GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL [Lords]. (Hansard, 2 March 1931)

HC Deb 02 March 1931 vol 249 cc139-75 139

§ Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. W. ADAMSON
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
140 This Bill was introduced in accordance with the undertaking I gave in the course of the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill in November, 1929. On that occasion the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) moved an Amendment to delete from the Schedule to that Bill the Grey Seals Protection Act, which was passed in 1914, and which has since 1918, when in the ordinary course it would have lapsed, been continued by four successive Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. The hon. Member represented that the number of this species had increased, that it did considerable damage to the fisheries, and that the need for protection no longer existed. Subsequent speakers, however, expressed doubt both as to the damage done and as to the expediency of removing the protection and leaving the species open to uncontrolled attack. The hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) said it was the brown seal that did all the damage to the nets; the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) said the grey seal was one of the rarest British mammals; and the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) protested against any permits being given for the destruction of the grey seal.
The grey seal is of very little commercial value. The haunts of the grey seal are far removed from the estuaries where salmon netting is carried on, particularly at the season when they are protected by Act of Parliament. The young, being unable to swim for a considerable time, are in a defenceless condition and require protection, unless we are prepared to see the species exterminated. In reply to the Debate, I suggested that the best way of dealing with the matter would be to have a new Act, giving power to the Minister to regulate protection from time to time according to circumstances, as is done in the case of wild birds. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland accepted this suggestion as a reasonable way out of the difficulty, and withdrew his Amendment, and I hope that that admirable precedent will be followed by hon. Members on the present occasion.
After consultation with the Fishery Board for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, it appeared that the convenient course to follow would be 141 to establish protection as in the existing Act, but with the widest and most flexible powers possible to vary or suspend the protection. This method means, in effect, a bias in favour of protection which seems in present circumstances to be justified. The Bill will enable the Minister, as regards England, and the Secretary of State as regards Scotland, to withdraw the protection during the breeding season, either wholly in any breeding period or during part of the period, or in any specified area during the whole or any part of the breeding period. That arrangement, to my mind, should satisfy any reasonable opponent of the Bill. Hon. Members will observe that Parliament will have the opportunity of objecting to any proposed Order for these purposes before it is made, as the Bill provides for a, draft of any such Order being laid before each House for not less than 48 days.
Certain Amendments have been made to the Bill during its passage in another place. None of these affect the principle of the Measure, and I see no reason to take exception to them. The most important change is the introduction of provisions enabling the appropriate Minister to regulate the methods of slaughter of grey seals in their breeding places at any time when protection is withdrawn. It will be necessary, during the passage of the Bill, to amend Clause 3, which was drafted on the basis that the Bill might pass before Christmas. Pending the passage of this Bill, the Act of 1914 has been continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of the present Session, but the Amendment which we shall propose to Clause 3 will deal with that matter. I trust that the House will accept the principle of the Bill and consent to its Second Beading with as little discussion as possible.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
I should like to know why we are to have this utterly unnecessary Bill troubling the House at all. Have the Government nothing better to do at this time than to trouble this House with a Bill which, although it is called the Grey Seals Protection Bill, would be better named, in my submission, the Grey Seals Destruction Bill? All through his open- 142 ing remarks the Secretary of State for Scotland was referring to arrangements whereby permission might be given to destroy, and he even went so far as to say that the Minister is to be allowed to say in what way the seal is to be destroyed. Much good it will do the grey seal to know that it is going to be slaughtered by the humane slaughterer, with a rifle bullet, or whatever method it may be. There is not much protection, so far as the animal itself is concerned, in that. It seems to me that the Government, having while they have been in office destroyed confidence and prosperity, are now continuing their work by endeavouring to destroy the grey seal.
I suppose it is the hope of the Minister that if the Bill is taken now it will go. through—indeed, he expressed that hope —with as little discussion as possible. It is no wish of ours on this side that the Bill should be taken at all. When the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was before the House recently, this Bill was included in it, and observing the pressure of business which the Government say there is, and the gravity of the position of the country at the present time, it might well have been left in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill instead of being brought in as a separate Measure. The fact, however, that this Bill has been brought in does not necessarily mean that there is to be no opposition to it, and indeed since the Government have brought it in, they must expect opposition to it.
It may be—I do not know what we shall hear from the benches below the Gangway on this side—that this is one of the Measures which is part of the pact between the Liberal party and the Socialist party of which we hear so much. It may be a case of, "You give us the grey seal, and we will give you the alternative vote." About that I do not know, This Bill is entitled the Grey Seals Protection Bill, and yet, when you look through it, you find that one of the most important provisions in it is that: in the case of England, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and, in the case of Scotland, a Secretary of State, may at any time by order direct, either generally or as respects any area described in the order, that, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provision— 9.0 p.m. (a) there shall be no close season. 143 In other words, it leaves it in the power of the Ministry to allow, and indeed to advocate, the destruction of an animal which already is too rare, and which I hope to show does no damage whatever. I should welcome the Grey Seals Protection Act of 1914 being taken out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act if the real object of the Government were to protect the grey seal, but I oppose this Bill because it is not really a measure to protect the grey seal, but a Measure to facilitate its destruction by those persons who are anxious to destroy it. In other words, Halichoerus grypus, the grey seal, is like the rest of us, to be at the mercy of a Government Department. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture has stated that so far as he has been able to ascertain, the grey seal is not injurious to fishing at all, but that the common seal is. Obviously the whole reason for giving any permission to destroy the grey seal must be that it is alleged to be destructive of fish or the fishing industry; but what did the Noble Lord who was recently the Minister of Agriculture say when he was closely questioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on the subject of damage done to fishing by seals. The Minister said that investigations had produced no evidence to show that the common seal caused any material damage to fisheries in the Wash, and he did not think that the expenditure of public money on the payment of awards for its destruction would be justified. He went on, in answer to a Supplementary Question to say that elaborate investigations had been carried out during the last four years, and that the evidence was in the direction opposite from that indicated by the hon. Baronet, who stated that the seal was responsible for a great deal of damage. The Act of 1914 which protected the grey seal, and which has been kept alive in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, has been admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to have had a good effect, and to have increased the numbers of grey seals; but he said that there was still a shortage of these animals, and that it was necessary to continue their protection. If it be necessary to continue the protection of the grey seal, why should the Government 144 bring in a Bill which will facilitate its destruction and make it possible for anybody to apply to the Minister for permission to destroy it? It has been stated by an authority on this subject that if the grey seal eats fish at all—and the fact that it is alleged to be destructive of fishing interests must be the only reason for giving any permission for its destruction—it eats dog-fish. If it eats dog-fish, the Minister should do all in his power to prevent anybody touching it, because dog-fish are the most destructive of any fish to the fishing industry. And yet it has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not the grey seal which eats fish but the common seal! What did the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland say in the Debate on 26th November, 1929 on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill? The hon. Baronet came forward as a blood-thirsty pursuer of Holichoerus grypus. He said: We have to remember that the seal is a bandit, and the fact that it is an interesting and picturesque creature is no reason why we should overlook the fact that it is a bandit which does a great deal of damage, particularly to the salmon fisheries in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1929; col. 1332, Vol. 232.] In that Debate the hon. Member produced no evidence that the grey seal was destructive to salmon fishing. Here we have the real reason for the introduction of this Measure. It must be obvious to the House that, underlying its introduction, is the desire of those who have salmon fishing interests that there should ultimately be unrestricted destruction of this mammal on the ground that it is destructive to fishing interests. How long does anybody suppose that this uncommon and really very rare mammal will exist if left to the mercy of a Government Department, even though it be presided over by a Minister so benign and kindhearted as the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced the Bill? What has been the history of the protection of the grey seal? The Act was passed in 1914, and it protects grey seals between 1st October and 15th December. During the Debate in 1929 the Secretary of State made the statement that the Act protects the grey seal from the 1st October to 28th November, but I think that must have been a slip. I have been at some pains to go into this matter with experts who are able to give me reliable information, 145 and there appears to be no doubt that, whatever we think about this Bill, it should protect the grey seal, if it is to do any good, from September to the end of December.
The original Act was passed to restrain the action of those who were persecuting the grey seal all round our coasts, and, although it undoubtedly saved the grey seal from extinction, it is not clear that there has been any great addition to its numbers. The total number is undoubtedly small, and in any case could do very little harm to the fishing industry. The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was still a comparative shortage of grey seals. By all means reduce the numbers of the common seal, whose Latin name is Phoca vitulina. It does a considerable amount of harm to the fishing industry. What makes me suspicious about this Bill is the appearance of no Amendment on the Order Paper by the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland. In the Debate in November, 1929, he moved an Amendment which would have permitted the destruction of the grey seal, allowing no close time.

