WHALE FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (Hansard, 10 July 1908)

§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said that this Bill was largely founded on the Act passed for Scotland last session. There was no law enabling the fisheries authority in Ireland either to licence or to prohibit the erection of whaling stations. Last year there was an intention to erect such a station on the Donegal coast, and this caused great alarm among the fishing population, leading almost to violent measures. The Department sent down expert advisers who held an inquiry, and upon evidence and report, a bye-law was issued prohibiting the erection subject to approval by the Privy Council. The evidence seemed to show that the fishing population were wrong in thinking that the setting up of the station would destroy the herring fishery, but in view of the strong feeling amongst the people he asked for this licensing and prohibiting 270 power. It would be unwise to set up a station where the fishing industry was strong, but there were plenty of places on the coast where, without objection, a station might be erected with benefit to those promoting it and advantage to labour in the vicinity. The Bill gave the Department discretion in the matter.

§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)
remarked on the difference in tone between the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary for Scotland in promoting the Scottish Bill. He hoped when the Bill went into Committee the penalties might to some extent be revised. As the Bill stood at the present moment a man could be fined £100 for any breach of the obligations of the Act. Under the Act it would be a breach of the obligations in publishing the statutory advertisements to advertise with only four days interval instead of six as laid down in the Bill, and £100 fine for that would be simply absurd. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not include all offences under these penalties in Clause 6, except the major offence for which a penalty of £500 could be imposed. There should be classification. A few days ago on the subject of trawling the Secretary for Foreign Affairs justified holding his hand by saying that we could not admit the right of any State to legislate in matters affecting our territorial waters and would take offence at legislation on matters outside their territorial waters. But under Clause 3 of the present Bill the power was taken to punish any person employed by a British subject who did certain things within twenty miles of the Irish coast. He did not refer to that in connection with whale fishing, but merely because it seemed to break in upon the declaration of the Foreign Secretary. He did not object to it on any technical ground connected with whale fishing but because it involved the question of foreign relations. He did not think it would constitute a grievance to any foreign Powers, but it might afford, precedent for a foreign Power to take 271 action, possibly of a serious character. He rejoiced at the tone of the hon. Member, and recognised from his remarks that he and his technical advisers were far more closely acquainted with the natural history of these mammals than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland. There was no question about it. The Bill passed last year for Scotland was based upon the entirely erroneous theory that this one great occupant of the sea could injure the livelihood of the more humble denizens of the waters. The best authorities now thought that, so far from the whale being naturally hostile to the mackerel, the contrary was the case, and that mackerel were more inclined to follow in the tracks of whales than to avoid them. The foundation for the Scottish Bill of last year had absolutely broken down, because since its passing the whole fishing industry of Scotland, both line and net fishing, so far from being destroyed, had enjoyed a record year. While he voted against the Bill of last year he did not intend to oppose this Bill, because the speech of the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture of Ireland showed that he was fully familiar with the complicated problems involved in this question.

§ MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.)
said he would not offer any opposition to this Bill, although it was quite true that the Scottish Act on which this was based had not given the satisfaction that was expected of it. He would not attempt to dispute either with the right hon. Gentleman or the noble Lord as to the natural history of these denizens of the sea, but he doubted whether anybody had any exact knowledge of the benefit or otherwise of the presence of the whale. All that was certain was that we could not interfere with the economy of nature without producing disastrous results. That was one reason why he welcomed this Bill. If whaling were to be allowed without regulations it might happen that the destruction of the whale would lead to the disappearance and the extinction of the herring. The whale might even be said to be of assistance to the herring fishery because in his pursuit of the herring he was liable to 272 drive them into shallow water where they might be captured.

§ *MR. CARLILE
thought there was one part of the Bill which required some elucidation. He wished to know, whether the Vice-President was in favour of this industry or whether he wished to restrict it or extinguish it, and why the licences had been arranged as they had been. An owner could employ three steamers on payment of £200 for a licence; for two steamers a licence costing £150 was required. But if he could only employ one steamer, instead of paying £66 13s. 4d., which was the charge for one steamer where three were employed, he had to pay £100. He asked this Question because the poor owner was apparently penalised in engaging in a growing industry which might be found to be generally advantageous to the country.

