear that certainly I am not carping. And neither the noble Lord nor I are unwittingly making a fishing pun.
§ Lord KIRKHILLI fully accept the noble Lord's assurance. It is known to us all that indeed he himself did not carp.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYSo far as I am concerned, the Amendments which have been made to the Bill today make very necessary improvements, but quite clearly there is a difference of view between the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the Government on the question of money. One of the advantages of this new clause that has been held out to us is that the new trout boards will be financially self-supporting. That the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, disputes; he thinks that they would soon be in difficulties. From the debate that has taken place and also from what the noble Viscount has said it is clear that in its present form the new clause is by no means perfect. I had hoped that the noble Viscount would answer my two questions. I think he answered by nodding to the point that the scheme put forward by the Secretary of State would cover only the areas where protection orders were provided.
§ Viscount THURSOI do think that.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYThe other point was whether it would be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide whether it was appropriate to have boards within those areas; that it was still within his discretion to decide that an area did not need a trout board.
§ Viscount THURSOIt is of course conceivable that a very small area would not require a board.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYAgain, this is a matter where it ought to be clear in the new clause. It is by no means perfect in its drafting. My other question was what was meant by the word "composition"; whether the Secretary of State would be seeking advice from the public on the representation of various interests. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would care to answer that point.
§ Viscount THURSOI can answer that straight away. Obviously in composition we have these mythical people who are interested in fishing but who cannot be identified, and it may be well to give them an opportunity to voice their opinion.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYI am grateful to the noble Viscount. There are clearly differences of opinion which have come out in this debate from different parts of the Committee, including some of my noble friends behind me who have criticised parts of the new clause. For example, my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard spoke on the question of the two year limitation. If I may summarise the position as I see it, I think all of us in this Committee are in favour of the idea and where Scotland is concerned we should like to press ahead towards area boards of the kind recommended by the Hunter Committee. The Government are telling us that it would be inappropriate to try to put this into the Bill because it would be taking on something much too big. Personally, I should have thought it better not to press this Amendment at this time in view of the difficulties which have been raised during the course of this debate. I was much attracted to the idea of setting up trout area hoards, as I think other noble Lords have been, but it is clear that the new clause itself is defective in various ways and ought to be improved.
If I understand the noble Viscount correctly, he is suggesting that the Committee should none the less press this Amendment into the Bill and then make improvements later. I cannot personally recommend that as a good procedure. I think it would be better to get it right first. I find it difficult to advise my noble friends exactly what to do on this Amendment if it is pressed, because I am in favour of the idea in general. However, there are defective parts in the new clause and if it were to remain as it is I do not think it would be satisfactory. It could only go into the Bill on the basis that it was going to be amended, in which case the Government's co-operation would be needed. I do not know what
§ the noble Viscount thinks about that, on the basis that he himself accepts that at present it is not in a satisfactory state.
§ Viscount THURSOPerhaps I may come back to this and ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whether there is any possibility that we could reach agreement along these lines so that we could perhaps agree something which could be included in the Bill. I still think that, in spite of the flaws that may exist in the Amendment I have tabled, there is a wide consensus of opinion that something of this sort is necessary and I think the debate today has shown that these area boards could be provided without the provision of public money and they could provide a useful service. If the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, can give me any hope that he will discuss the possibility of this being considered for inclusion in this Bill at a later stage, or of there being any real commitment for a governing body to look after these problems, which are not looked after in the Bill, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment. Otherwise I feel it is important, on behalf of the trout fishing fraternity, to press this Amendment as far as I can.
§ Lord KIRKHILLI think I have already made the Government's position clear. The Government do not think that this Bill is the correct vehicle upon which to extend the concept of area boards, and in particular an area board which would have as its principal interest the protection of the increase in availability of the fishing for brown trout in Scotland. In addition, the Government are sensitive, and are aware of decisions taken in the other place.
§ Viscount THURSOIn that case I really have no alternative. I have had a complete turn-down from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill; he is not prepared to discuss any modification of this at all and therefore I must press the Amendment.
§ 5.16 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 60.
