PROTECTION ORDERS TASK FORCE REPORT

Contents -

1. Letter of explanation to SFCA club secretaries from George Glen - 20 January 1999

2. Letter from Lord Sewel of 3rd January 1999

3. Protection Order Task Force Report - Introduction

4. Chapter 1 - Application Process - Guidance

5. Chapter 2 - Operation and Monitoring of Existing Protection Orders

6. Chapter 3 - Issues for Future Considerations

7. Annex A - Protection Orders Currently in Force

8. Appendix 1 - Protection Orders - A Guide for Applicants

Please see enclosed a copy of the final report of the Scottish Office Task Force into Protection Orders. You may, or may not, have been aware of the existence of the task force, and the fact that I was a member. The work was confidential so I couldn't talk freely about it until now. I am very pleased with the outcome and hope you can spend a little time to read the report and communicate this to your club members.

I have listed overleaf some parts of the report that are specifically relevant to coarse anglers.

For me, it was a great honour to be personally invited to participate in this Task Force. It was rewarding to be able to contribute in general and also to specifically input the opinions of the coarse anglers of Scotland, thanks to my position in the S.F.C.A. and my past work on the Secretary of State's protection order committee.

We have come a long way in the last couple of years. Now coarse angler's views are not only listened to by government and other important bodies, but are specifically sought out and given equal hearing with other branches of the sport.  Indeed I was stunned to see the cover and back cover of the report including pictures and names of mainly coarse fish. That was the idea of the Scottish Office officials, not me! They are now well aware of coarse angling.

The Protection Order and Primary Fisheries legislation is far from perfect, there are many practical problems and coarse fish are not recognised.  Hopefully the recommendations in the report will help improve matters.  Many coarse anglers will find the subject a bit dry and are entitled to wonder just how relevant this is to their fishing (it will affect us - more in future). 

Whatever the answer to these questions, I know that the cause of coarse angling in Scotland has been advanced a long way by our involvement in the process. We are now recognised and respected in the eyes of key government departments and have built in opinions and recommendations that will have to be picked up and addressed by the Scottish Parliament in the future.  This exercise is another step towards our aim of changing the fisheries legislation to recognise and protect coarse fish. Don't hold your breath, it will take a very long time, but in my opinion we have less to fear now than a few years ago.

I'd like to thank all of those who input to the S.F.C.A. response to the Scottish Office last year and especially those who I relied upon for advice throughout the year.

I still wouldn't claim to be an expert in the protection order subject but I would be more than happy to attend any club meetings or events to discuss this report and try to answer any questions. Please feel free to invite me along.

If you have any specific questions or comments on the report, please address them to me in the first instance - we will also be able to direct comments to Lord Sewel if appropriate.

Steve Clerkin will be in touch soon with dates and venues for the S.F.C.A. A.G.M. and match committee meetings.

Happy New Year and Tight Lines.

George Glen

Chairman

Specific paragraphs in the report concerning coarse fish

Introduction 1.4 - 'increased access ….enhanced conservation …. sustainable
management …. of all non-migratory fish species'.

Chapter 1.4 - representative bodies includes the S.F.C.A.

Chapter 1.10 - 'all freshwater fish …… applicants list all known fish species present and if appropriate what provision is made to fish for them.'

2.6 - stricter and clearer monitoring procedures may enable coarse angling representatives to highlight problems with access to coarse fishing in existing protection order areas. The Secretary of State will now have a greater understanding of the rights of coarse anglers under the act and we may be able to propose changes to the operation of specific orders where appropriate.

3.1 - I am pleased that this paragraph is mainly made up of my words, or should I say wise words from Ralston McPherson!   I am confident that this chapter will be picked up by the Scottish Parliament as the first input to any future changes in fisheries legislation.

Appendix 1.22b - we should be able to find out the content of the annual reports of liaison committees. Where coarse anglers have a particular problem relating to a protection order we have the opportunity to make an objection to the Secretary of State which should at least be considered as part of this monitoring process.

Appendix 2.4.a - The Scottish Office officials came up with an application form including the tick-box system you see with the fish species included. You could argue with the chosen species but that is not important. The impressive fact is they included a valid short-list of coarse fish species without specific prompting from me.

Appendix 2.4.b - I like the 'If not, why not?'.

