HL Deb 17 July 1985 vol 466 cc827-47

8.36 p.m.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Thurso.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Formation of boards where none exist]:

Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13, and insert— ("(3) Within one month after the first meeting of a district board which has been constituted pursuant to the provisions of this section the clerk shall notify the Secretary of State that the district board has been so constituted.").

The noble Viscount said: At the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House there were a number of criticisms of the measure, and, in particular, of its drafting. These have been taken to heart. Some of the amendments which I am going to put before the Committee are obviously designed to rectify that. All of the amendments which I shall put before your Lordships are designed simply to produce the same kind of Bill as we discussed at Second Reading.

Before moving the first amendment, may I remind the Committee that the purpose, as I saw it, of the Bill was to give a unified structure to the salmon fishing industry of Scotland and to give new constitutions to district salmon fishery boards, upon which the new structure was to be based, which would allow them both to be large enough to be economically viable and to be democratically constructed so as to give fair consideration to all users as well as owners of salmon fisheries.

I think that that is enough in general about the purpose of the Bill. I refer now to Amendment No. 1 to Clause 1: Page 1, leave out lines 12 and 13, and insert— ("(3) Within one month after the first meeting of a district board which has been constituted pursuant to the provisions of this section the clerk shall notify the Secretary of State that the district board has been so constituted.").

This is a fairly straightforward substitution making certain that after holding the relevant meetings the Secretary of State is notified, and that the clerk in fact reports the formation of the boards in question. These are the lapsed boards. This is a fairly straightforward drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

May I ask what happens to the chairman in this new set-up?

Viscount Thurso

There is no new set-up at this stage. The elections would be held under the existing Acts and therefore the chairman is the chairman as provided under the existing Act. At this stage of the procedure there is no change in the constitution of the boards. One is electing the boards under existing legislation and therefore there is no need to mention the chairman. It is at a later stage that the question of the chairman falls to be considered.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Surely it does not fall to be considered. Surely under the existing legislation of 1862 the chairman is automatic in relation to the formula laid down there. I wonder whether the noble Viscount can let the Committee know the nature of that election of the chairman?

Viscount Thurso

It is fairly clear that this is being done under existing legislation where the chairman is automatically the person with the largest rateable assessment. This is the existing position, as the boards would be constituted under existing legislation. The largest proprietor would be the chairman.

Lord Ross of Marnock

That is right. It is the proprietors, also, the upper proprietors and the lower proprietors, as so defined. I do not know who is defining them nowadays. In the original Act the commissioners defined them. The proprietor with the largest amount on the valuation roll shall be the chairman and he shall have not only a deliberative vote but also a casting vote. So there is the set-up. The set-up is purely and simply one of the proprietors of the fishings. This is not something on which I should base the restructuring and regeneration of the whole industry, important as that is. I do not think this is the way to do it.

I made clear earlier that I was not satisfied with the Bill. I am not satisfied with the Bill now. We have had a long time to think about it. Consider how we have been pressed for time on all sorts of other matters: we could not have time even for Scottish rates, the matter of expenditure of £50 million, yet we have all the time on this Bill that is going nowhere because it is a Private Member's Bill. In another place they have finished with Private Members' Bills at this time unless the Government themselves espouse a Bill; I doubt whether they will. Even if they did, I doubt whether there is any time for that. I reckon we are wasting our time, having had this lying about for about five months since Second Reading, which was given with a certain measure of reluctance. I am surprised to find that the thing is still alive.

8.45 p.m.

Viscount Thurso

I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is being rather unfair. First, he has not taken the trouble to read the Bill. If he had read the Bill and my proposed amendments he would have realised that the intention is to take the existing structure and to modernise it. He will see that I am just as aware as he is that there is something wrong in having a structure which depends solely upon ownership. On the other hand, it would be equally wrong to have a structure that depended upon leaving out the owners of the rivers altogether.

The noble Lord's criticism of this amendment is grossly unfair because what we are trying to do is to take the existing structure and to bring it all into being. This is the first move. One cannot alter something unless it exists. The trouble with the district board structure is that it exists only in areas where the rivers or the district boards are big enough to be viable on their own. To amalgamate the boards we have to bring them all into existence first. This is what we are trying to do in this clause. Later we go on to endeavour to alter the structure to bring it more up to date and we shall deal with that when we come to it.

As to the noble Lord's criticism of the length of time that it has taken, it seems to me that he has criticised the Bill on two diametrically opposed grounds. The first is that the Bill has taken a long time to come before the Committee and the other is that it has somehow been consuming time. It has not been consuming anybody's time except mine and that of other people who have tabled amendments. The fact that it has taken a long time to bring the Bill before the Committee is partially due to pressure of other business. We have bowed to the pressure of other business, but we felt that it was useful to bring forward this Bill and discuss these matters. For over 20 years and through periods of Government when the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was Secretary of State for Scotland no action whatever took place to modernise the salmon industry. This is what we are now trying to do.

I must not delay the Committee any longer but I feel that it is only right that I should answer the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, on his remarks and to move that we accept Amendment No. 1.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

The Question is that Amendment No. 1 shall be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content".

Noble Lords

Content.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Lord Ross of Marnock

Not Content.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall be agreed to?

Lord Ross of Marnock

Now we have Clause 1 and this is the basic structure on which we are to reorganise Scottish fishing in these rivers. One of the things that suprises me is that if this is such a good idea why is it in such a weak and parlous state? There was power to create boards, and further power was taken in 1868 to achieve district boards (there was a distinct lack of enthusiasm for them) by giving power to two proprietors. It is still on the statute book. Can we not use that? It takes just two proprietors to get at the Secretary of State and have a fishery board constituted. Why has it not happened? I do not think it is as simple as the noble Viscount says. This is just not enough.

