§ Where any vessel is used for the purposes of illegal trawling and damage is thereby caused to any nets or gear belonging to persons engaged in lawful fishing, the court shall, on conviction, order the payment by the owners of the vessel of such amount of compensation for the damage caused as it may deem proper.—[Mr. Maclean.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 10.53 p.m.
§ Mr. MACLEANI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
At this hour I do not propose to make any long remarks, but I will merely remind the Secretary of State and the Lord 444 Advocate that this has been a vexed question among fishermen for many years. I should only be doing the proper thing if I reminded hon. Members who have been in this House for the last six years that at least five years ago the Moray Firth was almost in a state of rebellion because of what the men considered the inaction of the Government towards the trawlers which were destroying the nets of the fishermen along that coast. Various suggestions were made at that time, and attempts were made to induce the Government to take action in such a manner as would at least ensure to the owners of the nets compensation for the nets that were being destroyed. During the Second Reading Debate some appeals were made to get something incorporated in the Bill that would make this a closed question once and for all, and we have placed this Clause on the Paper in the hope that the Government will accept it, because it is a matter which I am certain all Scottish Members, particularly those who represent the fishing villages in the North and West of Scotland, are anxious to have settled, because complaints are bound to be made to them every time they go into their constituencies. Where these inshore fishermen are put to such losses, compensation should be paid to them by those who are guilty of illegal trawling.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThe absurd thing about this matter is that the Revenue benefits from this illegal trawling. We are getting fines of hundreds of pounds, and the fishermen lose their nets and get nothing. Surely this is a prior claim even to a fine, and it seems to me a just Clause.
§ 10.56 p.m.
§ Sir I. MACPHERSONI do not know whether this is the appropriate Bill for a Clause of this kind, but I thoroughly agree with what the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has said. It is clear that if illegal trawling takes place, and the nets of innocent fishermen are destroyed as a result, some compensation should be made, and I think that that is a general feeling throughout Scotland. My one difficulty in the matter is as to whether this is the appropriate Bill, but I am sure the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the Clause, because it is the general wish that a Clause of this kind should be passed. We had 445 a case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) last summer, when we had a conviction of an illegal trawler. It was his ninth conviction, and not only so, but he destroyed the nets which were set by innocent fishermen earning their livelihood in that part of the world. I understand that when the case came before the authorities there was no power to give compensation. That seems to be utterly wrong, and I hope the Lord Advocate, with all his skill, will be able to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Govan and all of us who feel strongly on this point.
§ 10.58 p.m.
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI confess that when I first read the proposed new Clause I read it with considerable sympathy, for everybody would wish to see those who are wronged by the guilty act of somebody else righted by the simplest possible process of law, but when one considers it, it very speedily appears to be open to fundamental objections. If the Clause were passed into law, it would make the owner of the trawler liable for compensation to a person whose nets had been injured when his, the owner's, vessel had been used in illegal trawling, although it might be the first occasion on which the vessel had been so used or on which the skipper of it had ever been found unlawfully within the three miles limit. The Bill has properly drawn a distinction throughout between the first conviction of a skipper of a trawler and a second or subsequent conviction. The first conviction of a skipper has no effect upon the owner of the vessel, and it is only upon a second or subsequent conviction of a skipper that the owner of the vessel can be affected.
In Snort, the Bill in its general principle assumes that every trawler owner will be anxious to keep within the law and that no presumption arises against him until he puts in command of a trawler a man who has already been found guilty. That proceeds upon a sound principle in accordance with the Common Law. There would be no Common Law liability on the part of the owner for damage done to the nets of another man through the act of the skipper of the vessel if that skipper was acting outwith the scope of his authority and contrary to his orders; and it would not be appropriate 446 or right in this Bill just by a procedure Clause to fix upon the owner a liability which is unknown to the Common Law and contrary to the principles of the Common Law, and to involve the owner in a civil liability which he has done everything in his power perhaps to avoid by giving his skipper orders on no account to go within the three-mile limit.