Lord Sewel -
Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries

3 January 1999

Dear Mr Glen

I have not had an opportunity to study the Report by the Task Force, of which you were a member, on the arrangements surrounding Protection Orders made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976.

I enclose for your retention a copy of the published version of the Report. I am arranging for it to be placed in the libraries of the Palace of Westminster. I will also be inviting existing POs and other bodies who have shown an interest in the matter to offer their comments on Section 3.

I believe that the recommendations which the Task Force have made in Sections 1 and 2, and which have been incorporated in the new application and guidance forms, will considerably improve the current arrangements both as regards improving the efficiency of the application process and enhancing the operation and monitoring of Protection Orders approved.

I am grateful to you for the time, effort and contribution which you have to the task.

------------------------------------------------------

TASK FORCE REPORT

1. Following a public consultation on the operation of Protection Orders (POs) made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976, Lord Sewel, Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries at The Scottish Office, announced on 24 April 1998 the establishment of a Task Force to review the application, operation and monitoring arrangements.

2. Membership of our Task Force was as follows:

Mr G M Thomson (Chairman)
Dr Jean Balfour
Mr D A Dunkley
Mr A D D Forgan
Mr G Glen
Mr A D Jamieson
Mr D Keith
Mr B D Davidson (Secretary).

3. Our remit was:

"Having regard to the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 and in particular Section 1, to:

a. review arrangements for applications for Protection Orders. This to include contents of applications, consultation arrangement, advertising, etc;

b. examine practical arrangements for ensuring that the proposed additional angling opportunities are delivered;

c. consider what arrangements should be put in place for monitoring and reporting on the operation of POs.".

4. In previewing our task, we recognised that at a time when a more holistic approach to river management (eg through the proposed Water Framework Directive) is being encouraged our remit was a relatively narrow one. Reflecting the wider dimension, we saw it as important that the desirability of increased access for angling as highlighted in Section 1 of

the 1976 Act is seen within a context of enhanced conservation and sustainable management

of all non-migratory fish species in the river.

5. This Report, which was prepared with that consideration in mind, comprises:

- Chapter 1 which deals with application processes and guidance.

- Chapter 2 which addresses the operation of POs and how they should be monitored

- Chapter 3 which looks beyond the current Act and highlights areas where future action might be considered.

- Appendices 1 and 2 (revised guidance and application form) which take into account the advice given.

1.1  There are currently 13 POs in operation. These are listed at Annex A. Interest in PO status continues to be expressed from other areas. However, in addition to potential applicants and dissenters which these expressions of interest might generate, we feel there is an academic interest in the subject as well as a need to correct current misunderstandings, even amongst those involved with POs at present. All of this suggested a need to review the current guidance note and application form.

1.2 It may seem self-evident but we feel that the guidance note should make clear what the purpose of POs is. It should explain were POs do not apply (eg tidal waters or in salmon fisheries) and provide guidance on the areas to be covered.

1.3 The current description of those eligible to submit PO proposals is reasonable, but there needs to be a great involvement at the outset of all riparian owners. In addition, the commitment which promoters are taking on long-term (in terms of monitoring the implementation of the proposals) needs to be highlighted.

1.4 The issue of openness and transparency is fundamental to the arrangements for publicising and advertising PO proposals. We have reservations about the need to advertise in the Edinburgh Gazette (hardly on many people's reading lists) but we recognise this to be a statutory requirement at present. The greater use of other newspapers, both local and national, has attractions but we accept that the costs could be prohibitive. Clearly, there has to be balance. One possibility for achieving wider dissemination would be by ensuring that proposals are specifically brought to the attention of representative bodies with an interest in the matter. This was, these bodies could contribute to the process b circulating details in their newsletters, periodicals, etc.

1.5 In part reflecting the points made at 1.3, we consider that those promoting POs should be made aware that success carries with it an obligation to ensure that they continue to function as proposed and that suitable arrangements are put in place to provide the Secretary of State with the annual monitoring information which he requests. With that in mind, we feel that whilst the establishment of a liaison committee is not a mandatory requirement, such a body will be necessary if the initial and continuing obligations are to be met. Consequently, we consider that promoters of POs should be expected to establish such a liaison committee at the earliest possible stage. We revert to this matter later in the report.

