SECOND READING. (Hansard, 21 May 1885)

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE,
in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, this was rather an important Bill, and he must ask the indulgence of the House while he explained the reasons which had induced the Government to introduce it. He had been asked to postpone the second reading of the Bill till after the "Whitsuntide Recess; but it was felt to be desirable that the matter should be discussed as early as possible by this House and by the public generally, for it was one that had excited considerable interest among the fishermen of Scotland, so that a decision should be come to as soon as possible. He regretted that some of the noble Lords who had strong objections to the Bill were unable to be present to-day; but they had given him to understand that they would ro-discuss the principle of the Bill on the Motion to go into Committee upon it, and that they would propose Amendments in Committee. The Bill had two principal objects. In the first place, it gave to the Scottish Fishery Board power to make experiments and to collect statistics with the view of obtaining knowledge upon a very difficult and a very vexed question—the question whether or not the inshore waters on the Scottish Coasts were being over-fished. The second object was to facilitate the recovery of damages by fishermen in case of accidents and injuries to their nets and lines. The Bill was based on the Report, issued early this year, of the Royal Commission appointed nearly two years ago. That Commission was appointed because the fishermen generally on the East Coast of Scotland complained that the fishing on the coast was falling off—that there was less fish caught than formerly; and they attributed that to the increase of trawlers, especially of steam trawlers, on the inshore waters along the coast. They complained, also, that these vessels did great damage to their nets and lines. A great deal of evidence was taken on both these points. Inquiries were held at several places along the coast, and 988 the fishermen stated their grievances to the Commission. They explained, also, how it was that they considered the operations of the trawlers were injurious to the fishings. They stated, in the first place, that they believed these operations destroyed the spawn. They also stated that the trawl destroyed a large quantity of immature fish; that it destroyed the food of the fish, and generally disturbed the ground, frightened the fish away, and that in process of time the ground would be exhausted altogether. In order to obtain some information as to the value of these statements a very eminent naturalist—Professor Macintosh—was appointed to make experiments on board a steam trawler during nine months. He must say that the Professor had displayed very great heroism in the execution of this task, and not being accustomed to seafaring life he had endured very great hardships with extraordinary patience and courage; but the result was that he had amassed a very great amount of scientific knowledge. One of the statements made very frequently to the Commission was that the young fish moved inshore after they were hatched until they attained to a more advanced period of their lives, and that small immature fish were generally caught in shallow water, and that at certain times of the year they were caught in greater quantities than at other times. After taking the best evidence they could on this point, and comparing very carefully all that Professor Macintosh had to state on this particular subject, into which he had inquired for eight or nine months, the Commission came to the conclusion that it was quite impossible to form an accurate opinion upon any of these points. But as regarded the destruction of the spawn and of immature fish, he thought that Professor Macintosh fairly and definitively settled that part of the question by declaring that, with the exception of the spawn of herring, the spawn of all fish floated on the surface of the water, and that the trawl which worked at the bottom of the sea could do it no injury whatever. That was no new discovery, because several scientific men had come to a similar conclusion on more than one previous occasion, and in America and elsewhere many millions of fish had been artificially hatched, so that there was no doubt as to the history of 989 the spawn in this respect. As regarded I the destruction of immature fish by the trawlers, he thought that question was also finally settled; and the conclusion to which Professor Macintosh and the Commissioners arrived was, that there was no wasteful destruction of immature fish by the trawl net. The immature fish brought up by the trawl were not of the more valuable kind; and those so brought up, even if they attained to full age, would not have attained to any considerable size. He had already stated that there was one exception in which the spawn did not float on the surface—namely, the herring spawn, which remained at the bottom of the sea, and it might be—for they had no proof that it actually was so—injured by the trawl. But it was a fact that within the last few years, while steam trawling had been very largely on the increase, the herring fishing had increased also; and while he would not undertake to say that it was impossible that the spawn of herring could be injured by the operation of trawling, yet there was no doubt that many of the apprehensions on that point