§ Mr. John MacKay
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 30 leave out subsection (6) and insert—'(6) Subject to subsection (5) above, a qualified proprietor in a salmon fishery district shall not be eligible for election, co-option or appointment to the district salmon fishery board for that district in respect of more than one salmon fishery.'.The amendment clarifies the intention of subsection (6). We want to ensure—and have done so in subsection (5)—that a qualified proprietor who is both an upper and lower proprietor in a district may act in either or both capacities. Nevertheless, where he owns more than one upper fishery, or more than one lower fishery, he should not be eligible to be elected or co-opted to the board for that district more than once in the same capacity—that is, as an upper or lower proprietor — and this minor amendment makes the position clear.
§ Mr. Home Robertson
We had some interesting debates in Committee on the subject of one man, one vote—or, as in this case, one proprietor, one vote — and we established that mulitple proprietors would apparently have multiple votes. Indeed, I rashly referred to them in Committee as "block votes". If we were to extend that principle to the other place, I suppose we should find that the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry would have two votes—one for Buccleuch and one for Queensberry —and that in this House the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), the Minister, would have one for each. He should be so lucky.
I gather that the amendment will mean that a multiple proprietor with both upper and lower fishing rights will not be eligible for election, co-option or appointment to a district in respect of more than one fishery, and I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies.
§ Amendment agreed to.