§ MR. CATHCART WASON (Orkney and Shetland)said he trusted that the matter he now desired to call attention to was one on which Scotchmen of all opinions were agreed. They brought the question forward in the interests of bare and simple justice for the people. They were appealing for protection of their property, living and lives, and it was not too much to ask that that smal modicum of justice which was theoreti- 190 cally accorded to all His Majesty's subjects should be extended to them. He did not believe there was a Scotchman in the House who in his heart did not support the Resolution he now had the honour to move. He regarded this question as a matter of grave national importance, affecting as it did the whole well-being of the country. He was not one of those who thought the future of this country was to be nothing but a question of bricks and mortar, wholly dependent for its food supply on foreign countries, and that rural life would become ancient history, and he thought the danger of the food supply, which was present now in the minds of Ministers, should be sufficient incentive to grant these people justice, and thus enable them to live upon the land of their forefathers. Fishing was the sole means of livelihood of many districts in his constituency, and if that went down and was ruined, owing to the constant depredations of trawlers, the people would inevitably be driven from the land and come to swell the starving populations of the towns, which would be a serious matter for the serious consideration of this House. Steam trawlers came within the three-mile limit and took that which they had no right to take; besides which they destroyed a vast amount of food, and thus brought starvation to the homes of many in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. They had been told that these trawlers contributed to the naval defence of the country 250,000 seamen, but he believed that the majority of the sailors who manned these trawlers were foreigners. It was true that these trawlers brought an enormous amount of fish to the market, but much of it was often sold for manure, and large quantities were often taken back and thrown into the sea, because it could not even be sold for manure. The injury done to the fisheries must indeed be great when even the great trawling companies were interesting themselves in this matter. They found that day by day they had to go farther a field, because the grounds that used to yield a fair supply did not now yield sufficient to pay a fair wage to the men engaged. There were trawlers and trawlers, honest and dishonest, and he, of course, was 191 only referring to those trawlers who contravened the law.
The great ocean was a mystery to all, but there was ample room for science and capital to make every effort to increase the food supply of this, country without coming to take away the livelihood of the fishermen and destroying their homes. With the resources at its command the Scottish Office did all that could be reasonably expected of it. All the complaint he made of the Scottish Office was that their weapons were rusty and out of date, and that they wanted something better than their existing measures to deal with this vital question. They had been told that patrolling was distasteful to the British Navy, but this he did not believe. He believed that no work could be more congenial to the Navy than to protect the fishing industry of the country, and to show the popularity of the Navy he would only mention that when an unfortunate accident overwhelmed the "Active" subscriptions were raised throughout Orkney and Shetland for the sufferers in that disaster. During the last month or two he had presented petitions from practically the whole of Shetland, and from practically all the inhabitants of the North Isles of Orkney, and in one reply from the Office he had received occurred the following sentence:—
Lord Balfour cannot but think that there is a good deal of exaggeration in that part of the petition which deals with the state of things as it now exists.That was in a letter of March 23rd. In the Shetland Times of April 4th, less than a fortnight after the above letter, reports appear of several trawlers being brought before the Sheriff's Court at Lerwick, and there were also reports in the same paper of vessels prowling about the fishing-ground without lights, cutting a boat's lines to pieces, and almost running her down. That is more than an answer to his Lordship's suggested exaggeration, and the same paper comes to the natural conclusion that for every one caught ninety go scot free. It takes as much pluck and two-o'clock-in-the-morning courage for an open boat to go and try and take a trawler's number as it would for one of us to go downstairs unarmed to try and capture a blood- 192 thirsty burglar. The trawlers think nothing of threatening the defenceless fishermen with steam and hot cinders, and sometimes even attempt deliberately to run them down. During the last few years the coastguard were entitled to report illegal trawling. He thought they should be allowed to go further; that they might be provided with suitable steam launches in order that they might not only carry on their ordinary duties for the protection of the revenue but might be a check on these evildoers. If such steam launches were provided greater and further security would be given to the fishermen. The total take of fish for the month of March last in Shetland was 450 tons, valued at £450, as against 4,000 pounds three years ago and 2,000 two years ago. Of course there had been a good deal of bad weather, and the fishermen might not have been able to do their best, but the fact remained that the fisheries were deteriorating, and there was nothing else to depend on. There was no agriculture and no industries, and if the fishing stopped or was taken away the country would be turned into a desert. It simply meant that the population would either be reduced to starvation or would have to leave the country, and every well wisher to the country who recognised how much we depended upon the people of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for the supply of sailors for the Navy would regard that as a most deplorable result. If nothing was done in the next few years, not only would fish become infinitely dearer in this country, but thousands of families would be reduced to want and ruin. He begged to move.
