Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006

My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to join the noble Duke in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, to his office and especially to this House and to have listened to his interesting exposition of not entirely transparent legislation. He will bring to his task considerable experience of the law and of other matters, which will enable us to enjoy a direct understanding of the complexities which it will be his task to unravel for us. His appearance tonight has commanded great interest, and we welcome him. I have a few questions to raise in addition to the remarks of the noble Duke. I confess that I did not find the provided Explanatory Memorandum entirely clear on the extent of the operation of the law. The purpose of the order is clear. It seeks to unify the administration and management of the fisheries. That makes enormous sense. As I understand it, however, the Scotland Act provided for the laying of orders related to the border rivers: the Tweed and the Esk. On the face of it, this goes beyond that. The Tweed district is being provided for, and however sensible that may be in terms of unifying management, we must be satisfied that the legal basis for this is as suggested. The Explanatory Memorandum states:"““This is a definition of an area larger than that of the River Tweed””." It then states that this was ““envisaged by the Scotland Act””. I found that a little hard to understand. It did not seem to conform with the plain meaning of the Act, which referred to the border rivers. I have no doubt, however, that that matter can be elucidated further. The noble Duke properly referred to the importance of the fisheries to the anglers, visitors and tourists. But there are probably local fisherman used to fishing with methods other than rod and line. There is some provision for that in the use of the net and cobble, but I would like to know what consultations took place, and whether the Government were involved in consultation or relied on other bodies to carry out these consultations with other fisheries’ interests. Article 74 of the order, ““Power of Commission to prosecute in England and Wales””, applies only to England and Wales. I assume—I hope that I can be reassured on this point—that the case that will be taken by the commission will be subject to the order and that the order amends English law which would otherwise be applicable. There have been, and no doubt still are, substantial differences between Scots and English law on salmon and freshwater fishery matters. I assume that these English differences will not be invoked in the case of actions brought under Part 5 of the order. Otherwise, I welcome the purposes behind the order and hope that it will make easier the task of managing these important fisheries.