had disappeared. With regard to the questions of the destruction of the food of fish and the frightening of the fish away from particular grounds, and the necessity for protecting these grounds, the evidence was certainly not so clear as could be wished, and it was thought desirable that a more thorough knowledge should be obtained on these points. They had no proof whatever that cases of fish being frightened away altogether from fishing grounds had actually occurred. The question of gradual exhaustion was a more difficult matter. That appeared to be both possible and probable, and in certain cases to have taken place; and it was extremely desirable that scientific experiments should be instituted, in order to discover, if possible, under what circumstances exhaustion occurred, and how long such fishing grounds took to recover their fertility. To the fishermen this was undoubtedly a most important point, and their case in reference to it was a very hard one indeed. What they complained of was this—they said there were certain grounds on which they and their fathers had fished and toiled for many years, and had earned support for themselves and their families without difficulty, and 990 that these steam trawlers had now come into existence, worked upon the ground, and having caught up all the fish went away to fish elsewhere, leaving the ground useless for fishing purposes, and thus depriving them of the means of supporting their wives and families. That undoubtedly appeared to be a hard case, especially where the firshermen had expended money in constructing or improving their harbour, and must excite the sympathy of their Lordships and of every man who considered the question. But, in the first place, he must point out that the case was not one of trawling as trawling, but of over-fishing. All the Commissions—for there had been two previous Commissions—had reported to that effect. The Commission which reported in 1866—of which Professor Huxley and Mr. Shaw Lefevre and Sir James Caird were members—was appointed to inquire into the fish supplies along the coast, and whether particular modes of fishing involved wasteful destruction, and whether any restrictions should be imposed on existing methods of fishing; and they reported that beam trawling was not wastefully destructive, and that all restrictions on open sea fishing should be repealed. In 1878 another Commission was appointed, which inquired into the results of the use of the trawl as to the alleged destruction of fry and spawn, and also the question about restrictions being imposed on that particular method of fishing. That Commission also reported that beam trawling was not wastefully destructive, that there was no evidence of any decrease of fish on the coasts generally, but that at certain places where there appeared to have been a decrease in the amount of fish there was no evidence that this was due to over-fishing; but they stated that considerable injury had been done to the fishing gear by line trawlers, and that these had increased greatly since the introduction of steam trawling. Now, the Commission which reported at the beginning of this year was, in some points, in agreement with the two previous Commissions; but in one or two important points they differed from them. They reported that there was a falling-off in flat fish and a decrease of herring at certain places in the inshore waters; that in the offshore waters there was no decrease in 991 the total take of fish in the North Sea; that beam trawling was not destructive of the spawn of cod or ling; that there was no proof of any injury to the spawn of herring; that there was no wasteful destruction of the immature fish, or of the food of fish, by the beam trawl; that the number of fish on particular grounds, especially in narrow waters, might be sensibly diminished by the use of the beam trawl; that it had not been proved that the use of the beam trawl was the sole cause of the diminution of fish in territorial waters; and that, in the absence of a proper system of scientific operations in the districts, it was impossible to discover the causes for the fluctuations in the fisheries, or even the degree in which they took place. The important point on which they differed from the previous Commissions was that they were of opinion that the number of fish in particular grounds, especially in narrow waters, might be sensibly diminished by the use of the beam trawl. That was a matter in regard to which they stood much in need of further knowledge. The Commissioners spoke, as well they might, with considerable hesitation on the point; but as regarded narrow waters, such as St. Andrew's Bay, or the Firth of Tay, there could be very little doubt that small areas such as these might very easily lose their productiveness by persistent beam trawling. Recent inquiries had shown considerable ground for believing that inshore fishing had fallen off, and probably from the causes which the Commissioners of 1866 thought it possible such a result might ensue—namely, the great improvement of all the appliances for fishing—an improvement which within the last 20 years had been very great indeed. The nets and lines were of much greater extent and better quality, and they were worked with more skill; and, of course, steam trawling had come into practice since then; and although, no doubt, the trawling was not a wasteful or destructive method of fishing, still it was a most efficient method, and very