§ 12.40 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Re-commitment) read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walston.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESThis Bill has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, but there are further Amendments to be made in Committee. I shall therefore go through the Bill in the usual way.
§ Clauses 1 to 16 agreed to.
§ Clause 17 [Taking and sale of certain crabs and lobsters prohibited]:
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON)These Amendments are not of very great weight, but I think they are valuable. Their object is to remove a discrepancy between the maximum penalties for taking spawn carrying crabs and for taking spawn carrying lobsters. The penalties relating to crabs date from 1877, and are £2 for a first offence and 1140 £10 for a subsequent offence. Those relating to lobsters date from 1959, and are £100 for a first offence and £200 for a subsequent offence. Therefore, as your Lordships will see, the discrepancy arises from the passage of the years, and also from an accident of drafting by which lobsters have attracted a penalty designed for more serious offences.
I can assure your Lordships that those penalties in no way reflect Her Majesty's Government's view either of the biological relative importance of crabs and lobsters, or indeed of their gastronomic value. The Law Commissioners recommended that these penalties should be assimilated, and the fines now proposed are £25 for a first offence and £50 for a subsequent offence. These are in line with current penalties for similar fishery offences, and I trust that your Lordships will agree to them. I beg to move.
LORD HAWKEBefore the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us what is the offence? Is it eating the things?
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 36 leave out from ("offence") to the end of line 38.—(Lord Walston.)
LORD HAWKEI was asking the noble Lord whether he could tell us what the offence is. He gave us the amount of fines but we do not know what the offence is.
§ LORD WALSTONI am sorry; I had assumed that the noble Lord might have read the Bill. The offence is taking lobsters.
§ LORD WALSTONCatching them.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WALSTONI beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, leave out from ("offence") to the end of line 11.—(Lord Walston.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WALSTONI beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, leave out ("also").—(Lord Walston.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WALSTONI beg to move the last Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 13, leave out ("forfeit") and insert ("a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence, £25 and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, £50, and the court by which the offender is convicted may order the forfeiture of").—(Lord Walston.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.
§ Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Report received; Bill read 3a.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, as your Lordships appreciate, this Bill was an experiment in the field of consolidating our Statute Law to enable Amendments of a rather wider character than usual to be made. I only mention it now because on Second Reading of the Bill some disquiet was expressed in some quarters of the House at this innovation. The whole House agreed that we should try it as an experiment to see what happened.
In point of fact, our most experienced Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has had no trouble with it at all, except on the one point which was the subject matter of the Amendments just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, which, on the whole, they thought it preferable to leave to the House rather than to deal with themselves. But it is a Bill which has been open in this House, as of course in another place, to amendment at any stage, and there has been no loss of Parliamentary control in any way. I venture to express the hope that this experiment having been successful it may lead to our being able to consolidate our Statute Law in a rather wider field than we have been able to do before. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
§ Moved That the Bill do now pass.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.