1.6 A revised guidance note is at Appendix 1.

1.7 The current application form has been in force for some time. It needs to be revised to reflect some of the considerations already mentioned. In our view, there is a need to clarify some of the existing questions and to elicit more detailed information which will better inform the Secretary of State when considering proposals for POs.

1.8 We regard it as essential that all riparian owners in an area which is proposed for a PO should recognise the responsibilities to which they are committing themselves. It is therefore essential that those proposing the application should canvas interested parties for their views at the outset, and that applicants are asked to demonstrate that this had been done.

1.9 We recognise that no all riparian owners in the proposed area of the PO might wish to participate. In some cases there may be sound reasons for this (for example where the area concerned merely covers the narrow width of an owner's house/garden). Overall, however, we consider it essential that major gaps and the reasons for them are clearly identified and taken into account in determining the coherence of the proposal.

1.10 A factor not often appreciated is that POs cover all freshwater fish (other that salmon and seat trout) in inland waters in Scotland ie not simply trout. The fact that species of fish other than brown trout are present in some rivers and lochs makes it important that provision is made to fish for these species, where appropriate. We suggest that the application form should be so drafted to ensure that applicants list all known species present and if appropriate what provision is made to fish for them.

1.11 We recognise that there are situations where fishing takes place by implied consent. Since it is likely to be difficult to quantify such fishing activity, we feel that it should be disregarded in terms of determining the additional fishing which the proposed PO would confer.

1.12 Consistent with the holistic approach which we consider desirable (see paragraph 4 of the Introduction), we regard it as essential that information on the conservation/management aspects of the proposal should be included. We feel it important to emphasise that re-stocking is not necessarily the solution to poor levels of fish availability and indeed could be counterproductive. Conservation/management proposals need to consider other aspects.

1.13 One of the concerns that has been expressed about POs is over the timing of fishing availability. It has to be recognised that this availability often reflects local custom and practice (eg no Sunday fishing). We accept that a universal approach on the matter is not appropriate but it is important that the issue is fully recognised at the application stage and is not left to become a continuing problem during the operation of the Order.

1.14 A revised application form is at Appendix 2.

2.1 Part of our deliberations covered the duration of POs and the adequacy of monitoring arrangements to ensure that individual POs continue to meet their objectives and obligations. Permit availability and enforcement of POs were also discussed.

2.2 The duration of individual POs was originally limited to 3 years. Orders were then renewed for a further period of 3 years, provided that the Secretary of State was content with their operation over that period. From 1988, all new POs were made without time limit and this was then extended to previously fixed-term POs. The reason for this change was for administrative convenience and to avoid the burden of costly and time consuming 'renewal' orders.

2.3 The view reflected in the public consultations was that the operation of POs require periodic in-depth review with the facility to make adjustments in the light of that review. We subscribe to that view but this is not possible under current legislation. We therefore agree that new POs should be for a fixed term.

2.4 We recognise that a period of 3 years is not sufficient to allow a PO to develop its activities. Our preference, therefore, is for a 5 year fixed term. This would allow sufficient time for conservation and other improvements to take place and arrangements for fishing access to be well established, thus permitting a meaningful review of a PO and a considered view of its operation to take place during the final year.

2.5 Where the review reveals no problems, we see no reason why the PO should not be renewed for a further 5 years without repeating the application process. Clearly, where fundamental changes are envisaged, that process may have to be undertaken (but see our comments at Chapter 3.6). Where the review reveals failure to comply/deliver, it is open to the Secretary of State to refuse renewal. We foresee a possible difficulty where problems of a lesser nature are revealed which perhaps need tome for resolution. In these circumstances, we believe that, to avoid the risk of a hiatus, the Secretary of State should be prepared to consider a short-term roll-over extension, say up to one year.

2.6 Close and rigorous monitoring of the operation of POs is clearly crucial. Our impression is that this may not always have been the practice and that this may not always have been the practice and that this may consequently have given rise to problems not being tackled at the time they arose.

2.7 Under statute, the Secretary of State may call for such information from proprietors on the operation of Orders as he sees fit. At present, annual reports are requested, but we feel these need to reflect more fully the information which formed the basis of the original application and consent.