I am aware that there is in the Sea Fisheries Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885, a Section which gives the person whose nets have been destroyed by illegal trawling a remedy against the skipper in a criminal action, but the Committee will at once observe that the Act only gives a simplified method of enforcing what was a right at Common Law. If the skipper in charge of a vessel unlawfully goes within the three-mile limit, and not only trawls but destroys in the course of his illegal trawling the nets of an inshore fisherman, the damage so caused gives rise to an action at Common Law against the skipper.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENAnd the owner, surely?
§ The LORD ADVOCATENot if the skipper was acting beyond the scope of his authority. The Act of 1885 gave a short method of enforcing that Common Law right. In this proposed new Clause we are asked to create a new right con-contrary to the Common Law. The Act of 1885, which gave that right to the man whose nets were destroyed against the skipper, carefully prescribed the conditions under which his right should operate. There are none of these precautions included in this Clause. If you are going to allow any such right against the owner, it is manifest justice that he should be entitled to be heard, but in the proceedings contemplated under the new Clause, there is a charge against the skipper only and there will be no charge against the owner at all and no provision for him to be heard. There are great difficulties about enforcement. When the skipper is ordered to pay compensation he is before the court, but the owner may be a foreigner and not under the jurisdiction of the court. There would have to be some provision to deal with this. I rest my attitude on the fundamental point that it would create a civil liability which is contrary to the law of Scotland.
§ 11.5 p.m.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENWith all respect, I beg to question what the Lord Advocate has laid down in regard to the liability of the owner. I have no doubt whatever that an owner is liable for damage done to nets, even within the three-miles limit, and even though he has told the trawler not to go there. Everybody is liable for what his servants do. Suppose I tell my chauffeur not to exceed the speed limit but he does so, and runs down and injures somebody. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that I am going to escape by saying, "Oh, I told the beggar that he was not to drive fast, beyond the speed limit"? Of course I should be liable. The real difficulty is that under the Common Law one can cite an owner, who has a chance to defend himself, but under this Clause he would have no opportunity of being heard. That point, however, could surely be met. If a claim were made the owner of the trawler could be cited before the court. As to the suggestion that he might be a foreign trawler and that we had no jurisdiction over him, the authorities would have his ship and that would be the best hold they could have upon him. The ship is seized and is not allowed to sail. If a Clause could be drawn up which would give an opportunity for the owner to be cited in court to defend the claim, I think this would be an admirable proposition, and I do not think it would be enlarging the scope of present Common Law liability.
The only difficulty at present is that the fisherman has got no funds with which to sue, and therefore the trawler owner escapes. Nets to the value of hundreds of pounds may be destroyed and if the trawler owner were cited the poor fisherman might get back something of what he has lost. The owner is undoubtedly liable, because he gets the fish, he is making money out of the illegality. I feel sure that he must be liable, unless the Lord Advocate can quote me some definite authority to the contrary.
§ 11.8 p.m.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI am not going to intervene in the difference of opinions between two of my hon. and learned Friends opposite, but I wish to point out that this new Clause follows a sequence of Amendments of a very vindictive character. I rejoice that on this occasion 448 the Government have stood firm against one of these proposals moved from the Socialist Front Bench and occasionally supported by hon. Members—I do not know how to classify them—sitting in various parts of the Committee. Many of us have been a little shocked to find the Government giving way to these Amendments from time to time, and I rejoice that the Lord Advocate is not going to bring in a Clause, at the dictates of the Socialist Front Bench, which would entirely alter the common law of Scotland. That is not the kind of thing which the House of Commons should be asked to consider at this time of night, even though it would have the support of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). I ask the Government to be strong and not to accept this Clause, because if it were added to the Bill it would make it very difficult for us to deal with the further stages which we are being asked to consider to-night.
§ 11.10 p.m.
§ Mr. MACLEANI am surprised at the Lord Advocate not accepting this proposed new Clause. He made reference to the amending Act of 1885, and in Sections 7 and 8 the principle is very clearly laid down regarding the right of compensation of any individual whose gear is damaged by any individual on a vessel.
