HC Deb 13 July 1908 vol 192 cc531-5

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Amendment proposed— In page 2, line 21, to insert after the words 'Great Britain' the words 'or Ireland.'"—(Mr. T. W. Rusell.)

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. CARLILE

asked why the cost of a licence for a single steamer was so much in excess, proportionately, of the cost of a licence for three steamers. If a man was rich and had three steamers he paid £200 for a licence; if he could only afford two he paid £150; but the poor man who could only afford to have one steamer had to pay £100 instead of £66 13s. 4d. which was the amount paid by the owner of three steamers. Why did the hon. Gentleman favour the rich capitalist and treat the relatively poor owner in this particularly shabby manner?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said the explanation was simple. If a company had three steamers they paid £200, if they had two steamers they paid less, and if they had only one vessel they paid less still.

MR. CARLILE

submitted that with hon. Gentleman was trifling with the Committee. That was no explanation at all. If it was a question of tonnag the Committee should be told so, if it was a question of giving the plutocrat preferential treatment they should know it. In this cast the poor man had to pay more or go to the wall. He almost felt disposed to divide against the clause The interests of these poor people ought to be safeguarded.

*SIR SAMUEL SCOTT (Marylebone, W.)

said that under Clause 4 of the Scotch Bill, the measure on which this Bill was framed, the conditions were much the same. The reason for the difference in the cost of licences of which his hon. friend complained was that very often some ships had to go a much longer way than others to get their whales; consequently the period during which they fished was shorter and the expenses heavier. They had to pay a certain sum for their licences. Three ships in those parts very often did not catch as many whales as two ships in other parts in the same time. Therefore, he did not think the explanation given by the Government was at all correct.

MR. CARLILE

said he was not satisfied with the explanation which had been given by his hon. friend. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had taken no trouble to give any explanation at all. If the would allow a single licence to be take out at the same price as was fixed for three, then a great many other people might go in for this kind of fishing.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

said he could not understand why a man with one boat should pay proportionately more than a man with three boats.

MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)

One man, one boat.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

asked why the poor man should be penalised. The Government were proposing in this Bill to go a premium to the rich man at the expect of the poor man.

*SIR SAMUEL SCOTT

said that at the whaling station on his property it would be impossible to carry on the industry without three steamers, although in the Shetlands they were able to carry on with two steamers. The whales were frequently captured ninety miles from the station and had to be brought that distance to be landed Consequently the fairest way in granting the licences was to strike an average of whales per steamer. That was the principle of the method adopted in Scotland, and was the only proper way for the Government to proceed.

MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.)

asked if the Government could arrange to have a whale of the bottle-nosed variety placed in the tea room.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

*MR. HUGH LAW moved to add at the end of subsection 5 the words "and no holder of a licence or person employed by him shall, during the prohibited period land any whale killed in contravention of this section."

Amendment proposed— At end of subsection 5, to insert the words 'and no holder of a licence or person employed by him shall, during the prohibited period land any whale killed in contravention of this section.'"—(Mr. Hugh Law.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

pointed out that the chief reason why the Secretary for Scotland refused to take any action in regard to trawling was that the Foreign Secretary feared that larger questions of naval policy might arise and foreign Powers might adopt a similar course to our detriment. It should be made clear that in doing this we were preserving our rights. He wished to know whether the Govern- ment maintained that this could be enforced against a foreign subject.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

was understood to reply in the negative.

Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

LORD BALCARRES

said that under this clause if a man intended to apply for a licence he must advertise so as to allow an interval of eight days, otherwise he was liable to a fine of not less than £100. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that provision. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to introduce a proper scheme of classification of offences. The fines should be commensurate with the offences, and to fine a man £100 for a merely trivial and technical offence might mean ruin to him. There were fishermen who thought their industry was suffering through the presence of great whalers. If a bench of magistrates took that utterly unscientific view, they might inflict a heavy penalty for a trivial offence. He hoped the question of introducing a classification of offences would be dealt with in another place.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

agreed with the noble Lord that it might be better to have the offences classified. It would be a difficult matter at that stage to have that done, but he would consider whether it would be possible to give effect to the noble Lord's suggestion.

MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

supported the suggestion that the offences should be classified. It could be done by rules framed under the authority of the statute, or by a schedule in the Bill itself.

MR. HUGH LAW

hoped that whatever the right hon. Gentleman did in the way of classifying offences the maximum penalty would not be reduced.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.