productive, in the sense that it caught a very great number as compared with the number taken by lines. In such small places as St. Andrew's Bay the presence of eight, or ten, or a dozen steam trawlers must necessarily produce a great increase in the amount of fish-catching in the district; 992 and from all the evidence of Professor Macintosh, and of the fishermen themselves, there seemed little doubt that persistent trawling in such very small areas distinctly diminished the quantity of fish in them. It might be said that if these grounds had a rest by the processes of nature they would gradually be re-stocked. This might be so or not; but there was no doubt that in St. Andrew's Bay, which was the part of the sea as to which they had the best evidence, the fish were smaller than they used to be, and it was the opinion of Professor Macintosh that the grounds never had sufficient rest in order to allow the fish to recover their normal size. On the other hand, however, they had an instance of the utter futility of stopping trawling in the hope that the fish on a particular ground might recover; this was the case of Dublin Bay. There was another instance of a different kind in the history of the trawling industry at Brixham. The number of trawlers there was very great, and the Commission of 1878 showed that no complaint had been made there that less fish were caught by the trawlers than had been caught during the last 100 years. When the last Commission visited this place, the evidence they received was of a conflicting and doubtful kind. It was, therefore, impossible to propose any legislation on this subject without additional knowledge; and the Bill was brought forward to give powers to the Fishery Board to acquire that knowledge. The evidence in the recent Blue Book on the subject of fishing was all of the nature of opinion; with the exception of Professor Macintosh, there was no scientific evidence on which a law could be based; and he believed it was the opinion of experts in connection with the Fisheries Exhibition, as it certainly was his own (the Earl of Dalhousie's), that it was impossible to base any fishery legislation on such knowledge as they at present possessed. This Bill would not satisfy the line fishermen along the coast—of that he was perfectly aware. The great mass of the line fishermen had been encouraged to expect impossibilities, or at least unreasonable things; and it was not to be wondered at that, in their eyes, their case seemed to be peculiarly clear and simple, and that all that was needful was to suppress trawling to a 993 certain extent. Bat there were a few intelligent fishermen who would recognize in the Bill a sincere attempt, not exactly to meet their case, but to endeavour to obtain the knowledge necessary before they could take any steps to meet it. At present they had not sufficient knowledge to deal with it. Among the things which fishermen had been encouraged to ask by some of their friends was, that a sweeping prohibition of trawling within the three-mile limit along the coasts should be enacted. The grounds for this demand were twofold. They said that young fish flocked inshore for food and warmth, and were taken by the trawlers before they reached maturity; and, in the second place, they alleged that the trawlers did not work much within the three-mile waters, and would therefore not be much inconvenienced by a complete prohibition, whereas the old men and boys in the fishing villages along the coast in their small boats could not go far out to sea, and where trawlers worked near the coast no fish remained for the line fishermen. As to the first argument, it was really quite untenable, for, as a matter of fact, fish were hatched at all distances from the coast, and it was impossible to believe that they all Hocked toward the coast. The second argument involved a very large question. It really came to this—that an improved method of catching fish having been invented and approved of by various Commissions ought to be denied the right to fish in certain waters in order that the fish might be caught by those who practised inferior methods. He would not ask the House to consider that, because the Bill, although it gave power to the Fishery Board to prohibit fishing in certain places, only gave that power for the purpose of making experiments. The extent to which the falling off in the fishing was due to trawling was not known, and it was necessary that they should obtain that knowledge before legislation, if legislation were necessary, was introduced. He was not able to state to the House what use the Board would make of the powers the Bill would confer; but he did not suppose they would introduce any sweeping prohibition of trawling within the three-mile limit, because to do so would be, to a great extent, to defeat the very object of the Bill. It would spoil the experiments, because if all the trawling were 994 prohibited within the three-mile limit, it would be impossible to compare th9 results at those places where trawling or perhaps all fishing was prohibited with the results of the observations in those places whore it was carried on. But if the mass of line fishermen were not satisfied with this Bill, neither were the trawlers, who were extremely angry that there should be any idea, even in the way of experiment, of shutting them out from any part of the sea. They considered that they ought to be perfectly free to fish anywhere, and that it was an