When it comes to reorganisation I do not know who he consulted but any letters I have had from angling clubs and individual anglers—a great many in Scotland are concerned about the future of angling—are far from satisfied with the Bill, based as it is purely and simply on the proprietorial interests.

For example, the Avon Angling Club, which covers part of the Clyde, represents about 750 adults and 200 juvenile members. No one can tell me that is not a fairly important river and has been fairly important for a long time. They say: indeed, we believe, on behalf of all ordinary anglers in Scotland. We have … a Bill launched by Viscount Thurso on 21st November 1984 in which it is proposed to set up District Fishery Boards in Scotland where none exist at present. This Club, and we believe most other Clubs with a bulk of working class members are totally opposed to such Boards as past experience of such shows that they do not operate in the best interests of the ordinary angler". I should not like to read out the rest of it. What I read is the more polite part of the letter in relation to their feelings about this particular Bill. So I am not in favour of Clause 1 standing part. I do not know what the Government feel about this. I think that we should hear what the Government think about it.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin)

I had not intended to speak at this stage of the proceedings but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has made a fair point. Perhaps it would be a courtesy to the Committee if I indicated the Government's position on this. Your Lordships will remember that when we had the Second Reading debate I made it perfectly clear that the Government could not accept this Bill. We considered that it had many limitations. We considered that amendments could do little to improve it, and I am afraid that that must still be the position of the Govenment. The Bill is not in a position, even with the amendments which have been tabled tonight, to be made in any way acceptable to the Government. I think that I must be perfectly forthcoming in saying that to the Committee.

Having said that, I think that the debate that we had on Second Reading was useful in as much as it allowed views and opinions from various parts of your Lordships' House to be developed and explained. I hope that during this brief Committee stage we may build further upon that. It may well be that at some future time the Government themselves will seek to legislate in this matter. I have little doubt that the views and expressions which have been declared in the Committee by your Lordships will be taken into account and will be of use to us at that time. While I would not consider asking your Lordships actually to vote against Clause 1, I must reiterate the Government's position—that the Government could not support the Motion that Clause 1 stand part.

Viscount Thurso

I can only reiterate that I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, is being deliberately obtuse or deliberately unfair. Clause 1 seeks only to implement the statutory provisions which already exist. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said that he would like to change the statutory provisions which exist; but it is physically impossible to carry out these changes without implementing the existence of the boards to begin with. The main thing to do is to amalgamate the boards, because the boards have lapsed. We are talking about lapsed boards. They have lapsed because they are not big enough to draw a big enough rating assessment in order to run a business which is laid upon them to run. Therefore, they opt out of doing this by simply lapsing because they do not have the powers under existing legislation to amalgamate. What we are trying to do here is to bring them into existence and then give them the powers to amalgamate so that we can then alter their constitution and bring them into line with what is desirable in this modern day and age. It is very unfair to say that the boards have not done a good job, because on many rivers where there are big enough and viable boards an excellent job of conservation and management is being carried out.

I do not think that the Clyde is exactly the best example to take of a district board. Unfortunately, owing to the pollution which went into the Clyde, the salmon went out. It is only now that the Clyde is being cleaned up, very successfully cleaned up, that there is any hope that the salmon will start to run back into it again. I do not think that this is germane to the discussion. The discussion here is on whether Clause 1 should stand part. That is really the whole structure of the Bill. We are saying that we will take the legislation that exists and we will put the boards into existence so that we can then alter them.

Of course, you can say that you do not like the Bill. That is perfectly possible. But if you are going to give any sort of a reading to this Bill and see what happens later on, then it is only fair that we should at this stage let Clause 1 stand part and get on to discussing what is really important here and what is of importance to anglers, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has freely confessed that he is not one. Then let us get on to the advantages that could accrue from the alterations which are suggested in the Bill. I beg to move that the clause stand part.

Lord Ross of Marnock

The suggestion that I am not an angler does not mean that I do not have any interest in angling. I have a considerable interest in angling. I would not like to list the angling associations, not on the Clyde but in Ayrshire, of which I am the president and have been the president for quite a long time. I am interested in the future of our rivers and in salmon fishing. I think it right to say that the Government themselves are looking at this from the point of view of much more comprehensive legislation. Indeed, if the noble Viscount had been fair, he would have been concerned about the trouble I took over the Hunter Report (as I think it was called) which bedevilled me for many years and in respect of which some action over certain rivers was taken in, I think, 1975 or 1976, or later.

What I am getting at is the fact that the basis is not a sound basis. It may be the only basis that the noble Viscount can see; but the very fact that that was there and laid down in 1862, and amended in 1868 giving further powers to proprietors, and the fact that it has not worked over the greater part of Scotland is proof that the base upon which he is seeking to build is not necessarily the right one. That is how I feel about it.

What he does thereafter is to introduce other possible ways of getting money, apart from the assessments. These again are things on which he seems to have failed to consult the angling clubs to see whether they approved of this. There are more than proprietors interested in this. From the point of view of the ordinary angler in Scotland, this does not meet his needs and hopes for the future of fishing in Scotland.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Reconstitution of lapsed boards]:

Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 16, at end insert— ("(2) Within one month after the first meeting of a district board which has been constituted pursuant to the provisions of this section the clerk shall notify the Secretary of State that the district board has been so constituted.").