2.8 Earlier in this report we touched on the importance of establishing a Liaison Committee at the inception of the PO process to co-ordinate the implementation of the PO, monitor its progress, recommend improvements and submit annual reports to the Secretary of State. Subject to local circumstances, membership of the Liaison Committee should comprise representatives of proprietors, river managers, fishery conservation interests, local authorities and anglers, including anglers from outwith the area of the PO who rely on the permits provided by the PO. In the light of the duties being undertaken by such committees, we believe that some form of local financial arrangements should be put in place to meet the inevitable expenses.

2.9 One of the criticisms levelled against POs concerned the lack of availability of fishing permits. We accept that POs should have clear, reasonable and effective arrangements for obtaining permits. We do not regard it as appropriate to try to prescribe specific arrangements: these will depend on the particular area concerned. However, we do see scope in appropriate circumstances for Tourist Offices acting as permit outlets.

2.10 Fishing without permission is a criminal offence under a PO. This has caused, and doubtless will continue to cause, resentment. It is therefore important that POs deliver what is proposed in the way of additional access. Equally important, the positive conservation and enhancement aspects need to be made known and acted upon. We believe that a better understanding generally of what POs are about can only lead to a more responsible use of the resource. That has to be the aim.

2.11 Our hope is that all will see that a properly run PO which provides added access consistent with sound management, conservation and environmental practices is in everyone's interest. However, we recognise that enforcement and prosecution mechanisms are necessary. We note that the Secretary of State's Inspector of Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries has an ongoing dialogue with the police and other enforcement authorities, and communication with these agencies on fisheries crime is improving. This process is supported by a generally increased awareness of the implications for wildlife and their habitats.

CHAPTER 3

ISSUES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION

3.1 Legislation permitting the creation of Protection Orders was introduced in 1976. The intervening period has seen significant changes in attitude towards the environment, in culture, and in modern fishing practices. For example, there has been a considerable growth in commercial trout fisheries and interest in coarse fishing. Such changes are likely to continue, with particular emphasis on sustainability and the need to conserve fresh water fish and their habitats. Legislation clearly needs to keep up with these changes.

3.2 Reflecting this, and as a result of our comprehensive look at current administrative arrangements for Scotland's freshwater fisheries, it was inevitable that we would identify issued which, although falling outwith our terms of reference, required to be addressed. This Chapter records the issues concerned. If accepted, these would require legislation.

3.3 We acknowledge that furrier changes in the regulation of freshwater fisheries will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We offer the following as a guide to the kind of issues which the Parliament might wish to bear in mind should change be contemplated.

A more holistic approach

3.4 Section 1 of the 1976 Act focuses on "additional access". This is understandable given that the Act was to change unauthorised fishing from a civil to a criminal offence. However, maintaining sustainable fisheries is not simply about fishing opportunities or, as we have commented earlier, about re-stocking. Wider considerations such as habitat protection and fisheries management inlcuding conservation of the resource need to be taken into account.

"Blanket" catchment protection

3.5 We were advised that in their responses to the consultation exercise on POs, many people felt that only those offering access, and those who could justify non-access for conservation reasons, or exceptionally as described in paragraph 1.9, should receive statutory protection for their fishing rights. To some extent, reducing the area to be covered by a PO (for example a part-catchment PO such as Don and Clyde) can reduce this particular problem. The overall issue of "blanket" protection has been addressed by a number of organisations, including the Scottish Anglers' National Association and the Institute of Fisheries Management. We believe that their proposals need to be explored further.

More flexible POs

3.6 Rivers and their fish populations are subject to change. For example, fish stocks can rise and fall. POs should therefore be capable of adjustment. We feel that POs should be more flexible to allow prescribed areas to be enlarged or reduced without having to resort to the full re-application procedure, with associated cost and time.

Problems with fishery owners withdrawing access once PO is granted

3.7 Recent experience has shown that this can be a problem. This may arise more often as a result of lack of awareness by new owners rather than intent. Much of it could be prevented by informing new owners of fishings. We think there might be merit in PO obligations being recognised as a registered burden on the property concerned (ie through the Register of Sasines).

Fisheries Management

2.8 With the exception of the Tweed, there are no arrangements on Scottish rivers for combined management of all species of fish including salmonids. This was touched on in the Scottish Salmon Strategy Task Force Report and has featured in other reports dating back to the Report on Scottish Salmon and Sea Trout Fisheries by the Committee chaired by Lord Hunter in the 1960s. We have suggested earlier the need for a holistic approach to river management. This clearly would embrace all fish. We would not want to see any new bodies created but feel there is scope for building on existing organisations.

