HL Deb 13 December 1983 vol 446 cc199-202

9.52 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the Draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order is to provide a revised structure for the management of salmon and inland fisheries in Northern Ireland by amending the main fisheries legislation —that is, the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966.

We now sail into what I hope will be calmer waters. Nevertheless, they are complex and technical and, like most things in Ireland, have a very long history. Indeed there has been a long history of controversy in Northern Ireland over these fishery matters, but I do not intend to relate it. I would say a little about the background to set the scene for those who may not be familiar with the subject.

There is an abundance of unspoilt waterways in the Province capable of sustaining fish stocks. Commercial fishing of salmon, eels and other freshwater fish is currently valued at almost £3 million a year and angling is said to be among the best in Europe—indeed the World Coarse Fishing Championship was held in the Province in 1981.

The 1966 Fisheries Act has worked well in regulating inland fisheries and providing for the control and development of these valuable resources. But by the late 1970s a combination of public concern from certain fishery interest groups about future management and development policies and the recognition by my department, the Department of Agriculture, that some aspects of the legislation were becoming outdated, led to a Committee of Inquiry into Angling being set up in 1979 by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Black, was appointed to review how well the 1966 Act was working and was also asked to make recommendations for the future management of inland fisheries. The main recommendation of the Black Report, which was published in March 1981, was that a new Inland Fisheries Board should be set up to absorb the functions of the Fisheries Conservancy Board and much of the inland fisheries work of the Department of Agriculture. However, a minority on the Committee was opposed to this recommendation and reaction from many interest groups showed that there was considerable disagreement on how inland fisheries should be managed. In an attempt to reach consensus, successive Ministers responsible for fisheries conducted further discussions with interested parties during a two-year period subsequent to the publication of the report.

At the end of that time, in the absence of much agreement from any side among the various interest groups, the Government announced new proposals to restructure the FCB and reallocate certain responsibilities for fisheries management. Around the time that these proposals were published, the Northern Ireland Assembly Agriculture Committee undertook a series of hearings at which evidence was given by representatives of most of the groups with an interest in inland fisheries. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Assembly and of its agriculture committee in particular.

The degree of consensus achieved by the Committee, together with the large volume of representations made during the consultation period, enabled the evolution of the original draft proposal into the form now before the House. These proposals, which I finalised, are the result of prolonged and careful deliberations. They come about as a result of a number of meetings which I held during the summer with the Fisheries Conservancy Board and with representatives of the angling bodies and others concerned. I am confident that my new proposals are well understood and represent a significant step forward in improving the structure of management for these important resources.

So far as the individual articles are concerned, the first two are self-explanatory, Article 3 provides for the revising of the FCB. The Board will retain its present responsibilities for conservation and fishery protection. Some groups wanted the board's functions to be further increased. For example, the Northern Ireland Assembly and others advocated that responsibility for the management of public angling waters, presently under the control of my department, should be transferred to the board. It is my intention, however, that the facilities for independent anglers—that is, those who do not belong to angling clubs—should continue to be managed by the department at least until such time as there is clear evidence that the FCB could undertake the management of these waters in an effective manner and with the agreement of all the various interests represented on the board.

I have explained to the FCB and to the anglers' representatives the basis on which I would propose to monitor the efforts of the new board. I have said that I will establish procedures which will ensure that the board has a regular and effective advisory input to Government. In my view this has not happened in the past to the extent that it should. I hope that the members of the new board will be able to demonstrate a unity of purpose and that the advice which they give will provide evidence of a new consensus among the various interests.

If they can do this and can show that they are sufficiently on top of their primary tasks of conservation and protection to be able to contemplate taking on new responsibilities, then I shall be prepared to look again at this question of public water management to see whether there might not be an agency role for the board. Article 3 has been revised to allow for such a role and it is really up to the various interests on the new board to put their differences behind them and show that they can work together in the interests of inland fisheries. Resource implications would have to be considered afresh in the circumstances prevailing at the time of the reassessment, and any increase in the board's workload would of course be dependent on proper financial arrangements being arranged.