§ Sir ROBERT HAMILTON
I think I withdrew it on an undertaking given by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
That is quite true, I would not misrepresent the hon. Baronet, but his only reason for withdrawing it was that there might be brought in a Bill which would satisfy his desire for slaughter and not any wish to preserve the grey seal. If any proof were needed of the point I am making it is found in the attitude of the hon. Baronet. This Bill satisfies him, but the Bill that was before the House in 1929 dissatisfied him so much that he moved an Amendment to it, and withdrew it only because he was hoping to get this Bill. If this Bill satisfies him I leave it to the House to judge how much real protection there is in it for Halichœrus grypus, the grey seal.
Before the House signs the death warrant of the grey seal it may be as well that it should know a few details. The species is rare. It is found on the shores of the North Atlantic and the adjoining waters only within comparatively narrow limits. It is very rare in America, though known off Nova Scotia, Labrador and East Greenland. One 146 of the biggest colonies still existing, which will come to an end, I suppose, if the hon. Baronet has his way, is off an island called Hysker, in the Outer Hebrides. [Interruption.] None are found off the Isle of Man. The seal used to be found at different places off the Coast of Norway, between 71 degrees North and 58 degrees North, and off the South Coast of Iceland. They are known in the Faroe Islands and the Orkney and Shetland Islands, though if this Bill passes into law it, is doubtful whether they will ever be seen again in the Orkneys and Shetlands. They are known off the Hebrides, off the North of Scotland and in the St. George's Channel down to the Scilly Isles, where I myself have seen Halichœrus grypus in his native element, and off the South Coast of Devon and the Channel Islands. A peculiar race of them also inhabit the Baltic. It is important to note that the grey seal does not wander very far from its original habitat. It remains in its customary breeding places, and, therefore, if we harry it in its breeding places we shall exterminate it in those localities. It will not come in from elsewhere and fill the vacancies, as it were, which have been made by destroying it in its particular areas.
The point that is most important in this discussion is the question of the breeding season. The whole of the Bill turns upon the close season for this animal. Seals breed in little colonies here and there, and in scattered pairs, not over a very large area, between the months of October and December; except the variety found in the Baltic, which has the curious habit of breeding on the drift ice floes from January to March. They are, of course, the best judges of their own affairs! The young are born at the end of September or the beginning of October. In the Shetlands—and I would remind the hon. Baronet once again of those months—in September, October and November. If you wish to destroy this mammal absolutely, then the obvious thing to do is what is proposed in this Bill, that is, to allow it to be attacked during what is at present the close season. If it were really desired to protect it we should have to extend the close season right on from September to the end of December, or even to the end of January. As a matter of fact there has been a case in 147 Wales of an extraordinarily late birth of a grey seal, one having been born in March. In the other places the births take place up to December. It is obvious, therefore, that this Bill does not go far enough. If the Minister is sincere in his desire to protect the grey seal he ought to protected it from September to the end of December. I would remind the Minister of something he himself said in the House in 1929: The young, being unable to swim for a considerable period, are in a defenceless condition. And he added: I understand that sometimes attacks are made on those colonies of grey seals where the young are in that helpless condition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1929; col. 1343, Vol. 232.] What protection does the Bill give? It will allow them to be destroyed not only during the breeding season but at a time when the young seal is totally helpless and cannot leave the rocks or sandbanks. There are more male seals than females. In that respect, the seal differs from the human population. If it were possible for the right hon. Member to instruct those who wish to destroy seals to differentiate between the male and the female, there might be something to be said for allowing destruction during the breeding season. He has made a great point of the fact that an Order has to lie upon the Table of each House for a period of 48 days, but that does not help us very much, because the period of gestation of the grey seal is about 11½ months, and if the young are to be protected they ought to be protected not for the short period mentioned in the Bill, or even for the period which I have said is strictly necessary, but practically for the whole of the year. Is it proposed that when permission is given to shoot these animals it should be a permission to shoot only the male seals?
In the speech of the hon. Baronet on 26th November, 1929, he entirely failed to prove that the grey seal ate fish at all. He quoted figures with gusto, and said that 624 seals had been shot in five years by one man. The Minister is contemplating opening the shooting of grey seals to far more than one man. He shakes his head, but there is nothing in the Bill which would not allow grey seals to be shot all round the coast. Scotland 148 may not always have as Secretary of State one who is so kind-hearted and fond of animals as the present Minister. By the whirligig of time it is even possible that a miracle might happen and the Liberal party below the Gangway come into office. What would happen then to Halichœrus grypus if the hon. Baronet filled the position now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman? What hope would there be for any seal, male or female, or for their young? When he quoted the figure of 624 seals shot in five years by one man—and that is nothing to be proud of—he said those were certainties, they were bull's eyes, but that the marker was not sure of some of the other shots and that probably the number shot was about 1,000. He added that he was bound to admit that he could not say whether they were grey seals or whether they were the ordinary brown seals. It is true that these seals go up the Dornoch Firth, and it is more than likely that they are regularly persecuted and shot in the Dornoch Firth.
The whole basis of the case against the grey seal, and really the case for this Measure, is that the grey seal is said to be an eater of fish, and therefore inimical to the fishing industry. I have proved, I hope, that there is not one word of truth in the suggestion that these animals are increasing in such numbers that they are becoming in any way a menace to fisheries. But even suppose that they were increasing, what is it that they actually do eat? Some information about the grey seal has been given by Lord Danesfort which is worthy of attention. He says May I tell my Noble Friend that the grey seal eats dog-fish, which is the most pernicious fish. The common seal eats all kinds of fish and probably does not deserve protection, but the animal which eats this pernicious kind of fish, the dog-fish, does deserve protection. We know from expert authorities that the food of this animal is chiefly crustacea, haddock, flounders, catfish, lump-suckers, etc., but in the winter it is chiefly starfish and crab, as the other fish run too deep under the water for them to be able to get at them. It may be possible that the grey seal does occasionally take a salmon, but surely the hon. Member should not object to a grey seal having one salmon occasionally. Is the hon. Member 149 so anxious that he should have a salmon whenever he goes to fish? In the winter there are plenty of starfish, and on this point I would like to state what was said by the hon. Member for Farnham when he spoke on the 26th of November. On that occasion, the hon. Member made a great point about the re-stocking of the oyster fisheries. I pointed out that in the winter the chief food of the grey seal was the starfish. I wonder if the hon. Member knows that the starfish may completely wipe out the oyster beds?
Therefore may I point out to the supporters of this Bill that if they want to preserve oyster fisheries, the best thing to do is to leave the grey seal alone, because that animal is particularly destructive of the one creature that is liable to ruin oyster fisheries, and that is the starfish. I think that destroys the whole battery of the defence which has been put up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be thankful that the grey seal is doing its best to preserve oyster fisheries. It is a well-known fact that if you destroy the balance of nature, you always do more harm than good. Is the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland quite certain that a decrease in the seal population would not increase furunculosis in salmon since it is possible that the seals themselves prey upon larger fish which in turn prey upon salmon? I am surprised at hon. Members opposite, who talk so much about protecting the lives of animals which are now hunted, being a party to the perpetration of what must after all be considered a blood sport on the person of the grey seal. Surely the desire to exterminate what is a harmless, beautiful and rare mammal, one to a large extent peculiar to the British islands, is only a blood-thirsty desire to make further sacrifices to modern commercial rapacity. The Prime Minister, writing in "Forward," on the 14th October, 1922, said: I have been an unswerving hopeful regarding the Moscow Government …. We can now take the Moscow Soviet Communist Revolutionary Government under our wing and clothe it in the furs of apology to shield it from the blasts of criticism. Is the grey seal to supply the fur? It is absolutely hypocritical to bring forward a Bill of this kind which is quite 150 unnecessary. If you wish to protect the grey seal leave it alone, and do not make it possible for anyone to shoot it. If you want to protect the grey seal, the best way to do it is to extend the breeding season, and again I repeat that this animal is one which does no harm to anyone.