ANNEX A

The following Protection Orders made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 are currently in force:-

The Rivers Tweed and Eye Protection Order 1980;

The Upper Spey and Associated Waters Protection Order 1982;

The River Lunan Catchment Area Protection Order 1983;

The River Tummel Catchment Area Protection Order 1983;

The River Tay Catchment Area Protection Order 1986;

The West Strathclyde Protection Order 1988;

The River Earn Catchment Area Protection Order 1990;

The River Don Catchment Area (Part) Protection Order 1990;

The Loch Morar and River Morar Protection Order 1992;

The Loch Awe and Associated Waters Protection Order 1992;

The River Clyde Catchment Area (Part) Protection Order 1994;

The North West Sutherland Protection Order 1994'

The River Arkaig, Loch Arkaig and Associated Waters Protection Order 1995.

APPENDIX 1

1. This note is intended to provide guidance on Section 1 of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries Scotland) Act 1976. It is aimed primarily at those who may be submitting applications for Protection Orders under the Act and those on whom responsibilities and obligations will fall as a consequence of the granting of such Orders but is also intended to provide background information for those who may wish to express reservations about Order applications.

2. The note is for general guidance; it is not, and should not be treated as, a comprehensive or authoritative interpretation of the Act. It is divided into four sections which describe the application, consideration, nature of the Orders, and monitoring processes.

APPLICATION

What is a Protection Order?

3. A Protection Order is intended to provide increased access for anglers wishing to fish for freshwater fish but such increase must be compatible with enhanced conservation and management. In return, those promoting an Order receive added protection against illegal fishing: such fishing becomes a criminal offence. Protection Orders do not apply to tidal waters, nor are they applicable to salmon and sea trout fisheries. Thus, the questions which need to be addressed in considering proposals for Protection Orders are:

- what additional angling opportunities are to be offered;

- what measures for enhanced management and conservation are intended;

- how are these to be reconciled.

4. The Act provides that an Order shall relate to inland waters in a catchment area or such part thereof of a river. This could be, for instance, a whole river catchment area, including lochs; part of a river system ie main stem of a river only, or a single loch or system of lochs. There is no fixed rule about the composition and size of the area but it should be sufficiently coherent and self-contained that it can be described in a way which anglers would easily understand.

Who may submit applications?

5. Proposals may be submitted by, or on behalf of, "an owner of land, to which pertains a right of fishing for freshwater fish in any inland waters in the area to which the proposals relate, or the occupier of such a right". For this purpose an occupier is "a person who is in possession of that right as tenant under a lease of land to which such a right pertains or under a contract which by virtue of Section 4 of this Act is deemed to be a lease". Under Section 4, any written contract which authorises a person to fish, which is for a period of at least one year and which is paid for in some way (cash or kind), is deemed to be a lease.

6. The Secretary of State may therefore receive proposals from any of the following:-

owners, tenants of sub-tenants of land to which fishing rights pertain or people or organisations having written agreements with such persons, permitting them to fish, provided that such agreement are for at least a year and are paid for.

7. Proposals may also be made by agents acting on behalf of any of these categories.

8. It is crucial that a prospective applicant consults all those riparian owners in the area who are likely to be affected by a proposed Protection Order. It is important that all these individuals are fully aware of the responsibilities and obligations which they will assure in the event of the application being successful.

9. An applicant should complete the application form in draft in the first instance. Guidance on completion is provided at the rear of the form. Ideally, an application should consist of a single form (describing the consolidated proposal). A map should be supplied showing the extent of the areas where access to fishing is proposed and any sections therein where fishing is not to be made available.

10. Draft proposals should be sent to The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department at the address given at the end of this note. Under the terms of the 1976 Act, the Secretary of State must "consult a body which in his opinion is representative of persons wish to fish for freshwater fish in inland waters in Scotland". For this purpose the Secretary of State has asked the Scottish Anglers National Association to form a Committee. On receipt of the draft proposals the Scottish Office will normally consult that Committee for advice. In the light of guidance given by the latter, which will often follow direct contact with the applicant including a site visit, the Department will advise the applicant on how to take the matter forward, including the submission of a final application.

-------------- ------

Who should be informed of proposals?