A further provision of this article is that, for the time being, the board will retain its authority for the protection of salmon at sea. However, the draft has been worded so that we may direct the extent of the board's involvement if this should prove necessary at some future time.

Article 4 simply invokes the schedule to the order. Article 5 would enable the Government to introduce a supplementary levy on angling and commercial fishing licences. I should point out that an appointed day order is required to bring this article into effect and I can assure the House that any increases resulting from such an order will, so far as possible, be contained within the limits recommended as acceptable by the Black Report. The FCB will be consulted on the level of any proposed charges and of course the law of diminishing returns will be taken into account. I have no plans for such a levy at present. This is purely an enabling power. Article 6 is included in the draft to allow obsolete parts of the 1966 Act to be removed.

The Schedule details the revised constitution for the FCB. At present, the board is composed of 15 representatives of various fishing interests. In order to maximise the efficiency of the board, the original draft order proposed that the FCB should be reduced to a small team of 4–6 persons. As a result of representation, I propose to expand the board to a maximum of 24 members, bringing in representative of farming, sporting interests, local government and independent angling. The schedule does, however, provide for a small executive committee to be established by the board from among its members, aid this should ensure that the original aim of maximising efficiency in carrying out the boards role is achieved.

The new FCB will be headed by an independent chairman and deputy chairman. I am confident that the proposals in the draft order will attract the support of the great majority of those interested in, and involved with, inland fisheries in Northern Ireland, and that the provisions are in the best interests of all concerned. For this reason, I much hope that all those who have been involved in the long-standing debate on this matter will co-operate in working constructively for the well-being of the inland fisheries of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, in effect we are considering primary legislation in the form of an order which cannot be amended—a comment I have made in connection with a number of recent Northern Ireland orders. I agree with what the noble Earl has said about the deliberations of the Assembly and the helpful report which was produced.

I will content myself with putting just three brief points to the Minister. As he has said, the proposal is greatly to extend the interests on the board; so we have anglers, commercial fishermen, other relevant commercial operators, fish farming, tourism, sport, recreation, district councils and the CBI. Is there any reason why there is not one direct representative of the trade unions appointed to this board?

Secondly, the noble Earl said that they are retaining the functions. I have looked at the 1966 Act and the functions are put down there as "conservation, protection and improvement". In the order before us it is merely "conservation and protection". I must ask: is there any particular reason why "improvement" has been left out?

Thirdly, when we had the July appropriation order, I and other noble Lords—I include particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—expressed concern over the pollution of rivers. The chief executive of the board, while expressing pleasure at some improvement, particularly as regards farming pollution, expressed concern about the increased number of industrial premises, which are causing pollution. He also expressed concern at the greatly increased number of fish killings, although the number of incidents had been reduced. Do the functions which are given to the board include pollution, or is that dealt with in some other way?

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I am happy to support this Motion.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has asked me three questions. The powers of the board in fact will not be materially altered. I think the maxim is: "The greater includes the lesser". It is certainly the intention of the Government, in drafting this legislation, to give the new and expanded FCB, as it is called, the same role as before but possibly to increase it in due course. Certainly so far as improvement is concerned there is no desire to stop it from doing what it wants in that direction. It is, of course, inhibited by the fact that at the moment it does not have the resources to carry out that role.

The noble Lord also asked why the CBI should be represented on the board and not the trade unions. The reason is quite simple. There is a very considerable industrial and commercial interest so far as users of water in Northern Ireland are concerned for the purposes of fishing. The interest of the trade unions is simply not relevant and therefore they have not been included in the schedule, as the noble Lord has correctly pointed out. However, I would like to say to him that the intention is to appoint individuals to the board, partly because of their position but mostly because of what they can contribute to fishing in inland waters in Northern Ireland, and no reflection is meant so far as the trade unions are concerned.

As to the noble Lord's last point, I will write to him about it as soon as I have looked at Hansard.

On Question, Motion agreed to.