I think I am summarising accurately the intention of the Sections of the amending Acts that he mentioned in his reply. We have heard all this stuff from the Lord Advocate, and particularly from the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who, living as he has for so long in the South of England, has so much knowledge of the fishery question, which is provoking the Highlanders of Scotland almost to revolt, that he monopolises the time of the Debate in expressing himself upon it. He has told us that we are moving a vindictive Amendment.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSMay I interrupt the hon. Member to say that I was particularly careful not to get up until no other Scotsman was to get up. I thought that was the best way to deal with it.
§ Mr. MACLEANI am very glad to hear that the hon. Member for Torquay is always prepared to allow a Scotsman to lead him. As long as he follows the Scottish people he will not go far wrong.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSMay I say—
§ Mr. MACLEANWhat he says is vindictiveness on our part is really elementary justice. For many years the inshore fishermen of Scotland have suffered at the hands of those who have carried out their illegal operations—
§ Mr. MACQUISTENFrom England—
§ Mr. MACLEAN—which are sheer piracy. I have heard statements in this House time and time again about the attitude of skippers and crews engaged in illegal trawling in order to make it impossible for a sea fishery officer to detect them or to identify them by getting their registered number. The vindictiveness is not on the part of the Socialist Members, who are doing their best to protect the inshore fishermen, but on the part of the hon. Member for Torquay who wishes to have continued the conditions against which the inshore fishermen have been protesting for so long. The hon. Member does not wish to see those who are breaking the law receive their punishment.
I was surprised that when the Lord Advocate read the Sections, that he did not carry his sympathy a little further. This Clause has been upon the Order Paper since 28th March; surely something could have been devised by the Lord Advocate or by the Secretary of State for Scotland to meet the difficulties which he has been putting forward as the reason why this Clause cannot be accepted. This morning, when I looked at the Votes, and saw the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland against an Amendment above my own, leading the Scotsmen, as he ought to do, in this very decent and just Amendment, I came to the conclusion at once that, for once in a while, he had given a lead to other members of the
| Division No. 195.] | AYES. | [11.18 p.m. |
| Banfield, John William | Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Mainwaring, William Henry |
| Cape, Thomas | Hicks, Ernest George | Milner, Major James |
| Daggar, George | Jenkins, Sir William | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | John, William | Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Dobbie, William | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Edwards, Charles | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) |
| Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Logan. David Gilbert | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Greenwood. Rt. Hon. Arthur | Lunn, William | White, Henry Graham |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Griffith, P. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.) | McEntee, Valentine L. | Wilmot, John |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Leonard. |
§ Cabinet in accepting an Amendment moved by the Opposition. I was congratulating myself that our party had been able to draft an Amendment which Government draftsmen could not improve upon. I thought we were making progress in the House. But now I find that the Lord Advocate has to go back to an Act of 1885 and turn it round and round to prove that the difficulties which stand in the way are so gigantic that a National Government of all the talents, drawn from the various parties excepting ours, has evidently not the courage or the ability to draft a Clause to meet the difficulties and injustices with which these inshore fishermen have been faced for all these years. If the Government cannot accept this proposed new Clause we must carry it to a Division, as a protest against the continuance of a state of affairs which these inshore fishermen have been fighting against for so many years.
§ 11.17 p.m.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSIf I might be allowed to reply to the attack of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), who, I am sure, had not heard my previous statements, I should like to say that I very strongly deprecate this illegal trawling and think it should be punished, but the simple statement which I made, and by which I stand, is that the penalties under the Bill, considering the amazing difficulties of the position at sea and the poverty of the trawling trade to-day, are out of all proportion I apologise for rising again, but I feel that it is not right that I, who have always objected to illegal trawling, should be subjected to a statement of that kind—which I am sure the hon. Member made quite accidentally—when it is entirely against my real wishes.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 182.