11. As indicated earlier the proposer should endeavour to inform all those likely to have an interest in the matter, including riparian owners, as early as possible. Signature of all riparian owners/occupiers who support the application should be forwarded with the draft application.

12. If the Secretary of State is satisfied, after further consultation with the Committee referred to above, that the formal application is, on the face of it, sound, he will require the proposers to give notice of the general effect of the proposals, stating where and when copies of them can be inspected and giving an opportunity for objection or other representations. This is done, at the proposers' expense, by advertisement in the Edinburgh Gazette and such newspaper(s) as the Secretary of State may direct – normally one or more national and local newspapers circulating in the area to which the proposals relate.

13. The Secretary of State may also require proposers to display notices on the banks of any waters in the area, or in other places such as local libraries. Proposers will also be required to send a copy of their proposal to relevant angling organisations as directed by the Secretary of State.

What if someone has reservations

14. As indicated at paragraph 12, those objecting to or holding reservations about an application may submit comments to the Secretary of State following advertisement of the proposal.

15. Legislation does not stipulate or restrict those who may submit comments but greater weight is likely to be given to those who have a direct interest in the area proposed and whose misgivings are directly founded on the proposals (eg access, conservation, management).

CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS

16. If no objections are received following advertisement (or if there are objections but they are all withdrawn) the Secretary of State may make a Protection Order. Should there be no objections and no requirement for a public inquiry, the Order should be drafted within 2 months from the date for final representations as stated in the advertisement. The coming into force date of the Order will usually be the commencement of, or closing date of the brown trout fishing season (15 March or 7 October). If there are objections to the proposed Protection Order, the Secretary of State will, after consideration, decide whether he will nonetheless make an Order or that he will call for a local inquiry.

17. Any local inquiry will be conducted under the normal rules for holding public inquiries. Notification of the time, place and date of the inquiry would be sent to those who had lodged objections and would also be publicly advertised. On receiving the report of the inquiry, the Secretary of State would decide whether or not to make a Protection Order.

18. The Order is a Statutory Instrument. An example is attached. Once made the Order is published, by the Secretary of State, in the Edinburgh Gazette and in such other papers, circulating in the area to which the Order relates, as he thinks fit. Copies of the Order, or notices about it may also be put up at such places and the Secretary of State may direct.

19. An Order may be make for a specific period of time or without limit of time. A fixed-period Order may be renewed without going through the full procedure described in this note if the Secretary of State has received no complaints concerning the implementation of the Order or if, in his opinion, the complaints are insignificant or frivolous.

Liaison Committee -

20. Under the Act the Secretary of State may, at any time, require the owner or occupier of a fishery in the prescribed area to provide information regarding the implementation of proposals relating to their fishing rights.

21. If and Order is made, the proposers will be asked to establish a Liaison Committee to co-ordinate the implementation and monitoring of the Order. In anticipation of this, proposers may with to put in place acting liaison committees at the outset. The Liaison Committee should include representatives of those who wish to fish in the area as well as those who are managing the fishery. Examples are riparian owners, anglers, fishery managers and any others with an interest in freshwater fishing in the area. The Committee will be asked to submit reports on the operation of the Order to the Department annually. In light of the duties being undertaken by a Liaison Committee, the proposers should consider what local financial arrangements should be put in place to meet members expenses.

22. The information required in the annual report is as follows:-

a. whether there has been any change in the availability of fishings as outlined in the proposals;

b. the demand for, compared with the availability of, the various sorts of fishing (eg night fishing, Sunday fishing, use of different baits or lures, brown trout fishing, fishing for other freshwater fish, etc);

c. details of any changes in charges made or proposed for the various permits;

d. information on conservation enhancement improvements, management and restocking which may have been carried out in the area during the year to which the report relates;

e. details of the membership of the Liaison Committee and their interest.

23. Any person contravening the prohibition made by an Order is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [£400]. Sections 2 and 3 of the Act provides for wardens to secure compliance with the Orders. Any owner or occupier of freshwater fishing rights in the area of the Order may nominate persons to the Secretary of State for appointment as a warden. Appointments are made by the Secretary of State but any remuneration or management of the wardens is the responsibility of those nominating them. A description of the powers of wardens is given in the note attached.

24. Applications for Protection Orders, or requests for further information about such Orders or applications, should be made to:

The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department
Pentland House (Room 408A)
47 Robb's Loan
EDINBURGH
EH14 1TW