news/editorial

14 June 2015 News/Editorial

The Government’s plan under its Wild Fisheries Reform consultation is that the River Tweed Commission (RTC) should be abolished and in its place some form of charity (a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation “SCIO”) would take over running Tweed river management.

The motivation for this appears to be wholly negative in that it started with the proposition “regardless of the facts or how good a job they do, we are going to get rid of the river boards…. and that includes the Tweed”.

How Andrew Thin, who carried out the initial Review, has approached this is absolutely the wrong way to go about change, because what you should do is “due diligence” on existing structures, find out what works and what doesn’t, how they are financed, who the people are you must keep etc etc etc….and only then suggest ways of improving/changing things.

But the sad fact is that we all know that Andrew Thin never asked any questions about how we do things now….his mission was to get rid of us, despite the awkward fact that we do an excellent job, and to not let the facts get in the way of that overriding objective.

One of the facts he ignored, deliberately or otherwise, is in Article 9 of Part 1 of the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006 (Tweed’s very own bespoke legislation) which says under (a) as its first function for the RTC:

“The Commission may do such acts, execute such works and incur such expenses as may appear to it expedient for…..the protection or improvement of the salmon and freshwater fisheries in the district”.

Under Article 43 of Part 3 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003 the same “protection or improvement of fisheries” is also the whole purpose of the other 40 Scottish river boards.

Now, I am no charity law expert, but it does not take a genius to work out that that clause, the first function/purpose of the RTC and other river boards, and one of the utmost importance to all fishery owners, cannot possibly be included in the objects or functions of any charity.

Why not?

Because charities cannot have, as one of the central planks of their whole being, the “protection or improvement” of highly commercial operations, which salmon fisheries most certainly are.

It would be like setting up a charity “for the protection or improvement of the makers of Mars Bars and other confectionery manufacturers in the district”.

And if Government tries to set up a new management organisation without that clause or equivalent in it, you can imagine the howls of protest from all fishery owners.

So, any new management organisation set up as a charity will not work, as many of us have always suspected, if that vital “protection or improvement” clause is retained, as, one would assume fishery owners will argue, it must be.

Can we really be about to go to a new management system where "protection or improvement of salmon fisheries" is not mentioned at all, whereas up to now it has been the only or main purpose?

It would seem inconceivable, but is it?

It would have been so much better if Andrew Thin had spent a little more time over his Review and had gone into it with an open, not closed, mind about river boards, such as the RTC, and about what they do.

Even politically unacceptable fishery owners have rights and Governments may be able to to ride roughshod over them, but should they?

Do you wonder at our anger down here? It is not my business to give away what happens at RTC meetings, but I will tell you that there was the most virulent and determined display of unanimity I have ever seen at the RTC meeting last Monday, all 80+ Commissioners’ and owners’ hands going up with an audible noise in support of the Chairman, Douglas Dobie, and his proposed robust approach.

All Andrew Thin had to do was talk to us first, but he didn’t, or at least he wasn’t listening.

We are where we are, and it is not the RTC or any other river board’s fault.

We down here on the Tweed can gently suggest to Government how to institute change, for instance by replicating the RTC constitution in 15 or so consolidated regional boards around Scotland, and maybe even fund the less well off regions, at least partly, from a salmon (only, not trout or any other fish) rod licence, not by taking funds away from the better off rivers (which would be absurd).

Maybe one day somebody will ask us, for after all we have been operating 90% of the system Government appears to want for the last 40 years, with fishery owners in a minority on the Board, responsibility for “all species” not just salmon and sea trout, and a board of 81 people from all around the catchment. We already work (indeed as we have for many years past worked) to a 5 year revolving Management Plan developed and monitored by the Tweed Foundation…....also something the Government proposes in its Reform consultation.

Now, why would you want to get rid of the RTC when we already do all that?

You tell me…...is “not liking river boards” really a good enough reason?