§ MR. BLACK (Banffshire)seconded the Motion. He said he could not help thinking that so far as Scotland was concerned this was a matter of even greater importance than that which the Committee would discuss to-morrow—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would present his Budget—because so far as Scotland was concerned this was a matter of life itself. They had heard what would be the ultimate result in the northern parts of Scotland unless this matter was attended to soon. He 193 believed the Government were not altogether run sympathetic. What was wanted was more backbone at the Scottish Office in dealing with the matter, and he hoped one result of the debate would be to make good this defect. Nothing in our tables of statistics was more pathetic than the figures relating to the industry now under discussion. In ten years line fishing had been practically thrown to the winds. Even the existing law had been loosely administered, and he hoped the Government would see that it was more strictly enforced in the future. There was a marked increase of trawlers, but there was no increase of preventive measures. His hon. friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland had suggested a means of dealing with this without materially increasing the outlay, and his suggestion was that a greater preventive force might be engaged. He suggested that occasionally some of the Admiralty gunboats, in addition to the Fishery Board cruisers, might be employed for this purpose. At the present time the trawlers knew exactly what the movements of the Fishery Board cruisers were, and that was not the way to detect the crime which was being perpetrated by the trawlers. He would give the Committee an instance. A gentleman residing in the constituency of his hon. friend went out to fish in the bay, not far from his place of residence, and while fishing there a trawler came into the bay and trawled all over the water. That was what would continually happen unless there was a complete patrol. He thought the Admiralty gunboats were admirably suited for this purpose, and it would afford the men on board an opportunity of doing some useful work.
The second suggestion he wished to make 194 was that the penalties for illicit trawling when discovered, should be increased. Unless his information was very faulty ho understood that it was a very common thing for a trawler to have over £120 worth of fish on board, and consequently it paid to go and take £120 worth illegally when they only ran the risk of being fined about £50. He suggested, in the first place, that the penalties should be largely increased, and in the second place that they should be exacted against the right person. Very of ten it was only the captain who was tried, and he was under the impression that it had been held that the captain was the only person responsible. The person to be tried ought to be the person who employed the captain and pocketed the proceeds. If an illicit trawler was prohibited from landing fish for three or six months, he thought they would hear very little of illicit trawling in the future. He thought they ought to do something more than was being done a t present in regard to taking more severe measures to deal with trawlers carrying a foreign flag. What was there to hinder the Lord Advocate introducing some measure by which foreign trawlers should be placed upon a list which could be circulated at the various ports? If the illicit trawlers, which were mostly owned by the inhabitants of Great Britain, could be easily identified it would be a very simple thing to prevent them landing fish in Great Britain, and they might also subject their employees to the laws and penalties of this country. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of his hon. friend, and he hoped that they would have a satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman, and a distinct and definite promise that something more would be done to remedy these evils.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the protection afforded by the Government to the fishing interests round the coasts of Scotland is entirely inadequate."—(Mr. Cathcart Wason.)
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)said the Government should insist upon the trawlers keeping outside the three mile limit, because at present they came in after dark and destroyed the spawn, and were, consequently, bringing ruin upon the line fishermen. A petition had recently been forwarded to the King signed by 2,000 people in the Island of Lewis, which showed that the line-fishing industry, which used to be a source of wealth to that island, had been utterly ruined. These trawlers came during the night, and not only covered their numbers, but used no lights. Under those circumstances, what possible chance had the line fishermen to prevent their industry being ruined? The suggestion made that coastguardsmen should have launches and facilities for getting at these trawlers was a good one, for they would in that way be able to get the numbers, and prosecutions could follow. The Secretary for Scotland ought to approach the Admiralty for assistance in the way of gun-boats, and, failing that, the Secretary for Scotland should apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for money for additional fishery cruisers to police the seas and protect the industry of the line fishermen. He could not understand why the Government were so blind to the importance of protecting and preserving this great national asset, the line fishermen, because they wanted men 196 for the Navy, and the line fishermen provided the very material they required. The sons of the line fishermen were bred and born to a seafaring life, but the course the Government were now adopting was simply to drive these people into the slums of large cities where a weakly race would grow up instead of the hardy population of the fishing villages. He had spoken upon this question many times, and he hoped the Lord Advocate would give some satisfactory answer. He was glad the Secretary for Scotland had the courage to visit the Island of Lewis, and he hoped the noble Lord now realised that something must be done for the 30,000 people residing in that island. The Colonial Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland were the only Ministers who had had the courage to go across to the Island of Lewis, other Members of the Government knew very little about crofter life. He trusted that good would result from the visit paid by the Secretary for Scotland to the Island of Lewis, and he hoped the Government would see the importance of doing something to ameliorate the condition of the people of that island. These were matters which required the serious consideration and the best attention of the Scottish Office.