§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I beg to second the Amendment.
We have listened to a very interesting account of an interesting fauna. This particular animal was the source of a good deal of ancient fairy lore, and it is credited with having originated the story of the mermaid. I was appalled at the record of slaughter which was recited by the hon. Baronet the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) who told us that one single person had killed 1,000 of these animals. I may say at once that I should be very reluctant to support this Bill in its present form. These particular animals are very innocent denizens of the deep, and, while I would allow the present Secretary of State for Scotland and his Under-Secretary the utmost liberty in this matter, if I thought they were likely to be there for any length of time, that is not likely, and they may be succeeded by people of a less humane disposition. With the broad interest they take in the Highlands they have gone round to view their dioceses, they have seen the many spots pointed out to them and have anxiously desired to fulfil the wishes of the inhabitants and build piers for thm, but Coll is still calling for its pier, and the island of Lismore is gradually getting less—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young)
Grey seals are the subject.

§ Mr. MACQUISTEN
I am only pointing out what may happen when other less humane Ministers are going round in the "Pharos," the boat called the lighthouse, and what may happen then. Some future Secretary for Scotland and his colleagues may see a lot of grey seals and, as there is a riflle on board, they may say, "Let us make a regulation and have some sport," and then pass a regulation on the spot. It is quite competent for them to do that. They do not get the 48 days draft, but they would probably risk that, and the Government would have some loyal supporter who 151 would see them through the difficulty. The extraordinary Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 says that the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture may make an order to render lawful the killing of seals during the breeding season.
It seems shocking that, in the interests of humanity, any official or any Member of the Government should have the right during the sacred period of the animal's life to give an order for its destruction. How are we to know we might not have a Secretary for Scotland with advanced views on birth control who might make such an order? We should not, as a humane Parliament, give anybody any authority to make an order of that kind. It is not necessary because of the history of the grey seal which we have heard, because of its habits, or because of the interests of mankind or of mankind's food supplies that the grey seal should ever be slaughtered. Its depredations are of the slightest degree, and we should not record in an Act of Parliament that during the breeding season the Secretary of State for Scotland has power to promote such an onslaught. This is, therefore, a very unnecessary and a very discouraging Bill in the interests of humanity.
If there is to be a case for a close time, it should be Considerably longer than from 1st October to 15th December. It should be from the middle of September to the end of January. That is absolutely necessary if you are to give these animals a chance. There are really very few of them in the world. They are almost like the Caribs whom we heard about the other day, an extinct race. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Liberals."] Hon. Members suggest my hon. Friends below me, but nobody suggests that the close season for them should be repealed. We would like to see a larger number of them, and we should make adequate provision for them. We have not too many specimens of wild animals. It is a sad thing that, whenever we come to a new country there is always for the time being something like a holocaust of God's creatures. Whenever we have an animal whose existence does not conflict with or seriously impinge upon the existence of mankind, which we as men believe to be of most importance, we should 152 always try to preserve that animal wherever possible. We should preserve it for the purposes of sport. There are many types of animals who would not survive except for sport.
I speak for the sporting race of man. I have no use for the non-sporting type, Which is always of a very disagreeable kind. Here is an animal that there is no sport in shooting, it is a helpless denizen of the sea, and it is like shooting at a log. It is doing no harm to the human race, and it is an ornament to the sea. It is one of the few survivors of the prehistoric deep. This Bill, which is to take the place of the Act renewed under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, should not be passed. We can go on renewing the Act from year to year or, if necessary, make it a permanent Act, but we should not pass this Bill, which may lead to the total extermination of this beautiful decoration of the sea.

§ Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I am afraid that I cannot support the Amendment which was moved in such an amusing fashion by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby), nor is it my intention to follow him in his natural history discourse upon the habits and characteristics of this mammal, because, representing as I do a constituency of which fishing is one of the principal industries, I am obliged to take a somewhat less frivolous view of this matter than is necessary for an hon. Member whose constituency is entirely surrounded by land, and whose largest sheet of water is barely large enough to float a houseboat.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to refer to my attempt to prevent this Bill becoming law as frivolous, and to refer to the extent of water in my constituency?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
That is not a point Of Order.

§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
May I for a few moment compare this Bill with the one already in force?? As the hon. Member said, there is, obviously, a mistake at the end of this Bill, because at the present moment we have an Act in force till the end of this year protecting the grey seal throughout the breeding 153 season. The effect of this Bill would be to give the option to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to the Minister of Agriculture to deprive the grey seal of that protection which it at present enjoys in the breeding season, if it is considered necessary to do so. At the present moment, the grey seal is protected throughout the breeding season from 1st October to 15th December. The only effect of this Bill would be, in the event of this mammal becoming too numerous, to authorise the Minister to allow this animal to be destroyed under certain conditions. Of course, we all hate the idea of an animal being destroyed during the breeding season, especially when it applies to the female of the species, but if it can be proved that that animal has attained numbers which are adversely affecting any particular industry, it is a painful necessity that the interests of the human race should be placed first and that measures should be taken to reduce the superfluous numbers of that animal.

§ Mr. COCKS
Why not teach them birth control?