The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to rehearse the same arguments over and over again. I should like to get on to the meat of the Bill. This clause deals with those district boards which have never been constituted, in the same way as the previous clause dealt with those district boards which had lapsed. I beg to move.

Lord Gray of Contin

I think it would be only right that I should point out to the noble Viscount that this amendment is defective as it assumes wrongly that there is provision in the Bill for a meeting to take place. This provision does not exist and, under the compulsion theme of the Bill, it would be necessary to specify that a meeting should take place.

9 p.m.

Viscount Thurso

I am personally advised that this would be sufficient to produce a meeting of those boards which had not previously existed. But I should certainly be glad to discuss this matter with the noble Lord, and if I am wrong in this, to produce some other amendment at some other stage.

Lord Gray of Contin

I am, of course, perfectly happy to discuss this with the noble Viscount at any time. However, I would question his reference to "some other stage". At this stage in the proceedings, I doubt very much whether it would be advisable to have any further stage. I think that if we have a committee stage of this Bill, that will be about the sum and substance of it. But that is not in my hands. It is in the hands of the noble Viscount.

I would just remind him of one point. If we have a further stage, then there is a certain cost involved. There is the cost of having the Bill reprinted. I wonder whether it is justified to consider a further stage of a Bill at this stage in the Session, when we have already had a very full Second Reading and are having an interesting, and I hope constructive, Committee stage.

Viscount Thurso

We are certainly having an interesting Committee stage, in which I feel like the oats between the upper and the nether millstone. But we shall not even have a Committee stage if we go on at the present rate of striking. I am not at this point talking about any further stages, but if we are to go on and have any useful discussion on the rest of the Bill I feel that I have to leave this clause as it stands; that it is necessary; and that it is adequately drafted. I shall need to discuss the matter in more detail with the noble Lord, Lord Gray, if he is to persuade me that it is not properly drafted. Therefore, I beg to move.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon)

The Question is that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".

Noble Lords

"Content".

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

To the contrary, "Not-Content".

Lord Ross of Marnock

Not-Content.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Clear the Bar. It will probably destroy the whole thing if you do.

Lord Gray of Contin

With respect, Lord Chairman, you looked at me. I made no comment. I am not in any way taking part in this.

Lord Tryon

May I suggest that the Question is put again?

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Let us try again. The Question is that Amendment No. 2 be agreed to.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Amalgamation]:

The Marquess of Lansdowne moved Amendment No. 3: Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("State") to end of line 23 and insert— ("(2A) Notwithstanding the terms of sections 18 and 19 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862 the Secretary of State shall have the power to appoint to be members of any district board persons to represent the interests of persons holding a lease of a net fishery and of local salmon angling associations; and such persons shall be appointed only after consultation with such bodies or persons as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of the interests of those so concerned within the board area. (2B) In exercising his power of appointment under the foregoing subsection the Secretary of State shall ensure that the number of persons so appointed as representing those holding a lease of a net fishery shall be equal to the number of persons so appointed as representing local salmon angling associations; but always that the combined total so appointed shall be less than the aggregate number of upper and lower proprietors as provided for in sections 18 and 19 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862.").

The noble Marquess said: This amendment is proposed as an alternative to the Bill's provision for the election of an equal number of members of boards representing anglers and netsmen. It suggests that instead the clause should provide that representatives of local angling associations and netsmen should be appointed to the boards by the Secretary of State from lists of nominations given to the Secretary of State by representative bodies. The number of such members should be less in total than that of rod and net proprietors. The reason behind this amendment is that the rod and net proprietors are surely the people who have the long-term interest of the river at heart. They are also, of course, the people who pay for the management of the river.

I think that this method might be simpler and more practical than the method suggested by the noble Viscount. The amendment is presented to your Lordships only for consideration and discussion, but it seems to me that it offers a simpler and wiser method of setting up these boards. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee

I should like to support the clause of my noble friend. It achieves a wider representation of fishing interests on boards than that at present, by empowering the Secretary of State to appoint an equal number of tenant netsmen and tenant anglers with a combined total less than the aggregate number of upper and lower proprietors. But it could be argued that the latter category should not be in the majority. Yet if that were not so, then a system of levies and elections for tenants would probably come to be necessary if their representation is to be exactly equal with that of owners. That option might, of course, be the best and no doubt the matter should be investigated further before your Lordships' Committee comes back to it at Report or some further stage. As it stands, however, my noble friend's clause achieves wider representation on boards without introducing the complications of levies and elections.

Lord Gray of Contin

I must make it clear that the Government have very considerable reservations about this amendment, both on the principle and on technical grounds. On the principle, we do not think it is desirable for the Government to be involved in the constitution of fishery boards, as is proposed in the amendment. I know that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has very considerable experience in these matters, but on this issue I would have doubt as to whether he proposes to follow the best The present system, whereby the Secretary of State is removed from this area of activity, seems to me to be quite satisfactory, and I see no good ground for changing it. On the technical points, the clause is defective. There is no reference to the length of tenure of appointments. If there was no leased net fishery operation in a particular district, no anglers could be appointed and this would be an unreasonable restriction on angling representation.

On quite a different point, it seems to me that this amendment is at variance with Amendment No. 5, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. But no doubt the noble Viscount himself will have noted that and will explain the difference, if there is any difference. But as I see it this amendment is directly at variance with Amendment No. 5. I am afraid that the Government could not look sympathetically on this amendment, and I hope that on reflection my noble friend will consider withdrawing it.

