Subordinate Legislation Committee, 31 Oct 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 31, 2000

Official Report 117KB pdf

---

Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill

We deal first with the scrutiny of delegated powers. We have a response from the Executive to the points that were raised about the Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill. Fergus Ewing raised the principal concerns at the previous meeting. Are you satisfied with the response, Fergus?

The response of 26 October is factually informative; in it the Executive refers to section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, but there is an inherent contradiction. On the one hand the purpose of the bill is to take measures necessary to conserve salmon and sea trout, but the letter from the director of the Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards to the rural affairs department, dated August 2000, which the Executive also gave to the committee, makes it plain that the type of measures that it might be best to take might not be within the compass of the bill. That begs the question as to why, if the Executive wants to achieve a purpose, it is not listening to the body, evidence from which it has seen fit to produce to the committee.

The director of the Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards drew attention to the point that he made by underlining it in the letter to which the Executive kindly referred us. Could we highlight to the lead committee that the director of the Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards has drawn attention to the fact that other action, possibly in relation to birds or seals, might be required as an alternative or in addition to the methods that fall within the compass of the bill?

I take Fergus Ewing's point in some respects. However, it is an issue for the lead committee rather than for the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

I do not think that the effectiveness of measures used to promote the salmon population falls within our remit. If Fergus Ewing is concerned about that issue, he might want to raise it with his colleagues who are on the appropriate lead committee; I am not sure whether that is the Rural Affairs Committee.

It is the Rural Affairs Committee, which is meeting imminently. All that we can do is draw those points to its attention. That takes on board Bristow Muldoon's point that we should flag up the points that have been raised in the correspondence and the answers that we have received. As he said, it is for the lead committee to take a decision.