§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
Hitherto people have not attained that height of intelligence which enables them to instruct the lower creatures in those ideals. There is not the least doubt that in the year 1914, when the Act was originally brought in, the grey seal was to a very large extent in danger of extermination. For some reason, or other, the grey seal has been a target of attack to a greater extent than the brown or common seal. In addition to that, whereas the brown seal has a very good idea of protecting itself, the grey seal is invariably easier of access and easier to shoot or destroy. Among other habits, it has the habit of basking on a sandbank—I am speaking now of its habits on the East Coast—in comparatively shallow water, so that when it is approached it has some distance to go before it is immune from attack, whereas the brown or common seal invariably basks on rocks in deep water, and, on the first alarm, it disappears below the surface for a minute or two, and is not seen again except when it just puts its nose out of water to enable it to breathe.
The result was that the grey seal was destroyed much more quickly than the brown seal, and there is no doubt that in 154 1914 this rather interesting animal was in danger of extinction. Therefore, at that time a Bill was introduced, which became an Act, giving it protection during the breeding season. The result of that Act has been that these animals have increased in number to a very large extent practically all round the coasts of these islands. At present there is no danger of the species becoming extinct, and we are face to face with the fact that they are doing very considerable damage to the fishing. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom says that this animal does not destroy fish to any extent, and he advances the theory that its having a different dentition means that it lives entirely, or almost entirely, on shell-fish, molluscs or starfish. That, however, is far from being the case. My hon. and gallant Friend admitted that this animal does destroy catfish and dogfish, and I think it is imposing too great a strain on the credulity of the House when he asks us to believe that an animal which is capable of catching such an active fish as the dogfish would not also destroy salmon, or plaice, or cod, when suitable opportunities occurred.
I do not for a moment suggest that this animal does anything like the damage that the brown seal does, partly because of its different habits, and partly because of its being so very much fewer in numbers; but the fact remains that this Act has done what it was intended to do. The grey seal around the coast, and particularly on the East Coast, is at the present time doing very considerable damage. Not only does it destroy the ordinary fish, but it gets into the mussel beds and cockle beds, which have recently been encouraged between Hunstanton and Wells, and destroys a very large number of these beds, which at the present time are being rather carefully preserved. In these circumstances, I think that the present Measure goes a long way towards meeting the facts of the situation. It will give the Minister the power, upon application being made, to order the destruction of a certain number of these animals during the breeding season, by means which he has the power to dictate, and I think that the Bill, while it will not in any way endanger the continued existence of the grey seal, will to a very large extent prevent it from damaging and destroying the fisheries, 155 which at the present time are being very seriously affected by the depredations of both kinds of seals.

§ Sir R. HAMILTON
I must say that I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby), who moved the rejection of this Bill, but I always fail to understand why, when this question comes up, it is regarded as a subject for frivolity. The hon. and gallant Member said that he had studied the habits of the grey seal in the Scilly Islands, but I should like to remind him that I come from islands which are far from Scilly, and where the matter of the destruction of fish by seals is regarded as a serious one, as the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has just reminded the House. I do not know on what grounds the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom said that grey seals did no damage, or practically no damage. The grey seal is a very large animal—

§ Commander SOUTHBY
I quoted the reply to a question put by the hon. Member himself to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries at the time, who told him that the bounty on the destruction of ordinary seals had been withdrawn; while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry stated that the grey seal does less damage than the brown seal. Therefore, if there is no occasion now for paying bounties for the destruction of brown seals because they do no damage, much more must it be that there is no case against the grey seal.

§ Sir R. HAMILTON
May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is not always right? In this matter he has been severely controverted. May I quote from an article which recently appeared in the "Fishing Gazette," on the damage done by grey seals, one or two rather interesting facts for the information of the House? I was saying, when I was interrupted, that the grey seal is a very large animal, as hon. Members know, and he needs a very large quantity of food to keep up his temperature in the very cold waters in which he lives. The article to which I have referred contains this statement: 156 Two cod at ten pounds each and a few pounds of shell-fish at a meal, and two meals a day, means 50 pounds of edible fish, mainly cod, ling, conger and salmon, taken daily in Scottish waters by the 5,000 grey seals supposed by experts to live in those waters. I leave that little sum to be worked out by the hon. and gallant Member, and, when he has done it, I would ask him if the damage done by these animals is negligible? It is a very considerable sum indeed when it is added up at the end of the year. As regards numbers, these 5,000 grey seals are supposed to live in one group of islands alone, the Tresnish Islands, but there are many other places where these grey seals breed besides those islands. The experts of the Fishery Board for Scotland put the number of grey seals in the neighbourhood of the Tresnish Islands at 5,000, and the article I have quoted says that that estimate of 5,000 is much under the correct number. It states that there are quite 2,000 grey seals on other islands off the coast, and it refers to other places which I need not quote. As regards the food of the grey seal, may I quote this: It is not only the damage that they do in taking salmon out of the nets, hut tremendous damage is done to the nets. A great deal was made of the fact that in the last Debate that took place in this House I referred to a gentleman who shot something like 1,000 seals in a year. That was not by way of sport. He was sent up there to re-establish a salmon fishery which had been destroyed by the depredations of seals. He laid himself out to do it, and he succeeded, by very hard work, in keeping down the seals for three years and restoring that fishery, which had been given up as hopeless, into a profitable, paying concern. It was for reasons such as these that I pressed the Minister 18 months ago to take some steps by which the increase in the numbers of these animals could be kept down.
The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said that it was very dangerous to disturb the balance of nature. We all know that it is, and the present set of circumstances has arisen because we have disturbed the balance of nature by protecting these animals. It was in answer to the speech that I made at that time that the Secretary of State for Scotland undertook to bring in such a Measure as this which 157 would give him the opportunity not, as has been suggested, wantonly to destroy these very interesting and beautiful animals, but to take such measures as may be necessary, when they increase so as to damage our fisheries, to keep down their numbers. I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Bill, which entirely implements the promise that he then gave. I have perfect confidence in the Secretary of State for Scotland in the future, whoever he may be, to see that these powers are not abused. This House has also power to check them because it will have 48 days in which to protest against any proposed order. That being the case, may I appeal to the House not to make fun of this Measure but to treat it as a serious Bill and to pass it with as little ridicule and ribald comment as possible.

