Committee
Rural Affairs Committee, 19 Dec 2000
19 Dec 2000 · S1 · Rural Affairs Committee
Item of business
Salmon Conservation (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Much of the evidence that the committee received on this bill demonstrated considerable concern over the lack of time limitation for any regulations that are empowered under the bill. My amendment demands a robust commitment to time limitation. I feel, as do many others, that there is a distinct lack of commitment in the bill to a time limitation on regulations. That is despite Rhona Brankin's commitment during the stage 1 debate in the chamber, when she said:
"Whether regulations controlling exploitation are made in response to an application or on the ministers' initiative, the intention is to make them time-limited."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 337.]
Such a commitment is lacking in the bill.
Another strong piece of evidence that we received was to the effect that each river is an entity on its own. To my mind, changing conditions on individual rivers demand that all regulations should be subject to review—precisely because of the individuality of the rivers. Having a review does not mean scrapping effective regulations; it merely means monitoring their effectiveness. The minister referred to effective monitoring in her evidence to the Rural Affairs Committee on 7 November.
My amendment requests an annual review of regulations that are enforced under the bill. I hope that the committee will see that not simply as more work to be done but as an effective way of monitoring the regulations and keeping them alive. I believe that allowing for such reviews would strengthen the bill.
This is an enabling bill and therefore part of a larger picture. The Executive has suggested that annual reviews should not be burdensome but part of a continuing process to create effective measures for the conservation of salmon. That is what the bill is all about. I believe that my amendment underlines that process. I hope that the minister will look on it favourably.
Amendment 25, in the name of my colleague Jamie McGrigor, offers an alternative to my amendment. I think that we are both trying to achieve the same thing. I do not wish to comment in detail on Mr McGrigor's amendment because he will do so himself. The convener is right to suggest that the two amendments are alternatives. It would be a mockery if both were passed. What concerns me about Mr McGrigor's amendment is its either/or nature. I expect that he will comment on that. My amendment adds robustness to the bill—a robustness that, as many people have pointed out, is badly needed.
I move amendment 24.
"Whether regulations controlling exploitation are made in response to an application or on the ministers' initiative, the intention is to make them time-limited."—[Official Report, 23 November 2000; Vol 9, c 337.]
Such a commitment is lacking in the bill.
Another strong piece of evidence that we received was to the effect that each river is an entity on its own. To my mind, changing conditions on individual rivers demand that all regulations should be subject to review—precisely because of the individuality of the rivers. Having a review does not mean scrapping effective regulations; it merely means monitoring their effectiveness. The minister referred to effective monitoring in her evidence to the Rural Affairs Committee on 7 November.
My amendment requests an annual review of regulations that are enforced under the bill. I hope that the committee will see that not simply as more work to be done but as an effective way of monitoring the regulations and keeping them alive. I believe that allowing for such reviews would strengthen the bill.
This is an enabling bill and therefore part of a larger picture. The Executive has suggested that annual reviews should not be burdensome but part of a continuing process to create effective measures for the conservation of salmon. That is what the bill is all about. I believe that my amendment underlines that process. I hope that the minister will look on it favourably.
Amendment 25, in the name of my colleague Jamie McGrigor, offers an alternative to my amendment. I think that we are both trying to achieve the same thing. I do not wish to comment in detail on Mr McGrigor's amendment because he will do so himself. The convener is right to suggest that the two amendments are alternatives. It would be a mockery if both were passed. What concerns me about Mr McGrigor's amendment is its either/or nature. I expect that he will comment on that. My amendment adds robustness to the bill—a robustness that, as many people have pointed out, is badly needed.
I move amendment 24.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Con
We move on to item 2. Members should have a copy of the groupings and the marshalled list of amendments. If everyone has those papers, I propose to start dea...
Section 1—Conservation of salmon and sea trout
The Convener:
Con
Amendment 8, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 9, which is also in the name of the minister. I ask the minister to move amendment 8 and ...
The Deputy Minister for Rural Development (Rhona Brankin):
Lab
The Executive's amendments 8 and 9 apply specifically to the sections that will be inserted into the Salmon Act 1986 as sections 10C(2) and 10C(3)(b). The ef...
The Convener:
Con
If no one else wishes to comment on the two amendments, and if the minister does not wish to make a winding-up contribution, I will put the questions.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment 9 moved—Rhona Brankin—and agreed to.
The Convener:
Con
Amendment 24, in the name of Alex Fergusson, is grouped with amendment 25, in the name of Mr Jamie McGrigor. Before asking Mr Fergusson to speak to and move ...
Alex Fergusson (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Much of the evidence that the committee received on this bill demonstrated considerable concern over the lack of time limitation for any regulations that are...
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I must declare an interest in fisheries—the same interest that I have declared before. Is that good enough?
The Convener:
Con
You may wish to give us some brief details.
Mr McGrigor:
Con
I have an owning share in a fishing syndicate on the River Awe in Argyllshire. I am a member of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, chairman of the Loch Awe Improveme...
At an earlier stage, it was suggested that imposing a time limit was covered by section 10D(2)(a):
"regulations may make . . . provision . . . in relation to . . . any time or season".However, I understand that the considered view now is that those words r...
The Convener:
Con
We now have an opportunity for contributions from the floor.
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
I am puzzled by the amendments that we are discussing, because they seem to be opposites. The problem that I have with Alex Fergusson's amendment is that it ...
The Convener:
Con
Can you provide clarification, Jamie?
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Yes. Does Mr Rumbles wish examples of regulations that would not be time limited?
Mr Rumbles:
LD
Yes.
Mr McGrigor:
Con
Examples would be regulations for the collection of information by fishery boards, or the banning of the sale of rod-caught fish, which has been mentioned. W...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
We cannot accept both amendments 24 and 25, can we?
The Convener:
Con
The reason that one amendment is not deemed to pre-empt the other is that they amend different parts of the bill. Technically, there is nothing to stop us ap...
Alex Fergusson:
Con
I wish to answer Mike Rumbles's point. My amendment seeks to achieve an annual justification for the continuance of an order made under this bill. That adds ...
Mr Rumbles:
LD
Alex Fergusson has still not persuaded me.
Mr McGrigor:
Con
My point is that some regulations may appropriately be time limited, while others may not. If things kept having to be reviewed, the pressure of work would b...
Mr John Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD):
LD
I get rather confused between amendments 24 and 25. I do not know what the end result would be if both were accepted.
The Convener:
Con
The end result would probably be a further amendment at stage 3.
Mr Munro:
LD
Mr Fergusson's suggestion is that we should have a review of the regulations at least once a year. That would be impossible, and would not give any credibili...
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP):
SNP
On the time limits, it may be useful to point out that the committee, at paragraph 46 of its stage 1 report, considered the issue carefully. The conclusion r...
Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
Lab
I recall the concern voiced about time limitation; people in my constituency spoke to me about it. However, I do not recall the committee deciding that time ...
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
I have several concerns about Alex Fergusson's amendment, because it says that the regulations should be reviewed"not less than once a year".Many of the dist...