Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill
The next matter is the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill, for which there are witnesses. I should explain to new committee members that we are heading for a record time for a meeting. We are usually out of here by 11:30.
I trust that the new members are not to blame for that.
No—that is all down to the witnesses. A meeting of 15 minutes would normally be viewed as a busy meeting.
I welcome the witnesses to the committee and I am sorry for any delay. We had some of your colleagues giving evidence on another bill and unfortunately that ran on for longer than we expected.
We are aware of the effects of the bill on subordinate legislation, but we have asked the witnesses to address us today because of a letter that was copied to us from the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards. I had not thought that there was much that was of a contentious nature in the bill until I received the letter dated 28 December, which was sent to the Deputy Minister for Rural Development. Could you make general comments on the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill and give the committee your views on the matters that are raised in the letter?
Joy Dunn (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department):
As the bill has gone through its various stages, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards and other constituencies have been fairly supportive of the measures in it. Obviously, the letter that you have from Andrew Wallace raises some concerns. The Deputy Minister for Rural Development met a delegation yesterday afternoon and focused on three main issues.
The first issue is point 1 on page 2 of the letter, and concerns conservation and management. Although we were keen to listen to the points that the ASFB was making, the fundamental change that it is asking for would change the policy in the bill. The focus of the bill has been the conservation of fish and ministers' responsibility to fish, as opposed to fisheries. It is difficult for us to accept the small wording change that the ASFB proposes, because it would change the shape of the bill.
Secondly, the association has concerns about consultation with district salmon fishery boards and the fact that such consultation has not been written into the bill. The minister listened carefully to the representations that were made at the second stage 2 meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee. Yesterday, she indicated to the association that she is minded to lodge an amendment for Thursday's stage 3 debate, to cover that point and to reassure the association that whenever it is proposed to introduce a regulation, the minister will consult the district salmon fishery boards. It is likely that an amendment to that effect will be moved on Thursday.
The third point on which the association had some difficulty relates to time limitation. We listened carefully to the points that it made. We covered those issues during the various stages of the bill's passage and we are clear that time limitation is covered by two separate mechanisms in the bill.
Yesterday, the association did not raise with the minister any of the other more technical and less controversial points that are in its letter. It was keen to raise those three points with the minister and, as I said, the minister has listened to the point about consultation with boards and is likely to lodge an amendment for Thursday's stage 3 debate.
Thank you.
I should have asked the witnesses to introduce themselves and to say whether other amendments are likely to be lodged, apart from those that have been mentioned during the discussion about the association's letter.
There is likely to be only one Government amendment at stage 3. That amendment, which I outlined, will make it clear that district salmon fishery boards will be consulted.
Could I ask you to introduce yourself?
Sorry. My name is Joy Dunn and I am in the salmon and freshwater fisheries branch of the Scottish Executive rural affairs department.
David Cassidy (Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive):
I am David Cassidy and I am from the Scottish Executive solicitors office.
David Dunkley (Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department):
I am David Dunkley and I am the inspector of salmon and freshwater fisheries in the salmon and freshwater fisheries division.
I would like to ask for a little clarification. Part of the committee's role is to keep a weather eye out for people who have to apply and to deal with subordinate legislation.
New section 10A(3) provides:
"The Scottish Ministers shall have power to make regulations—
(a) on an application under subsection (1) above; or
(b) otherwise",
which is wide. I presume that new section 10A(3A) is being inserted to try to define "otherwise".
That is not my understanding. New section 10A(3)(a) says "on an application" and paragraph (b) covers the position where no application has been made. In the absence of an application, ministers may make regulations on their own initiative. That is the position that is covered by "otherwise"—the shortest way of saying that was to insert "otherwise".
So what is the effect of new section 10A(3A)?
Do you mean 10A(3)(a)?
Yes—sorry, no. I mean 10A(3A).
There was some concern in the committees that there might be conflict between conservation and management of fisheries. The bill was amended to it make clear that conservation and exploitation were not exclusive. I suggest that management is the overarching issue.
There may be tension between conservation and exploitation. The amendment that inserted section 10A(3A) makes it clear that the measures may also have effect in relation to management of fisheries for exploitation and that those two propositions may live together in the regulations.
Right.
I am not indicating that I thought the explanation was clear—I am noting the explanation.
Was the association satisfied by the points that you and the minister made in relation to new section 10A(3A)? On the minister's powers to act in relation to fish and fisheries, where is the dispute between what the association wants and the bill?
The dispute is about the bill treating fisheries as people's fisheries that they manage and putting that ahead of the term "fish" and the conservation of fish. We had a long meeting with the association yesterday. It felt reassured by some of the points made by the minister and our solicitor. The minister has undertaken to write to the association today to confirm all that she said yesterday.
Am I right in assuming that the Salmon Act 1986 is primarily to do with fish as opposed to fisheries?
The Salmon Act 1986 is about salmon fisheries, although among the powers granted to district salmon fishery boards is the power to do such acts, execute such works and incur expenses for the purposes of, among other things, increasing the number of salmon.
The bill will not end up as a stand-alone act; it inserts sections into the part of the Salmon Act 1986 that relates to the regulation of fisheries. Rather than concentrating on conserving the fishery we are taking the line that if measures are provided to allow for conservation of the resource upon which the fishery is based, the fishery will necessarily flow from that. That implies conserving the fish, but it is much better if the fish are explicitly conserved for the purposes of maintaining a sustainable fishery.
The problem that we have with the association's suggested amendment is that it turns that on its head and concentrates solely on the management side.
Thank you for attending. We are sorry to have detained you for so long.
Do members have any comments?
Is David Mundell much clearer?
I am not.
This bill is interesting as, rather than the natural course of a bill starting off with a lot of contentious provisions and ending up with general agreement, it appears to have started off as uncontentious for people with an interest and has become more contentious. Most of the relevant issues will have to be discussed during Thursday's debate. The timetable for the bill has been a bit rushed for the detailed consideration it merits.
I asked some questions, but I do not know whether they fall within our remit. Given the functions with which the committee is charged, I am not sure whether we are required to draw anything to the Parliament's attention on Thursday. We have been seen to make some investigation on behalf of the association. Beyond that, it is for members to act as they see fit on Thursday.
In its press release, the association says that amendments will be lodged on its behalf on the issues about which it continues to be concerned. We can be satisfied that those issues will receive a full discussion.
There is nothing to report on the subordinate legislation.
The issues appear technical, but they are not; they are highly political.