ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY FISHING REGULATIONS (Hansard, 25 June 1981)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
These amendments are slightly more substantial and I shall explain them, so that hon. Members can understand what is proposed. The House will realise that, according to the wording to subsection 1 of the clause as it left the House, all Community restrictions relating to sea fishing automatically attract a single level of maximum fine appropriate to prohibitions of fishing under section 5(1) of the Sea Fish 405 (Conservation) Act 1967—that is, £50,000 on summary conviction. However, not all offences which would be covered by that subsection will necessarily warrant a maximum fine at that level.
The Government have, therefore, decided that a degree of flexibility should be built into the subsection to enable Ministers, when necessary, to make an order. I emphasise the word "order". That means that there is further reference to the House. The order would apply penalties and so on, on the same basis as for other obligations under subsection (2). I emphasise that such orders could apply only lower maximum penalties than those provided for in section 5 of the 1967 Act. In other words, an order could only be made to lessen the severity of the criminal law.
Amendment No. 12 is slightly different. Clause 30 provides powers for the enforcement of Community fisheries legislation in our waters, including legislation which would follow from agreement on a common fisheries policy. The Clause contains subsidiary powers needed for the enforcement of the Community provisions, relating, for example, to the setting of maximum penalties for offences, and giving British sea fishery officers the powers that they need to examine vessels.
I am advised that the present lists of powers are incomplete and that it would be of advantage, in enforcing the Community law, if the full range of enforcement provisions currently available to our enforcement authorities for enforcing existing United Kingdom laws should also be available to them in enforcing the Community provisions.

§ Mr. McQuarrie
As my right hon. Friend has said, Lords Amendment No. 9 seeks to alter lines 32 to 44 of page 26. That will have the effect of giving the Minister powers, under an order, to alter the maximum fine on summary conviction, of £50,000, which can be imposed on an owner-master or charterer of any vessel.
Although I accept that such orders will apply if the amendments are accepted, they can apply only lower maximum penalties than those provided for under section 5 of the 1967 Act. Any order that the Minister might make could only lessen—as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said—the severity of the criminal law. Hon. Members would like to be assured that any order that the Minister may make will not diminish the penalties to such an extent that offenders will not be penalised and will continue to offend in the knowledge that the penalties are not as punitive as the existing £50,000 fine that can be imposed under section 5 of the Sea Fish (Conservation Act) 1967. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will let the House have that assurance.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I give my hon. Friend that assurance. We should not have introduced the higher limit of £50,000 if we had not wanted to ensure that offences were treated seriously. We have sought the power to introduce a lower limit for certain offences, because there are gradations of offence. For example, serious offences can be committed as regards mesh sizes, but not all such offences are serious.
Therefore, in this case—I am thinking especially of the use of undersized nets—we might want to introduce a lower ceiling of penalties. Where the offence is serious I do not want to see the limit lowered. I assure my hon. Friend of that. I emphasise that the Government would have to introduce an order, so there will be an opportunity for discussion of that order in the House.