§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state why proceedings have not been taken against the master or owner of the steam trawler Triton, M 93, for trawling withing the three-mile limit off Portnaguran, Island of Lewis, on 31st May last; why, seeing that the Crown Counsel and the Fishery Board for Scotland were aware that the Triton was recently at Milford Haven, no action was then taken; and why the Crown Counsel has advised no further proceedings unless the Triton returns to Scotch waters?
§ * THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.) Clackmannan,I have ascertained that the statements of the fishermen who made the complaint against the Triton were not of themselves sufficient to support a charge of trawling within the three-mile limit, and further 13 that no damage was done by the Triton to the complainers' nets. It was, therefore, resolved to obtain, if possible, statements from persons on board the Triton (other than those who could be charged), but even where there is an existing charge and warrant—which there is not in this case—much difficulty has been found in obtaining evidence in England in such cases, and neither the Procurator Fiscal, nor any agent appointed by him, could assert a right to go on board the Triton in England for this purpose. In these circumstances, it was not considered necessary to send the Fiscal from Stornoway to Milford Haven, or to instruct anyone on the spot to endeavour to get access to persons on board the Triton there. If, however, the Triton returns to Scotch waters, an opportunity may be found of obtaining the desired information.