Viscount Thurso

I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, that indeed this amendment is defective in one or two respects. For instance, not only might there not be tenant netsmen, as he described, but also there might very well not be local salmon angling associations on a river. There are many rivers where these two simply do not exist. I prefer the solution which I am putting forward in Amendment No. 5, which is really the sum and substance of the Bill.

In spite of the unfavourable start to this Bill, I consider that it is basically an anglers' charter. What I should like it to do is to provide equal representation for every party involved in the use, enjoyment and exploitation of a river. I am not happy that rivers should be run solely by proprietors, however great the responsibilities which lie upon the proprietors' shoulders at present. I feel that in seeking any solution to the problems of the management of the salmon industry we have to bring in all the users of the salmon: not only the anglers but also the tenant netsmen, who at the moment have no say at all, although they pay all the rates in most instances, because the rates bill is passed straight to them, along with their rent bill, by the Crown Estates Commissioners. So I cannot agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, that this is a good way to go about the matter. I prefer Amendment No. 5 when we get to it, with the principle of equal representation on a much more democratic basis.

Also, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord the Minister is against the principle of placing the onus of appointing members of district fishery boards upon the shoulders of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I agree with him that it would be a very bad thing, and I think it is right that we should seek solutions from among the people who use, enjoy and exploit salmon fishings, whether in the river or at sea. I would therefore join the noble Lord, Lord Gray, in asking the noble Marquess whether he would reconsider this amendment and withdraw it at this stage.

The Marquess of Lansdowne

I am very grateful to the Minister for his intervention here. One of the reasons for putting down this amendment at all was to draw arguments from your Lordships. Of course, I am entirely in favour of broadening the basis of representation on the river boards. I said this in the Second Reading debate on the Bill and I have no reason to alter my opinion now. My only reservation, and it is probably not a very strong one, is that those who really are involved with rivers in the way that owners are have—I use the expression deliberately—a vested interest in their continued health which is perhaps slightly different from the point of view of the occasional angler using the river.

I should like to make this point. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I have a feeling that the attitude that there is strong opposition among anglers is fortunately gradually disappearing. I think we are all beginning to realise that somehow or other we have to conserve the salmon so that a very valuable asset may be maintained and this sport, enjoyed by members of the angling associations, may continue. Really and truly, I think that our interests are not anything like so much in conflict as sometimes people are inclined to say. But, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 4.

Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new clause:

"Amalgamation of district boards.

3.—(1) When a district board has been constituted each such district board shall consult with neighbouring district boards with a view to amalgamating district boards wherever it is appropriate so to do in the interests of better management of the salmon industry and conservation and protection of salmon stocks.

(2) As soon as may be after such consultation each district board shall submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amalgamation of their district board with any neighbouring district boards or a statement of reasons why no such amalgamation should take place.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for—

  1. (a) the amalgamation of district boards in accordance with proposals submitted to him under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section; or
  2. (b) the amalgamation of district boards in such other manner as he thinks fit.

(4) The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, decline to amalgamate a district board with another district board.

(5) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under this section in such manner as he thinks will promote better management of the salmon industry and conservation and protection of salmon stocks.

(6) Before providing for the amalgamation of any district boards under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section the Secretary of State shall cause to be published once in each of two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area of such district boards his own proposals for amalgamation of the said district boards and shall give due opportunity to any district board or person affected by such proposals to object thereto and be heard in support of such objection.

(7) Amalgamations of district boards under this section shall take place on the new constitution date.

(8) Subject to the provisions of this Act, district boards amalgamated by order made under this section shall thenceforth be constituted as and form one board with the same powers and functions and subject to the same provisions as a board constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1862.

(9) When the Secretary of State has provided by order under subsection (3) of this section for the amalgamation of district boards, he shall appoint as clerk to each proposed amalgamated district board one of the clerks to its constituent district boards.").

The noble Viscount said: This is a redrafting of Clause 3. We come to the part of the Bill which deals with the real problems of district fishery boards and the organisation of the salmon industry.

It should be said, and said out loud and said with some conviction, that district fishery boards have done a good job. They have done a good job for 100 years. For a large part of that time they have constituted the only organisation that has been acting on behalf of the salmon stocks of Scotland. I do not think that they need be ashamed of what they have done. But they were set up at a time when things were very different from what they are now. In those days the idea of franchise was quite different from what it is now; the attitude towards property of this kind was quite different from what it is now; and what was possible on a single river at that time would have been different from what it is now.

This clause deals, first, with the biggest single problem which faces district fishery boards today. Many of them are not big enough to be able to survive. Any solution, whether it is Hunter's solution, whether it is one of the solutions which have been put forward in discussion papers by the Ministry of Agriculture or whether it is one of the solutions that have been put forward by various other bodies within the salmon industry—any solution has to come down on the side of expanded boards to administer salmon fisheries. It is no good anybody saying that that is not so.

What I am trying to do here in this Bill is to produce a situation whereby these amalgamations can be done on a voluntary basis; where, if you like, it is a marriage of choice rather than a shotgun wedding; and where people locally can look at their problems together and say, "We could fit in nicely with this river next door or that catchment next door. We can produce a plan that we can put to the Secretary of State". Alternatively, indeed, as was pointed out during Second Reading, a single river board might perhaps turn round and say, "No, we are in fact doing the job adequately. At the moment, we are able to raise enough money to carry out our obligations, and at the moment we feel we would prefer to remain as a single river board".

