COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 30 October 1986)

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 en bloc. These amendments represent, I hope, an appropriate response to the concern which has been expressed about the appointment of water bailiffs by the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Marnock and Lord Carmichael.
We have accepted the argument that it is inappropriate for sole proprietors to continue to have the power to appoint bailiffs at their own hand, in the light of the statutory powers which bailiffs enjoy. When the Bill is enacted, appointments of bailiffs by sole proprietors will cease and those bailiffs appointed by sole proprietors under existing legislation will no longer have statutory powers. This is not to say that we are removing from the sole proprietor the ability to protect his fisheries. Sole proprietors will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for the appointment of a bailiff under the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951. There is an established administrative procedure for the application, which involves consultation with the police. The system works well in practice.

§ Viscount Thurso
My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, assure the House that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland are geared to receive all the applications that may arrive? Otherwise what may well happen is that after the passing of this Bill into an Act all the bailiffs on this kind of river will suddenly cease to exist. Unless the machinery is ready to deal with the applications they will receive there may well be a hiatus if there are no bailiffs with any legal standing at all. I should like to receive an assurance that they are geared to deal with this matter at the speed at which it may happen.

§ Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove
My Lords, I should first like to thank the Minister for having gone some way towards meeting the genuine worries that my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and I expressed during the earlier stages of the Bill. The 870 noble Lord will appreciate that while he has gone a long way we would want to go rather further, and perhaps we shall get an opportunity to do that at a later date.
In order to save time, perhaps I may say that there is a later amendment tied up with the question of bailiffs, and I feel grateful to the Government for having gone so far as they have in Amendment No. 21 to curtail some of the two great powers that bailiffs have. Perhaps that will dispose of the necessity to speak again when the time comes.
The point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is administrative and one which I am sure the Government will have well in hand. There is the point that there could be a hiatus, but I do not think that I should be one to grumble too much if there was a short period when there were no bailiffs on one or two of the rivers; but perhaps that is not in the right spirit on the Salmon Bill. I congratulate the Minister on giving us what he has given. It is something to go on with until we are in a position to be more specific about the qualities of bailiffs.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He mentioned a later time. How late would be late? It is a matter for anyone to guess. In answer to the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I can assure him that we are geared up to cope with that particular issue.