CAPTAIN CRAIG
wished to know, before the Bill was read a second time, whether the Government could state if any effort had been made to establish whale stations in Ireland in recent years, and whether the Bill was necessary merely to prohibit the industry being carried on except under the stringent regulations laid down. The House, he thought, ought to be in possession of that fact, and to be told how many instances had come to the knowledge of anybody of foreigners wishing to start. He wished to know what would be the effect of the overlapping of this Bill and the Scottish Whale Fisheries Act. It might be found that in the North of Ireland the twenty-mile limit of this Bill would overlap by half a mile or so the forty-mile limit of the Scottish Act, and he wished to know whether there would be a separate Board or a joint Board to carry out the provisions of the Bill and to see that no illegality took place under it. What power would they have at their back to see that these stringent regulations were carried out? Another question which should be inquired into was the expense. He hoped a great deal of expense would not attach to the Bill, because it was not likely to do so much good as most Bills had done for 273 Ireland. It was certainly possible protect the industry, and those who prosecuted the herring fishing in Ireland were certainly desirous of having the fisheries further protected. Und the Bill a certain amount of the expense would fall upon these people Hon. and right hon. Gentleman knew scouted the idea, but certain parts of Ireland would derive no benefit whatever from the Bill, and therefore it appeared to him that the burden of the cost would fall rather unequally upon the different parts of Ireland. He hope the hon. Gentleman would look into this and thought it would save time if the hon. Gentleman could offer a few introductory remarks so that the Bill might b further explained. Personally he did no oppose the Bill, but he would like to see some points cleared up.

§ MR. JOYCE (Limerick)
said that a present the Department of Agriculture had no proper means of patrolling over 2,000 miles of coast round Ireland and he asked what explanation the Vice-President of the Department would be able to give as to the propel patrolling that was to be done if the Bill became law. It was a point of great interest.

MR. BAERIE (Londonderry, N.)
entirely agreed with the point made by the last speaker. This was not the first time the need for a reinforcement of the patrolling provision had been brought to the notice of the Vice-President.

§ MR. R. DUNCAN
said that that afternoon there was Irish business in hand, and he found an Orangeman, or an ex-Orangeman, on the front bench opposite, from whom he once heard a very hot Orange speech in Glasgow. Everyone was agreed that the Bill would do something to promote industry in Ireland, and if they saw the Orangeman of one mind with the others, he thought they should be backed up. In this Bill they had some attempt at the guiding of a national industry by science and a recognition of how one nation could not stand upon its own people but must always have regard to its neighbours. Ireland must not forget Scotland or England. If Scotland had 274 forgotten England it would not have occupied the position it now held. The must remember they were all part of the great comity of nations, and, he hoped of the great comity of man.

§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said the hon. and gallant Member for East Down had asked if there was any necessity for the Bill, and if there had been an; applications for it. There had been an application from Donegal, and very a great alarm had been created all along that coast. If there had been nothing else than that he would have asked the House to pass this Bill, but there was another station which had applied for it Inniskea on the West Coast. He though the whole pith of the Bill was that the Department should have discretion either to grant or to refuse licences for this industry. The point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member as to the enforcement of this law, and he agreed that that was a difficulty. He had over and over again stated that the resources of the Department of Agriculture consisted of a single cruiser to police the whole coast of Ireland, but that was a reason for getting additional money to deal with the matter, not for rejecting this Bill. The new cruiser would not be able to do all the work necessary, and he would do what he could with the Treasury. The fact that the Bill would add to the work of the small fleet they had was no reason why the Bill should not be passed. He had been asked whether he intended by the Bill to develop or restrict this industry. He proposed simply to issue licences for conducting the industry where it could be conducted without danger the ordinary fishing. Experts were quite clear that this industry was not inimical to the ordinary fishing industry, but in dealing with the population along the coast he thought it was a reasonable thing to trust the Department and to enable them to exercise their discretion in the matter. As regards the question of overlapping, he thought that might be dealt with in Committee, and he would in the meantime consult with the expert advisers of the Department, and if any change was necessary on that ground it could be made in Committee. As to the licences, they proposed to 275 charge high licences for a large fleet and small licences for a small fleet.

§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)
asked if he might make a suggestion arising out of practical experience of the Scottish Bill? He thought they should consider whether it would not be as well to make the offence of landing a whale within the prohibited period an offence under the Bill, and that might do away to a considerable extent with the difficulty of enforcement.