2087| CONTENTS | ||
| Airedale, L. | Avebury, L. | Beaumont of Whitley, L. |
| Amulree, L. | Banks, L. | Burton, L. |
| Arran, E. | Barrington, V. | Daventry, V. |
| Ellenborough, L. | Kimberley, E. | St. Davids, V. |
| Gladwyn, L. | Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. | Simon, V. |
| Gridley, L. | Meston, L. | Suffield, L. |
| Henley, L. [Teller.] | Ogmore, L. | Thurso, V. [Teller.] |
| Hylton-Foster, B. | Robson of Kiddington, B. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS | ||
| Aylestone, L. | Gordon-Walker, L. | Pannell, L. |
| Birk, B. | Hale, L. | Parry, L. |
| Blyton, L. | Harris of Greenwich, L. | Peddie, L. |
| Bradwell, L. | Hayter, L. | Phillips, B. |
| Brimelow, L. | Houghton of Sowerby, L. | Pitt of Hampstead, L. |
| Brockway, L. | Hoy, L. | Popplewell, L. |
| Buckinghamshire, E. | Jacques, L. | Raglan, L. |
| Champion, L. | Janner, L. | Sainsbury, L. |
| Collison, L. | Kirkhill, L. | Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.) |
| Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. | Leatherland, L. | Slater, L. |
| Darling of Hillsborough, L | Lee of Newton, L. | Stedman, B. |
| Davies of Leek, L. | Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. | Stewart of Alvechurch, B. |
| Davies of Penrhys, L. | Lloyd, L. | Strabolgi, L. [Teller.] |
| Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. | Longford, E. | Strathspey, L. |
| Douglas of Barloch, L. | Lovell-Davis, L. | Taylor of Mansfield, L. |
| Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Lyons of Brighton, L. | Wells-Pestell, L. |
| Energlyn, L. | Maelor, L. | Willis, L. |
| Feather, L. | Mais, L. | Wilson of High Wray, L. |
| Fisher of Camden, L. | Melchett, L. | Wilson of Radcliffe, L. |
| Gaitskell, B. | Oram, L. | Winterbottom, L. [Teller.] |
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ 5.24 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYOn Clause 2, I should like to draw attention to the new kind of warden being appointed by the Secretary of State upon nomination. The question has been discussed in another place, and it has been pointed out that under existing legislation, already there are water bailiffs who are dealing with salmon and sea trout. In some cases, it is likely that the same people, although water bailiffs, will also be appointed trout wardens. It seems a pity that more co-ordination is not set out in the Bill, because there could be considerable conflict between the powers which the wardens have, which are very limited, and the powers which the water bailiffs already possess. I do not know whether the Government would like this opportunity of saying any more on this question on which there was so much discussion in another place.
§ Lord KIRKHILLAs regards the powers of the wardens, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just referred, I can explain the position. These powers are considerably less extensive than those of water bailiffs. The offences against the provisions of this Bill are not of the same gravity as those 2088 against the provisions of the 1951 Act. In particular, no powers of search or arrest are provided. The powers of wardens are, first, to inquire as to the legal right or written permission of any person to fish for freshwater fish in any relevant waters and to require that person to give written evidence of such right or permission within 14 days; and, secondly, to seize any instrument or article used, or calculated to be of use, in committing an offence in terms of a protection order, provided the warden has reasonable cause to suspect that such an offence has been committeed. No powers are given to search persons, their belongings or vehicles. The offences under the Bill are not considered serious enough to merit this being authorised, nor for the seizure of vehicles—which could, moreover, affect persons in no way connected with an offence. Regarding seizure in general, Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 empowers the courts to order forfeiture of articles used in the commission of an offence, so your Lordships will sec from these remarks that the powers of the wardens are substantially less than those of the bailiffs.
§ Viscount THURSOHow is a warden supposed to seize something he suspects someone to be holding if he is not empowered to search that person for the thing that he suspects?
§ Lord KIRKHILLI am sorry, I will have to ask the noble Viscount, Lord 2089 Thurso, to repeat that question. I regard it as a tortuous legalism.
§ Viscount THURSOHow is a warden supposed to seize an illegal article of tackle that he suspects to be in the possession of somebody whom he conceives to be committing an offence, if he has no power to search that person?
§ Lord KIRKHILLHe can seize the tackle, provided he considers he has reasonable cause to suspect an offence.
§ Viscount THURSOBut he is not allowed to search to find it?
§ Lord KIRKHILLPresumably he can grasp it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROYThe noble Viscount's question was a very good one. It was not tortuous. It is in fact the bull point on this clause. I do not wish to go over all the ground again because it was much discussed in another place, but the fact is that if the tackle is concealed upon the person of an angler, or is in the boot of a car, or something of the sort, it is clear that the warden will not be able to do anything about it. It is only if it is out in the open, and the person is caught in the act of illegal fishing, that the warden can take action. This is one of the great differences between the position of these new wardens and the water bailiffs who already operate on the rivers. This could cause considerable confusion.
When it is the same man, he will be able to search if he suspects the angler of fishing for salmon or sea trout; but if he is acting in his capacity of a trout warden, he will not have the right of search, and if the illegal fishing tackle is concealed somewhere, the illegal angler will be able to depart without any action being taken against him.
§ Lord KIRKHILLMay I say that mine had been a simplistic reaction to the earlier question of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I thought that when Citizen Kane, if we can so call him, is wearing his warden's hat, he will seize the rod, or any other piece of equipment, provided he sees it.
§ Viscount THURSOI should explain that through binoculars you can easily see things from a mile away on a very open bank of a river; but by the time 2090 you have got there, the thing you have seen is then concealed. But if you have no right of search, you cannot prove your point. You would simply have to pick the man's pocket.
§ Lord KIRKHILLI fully accept that the warden is not entitled then to rifle the man's pockets.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Schedule 1 [Provisions as to making, variation and revocation of protection orders]:
§
Viscount THURSO had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 29, after ("may") insert (", after consultation with the Area Fishery Board within which the protection order would apply,").
§ The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 would have been consequential if my previous Amendment, No. 9, to put in a new clause, had in fact succeeded. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships' permission not to move these three Amendments.
§ Schedule 1 agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedules agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.