unwarrantable interference with their industry that the Bill should propose to limit them in any way. They had a Memorial from persons interested in trawling setting forth their views, and, as it seemed to him, with considerable point. They came to this—that trawling did no harm, and was extremely efficient, and that to hamper it in any way would be an altogether unjustifiable proceeding; and, further, that in the natural process of things the line fishing must be expected to give way to trawling, and that trawling should be encouraged rather than hampered, for the community would suffer very greatly if that kind of fishing were interfered with. Now, it was not proposed to hamper the trawlers in any way further than was necessary to conduct the experiments which were absolutely required in order to settle the question. Unless these experiments wore made and careful statistics obtained, it was perfectly certain that, from time to time, there would be outcries from the line fishermen that their fishing was being destroyed. This Bill, he believed, did all that it was possible or desirable to do at this moment. It would make it possible for the Fishery Board, not only to make experiments, but to supervise the fishing all along the coasts; and, in view of the grievances put forward by the fishermen, it was necessary that no time should be lost in procuring and in using those powers. As to what would be the future of the line fishermen as opposed to trawlers, it was not for him to say; hut he must say that, after the evidence which had been laid before the Royal Commission over which he had had the honour to preside, and after giving the subject grave consideration, he felt extremely sorry for the prospects in some respects of the line fisher- 995 men, because it was his own opinion that steam trawling was in the future bound in the nature of things to increase. He would advise the line fishermen not to encourage the whole of their family to take to the business of line fishing, as they frequently did now. Let them bring up one or two of their sons to other trades; and for themselves, if only they could save a little money, let them club together, buy larger boats, and go farther to sea. If they could manage to take to trawling themselves, as so many of the English fishermen had done, by all means let them do so. There would still be room left for some line fishermen along the coast; but they would have to contend with a new and more efficient mode of fishing, and one that was certain to increase and extend its operation in spite of all that they or anybody else could do to prevent it. There was no use in their trying to stop trawling. It was impossible, and would be unjustifiable, to stop it. The best thing they could do was—if only they could save money enough to do it—by increasing the size of their boats and going farther afield, or bettor still by adopting trawling themselves, as so many of the English fishermen had done, to endeavour to compete with them on more equal terms. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN
had not come down with the intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill; but after hearing the speech of the noble Earl he felt very much inclined to move that its second reading be deferred for six months. The whole gist of the noble Earl's speech was that he and the Commissioners knew nothing at all; that on every point except one further inquiry-was required, and that one point was that there had been a certain amount of destruction in the narrow waters. On every other subject the noble Earl seemed to know nothing; yet a Bill affecting the interests of a large class was brought in and based on that inadequate knowledge. There were objections, in his mind, to the Bill as it stood. In the first place, the Commission was appointed to inquire into the trawling over the United Kingdom, and yet their Report dealt almost entirely with Scotland 996 alone. It seemed to him that was a very unfortunate way of proceeding in a case like this, when there were only 37 of these trawlers in Scotland, and 700 in England. Why should they legislate for so small a proportion with a view to legislation for a larger number hereafter? If that sort of legislation were to go on, they would have one law for Scotland, and a different one for England and Ireland, and nothing could be more unfortunate than that. He had been very much surprised to hear the noble Earl say that they did not know what use the Fishery Board proposed to make of the powers to be given them under this Bill. But in exercising their power to make experiments, they might stop trawling at any part of the coast, or fishing of any kind whatever; and they might do so in a manner that might be extremely hard for the fishermen in the locality so dealt with. He thought it was extremely dangerous to delegate such powers to the Fishery Board, which was composed principally of the Sheriffs of Scotland, a paid Chairman, who was the late Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and the Secretary. But he had also to object strongly to Clause 7, which empowered sea fishery officers to award damages in cases of damage caused by one boat to another, for these sea fishery officers were not fitted to exercise such a power. They had no legal training, nor were they accustomed to take evidence; and it was not necessary, because the matter could be dealt with at small cost in the Small Debt Courts of the country. He hoped some