§ Major GEORGE DAVIES
I think the hon. Gentleman has been a little less than fair to those who are opposing this Bill. There is a humorous side to many serious subjects. If it were not sometimes brought out, this House would appear an infinitely duller debating society than it sometimes is. I wish to support the Amendment for reasons not altogether identical with those of my hon. and gallant Friend. In studying the Bill, the one good thing I find to say for it is that at last it takes this matter out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. That is a matter which always seems to me an unsatisfactory means of keeping on Acts from year to year. It was originally included in that Act because the principle was not entirely clear, and it was decided after experience to see whether it was necessary to deal with the matter definitely by an Act of Parliament or to renew it from year to year. That state of affairs has continued for a considerable time. Of course, the time has come to take it out of that Act and to deal with it in a new Act of Parliament, but I do not believe this Bill is the way to deal with it. It leaves an extraordinarily disagreeable taste in the mouth. It says that a boat may be used for the purpose of killing, wounding or taking a grey seal. So that we are going to permit steps to be taken for the purpose of wounding the grey seal. It has already come out that this is one of the most defenceless 158 creatures. It is one of the most interesting creatures and is amongst the rarer of the larger creatures that inhabit our waters, and here we are, in the year of our Lord 1931, bringing in an Act of Parliament under certain conditions to allow people to take boats for the purpose of wounding grey seals. I oppose this provision for many reasons. If this was a short Bill specifying an actual close season for taking grey seals, we should be nearly unanimous. I have not the scientific knowledge which has been disclosed by my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment, but I know there can only be three reasons for dealing with the Measure in this way. The last speaker suggested directly that one of the ways of keeping the balance of nature was the use of the bullet. That is not my idea of keeping the balance of nature. That is an interference with the balance of nature, and it is only justifiable on much more serious grounds than any that have been brought forward.
There are only three possible reasons for this provision. One is that the grey seal is such a menace to an important industry that it should be put out of the way, the second is for pseudo-sportsmen to have pot shots at it, and the third is that it should be exploited by reason of its own value. The third reason has been distinctly disposed of already. I am told there is no particular value to the animal and so the exploiting of it for purposes of trade or industry does not arise. With regard to the menace to the fishing industry, I am satisfied that the case is not proved. There are arguments used on both sides. I have read a good deal of literature by different authorities, and, like doctors, in many cases they do not all agree. It is idle for anyone to say that the argument is entirely on one side, as was indicated by the last speaker.
I believe the damage done is infinitesimal as compared with the grave-responsibility that we are taking in giving a Second Reading to this Measure, which is one of the most inhumane things I have ever been asked to support. It really comes down to this, that there are a great many people who are interested in having a pot shot at an easy object. The nefarious inclinations of pseudo-sportsmen should be checked. It is a 159 monstrous thing that we should be asked to give, even to the present occupation of the office of Secretary of State for Scotland, authority under any conditions to allow people to go in the breeding season for the purpose of killing or wounding the grey seal. I hope this is not going to be regarded purely as something that has a humorous side. There are humorous sides to the grey seal, to the Liberal party and to a good many subjects, but this is much more serious. Hon. Members opposite will gladly put their names to Bills which have, as I conceive, a misdirected purpose of humanity. We do not question the honesty of their motive in a matter like this. I fully share those feelings in this instance and I hope sincerely that this is going to a Division so that I may record my vote against it.

§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I rise to support the Second Reading. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the rejection represents an inland constituency. I represent people who earn their living as fishermen. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil (Major Davies) has made his little contribution to the opposition of the Bill.

§ Major DAVIES
I may be the Member for Yeovil but I have been more identified with whale and sea fisheries probably than any other Member.

§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
That may be so, but I am speaking on behalf of men who earn their living neither in catching whales nor seals, but fish for the food of the people. The representatives of the fishing ports around the coast are all in favour of the Measure. Surely that ought to be some testimony to the fact that it is desired by the fishermen who have to contend with these mammals. I know it has been argued that certain scientists have said that this particular mammal does not destroy fish which is suitable for the food of man. If you asked any fisherman, a practical man, who has had real experience of these mammals, he would tell you an entirely different story. I once had this matter out with a certain gentleman who said that he had made a scientific investigation into this question, and the reason which he gave for stating that those seals are not destructive of edible fish, 160 was that he had had several of those seals cut open, had examined the contents of their stomachs and had found only a small quantity of small fish therein. But that depends upon the season of the year during which the seals are caught. If he had caught seals at other periods of the year, he would have found that they were gorged with fish, which might have been caught by our fishermen and used for the food of the people of this country.
I consider that this is a very mild Measure, indeed. I would call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil to the fact that when he quoted the words "killing, wounding or taking," and said he was shocked to think that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced a Bill to allow killing and wounding, he was quoting from the Section which states that a penalty will be inflicted upon people for doing this sort of thing, and not for allowing it to be done. Before coming to the House to discuss this Bill, I should have thought that he would at any rate, have read the Bill.

§ Major DAVIES
It is an entire misapprehension on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) because, while it is true that it provides penalties, it is quite obvious that the penalties can only be applied when these things are done.

§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
That is indeed a politician's argument. I should like to see my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Yeovil addressing a little party of my fishermen and telling them that story. When he discusses the question of sportsmen having a very easy job in shooting these particular mammals it is evident that he has not had the experience of hunting them himself. I would suggest to him and to other Members who are opposing the Bill that it they desire to be logical and consistent, they should support every Bill introduced into this House for the protection of any animal which it is lawful to hunt at the present moment. He ought to be prepared to be a strong supporter of any Bill to stop the hunting of the stag in Somerset or in any other county in England, but I wonder what his constituents would say to him when he went down.
161 10.0 p.m.
I am not surprised at the opposition from my hon. Friends above the Gangway, because, as I stated earlier on, they have not come into direct contact with the fishermen who have to suffer from the depredations of these particular mammals. I was indeed shocked that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) should support the rejection of this Bill. Usually we find that he is a keen supporter of any Measure which is to protect fishermen, and particularly the inshore fishermen. I am not speaking in defence of the Bill simply because I represent Grimsby, which is a large trawling port, but because I also have a great interest in the inshore fishermen, who have to earn their living around our coasts. Indeed, I can claim to represent more inshore fishermen than any other Member of the House, because I have a large number of them in my constituency. They are the small men in the industry who suffer because of the depredations of these particular mammals. We have had fishery debates in this House time and time again. Pleas have been put forward on behalf of the inshore fishermen. Members have appealed to successive Governments to render assistance to them both in the shape of loans and grants in order to help the inshore fishermen to carry on their vocation, realising that like every other industry, when the machine comes into operation, the hand worker finds it more and more difficult to earn a living. I have a great deal of sympathy for the inshore fisherman. I know that Members in this House have expressed, from time to time, their sympathy with the inshore fishermen, and occasionally we have an opportunity of rendering those men some little practical help. This Bill, at any rate, provides us with an opportunity of doing so tonight and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
The question has been raised as to the power which is given to the Minister under the Bill, but I submit that it does not give any undue power to any Minister. Surely, no Minister would be so foolish as to allow the killing of these particular mammals if it was not absolutely necessary in the interests of the fishermen that they should be so dealt with. I am satisfied that whoever occu- 162 pies the position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies now he will never allow an Order to be brought before this House and laid upon the Table until he has made himself absolutely satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the fisheries that such an Order should be made. It is a matter of commonsense. He is not coming forward in the House of Commons to lay an Order upon the Table which is likely to be criticised because of the fact that he has not made himself acquainted with the circumstances in connection with the matter. I think that it is giving a, right and proper power to the Minister, bearing in mind that an Order has to lie upon the Table of the House for 48 days during which any Member, even the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby), can go on making inquiries and if he finds that the statements of the fishermen of a particular area are not correct he can come to this House and put the case before it, and the Order may be rescinded.
I hope that we shall not even divide against the Bill. It is a very mild Measure giving a small measure of justice to those men who have been described on so many occasions as the gallant men of our fishing fleets, who, indeed, during the War period showed themselves to be men of endurance and of courage, and who in minesweepers and patrol boats saved the British Navy from disaster on many occasions. Let me remind my hon. and gallant Friend that these men, at any rate, should be given reasonable protection.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
The hon. Member should not misrepresent me. I am not in the least anxious to do anything which would injure the fishermen. Our case is that there is no case for the destruction of the grey seal. The common seal does much damage, and I would remind the hon. Member that it is hardly fair. My point is that the grey seal is innocent of any damage to fisheries and that is why I do not wish it to be destroyed.

