§ Mr. GrimondI beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 9, line 10, at end insert
'and/or forfeiture of any fishing instrument used, or sea fish taken, in contravention, or found in the possession of a person contravening, any byelaws'.914 I was asked to table the amendment by certain fishery interests in England which thought that the penalties provided in the schedule were not adequate. They said that a £1,000 fine sounded a lot but that the value of catches was so great that it would not be a sufficient deterrent. I make no defence of the wording of the amendment, which is complicated. I have an idea that the amendment is unnecessary anyway, because I think that the authorities would have the power to confiscate gear and possibly the catch as well. I should be grateful to be reassured that the penalties are adequate.
§ Mr. BishopThe amendment would add considerably to the penalties which courts may impose for the contravention of byelaws made by local sea fishery committees in pursuance of their powers under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966. Those byelaws have effect out to three miles off the coast of England and Wales and relate to the species of fish which may be caught and the method by which they may be caught. These are traditionally the fishing grounds of the smaller vessels. I do not think that it would be appropriate to apply harsher penalties than those set out in the Bill for contraventions.
The schedule proposes an increase in the maximum summary fine to £1,000 for byelaw offences. That is up to 20 times the present maximum. I am content that the new level of fines will prove to be an adequate deterrent. The fines which may at present be imposed are £50 for the first offence, £150 for the second offence and then £300 or three months' imprisonment, and so on. The suggested amounts are much larger penalties, and we should have in mind the comments made by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about enforcement. If enforcement is effective, it is another deterrent.
§ Mr. WallHave the fines been discussed with our EEC partners and, above all, with Norway and Iceland, which are not members of the EEC? It seems that our vessels get caned when they are caught fishing off Iceland but that our penalties are much lower. Have the penalties been discussed with other major fishing nations?
§ Mr. BishopI have no information on that matter, but throughout the Bill 915 there has been a drastic increase in penalties in general. We must look at Schedule 1 against that background. I stress the point about enforcement, which is important, because until one catches those concerned one cannot take action against them.
§ Mr. GrimondI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 1 agreed to.