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Goff, Sir Park | Pearson, William G. |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Peat, Charles U. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) | Penny, Sir George |
| Albery, Irving James | Greene, William P. C. | Petherick, M. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Grimston, R. V. | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. | Pybus, Sir Percy John |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Guy, J. C. Morrison | Ralkes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) |
| Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Hales, Harold K. | Ramsden, Sir Eugene |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Hanbury, Cecil | Rankin, Robert |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Harbord, Arthur | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) |
| Blindell, James | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Remer, John R. |
| Bracken, Brendan | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. |
| Braithwalte, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Rickards, George William |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Howard, Tom Forrest | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Jennings, Roland | Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) |
| Browne, Captain A. C. | Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) |
| Rurgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Salmon, Sir Isidore |
| Burnett, John George | Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) | Salt, Edward W. |
| Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Sandeman. Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) | Law, Sir Alfred | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Scone, Lord |
| Carver, Major William H. | Leckie, J. A. | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Christie, James Archibald | Liddall. Walter S. | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Clarke, Frank | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Clayton, Sir Christopher | Liewellin, Major John J. | Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne.C.) |
| Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey | Loftus, Pierce C. | Somervell, Sir Donald |
| Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Soper, Richard |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Mabane, William | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) | MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Stevenson, James |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.) |
| Cross, R. H. | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Stones, James |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | McKeag, William | Storey, Samuel |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | McKle. John Hamilton | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Dickie, John P. | Magnay, Thomas | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Drewe, Cedric | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir. M. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) | Templeton, William P. |
| Dunglass, Lord | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Edge, Sir William | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Thompson, Sir Luke |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Milne, Charles | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Elmley, Viscount | Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Emrye-Evans, P. V. | Moreing, Adrian C. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. |
| Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Morrison, William Shepherd | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Flint, Abraham John | Munro, Patrick | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Fox, Sir Gilford | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Womersley, Walter James |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid | |
| Gledhill, Gilbert | O'Donovan, Dr. William James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Captain Austin Hudson and |
| Gluckstein, Louis Halle | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Commander Southby. |
§ Schedule (Enactments Repealed) agreed to.
§ Bill reported; as amended, considered.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ 11.28 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEIt is obvious that we English people have had a very hard fight to-day against the united forces of Scotland. There is one thing which I always notice. Whatever their political differences, whenever there 452 is a chance of getting a cut at England, Scotsmen of all political parties unite. It is fairly obvious that we who represent some of the fishing ports of England are going to be very severely affected by the Bill if it is worked in a vindictive spirit, which I hope will not be the case. The Secretary of State for Scotland has very kindly met us on three important points, and especially so in one respect, as a result of which everybody starts afresh in regard to a new conviction. This was unexpected, and we heartily thank him for it. I hope 453 that, although he refused to consider the Amendment which dealt with trawling in stress of weather, he will take another look at the matter. He shakes his head. I must make one or two points on that question, because there are trawlers which go to Scotland to trawl and which, owing to fog, have no idea that they are within the three-mile limit. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not undertake to meet the owners' representatives and see if he cannot meet the point? Scotland possesses very varied features. Fogs come on quickly. The skipper is concerned with looking after his fish, and perhaps not so much with his position. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that innocent people are not affected by the new Act.
We in England are now fully aware of the vindictive action of the Socialist party in regard to penalties, and we hope that it will be appreciated by the working-class population. These increased penalties are directly aimed at the working classes of this country, not only the skippers but the crews. We who represent the large fishing ports, the trawler owners and the fishermen, feel that this action of the Socialist party should be thoroughly understood. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) talking about outlaws and poachers. I remember what he once said about poaching when he was speaking on a very difficult subject some years ago. Did he not stand up for the poachers?
§ Mr. MACLEANI am afraid the hon. and gallant Member's recollection is bad.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat has nothing to do with the Question now before the House.
§ Lieut-Colonel HENEAGEI accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The English trawler owners do not like illegal trawling and do not encourage their men to poach. They do not countenance any illegality of that kind. For these reasons I hope the Government will do their best to meet us on that point.
§ 11.33 p.m.
§ Sir I. MACPHERSONI support the Third Reading of the Bill, and I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on his courage in introducing it. Various Secretaries of State for Scotland have for years paid lip service to this 454 question, but it is only now that we have had a Bill which will give great satisfaction to the fishermen on the West and the East Coasts of Scotland. I agree that the English Members of Parliament so far as this Bill is concerned have had to endure a great deal, but I think, oh the whole, that when they see the Bill in its ultimate form they will realise that it is a Measure of fairness, long overdue to the fishermen on the coasts of Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate has been very useful throughout the Debate. He has been most conciliatory and has taken great pains to explain the difficulties in connection with the Bill, and I am sure the House is indebted to him for the courtesy and the ability which he has displayed in connection with this very difficult and controversial matter. That it has been controversial there can be no doubt, but it is largely due to the way the Bill has been piloted through the House that it will be accepted tonight nemine contradicente.