§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I would not suggest for a moment that the hon. and gallant Member had any grudge against the fishermen.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
Certainly not.

163

§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
I was only pointing out, as has been pointed out on many occasions, that these gallant men rendered great services during the War, and that if any mammal was injuring the trade they followed, at any rate, power should be given to the Minister to investigate.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
Hear, hear!

§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
That is all that the Bill provides for. I am certain that my hon. and gallant Friend has not read the Bill which does not say that the Minister should destroy these seals. It gives the Minister power after investigation. He has to be thoroughly satisfied that they are destroying fish, and then he can make an Order and the matter can be dealt with. If it was a question of giving authority to anyone to destroy these mammals, without any restriction whatever, it would be a different matter. This is a measure of protection for the fishermen, and the House ought to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

§ Major COLFOX
On a point of Order. It seems to me that the whole of the Bill is out of order. The title of the Bill is: to make further provision for the protection of the grey seal. The whole of the Bill is in exactly the opposite direction and seems to make still less provision for the protection of the grey seal. At the moment, the grey seals are entirely protected. This Bill merely gives them a short close time. Therefore, I submit that the Bill is entirely outside the scope of the Title.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If I had thought that that there was anything out of Order in the Bill, I should have called the attention of the Government to it.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
This is a Bill to protect the grey seal. The grey seal only lives by virtue of the fact that it is protected every year through the expedient of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. If by any mischance the grey seal was taken out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it would not be protected. The question has been raised repeatedly in the House. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) has continually desired to have the protection withdrawn, but the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) and the hon. Member for 164 Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) should support the Secretary of State far Scotland in his determination to protect the grey seal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feels that the protection of the grey seal should be put upon another foundation, a more secure foundation. I am sorry to see the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom in the company that he is now in. He should be supporting the attitude taken up by the Secretary of State for Scotland, because under the Bill the grey seal cannot be exterminated and cannot be attacked unless an Order is placed on the Table by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries specifically declaring that a licence is to be given to kill. That Order has to lie on the Table of the House of Commons for 48 days. That, surely, is very much greater protection to the grey seal than is afforded by the present arrangement.

§ Commander SOUTHBY
The hon. Member has referred specifically to me. If this Bill gave greater protection to the grey seal I should support it, but he has said himself that under the present conditions the grey seal is protected from year to year completely. My argument against this Bill—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Member must not argue the matter. He must not make another speech. There are other hon. Members who desire to take part.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I am not wishing to make a controversial issue. I am merely pointing out the position. I appreciate the fact that the hon. and gallant Member is sincerely anxious to protect the grey seal. This Bill does, in fact, afford greater protection to the grey seal than the grey seal has under the present law, because the grey seal depends for its existence upon the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, whereas under this Bill a positive Resolution has to be placed upon the Table of this House, and has to lie on the Table for 48 days before an Order can be given to kin. There is, of course, a case for and against. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has a considerable body of evidence against the grey seal and its depredations on the fishing industry. There are other hon. Members who say that the real enemy 165 is the brown seal, the common seal, and not the grey seal.
No Order can be brought forward and no Order can pass this House unless the Secretary of State for Scotland can produce evidence in support of the Order. I cannot imagine any Secretary of State for Scotland attempting to make such an Order unless he can produce sound evidence backed, say, by the Fishery Board, or other reliable evidence. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland says, this Bill is the result of an agreement which was reached on the last occasion when the matter was debated on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, in November, 1929. The Secretary of State for Scotland then declared that he was willing to take the grey seal out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill provided that some such Measure as the one he has now introduced took its place. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland accepted that agreement, and so far as one can see from the records it appeared to be generally accepted as a fair and reasonable protection for the grey seal. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and his friends will recognise that the grey seal is better protected under an Order which has to lie on the Table 48 days before any change can take place. Moreover, such a Resolution must receive the assent of this House, if it should be opposed by any hon. Members. In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member and his friends will let us have the Second Reading of the Bill.

§ Sir JOHN GANZONI
Although my name is on the Order Paper as a supporter of the Amendment, I should not have said anything but for two facts. In the first place, I would refer to the special piece of pleading by the Under-Secretary. At the present time the grey seal is absolutely protected, and this Bill appears to offer something less. If we pass the Bill, the grey seal will be protected from the 1st October to the 15th December, but the Minister may at any time when he sees fit make an Order suspending that protection. It is somewhat sinister when that very kindly Minister who is so much beloved in all quarters of the House, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said that one of the most important provisions of the Bill 166 was that part which prescribed the methods of slaughter to be used when the Minister had made an Order.
The other reason is that I want to, protest against the attack made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on what he called the frivolity of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) in moving the rejection of the Bill. I should have thought that the charge of frivolity was contradicted by the very evident amount of research displayed by the speech. After an hon. Member with so many and versatile activities as the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom has obviously devoted all his spare time for weeks past delving into the Zoological Gardens and Brighton Aquarium—I have simply delved into the "Encyclopedia Britannica"—I should have thought that his researches would have been treated with more respect and have received a more kindly reception on the part of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. We must excuse the hon. Member because he and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) as well as the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) were confusing two kinds of seals. They were thinking of the brown seal, which does appear to do a considerable amount of real damage, with the grey seal, a very much rarer mammal and one to whom a charge of this damage has never been brought home. On the contrary, the report is that the fisheries of the Wash have never suffered from damage by the grey seal.

§ Sir R. HAMILTON
Many fish have been lost in the Wash, but it is believed to he due to the common brown seal.

§ Sir J. GANZONI
A good many things have been lost in the Wash since King John lost his baggage. We say that nothing has been lost as a result of the depredations of the grey seal. It may be some other kind of seal. It may be that he-whiskered bandit Erignathus Bar-batus, the Bearded seal, or the Hooded seal or the Greenland seal, but I think a case has been made out for clearing the reputation of the beautiful grey seal. The subject has been discussed at some length already, and I doubt whether my immense researches from the well informed pages of the 167 "Encyclopedia Britannica" will carry the same weight as the experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom who has sailed the deep seas for so many years, though not as a fisherman, or as the experience of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The only thing I wish to impress upon the House is this, that there are many of us who feel strongly that it would not be wise and right to leave such a momentous decision in the hands of one individual, no matter how benign, like the Secretary of State for Scotland.