Under this clause, as soon as district boards have been set up all over Scotland the onus is laid upon them to consult among themselves and put forward proposals as to how they might—or perhaps should not—amalgamate in the interests of producing large enough viable boards. Under the new clause a district board having been constituted would have laid upon it the obligation to consult, with neighbouring district boards with a view to amalgamating district boards wherever it is appropriate so to do in the interests of better management of the salmon industry and conservation and protection of salmon stocks".

That is the crux of the whole matter. As soon as may be after such consultation, each district board has to submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amalgamation with any neighbouring district boards, or a statement of reasons why no such amalgamation should take place".

That is to allow for the individual rivers which have no need to amalgamate, or which do not wish to amalgamate with certain other rivers, to make their case.

The Secretary of State then has information about who is willing to amalgamate with whom, and he has information about which rivers feel that they are already viable enough and do not need to amalgamate. At that stage, there could of course be rivers left over which nobody loves and which nobody perhaps wanted enough and which were to a degree problem rivers. They would have to be dealt with, and so we allow in subsection (3): The Secretary of State may by order provide for (a) the amalgamation of district boards in accordance with proposals submitted to him", or, (b) the amalgamation of district boards in such other manner as he thinks fit".

In other words, the Secretary of State might have to say to somebody, "You should really take in this other little river because it would be helpful". This subsection would give him the power to do so.

In subsection (4), the Secretary of State, may, if he thinks fit, decline to amalgamate a district board with another district board", if he thinks that it is not in the interests of good management of the industry or of conservation and preservation of stocks. This subsection would also allow him to permit a single river board to continue without amalgamation. Again, the onus is laid on the Secretary of State to exercise the powers given to him in this clause in such manner as he thinks will promote, better management of the salmon industry and conservation and protection of salmon stocks". And that is the object of the whole exercise.

The proposed new clause provides also, in the later subsections, for public notification of amalgamations, for the provision of a date by which amalgamations shall take place, for the new construction of the amalgamated board and for the appointment of a clerk to run the amalgamated board. This marks the next step along the road to modernisation of the district salmon fishery boards structure. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

The proposed new clause would give considerable new powers of intervention to the Secretary of State, and it is not altogether clear. I notice that it says the district boards shall consult. They have no option, and must do so. Having consulted, they, shall submit to the Secretary of State proposals for amalgamation…or a statement of reasons why no such amalgamation should take place". It does not end there. Thereafter the Secretary of State may (and the word "shall" has conveniently disappeared) by order provide for amalgamations as submitted to him in any way that he thinks fit. Also, the Secretary of State, may, if he thinks fit, decline to amalgamate a district board with another district board". I presume that also means that even though a district board may give a statement of reasons why an amalgamation should not take place, the Secretary of State may order the board to amalgamate. That is implicit in the power given to the Secretary of State. I should like to know what the Scottish Office thinks of those powers.

This is a very important matter for the Secretary of State. After all, the first Secretary for Scotland was appointed not simply because there was the convergence of two dukedoms but because he had the best salmon river in Scotland. That was why the first Secretary for Scotland was created in the year 1885. Although we mention the Secretary of State in the 1962 Act and the 1968 Act it is not the Secretary of State for Scotland. There was not a Secretary of State for Scotland and there was not even a Secretary for Scotland at that time. However, the importance of the Secretary of State becomes clear as we read this, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State wants these powers.

Lord Gray of Contin

I do not oppose this new clause but I think it is probably right that I should point out the weaknesses contained in it. The clause brings out a weakness in the whole drafting of the Bill in so far as there is confusion between the effect of references to district boards, on the one hand, and districts, on the other. Without amalgamated districts it is illogical to provide for the amalgamation of boards.

The wording of subsections (1) and (2) brings out the serious weaknesses in such a sweeping, mandatory approach to amalgamations as is proposed. The effect of the provisions would be to engage all boards in intensive consultations on an ill-defined scale. For example, there is reference to neighbouring boards, which is far too wide. Boards will have neighbours on more than one side and adjacent boards would also have neighbours. There is also no time limit for the period of consultation or submission of proposals to the Secretary of State. This could lead to one or more boards being able to hold up the progress of other boards and generally create an air of uncertainty.

The remaining subsections, with the exception of subsection (5), deal with the procedure for establishing the existence of district boards. There are a number of weaknesses in the procedure. For example, at subsection (7) the amalgamation of district boards on the new constitution date is incompatible with the proposed constitution of boards under the new clause introduced in Amendment No. 5. Also, there is reference in subsection (8) to the boards being thenceforth constituted by order. Subsection (9) introduces a further defect. It is inappropriate to involve the Secretary of State in the appointment of a clerk to each amalgamated board as at present this should be the function of the board itself.

Subsection (5) sits oddly with the rest of the subsections in that if it was judged appropriate to have a reference to lay such requirements on the Secretary of State this would be more appropriately conferred on the Secretary of State as part of his general responsibility in the salmon area rather than in the narrow context of amalgamated boards. On the detailed wording of the subsection the reference to the salmon industry is ambiguous. It is not clear whether this could be read as extending to salmon farming, which is no part of the function of a district board.

I would be very sad if I thought that the Committee considered me to be carping in these remarks, because they are certainly not intended in that spirit; but since I have been challenged on this point I think it only fair to point out the limitations. Indeed, these limitations run throughout the Bill and that accounts for the attitude which the Government have taken towards it. Unhappily the amendments do not put right these imperfections. It is for that reason that I am afraid the Government still cannot give their support to the Bill. I say those words more in sorrow than in anger and I hope that the noble Viscount will accept what I have said in the spirit in which it is meant.

