SEA-FISHERY OFFICERS (Hansard, 15 November 1968)

The Deputy Chairman
The next Amendment is amendment No. 5, with which I suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 1, leave out ' on full pay' and Amendment No. 7, in page 7, line 3, leave out 'command or'.

§ Mr. Stodart
I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 45, leave out 'other than' and insert 'including'.
The three Amendments have one thing in common. From what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has just said, I hope that I shall have his approval, because they are designed to make policing more efficient and to speed up the process of intercepting poachers. When I was in the position occupied by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), time and again I received reports of incidents, with protection vessels often not arriving in time.
A fishery officer may want to board a vessel and go through the equipment and documents. But, first, he must get to sea and stop the vessel. A protection vessel is not always out on the high seas. I remember occasions when the protection vessel was tied up at Stornoway and had to get away into the Minch when there was report of a foreign vessel. That often included one from Fleetwood, which, so I was informed, was also regarded as foreign.
Accordingly, it is undesirable to limit the type of person who may be qualified to act as a fishery officer. Why should not an assistant fishery officer be allowed to act in that capacity? Under subsection 1(d), first or second officers of the fishery protection service are allowed to do so; it is not necessary for an officer to be at the very top under that provision. In subsection (1)(f) three grades of the coastguard service are admitted, and in subsection (2) the appropriate Minister is allowed to appoint any person. Amendment No. 5 would do nothing but increase efficiency by allowing an assistant fishery officer as well as officers of the sea-fishery inspectorate to act.
On Amendment No. 6, it seems to me to be slightly absurd that one should have to go to the trouble of finding 813 out whether a commissioned officer, possibly struggling into his trousers in the middle of the night, is on full pay. If he is on half pay he cannot act. This kind of thing makes a nonsense of the Clause.
Subsection (1) (c) is much more sensible. It does not require the person in command of an aircraft or hovercraft to be a commissioned officer. This is obviously because very often the person in command is a sergeant pilot. If he is regarded as perfectly adequate to do the job, why differentiate between the services?
What is the subtle difference between a person "in command" of an aircraft and a person "in charge" of an aircraft? It could be said that if the commanding officer has gone for lunch he has left somebody in charge of the aircraft, and that person could well be anybody at the station at which the machine was based. But whoever that person is, he is regarded as being perfectly suitable to act as a sea-fishery officer.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that we have to make policing as proficient as it can possibly be. These Amendments are designed to give people who are perfectly worthy of having it in emergency—and it usually is an emergency—responsibility to act, and it is in that spirit that I move the Amendment.

§ Mr. Buchan
I shall take each Amendment in turn, but I should like to reverse the order, although I shall start with Amendment No. 5.
I can understand why this Amendment should be proposed. The difficulty is that at present the grade "assistant fishery officer" is one which we have in Scotland and not in England, where part of the duties are carried out by junior clerical and scientific staff, and the Amendment would, therefore, have effect only in Scotland. In a sense, the grade is a training grade in Scotland. It is a fairly junior grade. If the powers were conferred as proposed those officers would not be likely to be required to exercise them; they would not be likely to be on the scene of the operation, for they are shore-based officers. The main point, however, is that this is a junior grade and a training grade, and I hope 814 that, on reconsideration, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that Amendment.
There is one other point we might keep in mind, and that is that here we are dealing with fairly important international matters which are involved, and that is an additional reason for keeping this part of the Clause as it is.
I come now to Amendment No. 7. I suppose that it is based on the debatable assumption that the person for the time being in charge of an aircraft or hovercraft is in command of it. I am not very sure about this. The person in command is exercising his powers as a fishery officer, but some other person may be at the controls. The Amendment could lead to difficulty—for example, the commander of the hovercraft, were one of the crew in charge of the craft, could not then order the offending fishing vessel to stop for inspection.
I know that hon. Members very often talk about draftsmen's dreams and I think that this Amendment may be a dream, which we would not want to become a reality, for we do not want there to be any doubt as to who is in command—or in charge—or any doubt as to his powers. I hope that the Committee will reject that Amendment.
That gives me my reason for leaving Amendment No. 6 to the last. I take the point put by the hon. Member and I am happy to accept it. I have had it confirmed by the Ministry of Defence that an officer would be on reduced pay only if he had been dismissed his ship. All commissioned officers serving in naval vessels are on full pay. I am sure that the entire Committee will concur in accepting that Amendment.

§ Mr. Stodart
Obviously, this is a good bargain. In view of all that the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall waste no more time on the other Amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.