better reasons would be given in support of this Bill when it reached the Committee stage. On one point, however, he entirely sympathized with the noble Earl, and that was in the need for some better protection for the line fishermen. He believed that the necessity for legislation had arisen almost entirely from the manner in which the trawlers had ridden rough-shod over the rights and feelings of the line fishermen. If they had shown any consideration for the rights and interests of those who, on account of the smaller size of their boats and other causes, were unable to move about to distant waters, as they, the trawlers, could, he did not think that legislation would either have been called for or been necessary. Although, as he had said, he felt very much in- 997 clined, after the statement of the noble Earl, to move the rejection of the Bill, he should not do so on that occasion.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
expressed his satisfaction at the determination come to by his noble Friend not to move the rejection. Living on the coast, he had had good opportunities of becoming acquainted with the heart burnings that existed on this subject; and he was thankful to Her Majesty's Government for introducing the Bill. It was impossible to abolish trawling altogether. It was a well-known fact that 35 tons out of every 100 tons of fish brought into the London market were the produce of trawling. His noble Friend had objected to legislation for Scotland which did not apply to England; but he would point out that the geography of Scotland, as regarded the sea, was different from that of England. In Scotland they had very narrow seas and filths, and it was in these that damage was done by trawlers. The line fishermen worked close inshore, and the trawlers often were to be seen, eight or ten of them, coming close inshore among them, and they often cut the lines of the fishermen, and did a great deal of damage, and caused a very bad feeling; yet these steam trawlers generally rejoiced in giving to their boats such names as Pet, Harmony, and so on. He believed the line fishermen to be about the most industrious of Her Majesty's subjects; and, looking to the desirability of keeping up a supply of men for the Navy, it was undesirable to do anything that might be injurious to them. All he apprehended this Bill was intended to do was not to interfere with trawling as a general rule, but simply to regulate it within short distances from the shore in narrow territorial seas, so that this hardy race of industrious line fishermen should not be driven from the sea. No doubt, certain powers were given to the Fishery Board; but if these powers were excessive there was this security—that before any bye-laws passed by the Board became law, they must obtain the sanction of the Secretary of State. He thought this would be a sufficient security against any extravagant use of those powers, and he hoped the House would not object to the second reading of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY
agreed that there were elements in this Bill 998 which might enable them to arrive at a solution of a question which was affecting the minds of the line fishermen in every district of Scotland. But he would point out that the chief ground on which the noble Earl moved the second reading was that it would enable them to collect statistics. Everyone would agree on the value of that; but on Clauses 4 and 7 very important powers were conferred on the Fishery Board. He thought that Board had done a great deal of good in Scotland. He must say that although any bye-laws they might frame would require to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, still the Bill put in the hands of the Board very large powers in framing those bye-laws, and also of appointing sea fishery officers, with heavy powers of awarding damages. These were points which were of great importance; and he ventured to suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether it would not be better to refer it to a Select Committee that these points might be duly considered?

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN
said, he would be sorry if it were supposed he had said anything against the Fishery Board. All he had said about it was that he thought the powers here conferred were too great.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
said, the noble Marquess complained that the Bill was based upon ignorance; but he thought he himself had stated that to the House. They did not know enough about fishing, and they wanted to know more. As to the reason for dealing exceptionally with Scotland, it was to be remembered that the Commission had been appointed because of complaints that had come from that country. Besides, there was no Fishery Board in England. The recommendations of the Commissioners, so far as they applied to England, and could be carried cut, were being carried out by the Board of Trade. At present, he could only say that he had had no formal communication with the Scotch Fishery Board on the subject, though he had discussed the matter informally at some length. He would endeavour to obtain from the Board such information as would enable him, on the Committee stage, to make some statement as to the manner in which the Fishery Board intended to carry out the powers intrusted to them by the Bill, which he trusted would be satisfactory 999 to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian).