Official Report 233KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. A paper was circulated to members after the consultation period closed. On 7 November, we are scheduled to hear evidence on the bill from interested organisations and from the Deputy Minister for Rural Development. Today, the committee must first identify the areas in which we want to take further evidence and then decide from which groups we want to hear, bearing in mind the limited time that we have available. Members will remember that all those who were consulted by the committee were informed of the date on which we would take evidence and were asked to consider keeping that date clear so that we could invite them at short notice. As I said, a paper containing suggestions on whom we might wish to see has been circulated. Are there any comments on that paper?
The group of five bodies and boards that has been suggested seems appropriate. Could we agree to take evidence from them?
Would our inviting representatives of those five organisations to come and deal with the core issues meet with the committee's agreement?
How much time are we allocating to the oral evidence of five organisations?
It was hoped that we might be able to hear from the organisations together, and to allow cross-questioning and discussion of the issues. That would allow a more efficient use of time, but it would be necessary to allocate a reasonable period.
That is my point: I simply hope that we will have a reasonable amount of time to hear from five organisations. Could you give us more of an idea about the time, convener?
We can allocate as much time as members think necessary. I have not thought about how much time would be required.
What are we thinking: an hour, an hour and a half, half an hour?
It would probably be two hours to discuss the whole issue—but we might want to bring in other organisations as well.
Our briefing paper from the senior assistant clerk makes a suggestion for the start of the meeting: that we simply ask the witnesses to respond to questions. That would shorten the time required.
Indeed. For the purpose of getting this into the Official Report, I will read out the list of organisations we propose to consult on the core issues. They are the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, the Scottish Anglers National Association, the Salmon and Trout Association, the Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland and the Atlantic Salmon Trust. Would those organisations adequately represent the interested parties on the core issues of the bill?
You have not referred to the possible invitation of individual proprietors, convener.
Indeed, Jamie: I propose also to cover three further issues that would require to be addressed. The group of organisations that I have just listed reflects the core interests as represented in the responses that we received.
Are there any representatives from local authorities—people who represent communities—who might have an interest in the matter? I am sure that the organisations you have listed are appropriate and are involved in the issue, but it might be useful to have someone along to represent the general public interest.
There has been no response from such organisations. We examined the responses that we received and we have considered the organisations that are typical, or that represent typical responses.
I can see the argument of inviting riparian owners, as Jamie McGrigor was suggesting, but if we do that we would have to invite anglers as well.
We have included various groups that represent angling interests in the list of five organisations.
Fishery boards are made up of some lower and some upper proprietors—upper proprietors are people who fish the upper parts of the river. I wonder whether proprietors who run fishing businesses are really being consulted. One or two run enormous businesses.
We have to consider whether we need to consult proprietors as a separate interest or whether they are covered by some of the organisations that we have mentioned.
I think that they are covered by the fishery boards. Anyone who as an interest in the preservation of fishing interests will be a member of a reputable board.
Some rivers are not covered by boards.
That may indeed be the case, but there are proprietors on boards. We would not consult every proprietor.
I am told that there are about 10,000 of them.
Their interests will be reflected by the boards. My only slight concern is that all the organisations from which we will take evidence are broadly of the same view; will we hear from anglers or fishing interests that are opposed to the bill? There are not many of those, but will they have adequate opportunity to express their disagreement?
Richard Lochhead said that we have no evidence from local authorities. Were the views of local authorities sought?
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities was included on the list of organisations the committee agreed it would consult, but we have not received a reply.
I should have declared an interest: I have a one sixth share in a fishing syndicate on a river in Scotland.
Do we feel that proprietorial interests are adequately represented by the organisations from which we will take evidence?
Do we require advice on the European convention on human rights and the management of border rivers in relation to the bill? We could choose to rely on the views of the minister.
I notice that Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland drew the committee's attention to ECHR implications. The summary of responses says that the regulations that are made under the bill will need to be scrutinised for ECHR implications. Should we invite the Law Society to make more detailed comments in writing?
Could we ask the Law Society to come to the committee?
We could do that, or we could invite it to make a more detailed written submission, which we could use when we discuss the matter with the minister.
It might save time if we invite the Law Society to make a written submission and thereafter decide what to do.
We will ask the Law Society to do that.
The Law Society has written us a letter, but it is on only two sides of A4. We may want it to expand on that.
Indeed.
Why should the border rivers be treated as a separate entity?
The issue has been raised in the consultation.
There are various reasons why they should be treated separately. For example, one can fish for salmon on a Sunday in England but not in Scotland.
What relevance does that have to the bill?
The rivers have to be managed differently. There are different regimes on opposite sides of the border.
Surely the Association of Scottish Salmon Fishery Boards could cover that.
Yes. We can raise with the minister any matter that has to be addressed.
There are issues for a couple of rivers for which the regime is different, but I am sure that the Executive can deal with them.
We will approach the minister and ask the Law Society of Scotland about the ECHR. Are members content to do that and to accept the five nominations on the paper?
One small point to make is that some local authorities own fishing rights, such as Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council. I do not know whether a representative from COSLA should take part in the consultation.
We have decided that proprietorial interests are adequately represented through the bodies that we mentioned.
That was the question. It could be argued that the fishery boards represent the interests of such local authorities, but I do not know whether the authorities are represented on those boards.
Are we content with the list and the proposed additions?
When we contact the Law Society of Scotland about the ECHR, we could ask about the use of bailiffs to enforce many of the actions that are to be taken under the bill. There may be conflict, as the bailiffs are appointed by the fishery boards. Will the measures be implemented fairly, whether against a landowner, a member of a fishery board or someone who simply has a fisheries interest or who is fishing under a licence?
I will ask the clerk to ensure that that issue is raised.
What about the written submissions from individuals?
All written submissions will be considered in preparation of a report.
Are we discussing the committee members who are being sent out to have discussions with river boards?
No.
I received a request to visit the Lochaber fishery board on behalf of the committee.
The visit to Lochaber is on this Friday coming.
But I did not know the grounds on which I was invited. I am not a member of the committee, and I said so when I was invited. I was told that that did not matter.
Are we not required to advise the Rural Affairs Committee of an intention to make a visit?
If members wish to accept an opportunity to make a visit outside their constituencies, they might need to claim expenses from other than their normal member's travel budget, which can be used only locally. If members wish to use the committee's budget, the committee would like to know when and where members intend to go.
There is certainly an invitation to attend a visit on Friday.
I received one, but I did not know whether it came from the committee or another body.
The invitations came from the fishery boards.
There seems to be one glaring omission from the key groups of people who will give evidence. It is a shame that we cannot take evidence from poachers. [Laughter.] Perhaps John Farquhar could help us out on that.
Who knows? The committee might have quite a bit of experience of that, but I suspect that no one would be willing to admit it.
Poaching is a foreign word, Fergus—it is not in the English language.
You are a Gaelic speaker, of course.
Previous
Budget 2001-02Next
Petitions