§ Sir DENNIS HERBERT
Some of us feel in a little difficulty about this Bill. Apparently, it is being opposed because It tends to exterminate the grey seal. The main point in the Bill is that this matter is left in the hands of the Secretary of State to deal with by Order, and that is a kind of authority which this House ought to be chary of giving unless there is good need. What is the position at the present moment? Parliament in years past has protected the grey seal year after year by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and after the explanation which has been given by the Under-Secretary of State this evening I have no doubt as to how I shall vote upon the Bill. I am going to oppose it, and for this reason: if I were a grey seal, benevolent as the present Secretary of State for Scotland may be, I would sooner rely for my protection on Parliament and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill than on the good will of the Secretary of State. Still less would I like to commend my life to the protection or otherwise of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in England.
If the grey seal is to be protected—really I have not discovered whether the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary wants to protect it or not—it seems to me that the proper way to protect it is for Parliament to protect it by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill year by year. Parliament has retained to itself the power to put an end to that protection by not renewing it if it thinks fit in any particular year. Why should Parliament suddenly give up its rights to the Minister of Agriculture? If this is a matter which is to be decided from year to year, let it be decided by Parliament. The whole point of the Bill can be put 168 in a very few words: Is the future of the grey seal year by year to be dealt with by Parliament, as it has been for many years past, or is it to be dealt with by two individuals, who they may be we do not know, but may for the time being be the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture in this country? In these circumstances the House ready would be doing a very foolish thing in abrogating power most unnecessarily in favour of a Minister, by passing a Bill of this kind. I seriously suggest that hon. Members who are opposed to the grey seal and want to destroy it, and hon. Members who want to protect it, should unite in voting against the Bill, and that when the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill again comes before the House they should vote according to their views.

§ Major COLVILLE
I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to a point of detail in the Bill. Clause 2 deals with offences in relation to grey seals during the close season. In Sub-section (1, a) we find it provided that there is a penalty for any person who "knowingly and with intent kills, wounds, or takes a grey seal." In Subsection (2, b) we find included: an owner, master, charterer, or hirer of a boat who uses, or permits any person to use it for the purpose of killing, wounding or taking a grey seal. Under that provision the owner of a boat might quite well be made subject to a penalty for an offence of which he is not in any way guilty. He might charter a boat for a period, and during that period some person might use it for killing grey seals. As the Bill is drafted, there is grave risk of injustice to the owner of any boat. I suggest that the word "knowingly" should be inserted before "permits," so as to bring Sub-section (1, a) into line with Subsection (1, b). The only general observation which I would make on the Bill, is that I hope we shall soon have a Government to protect our industries and not our seals.

§ Mr. CULVERWELL
I should not have intervened but for the inadequacy of the explanations given, both by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary, for taking the protection of this animal out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act and putting it into this Measure. I am reinforced in 169 my doubts as to that course by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton). Nothing said by the supporters of the Bill, so far, has been in favour of the grey seal. I hold no strong views on the question; I am not so vitriolic as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who appears to have provided the inspiration for this Bill. But it strikes me as extraordinary that while the Bill is entitled A Bill to make further provision for the protection of the Grey Seal, it has the ardent support of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who is an opponent of the grey seal. If the Under-Secretary of State is right in saying that this Bill is a better insurance of the life of the grey seal than the insurance which at present exists, then I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland should be such strong supporters of the Bill. Everything we have heard so far has gone to show that, so far from the Bill giving more adequate protection to the seal, it removes that protection which this House has given for many years past. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has given a most dishonest Title to the Bill. I do not want to make a party question of the grey seal. I do not know whether it is one of those Measures which some hon. Members opposite promised at the last Election, but, if so, I am surprised that they should not have given it a more honest and a more adequate Title. The topsy-turveydom of the right hon. Gentleman's Title reminds one of the lines from "Alice in Wonderland": 'You are old, Father William,' the young man said, 'And your hair has become very white; And yet you incessantly stand on your head— Do you think, at your age, it is right?' The title of this Bill is topsy-turvey and had I the knowledge of this interesting animal possessed by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) I should probably be more than dissatisfied not only with the Title of the Bill but with the manner in which it has been introduced. We should have some stronger explanation as to why this matter is to lab removed from the annual survey of Parliament and brought under the control of the Minister. We have 170 every faith in the right hon. Gentleman but he is not always going to sit on that bench. He may not sit there very much longer, and we do not know who will occupy his position next. Hon. Members opposite who prate about humane slaughter and talk sentimental nonsense about dumb animals may turn to some other Minister who has taken the right hon. Gentleman's place, and ask him why he is not giving that protection to the seal which has been given in the past. I should also like to know why the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. We are informed that the grey seal lives, not only on the coast of Scotland but all round the British Isles, and we should be told why this Measure is not to extend to those seals which, fortunately or unfortunately, happen to reside on the coasts of Northern Ireland.

§ Major COLFOX
Although this Bill is entirely in order, I cannot help feeling that it is wrongly named and should have been called "a Bill for the better destruction of grey seals." I think I can trace some reason for its introduction from the fact that the Secretary of State or Scotland is a very well known and very successful salmon fisherman. There is undoubtedly and very unfortunately a prejudice—I believe an ill-informed prejudice—to the effect that grey seals do substantial damage to salmon fishing. The right hon. Gentleman has very little mercy on the salmon which it is his hobby to entrap. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I withdraw that imputation on the right hon. Gentleman's sportsmanship, and say which it is his pleasure to lure, and that makes him have very little pity on the grey seal, which I feel sure, if he will only read all the literature there is on the subject, he would realise does extremely little damage to the salmon fishing in which he takes his pleasure.
We read in the Bill that an order may be made by the Minister, if he thinks fit, preventing the killing of these animals by any weapon or instrument or in any-manner, not being a weapon. I should like to know how a manner can be a weapon, and if he agrees with me that a manner cannot be a weapon, what is the meaning of line 4 on page 2 of the Bill? It seems to me that it is neither English nor any other language that I. have the privilege of knowing, and it makes no sense at all. I admit, of course, that that is more a Committee point than a Second Reading point, but, 171 I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would let me know if there is any meaning to be attached to this phrase, and, if so, what that meaning is.

§ Major LLEWELLIN
I rise partly to reinforce a point made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville), because it is obvious that if one reads Subsection (1, a) of Clause 2—and I noticed that the Minister had not his Bill before him when my hon. and gallant Friend was referring to this point—he will see that if a person kills, wounds or takes a grey seal during the close season he has got to do it knowingly and with intent to kill, but if a person being an owner, master, charterer or hirer of a boat uses, or permits any person to use it, and so forth, there is no such phrase as "knowingly and with intent to kill." It seems to me that certainly you may land in difficulties many people whose boats are unfortunately used for killing seals during even that small close season which is allowed to them under the present Bill. For some years this House has enacted that the grey seal, as apart from the brown seal shall have a particular close season for a particular period of the year.
The Minister, as I understand it, in this Bill is doing two things. He is first of all shortening that close season by 15 days, and, secondly, he is taking the power himself, by order, to shorten it even further. A lot of us think the decisions of this House in previous years to protect the grey seal, and protect it absolutely during the breeding season, have been right. I appreciate the reason that prompted my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) to speak on behalf of those fishermen whom he so ably represents in this House, but he inferred that hon. Members who came from inland constituencies had no right to speak on this Bill. That would mean that if we were discussing a Measure to exempt the kestrel hawk, the only people who would be justified in speaking on that Measure would be those who happened to spend their time in killing pheasants or partridges.

§ Mr. WOMERSLEY
If the hon. Member refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will find that I said that it was a singular thing that Members from fishing ports were all supporting the Bill. 172 I did not question the rights of other Members to speak on the Bill.

