§ Mr. WallI beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 28, after 'forfeiture', insert 'or destruction'. 809 I assure the Minister that this also is merely a probing Amendment. Why is he so tough in Scotland? In the event of a contravention in England, the person convicted is to forfeit any fish or fishing gear found aboard the boat, but in Scotland he not only forfeits the fishing gear but it may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. Why are the regulations different in that respect?
Perhaps it would not be out of order to ask in this connection whether there is any chance of reaching an international agreement on a scale of punishments for offences of this kind. We now have agreements about policing, mesh sizes and so on. If we could have an international agreement which gave a rough and ready guide on punishments, it would be of value for the industry.
§ Mr. BuchanWe have just had a little discussion on the Front Bench about who should answer, having regard to the way the Amendment is worded. However, as the hon. Gentleman spoke to the Scottish aspect of the question, although the Amendment was phrased to amend the law relating to England, I have opted to reply.
I readily understand that the difference in phraseology in subsection (5) has prompted the hon. Gentleman to ask his question, but I am glad to tell him that the answer is straightforward. I am advised that for England and Wales the point is fully covered by Section 115 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. No doubt, hon. Members have been reading the Fisheries Acts so assiduously over the past few days that they have turned their minds to the Magistrates' Courts Act of 1952.
The 1952 Act enables a court in England, if forfeiture is ordered, to direct that the forfeited articles shall be sold or otherwise disposed of in such manner as it may prescribe, and destruction could be ordered in appropriate cases. In cases when the prosecutor seeks forfeiture, it is normal to give the court his view on how the catch or gear should be disposed of—for example, he could seek destruction of a net with illegal meshes—and the court will usually agree.
The Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, does not apply to Scotland. This was the reason for the specific reference to 810 destruction or disposal in subsection 5(c).
§ Mr. WallI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for treating so courteously a mere Sassenach who dares to interfere in Scottish affairs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. StodartI follow what was said a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about the need for a measure of uniformity in penalties. My question is to ask how the figure of £500 was arrived at. Although I do not necessarily agree with the penalties in other countries, there is a very wide variation. Compared with penalties elsewhere, that in subsection (5) is light. In England, Wales and Scotland the penalty can be £500, plus forfeiture, plus destruction. But in the Daily Telegraph this morning I read of a skipper from Fleetwood convicted of illegal fishing within the Iceland limits, and the penalty was £2,850 fine, two months' imprisonment and complete confiscation.
I do not say that that is right, but, if that is the sort of thing that our skippers must put up with if they go over the borderline, is not £500 here very much child's play? In view of that, do the Government think that the sentences are adequate?
§ 1.30 p.m.
§ Mr. HoyI shall not comment on the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred because something might follow from it, and therefore it would not be right for me to do so. Nor will I argue the different circumstances as to the type of vessels involved in the offence. There is a great difference between a distant water vessel and one that is inshore.
We have brought the penalty much more up to date. In Committee on another Bill we were harangued at length about being a little too vindictive in the penalties we introduced. But there is no satisfactory way of measuring a penalty; one makes it what one thinks will meet the offence. We have now increased it pretty substantially, and I hope that we shall convey to the courts that 811 we hope to deter potential offenders. We hope that the penalties imposed on those found guilty will reflect the feelings of the House.
§ Mr. StodartThe hon. Gentleman seemed to differentiate between a fine on a distant water trawler operating in Iceland waters and one on an inshore vessel. But this is the penalty to which a vessel from Iceland might be subject. It does not affect our inshore vessels. I dare say that I should be careful, because the matter may be sub judice, but, while I believe that the penalty I have quoted is excessively savage, compared with it the penalty that we are introducing is child's play.
§ Mr. HoyI do not want to underestimate the matter, because it is important to our industry. But the hon. Gentleman has already said that in the case overseas the penalty was savage. One cannot make a comparison with what one regards as savage and then say that we may therefore be underestimating what we should do. I agree that we want to deter trespassers, and we have made provision to do it in this way. I do not differ from the hon. Gentleman about the savagery of some penalties imposed overseas, which certainly do not meet with my approval.
§ Mr. McNamaraDoes my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is not the size of the fine or the degree of the penalty but the efficiency of the policing? This particularly applies on the Yorkshire coast, where there is a great deal of trespassing by foreign vessels coming inshore.
§ Mr. HoyThere is a lot in my hon. Friend's argument. If skippers know that they are being adequately policed, that is a deterrent. They must be shown that it will not be worth while to trespass because in addition to the fines we have the right to impose forfeiture. That is a great deterrent, which is perhaps even more important than the fines.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.