§ MR. BIGNOLD (Wick Burghs)supported the Motion, and said that from time to time he had had opportunities of examining the books kept in connection with the line fishing trade, and he could assure the Committee that the amount of money realised by 197 the line fishermen was hardly sufficient to pay for the bait with which they fished. The trade of the line and drift fishermen was on the verge of extinction, and hundreds of them were being driven quite recently to the herring fisheries. It appeared to be considered that when they had caught the fish it did not matter how they caught it because it was an article of food and must be considered accordingly. But surely it was only reasonable to take into consideration the fact that these trawlers, with lights out and their numbers covered, came in generally on a Sunday night near the shore, and within fifteen minutes completely filled "the far end of the" net with small fish, rock, and stones to such an extent that this one-third of the catch became pulp, and was absolutely destroyed. It might be urged that the remaining two-thirds of the catch, was good fish, but anyone who went to Billingsgate Market would see two prices of fish, one for trawled fish, and the other for hooked fish, and the latter fetched the highest price. It was a well-known and admitted fact that when the trawlers remained outside the three-mile limit they did not destroy the fish, and this fact was a proof that a large quantity of the fish sold in Billingsgate Market was caught within the three-mile limit. Unless the Government went to work in earnest, and properly policed our shores, there was only one inevitable result, and that was that in a very short time the trawlers would totally exterminate the fish round our coast, and would destroy the industry of a most praiseworthy set of inhabitants. He cordially supported the Resolution.
§ MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)said there was one very important point upon which he hoped the Lord Advocate would make a statement. He wished to know what progress had been made with the negotiations that the Government were conducting with the North Sea Powers in regard to trawling in the Moray Firth by foreign trawlers. He should be the very last person to criticise the policy of the Government in closing the Moray Firth, although he admitted that the trawling industry had a certain grievance in that respect. He did not, however, think that it was a great grievance, because the fishery reports showed that the catch of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth was probably not more than one-half per cent. of the total. No doubt it was irritating to British trawlers to see foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth. He understood from a statement made by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that some negotiations were going on. Those who were taking an interest in this question would be pleased to hear what progress had been made. They did not know the nature of these negotiations, and he would be pleased to hear whether they referred to the Moray Firth or to the three-mile limit. The fisheries round our shores could never be properly policed without some extension of the present boundary. He thought His Majesty's Government was somewhat to blame in this respect. He understood that the International Law Society, of which the Lord Chief Justice was president, had passed certain resolutions proposing that there should be an international congress to discuss this very important question. He understood that in 1895 the Dutch Government actually applied to our Government with the view to the opening of such 199 negotiations, but our Government distinctly resented the proposal. He thought that was unsatisfactory. He could not see why there should not be a certain limit for fishery matters, and another limit for international matters. The three-mile limit was extremely arbitrary. The reason it was chosen was that it was the range covered by a cannon shot from the shore at the time. A cannon shot now carried far beyond the three-mile limit.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said he had never complained of the ventilation of this subject of the fisheries. After listening to the debate he was rather at a loss to know how the speeches delivered in its course were held to support the Motion. That Motion was an unhesitating condemnation of the Government for giving inadequate policing to the northern seas; but the mover had disarmed him at once by disclaiming that it was in any sense a party question, and by doing more than justice to the work of the Scottish Office and of the Fishery Board, because he said he was quite certain that they had done everything they could with the means which were at their command. It was quite true, of course, that the hon. Member who seconded the Motion did not quite follow that line, but his criticism was of such a general character that it did not do anyone much harm. He himself was far from wishing to make this question a party matter either. He did not see many Members on the Front Bench opposite, but the fact that the question was not dealt with when they were in office—he did not say it as a matter of party recrimination—showed that they probably felt that they 200 could not deal with it. There were two views always in a fishery question, and although they slid into each other it was perhaps as well to discriminate between them. There was what he might call the natural history question—that was to say, how far the food supply was really injured by the operations of the trawlers. He had never hesitated to give as his humble view that trawling could not go on in inland waters without causing a certain amount of harm, but at the same time he recognised that the subject was full of difficulty, and that it had given rise to varied opinions even among experts. Nobody could read the Fishery Board's Report of last year on the evidence brought before the Committee on undersized fish without feeling that this was a question on which there were a variety of opinions. Many Members felt that the mere question of inland waters was a drop in the bucket, and that it depended Upon the great fishing banks in the North Sea generally. Another question was the extent of reserved ground for the line fisherman to exercise his calling. That was only to be supported on very different principles, especially when they came to consider negotiations with foreign Governments. The North Sea was the common property of all nations, and it, was to the interest of all that the fish supply should not be diminished. He had been asked about the extension of the three-mile limit to a thirteen-mile limit. He could not specifically answer that question, but, generally speaking, the negotiations were at the present moment mainly directed to the protection of inland waters and not to any general extension of the territorial limit. It was all very well to remind them that the range of cannon shot was the probable origin of the national doctrine of the 201 three-mile-limit, but it must be remembered that a general doctrine was a very difficult thing to alter, and although the three-mile limit might be an anachronism it would be very difficult to get it altered, because it took with it questions of sovereignty and the right of jurisdiction of the sea.