§ Major LLEWELLIN
I do not claim to have more knowledge of Scotland than the hon. Member, but I understand that there are many fishing ports in Argyllshire which is represented by the hon. Member who seconded the rejection of this Bill. I am afraid that the hon. Member was on far less solid ground than usual. As far as I understand the question of the grey seal, it has been decided that that rare mammal should be protected partly from the fact that it is gradually dwindling, and that if it were not protected, it would die out as a creature of great beauty and a certain amount of use. We are told that it kills conger eels which are not a great attraction to the fisher folk of this country, and that it does not do that damage to fisher folk that the brown seal does. The grey seal has always been protected in this House, and the Bill should have given it exactly the same close time as has usually been given by the Act which we have passed from year to year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. I am sorry to see that less protection is to be given to the grey seal than has previously been given.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I want to know what is the matter with some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I have been looking at the Act, and I really believe that the Under-Secretary of State in accurate. It may be an astonishing position, but, as far as I can understand it, he is accurate. He states that it is better to have a Bill plus an Order than an expiring law coming before the House year by year. I do not agree with him on that point, but I will deal with that later. I want to draw the attention of hon. Members behind me to the fact that this Bill says that it is an Act to make "further provision." It does so in a sense, because it extends the date from the 1st day of October to the 15th day of December, both inclusive. If they look at the original Act they will see that it states: If any person between the first day of October and the fifteenth day of December There it is, "between" those dates; so we have got a day more at each end, a definite extension. If this were a permanent Bill to give this slightly extended close season for the grey seal I should be in favour of it. I did not hear any hon. Members who represent the fishing in- 173 dustry say that this period was too short, and apparently it is about the right period for which to give protection, but I cannot say for certain that the breeding season for grey seals is strictly confined between those two dates. What I really object to about the Bill is that instead of its being a very simple one, which we could have dealt with in a very short time, the Ministry has introduced this question of an Order. If there is an Order in a Bill, that invariably makes the passing of it a more complex affair. Many Members object to Ministers having power to make Orders. Could not the Secretary of State take back the Bill to-night and cut out the part about the Order, and then present it to the House again in its simplified form? We could then pass it in a very short time without the trouble of its having to go upstairs to Committee. If he framed it on the basis of the earlier Act he would have a much better Bill.
I also wish to call attention to that part of Clause 2 which deals with ships. As I understand the wording of the Clause, if a ship or a steamer, or even a torpedo, hit a grey seal, someone is to be liable to a penalty of £5 or £10. That seems to be carrying things rather too far. It is so loosely worded, however, that no one can really tell what the Clause does mean; anyone who tried to interpret it would probably be wrong in the meaning he attached to it. Another thing which has been worrying me is that whereas the former Act said nothing about England and Scotland separately, but was an Act for the whole country, the present Bill refers to England and to Scotland, to the Minister

174

§ of Agriculture and Fisheries in England and to the Secretary of State in Scotland. What I wish to know—and I do not see how we are to know unless the Minister of Agriculture is here—is why Wales is left out of this Measure. It is obvious why there is no reference to the North of Ireland; I take it that there they administer those things themselves; but Wales is left out. I wish to know why the Welsh fishermen are not to be protected. I quite realise that they have practically no representatives in this House; at any rate there are no watchful ones.

On this question, I speak for the West Country fishermen. I speak for the Devonshire fishermen. The Cornish fishermen are not represented very much, but I am always here. I think that the Minister, in his reply, ought to tell us why the Welsh people have been left out of this Measure. There is a further point to which my attention has been drawn. Certain hon. Members seem to think that the grey seal at the present time is not as destructive as the brown seal, but I have not heard any conclusive argument on that point. There is very little doubt that a few years ago, when there was a bad time for fishermen, the grey seal was responsible for the destruction of the salmon. For that reason, I think we should have a Measure passed on the lines of the present Bill and when this Bill comes to the Committee stage I hope it will be improved and shortened.

§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

§ The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 41.

175

Division No. 174.]	AYES.	[10.48 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Burgin, Dr. E. L.	Gill, T. H.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)	Glassey, A. E.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')	Calne, Derwent Hall-	Gossling, A. G.
Ammon, Charles George	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)	Gould, F.
Arnott, John	Chater, Daniel	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Aske, Sir Robert	Cluse, W. S.	Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Astor, Viscountess	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Groves, Thomas E.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Compton, Joseph	Grundy, Thomas W.
Ayles, Walter	Cripps, Sir Stafford	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Batey, Joseph	Daggar, George	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood	Dallas, George	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)	Dalton, Hugh	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Benson, G.	Day, Harry	Hardie, George D.
Birkett, W. Norman	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Blindell, James	Duncan, Charles	Haycock, A. W.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret	Ede, James Chuter	Hayday, Arthur
Bowen, J. W.	Edmunds, J. E.	Hayes, John Henry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Egan, W. H.	Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Broad, Francis Alfred	Elmley, Viscount	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Brothers, M.	Foot, Isaac	Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Buchanan, G.	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)	Hoffman, P. C.
Burgess, F. G.	Gibbins, Joseph	Hopkin, Daniel
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)	Marshall, Fred	Shillaker, J. F.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Mathers, George	Shinwell, E.
Isaacs, George	Maxton, James	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Johnston, Thomas	Melville, Sir James	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)	Middleton, G.	Smith, Tom (Pontetract)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Miller, J. D.	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Mills, J. E.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)	Milner, Major J.	Sorensen, R.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Stamford, Thomas W.
Kelly, W. T.	Mu[...], G.	Stephen, Campbell
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Muggeridge, H. T.	Strauss, G. R.
Kinley, J.	Murnin, Hugh	Sutton, J. E.
Kirkwood, D.	Naylor, T. E.	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Noel Baker, P. J.	Thurtle, Ernest
Lathan, G.	Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Nerfolk, N.)	Tinker, John Joseph
Law, Albert (Bolton)	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)	Toole, Joseph
Law, A. (Rossendale)	Palin, John Henry	Townend, A. E.
Lawrence, Susan	Palmer, E. T.	Viant, S. P.
Leach, W.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Walkden, A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Pole, Major D. G.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Potts, John S.	Watkins, F. C.
Lindley, Fred W.	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Rathbone, Eleanor	We[...]ock, Wilfred
Logan, David Gilbert	Raynes, W. R.	West, F. R.
Longden, F.	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Westwood, Joseph
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Lunn, William	Rosbotham, D. S. T.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Rowson, Guy	Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Salter, Dr. Alfred	Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)	Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Sanders, W. S.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
McElwee, A.	Sawyer, G. F.	Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)
McEntee, V. L.	Scurr, John	Wise, E. F.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Womersley, W. J.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Manning, E. L.	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
McShane, John James	Sherwood, G. H.	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
Markham, S. F.	Shield, George William	B. Smith.
Marley, J.	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)	Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Albery, Irving James	Ferguson, Sir John	Salmon, Major I.
Atkinson, C.	Greene, W. P. Crawford	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Beaumont, M. W.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest, Whittome
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)	Smithers, Waldron
Butler, R. A.	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Campbell, E. T.	Long, Major Hon. Eric	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Macquisten, F. A.	Wells, Sydney R.
Colfox, Major William Philip	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Colville, Major D. J.	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Muirhead, A. J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Remer, John R.	Sir John Ganzoni and Commander
Dawson, Sir Ph[...]p	Richardson, Sir P. w. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)	Southby.

Question put, and agreed to.