9.30 p.m.

The Earl of Radnor

Unlike my noble friend on the Front Bench, I should like to oppose the proposed new clause. I say this somewhat shyly. I do not come from north of the Border. I am a keen salmon fisherman and I was hoping to bring up various points later in our discussion. But it seems to me that there are a great number of faults in this Bill. I appreciate that it is a difficult Bill to frame and that it has been framed in the very best of faith and indeed with a great deal of knowledge; but we have been told quite clearly that it is not going to go any further than this and therefore it has no future. I cannot really believe that this discussion will be of huge value for any future legislation, because I am sure that when we discuss anything in future along these lines—I hope that something of a very positive nature comes soon to help the salmon in its rather difficult progress through life—then will be the time to bring forward arguments when they are fresh in the mind.

So, like my noble friend, I say very sadly indeed that I am in favour of opposing this clause, which, as far as I can see, will effectively spoil the Bill, simply because I feel that something of this kind should come forward at the proper stage with the proper backing so that we can really get down to it and do something for the salmon population in Scotland and perhaps, God willing, in other parts of the British Isles as well.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

I should like to support my noble friend. I know that the noble Viscount, as he explained to me before the Second Reading, has been and still is very keen that the progress of the Bill and this stage should ensure that the facts and the ideas were exposed so that they would all be on record for future framers of legislation. I was unable to be here at the beginning of the discussion of the first amendment, so I missed what was said, but it seems to me that the facts that are needed and the arguments that are required to be exposed are on record as a result of the Second Reading; and from what I have heard in the last few minutes of this discussion, I am not sure that we are getting any further. So with great regret I support my noble friend.

Lord Tryon

I sense we are moving into the possibly procedural end of the discussions. I have made no contribution so far, having missed the Second Reading debate because I was abroad, when I should have had quite a lot to say. I do not intend to give your Lordships a Second Reading speech now. The only noises I have made so far were to try and keep this debate alive, which has been quite difficult at times because knowing what to say was never all that easy, and I noticed that several people, on a slightly tactical note, were trying to do the same thing.

I tend to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that we will probably not get much further tonight. I am sorry to have to say it to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who has been trying hard to get these views across and debated; and the point—to which I must come quickly—is really for the Government, but as regards what the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso called the interesting debate which was developing here, frankly I do not think it has been all that interesting. We have all been terribly defensive and both Front Benches have been hostile to the whole proceedings in one way or another, but I should hate this debate to end in an atmosphere which implied that salmon in Scotland was not a subject worth talking about. I hope that the Government will seriously consider proper legislation fairly soon, with much greater support than this Bill has had, to do something about a serious issue which no one has addressed for a very long time.

Lord Ross of Marnock

We are grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. We are getting some balance into this. Salmon fishing is worth talking about. We have talked about it many times in your Lordships' House. It is an abiding interest of both Front Benches, and its importance has been pressed in both Houses.

My concern is that it does this Committee no credit, because we are polite, to allow something to pass which is riddled with imperfections. We pride ourselves on our efficiency in studying details and putting things right, yet we have passed a clause that the Government said they could not vote for because of technical imperfections. They have said the same thing about this amendment. I do not think it does your Lordships' Committee or the noble Viscount credit for him to force the issue and depend on the rest of us being polite. He knows quite well that if we call a Division and there are fewer than 30 noble Lords, his Bill is finished. I doubt whether there are 30 noble Lords in the building. We have been prompted by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches, who is certainly aware of what might happen, as is our noble Chairman.

We ask the noble Viscount to listen to what the Government are saying about the weaknesses and imperfections of the Bill and the undesirability, even at this stage, of allowing things to pass into law which we know are not right.

Viscount Thurso

I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that I am too polite to him.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I have never accused the noble Viscount of that.

Viscount Thurso

I could try to mend my ways! Politeness is not spoiling the development of the Bill; nobody is being polite. What unfortunately is lacking is any effort by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to bring forward amendments. So far, all that he has done is to criticise the Bill and suggest that the clauses should not stand part of it.

There may be imperfections in the Bill. I am prepared to believe that there are. It is difficult for a Private Member's Bill not to have imperfections. It would have been helpful to have had a few amendments, perhaps seeking to put right a few of the imperfections. At this stage I have tried to set down sufficient amendments so that we can discuss the various parts of it. If we drop it at this stage, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, suggests, we shall not be able to consider what I believe to be one of the most interesting clauses—the concept of the democratically chosen and equally balanced district board. Alas, it looks as though we shall never be able to discuss that; nor, indeed, shall we be able to discuss the interesting suggestions of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in which he seeks to define various forms of net and fishing. That is a useful exercise. At the moment we vaguely rely on case law to know whether we are doing things right.

But, of course, if it is the wish of your Lordships' Committee that we cease discussion, I shall be ruled by that. There is no way in which I can force further discussion on the Bill. If it is the wish of the two Front Benches to get together and kill it, killed it will he. All I can do is move my amendments as they come along and try to explain the philosophy on which they are based and the reasons for moving them. All I can do at this stage is to move Amendment No. 4, putting in a new Clause 3.

Lord Gray of Contin

Perhaps I may briefly answer the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I rather resent his suggestion that the two Front Benches have come together to try to kill the Bill. If this Bill is going to be killed, it will be killed by one person only and that is the noble Viscount, through his sheer thrawn attitude. When the Bill was introduced initially for Second Reading it was made abundantly clear to the noble Viscount that the Government could not accept it; that if the noble Viscount cared to proceed to a Committee stage that was entirely a matter for him. He proceeded to a Committee stage.

