Subordinate Legislation Committee, 24 Oct 2000
Meeting date: Tuesday, October 24, 2000
Official Report
111KB pdf
Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill
The first item on the agenda is the scrutiny of delegated powers. We have an Executive response to the points that we raised about the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. We have received some briefing on the matter, and Fergus Ewing sought clarification on a particular point.
The Executive's response is mildly helpful. However, it includes something more helpful, namely a letter from a third party—Andrew Wallace, the director of the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards. His letter specifies a number of measures that might be taken to protect salmon. I ask the Executive to provide clarification of the first paragraph of the introduction, which says:
"In some cases Government action (e.g. sanction/action to reduce the population of predators) would deliver far greater benefit to the conservation of salmon and sea trout than would application by the DSFBs of the enhanced powers covered within this conservation paper."
I have read out that extract because the words "far greater benefit" are underlined—and indeed are the only words to have been underlined in a very detailed and helpful letter. Presumably the Executive supplied the letter because of the helpful detail that it contains.
Do the powers under the bill include powers which might be sought because they are more desirable and useful—for example, the power to control a population of predators? If such powers are available, which predators might be controlled? Furthermore, if those powers can be used to control a population of predators, would such a situation lead to technical conflicts and inconsistencies with other legislation that controls measures on some predators, notably seals?
It might also be helpful to find out whether salmon legislation is being consolidated. I hope that that issue will return to the priority list, as other priorities seem to have put it to one side. As we have said before, legislation should be generally comprehensible to those who are required to act under it.