He now came to what they were supposed to have left undone. He did not need to defend himself more than to take the frank admission of the hon. Member who moved the Motion when he said that they had done all they could with the resources at their command. He thought that the attack, such as it was, had been made because they did not have more cruisers. They would only get more cruisers in two ways, either by having more money or obtaining further assistance from the Admiralty. Hon. Members had never yet persuaded the House as a whole that the policing of the sea for this purpose was a matter of Imperial concern, in the sense that they would get Imperial money for it. The cruisers they now had were paid for out of Scotch funds. Some years ago they had a grant from the Government and they persuaded the people of Scotland that it would be good to use a certain amount of money, with the result that they had a private policing establishment for the purpose of protecting the fishermen. The consequence was that Scotland was the only part of the three kingdoms which had a private police establishment. Such protection as was now provided was provided by local effort. It was not out of the way to remind the hon. Member who moved the Motion that the district he represented had never formed itself into a fishery district, as it could do under the Act of 1895, and had not taken any 202 steps towards local effort for the protection of local fisheries. The consequence was that there were other parts of the Kingdom which would like very much to have protection, but they had never yet persuaded the House to vote funds out of the Imperial Exchequer. As to the position of the Admiralty he was afraid it was useless to say that it would be a popular thing for the Admiralty to do a little chasing of the trawlers. Although the Admiralty gives a certain amount of assistance, he should be really concealing the true situation if he said he thought there would be the slightest chance of getting more assistance from the Admiralty. The defence of the Admiralty was that their ships had other things to do and that they could not spare any more ships for use for this purpose. It was not a question of misunderstanding between the Departments, and if the Admiralty said they could not detail more ships for this purpose, they did so on their own responsibility and the attack must be made on the Admiralty. The suggestion had been made with regard to penalties. These could not be altered without legislation. Personally, he was anxious that the penalties should be made greater, not only in pecuniary amount but also in such a way as would provide for getting at the people who made the profit instead of at the unfortunate skipper. Any movement in that direction would have his hearty support. The suggestion of Mr. Black as to foreign trawlers was impracticable. It was not possible by an act of administration to prevent foreign trawlers from coming into the ports. There was an Act of Parliament which said that landing at Scottish ports was illegal, and if so they might prevent any fish being landed. The matter had not been discussed in a 203 full House and he thought cogent reasons could be advanced for not taking the steps suggested by the hon. Member.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfar)said a sentence dropped from the Lord Advocate which threw a very lurid light on the way the interests of Scotland were attended to in this and other matters. The hon. and learned Member said quite truly that the Scotch Members had never yet succeeded in persuading the House that this grievance was so important that additional steps should be taken to endeavour to remedy it. That was just the complaint which his hon. friend had brought forward in moving the Motion, namely that the interests not only of his constituency but of Scotland generally were so remote to a great many Members of the House that it was difficult to get these matters dealt with. The Scotch Members were all alive to the fact that the fishing industry of Scotland was a much more important interest than the fishing industry of England. He believed that was the reason why they had the separate police establishment of which the Lord Advocate made mention, and which was perfectly justified by the importance of the fishery industry of Scotland. The Lord Advocate reproached the constituency of Orkney and Shetland for having taken no steps to form a Fishery District Committee there. The Lord Advocate would remember that there had only been one effort over the whole of Scotland to form a Fishery District Committee under the Act, and that that effort was frustrated by the objection of the representatives of one small burgh, which under the provisions of the Act it was quite open for them to 204 make. That rendered the provisions of the Act entirely inoperative. That was a point which was discussed during the discussion of the Bill in this House. It was the duty of Government to punish the lawbreakers, and he hoped the Lord Advocate would persuade the Government to bring in legislation towards that end.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.