The amendments which have been brought forward do nothing, and as other Members of this Committee have pointed out patently do nothing, to improve the Bill, and the noble Viscount still, through his thraw, seeks to proceed with this Bill. I do not think there is any question of either Front Bench trying to kill the Bill. I think the noble Viscount will do that of his own accord in due course.

Viscount Thurso

Is the Minister saying that the Bill cannot be made a worthwhile measure by amendments to it introduced by the Government?

Lord Gray of Contin

No; I am certainly not saying that. The noble Viscount makes a valid point. What I pointed out at an early stage was that the Government did not consider that the Bill could by amendment be brought into such a state as would make it worthwhile for the Government to take it up. I also explained quite clearly that because we had a very full discussion at Second Reading, many points were raised of which I took note. In due course, and at a time when the Government find it possible to introduce legislation of their own, the points raised by various Members of this Committee will certainly be considered in the preparation of that legislation. Thus there is absolutely no question of the Government trying to kill this Bill. That is not the case at all.

The Government have listened patiently. They have had discussions with the noble Viscount both before Second Reading and since Second Reading. From the way that the Committee stage has developed tonight it seems abundantly clear to me that the consensus of opinion among those Members of the Committee who are present is that we really are not making much progress with the Committee stage. I doubt the wisdom of proceeding. But that is not in my hands; it is in the hands of the noble Viscount.

Lord Tryon

Before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, can he give us any more encouragement than that as to when we might hear something more from the Government on this subject? People ask this question every day. I have already agreed, in my previous remarks, that we have gone as far as we can tonight without probably doing damage to the cause of salmon fishing and the things that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is trying to achieve. Can the Minister give us any assurances that this will be thought about longer and harder?

Lord Gray of Contin

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, who has been extremely helpful in our discussions this evening. I am sure that he will appreciate that at this stage it simply is not possible for me to give an indication of when the Government might be likely to introduce legislation. I can assure him that there is very great competition, as is always the case in every Government, for parliamentary time. However, the question of the fishing industry, and salmon in particular, is being very carefully considered by the Government. More than that I cannot say; nor would I wish to give any indication of when legislation might come forward.

Viscount Thurso

I have been accused of being thrawn. I do not consider it to be thrawn to try to get a full and detailed discussion on one way of solving an important part of the salmon problem in Scotland. I do not consider it thrawn to keep trying to bring the matter before your Lordships or before any public forum in this country when we all know that nothing has happened of any real substance to change the structure of the salmon industry or to give powers to people to deal with the problems that have faced them day to day since the Hunter Report over 20 years ago.

That report was produced at a time when there were grave problems facing the salmon industry. Nothing had been done for 20, 30 or 40 years before that. I do not think that a little effort to get discussion on some of the ways in which these problems can be solved is being thrawn. I resent being told that I am thrawn in this matter just as much as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, resents being told that he is trying to kill the Bill. In the nicest possible way, he declared his intention not to help the Bill at the very start. He has certainly carried out his intention. All that I can do is to try to carry on with this Committee stage. If your Lordships do not want to carry on with it, there is nothing I can do. I am not being thrawn. I am just doing the job that I am here to do. I go back to what I said before. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

New Clause 3 agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:

("Constitution of district boards.

.—(1) On the new constitution date, district boards shall comprise an equal number of—

  1. (a) upper proprietors qualified to be elected under the provisions of the Act of 1862;
  2. (b) lower proprietors qualified to be elected under the provisions of the Act of 1862;
  3. (c) tenants of net fisheries in the district of the district board;
    4. 844
  4. (d)anglers who have fished legally on a river within the district of the district board for a period of not less than one week during the 12 months preceding the preparation of the roll of such anglers under subsection (3) of this section.

(2) The Secretary of State shall by order prescribe the number of persons to be elected to each district board from the new constitution date provided that it shall not be less than 12.

(3) Not less than 3 months before the new constitution date the upper proprietors and lower proprietors in a district shall furnish the clerk to the district board for that district with the names and addresses of those tenants and anglers qualified to be elected to a district board under subsection (1) of this section whereupon the clerk to each district board shall form rolls of upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers qualified to be elected under subsection (1) of this section.

(4) Every roll made up by a clerk to a district board pursuant to subsection (3) of this section shall be made available for inspection by the public at reasonable times.

(5) The clerk to each district board shall call meetings of the said upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers at such times and places as he shall direct with a view to conducting elections of upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers to the district board in like manner and subject to the same provisions as those prescribed in the Act of 1862 for elections of upper proprietors and lower proprietors.

(6) At the first meeting of a district board after the new constitution date, and at the first meeting of a district board after subsequent elections thereto, the district board shall elect from among their own number a chairman who shall remain in office until the next elections to the district board and who shall have a deliberative as well as a casting vote.

(7) After the new constitution date elections to district boards shall be held triennially in the manner prescribed for elections under the Act of 1862 and this Act.

(8) The persons elected to a district board shall remain in office until the next elections to the district board when they shall be eligible for re-election.

(9) In this section, where the context so requires, "district board" includes a district board which is to be formed by the amalgamation of existing district boards, "district" includes the combined districts of such district boards and "clerk" includes a clerk appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (9) of section (Amalgamation of district boards) of this Act to be clerk to a proposed amalgamated district board.