§ 11.34 p.m.
§ Sir R. HAMILTONI should like to join with my right hon. Friend in congratulating the Secretary of State for Scotland in having seen the Bill through the House of Commons. Some of us have been engaged for many years in trying to get a Bill of this nature placed upon the Statute Book and now, at last that has been done. I hope that my hon. Friends who represent trawling ports in England will not regard the Bill as directed against trawling. It certainly is not directed against trawling as an industry but is merely a Measure to protect the inshore fishermen of Scotland from people who break the law. May I take this opportunity of reminding the House that this is only a portion of the policy of the Government, the more important part is an improvement in the patrol service, and we hope that by improving the police service there will be little reason for putting the penalties provided in the Bill into operation.
§ 11.36 p.m.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThis is an excellent Bill, but there is one omission. We shall all join in congratulating the Secretary of State for Scotland on bringing forward a Bill which will enable us to deal with foreign trawlers as foreign Governments deal with our 455 own trawlers. The Bill as far as it goes is one for which we must thank the Secretary of State. At last our dream is being partly realised and our fishermen will once more be able to make a living.
§ 11.37 p.m.
§ Sir JOHN PYBUSI should also like to congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland, although not for the same reasons as have been the theme of other hon. Members. I think we must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that this hardy annual has been at long last carried through because the Government have been able safely to immolate in the National Ministry four of the staunchest opponents of this far too drastic Bill and who for years have defeated it on every occasion. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his luck and hope that the Bill will have a good run, before the English fishermen demand its amendment.
§ 11.38 p.m.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI want to emphasise the fact that I am strongly against any form of illegal trawling, and, so far as the Bill is an attack on illegal trawling in Scotland, I agree with it. I only regret that the illegal trawling of foreigners is not dealt with by the Bill. It is difficult for an ordinary Member of the House on such a complicated Bill as this to know exactly the meaning of the Amendments which have been made when we have not the printed amended Bill before us. I do not want to take up further time of the House, but I should like to point out that the Bill has been a very controversial subject for many years. If this is the beginning of more drastic action in regard to illegal trawling, and action on a wider scale, I am in favour of it, but it is very hard that by accident the opponents of the Bill from the north-east coast of England and the north-west coast of England and Scotland should now be sitting on the Front Bench or are absent, and it is unfortunate that this side of the great fishing industry should be deprived of their excellent views this evening. I still regret that the Government should have seen fit to force the further stages of the Bill through the House to-night when we cannot possibly know what is the real position in the Bill.
§ 11.39 p.m.
§ Mr. MACLEANI should like to be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that out of a long series of Secretaries of State for Scotland during the last 16 or 17 years he has at last done something to placate the feeling of people in Scotland in regard to the fishing industry, and I hope that the Bill will bring about the results we all hope. If it does not then I hope that amending legislation will be brought in to make good any defects. I hope that the patrol vessels we have been promised will not only be put in hand at an early date, but that they will also be vessels whose speed will enable them to overhaul any of the trawlers which they suspect of being engaged in illegal trawling. When the Secretary of State has completed his programme of legislation affecting the fisheries of Scotland, the whole House will be able to congratulate him on the completion of a piece of work which has been almost the despair of Secretaries for Scotland during 15 or 16 years.
§ 11.42 p.m.
§ Mr. BURNETTI would like to thank the Secretary of State for the concessions which he has made. But that does not alter my opinion of the Bill. I consider that the Bill has been founded on vague statements, on generalities, on charges which cannot be made good. It is founded, not on the convictions which have taken place but on convictions which it is said might have taken place but never did. For that reason, and because I consider that the Bill is aimed at the trawling industry generally, I am opposed to the Bill. But it is no use carrying opposition further. The Government has big battalions behind it and our opposition only a handful, and we can do no more than go down fighting.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.