The noble Viscount said: This amendment is really the amendment, above all, which I suggest to the Committee as being the one worthy of consideration. I have stated earlier that I consider that this Bill is really an anglers' charter. I believe that it could be. I feel that having reconstituted the district boards so that they are viable, it would be the first duty of ourselves as legislators and anyone else who has to do with the administration of the salmon industry to give a say to all the interested parties; that is, the anglers, the proprietors and the netsmen—the tenant netsmen as well as the owners of the nettings.

This new clause proposes that on the new constitution date district boards should comprise an equal number of upper proprietors qualified to be elected under the provisions of the 1862 Act, lower proprietors qualified to be elected under the provisions of the Act of 1862, tenants of net fisheries of the district board and anglers who have fished legally on a river within the district of a district board for a period of not less than one week during the 12 months preceding the preparation of the roll of such anglers under subsection (3) of this clause. As can be seen, the idea of this clause is that there should be four parties in the electorate, as it were. One party would be upper proprietors and one party would be lower proprietors, as is the case at the moment. A third party would be anglers and a fourth party would be tenant netsmen.

The idea is that they should be equal so that there would be no bias in favour of tenants against proprietors or proprietors against tenants, or of anglers against netsmen or netsmen against anglers. I believe that this could work provided that they are given the chance to elect from among their number, as will be seen, a chairman who they would elect by consensus. A structure of this sort would be one of the most valuable constitutions that could be given to the district boards, and it is with that in mind that I have put it forward. In this clause the Secretary of State would be able: by order to prescribe the number of persons to be elected to each district board from the new constitution date provided that it shall not be less than 12. Obviously, very big rivers would require a bigger representation.

Not less than 3 months before the new constitution date the upper proprietors and lower proprietors in a district shall furnish the clerk to the district board for that district with the names and addresses of those tenants and anglers qualified to be elected to a district board under subsection (1) of this section whereupon the clerk to each district board shall form rolls of upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers qualified to be elected under subsection (1) of this section. Subsection (4) says: Every roll made up by a clerk … shall be available for inspection by the public at reasonable times. (5) The clerk to each district board shall call meetings of the said upper proprietors, lower proprietors, tenants and anglers at such times and places as he shall direct with a view to conducting elections of the representatives of those various bodies.

(6) At the first meeting of a district board after the new constitution date, and at the first meeting of a district board after subsequent elections thereto, the district board shall elect from among their own number a chairman who shall remain in office until the next elections to the district board and who shall have a deliberative as well as a casting vote. (7) After the new constitution date elections to district boards shall be held triennially in the manner prescribed for elections under the Act of 1862 and this Act. (8) The persons elected to a district board shall remain in office until the next elections to the district board when they shall be eligible for re-election. (9) In this section, where the context so requires, 'district board' includes a district board which is to be formed by the amalgamation of existing district boards, 'district' includes the combined districts of such district boards and 'clerk' includes a clerk appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (9) of section (Amalgamation of district boards) of this Act to be clerk to a proposed amalgamated district board. I put this clause before the Committee because I believe that it is a way in which everyone interested in the affairs of a river could have a reasonable say. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Clause 4 [Powers of amalgamated boards etc.]:

Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 34, leave out ("amalgamated") and insert ("district")

The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are drafting amendments.

Amendment No. 7: Page, line 37, leave out ("amalgamated") and insert ("district"). Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 4 leave out ("an amalgamated") and insert ("a district"). Amendment No. 9: Page 2, line 42, leave out ("3") and insert ("Constitution of district boards).

These amendments suggest leaving out "amalgamated" and inserting "district". I beg to move Amendment No. 6.

On Question, amendment negatived.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Does the noble Viscount wish to take Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 en bloc?

Viscount Thurso

There seems to be little point in taking them en bloc. I do not intend to move them.

[Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 not moved.]

The Marquess of Lansdowne

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:

Page 2, line 43, at end insert— ("( ) On application by a district board vary the provisions of section 13(1), (2) and (3) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 and in making an order the Secretary of State shall have discretion to fix the weekly close time either on a national basis or with variations for specific areas.")

The noble Marquess said: The position we have now reached in this discussion seems to me to be leading nowhere. I feel that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is to be congratulated on having introduced this Bill with all the imperfections that he knows it has. When I spoke on the Bill at Second Reading I gave it my support in principle. I still give it my support in principle.

I fear that it would be only honest to say that when I originally saw the Bill it seemed to me to be so imperfect as to be almost incapable of satisfactory amendment. The noble Viscount has had a good try; and, as I told the noble Viscount earlier today. I think his Bill is much improved from when we first saw it. I think the debate we had on Second Reading was valuable. A lot of points were discussed, and all these were noted by my noble friend the Minister. That in itself, of course, is valuable.

It seemed to me that as we had taken the Bill on to Committee stage it was only right that, wherever possible, I should make suggestions, amendments, that would perhaps improve the Bill further. I am inclined to think that they are there on the Marshalled List, but I do not wish to move any of my amendments.

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]

On Question, Clause 4 negatived.

Viscount Thurso has given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 15: After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:

Amendment of Act of 1862. (" . In section 18 of the Act of 1862 the words "and the last-mentioned proprietor shall be chairman of the board and shall have a deliberative as well as a casting vote" are hereby repealed.")

The noble Viscount said: It is clear to me that your Lordships do not wish to go on discussing this Bill. I do not wish to take up the time of your Lordships' Committee, and I am perfectly content simply not to move anything further if this is what everybody wants. That seems to be the general feeling of the Committee.

[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 16 to 22 not moved.]

Viscount Thurso

I am happy to move that the House do now resume, because it seems to me that nobody wishes to discuss this matter any further.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at one minute before ten o'clock.