COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 20 July 1885)

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, that whenever this Bill came under consideration he looked with curiosity at the countenance of his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), who was President of the Property and Liberty Defence Association. Some of the provisions of the Bill were of a very arbitrary character. Under the 4th clause, as he read it, the Fishery Board in Edinburgh might prohibit absolutely over the whole coast of Scotland, within the three-mile limit, the great industry of steam trawling. That clause ran as follows:— When the Fishery Board for Scotland are satisfied that any mode of fishing in any part of the sea adjoining Scotland, and within the exclusive fishery limits of the British Island, is injurious to any kind of sea fishing within that part, or where it appears desirable to make experiments or observations with the view of ascertaining whether any particular mode of fishing is injurious, or for the purpose of fish culture, or experiments in fish culture, the Fishery Board may make bye-laws for restricting or prohibit- 1165 ing, either entirely or subject to such regulations as may be provided by the bye-law, any method of fishing for sea fish within the said part. This really was a very serious question. The supply of fish in this country depended very much on the industry of steam trawling. Personally, he was interested, not in steam trawling, but in line fishing, and this was a Bill for the protection of the line fishings. Personally, his sympathies were entirely with the line fishers; but he must say it was really a most formidable thing that the Fishery Board should be given arbitrary power to make bye-laws to stop steam trawling over the whole coast of Scotland. He had great confidence in the Scottish Fishery Board. It was composed of very distinguished men, many of them Sheriffs, who were well acquainted with the law; and he hardly supposed that they would venture to issue a bye-law prohibiting steam trawling, for example, in the Firth of Forth. Take the case of the Firth of Forth. An enormous supply of fish had been got within recent years from the Firth of Forth by steam trawling. His noble Friend knew very well that a very small part indeed of the area of the Firth of Forth was beyond the three-mile distance from one shore to the other; and, therefore, under this clause the Fishery Board might prohibit steam trawling over the whole area of the Firth of Forth, and the only security they had was that the bye-law must have the sanction of the Secretary of State. Subject to that restriction, an absolute prohibition might be put upon that industry. But if such a bye-law wore issued, he did not think so violent an order would be sanctioned by any Secretary of State. Still, where a power of that kind existed, the pressure that would be brought upon the Board and the Secretary of State by local interests would be very great indeed; and under the new constituencies it might be much greater than it would be under the present circumstances. Only the other day he received a very interesting letter from a working man, who appealed to him whether it was not possible to devise some means by which a larger quantity of fish could be brought cheaply into the market for the consumption of the working classes. Having read that letter, he took up The Scotsman newspaper, and 1166 the first thing he saw was the speech of a new candidate for a Scotch constituency, in which it so happened there was a considerable number of fishing villages. As was common in such circumstances, he addressed himself to the voters in these fishing villages, and he actually propounded a scheme by which it should be made lawful for the Fishery Board that whenever a steam trawler came into a port with a large cargo of fish, and could not prove that these fish had been taken beyond the three-mile limit, the cargo should be sent away and allowed to be spoiled rather than sold. He would not venture to name the candidate nor the constituency; he only put forward this instance to show that there would be very great local pressure brought to bear upon every existing Government, and every existing Fishery Board, to shut up large areas of the sea against steam trawlers if the Bill passed as it stood. His attention was only drawn to this lately, and he should be sorry to oppose a Bill like this, with many good parts in it, without hearing the interpretation which his noble Friend put upon this clause. He would only say that it seemed to him almost a novelty to give such an enormous arbitrary power as this.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
said, that the Bill was based upon the Report of the Royal Commission on Trawling, of which he had the honour to be Chairman. The Commission was originally appointed to inquire into the injury which the line fishermen asserted had been done to their industry by steam trawling. They had some scientific evidence, and that evidence went to prove that it was quite possible for inclosed spaces, such as St. Andrew's Bay, and perhaps the Firth of Forth, to suffer from over-fishing generally. Professor Macintosh gave, as one reason why fish had so much decreased in size of late years in St. Andrew's Bay, was that there was not sufficient time, after one period of vigorous trawling, for the fish to recover their size before there was another trawling; and it seemed to the Commission desirable that experiments should be made to show to what extent a given spot of the sea could be trawled or fished out, and also how long it would be necessary to give it rest before it recovered its original fertility. The clause to which the noble Duke 1167 referred was inserted for the express purpose of giving the Fishery Board that power. Professor Macintosh had, at the request of the Commission, conducted experiments extending over a period of eight months; and if the Bill passed the Fishery Board would continue them, and exclude trawling within the territorial waters of the Firth of Forth, St. Andrew's Bay, and a part of the sea known as Aberdeen Bay. There were experimental stations at Granton and St. Andrew's; it therefore seemed very desirable that those districts should be chosen for experiments. The Bill, while it gave power to exclude trawling, also gave power to prohibit any kind of fishing in order that the experiments might be properly carried out. He admitted the powers were large; but he had been in communication with the Fishery Board, and he considered the Board was likely to exercise them in a reasonable manner; and he hoped, whatever guarantees the House exacted in order that these powers should not be misused, that they would, at all events, leave it to the Fishery Board to make these experiments.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN
said, that on the second reading of the Bill he had taken exception to this clause. As it stood, the powers of the Fishery Board could be exercised entirely at their own discretion. Probably those powers would be exercised at present in a proper way; but there was no guarantee whatever for the future that they would not exercise them in a manner which would be disastrous to the trawling industry of Scotland. He did not mean to say that it was a very large industry; but it was one that was growing, and one upon which the fish supply for a large portion of the country would in an increasing degree depend. He hoped the noble Duke would be able to give the House some indication of the manner in which a guarantee could be obtained from the Fishery Board, as to the way in which they would exercise these powers in future. The powers ought to be clearly defined, and, if possible, more limited.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
said, the reason why he had not objected to the provision of this clause was because, living on the East Coast, he saw the devastation caused by the trawlers, which came close in shore among the nets and 1168 lines of the fishermen, who pursued an industry which was the nursery of the seamen for our Navy. It appeared to him, in consequence of the destruction of small fish and bait beds, and the injury to their nets and lines—leading to bad feeling between these hardy fishermen and the trawlers, and even to blows at times—that there was a case for the intervention of the State. The relation of the net and line fisheries was like that of a waggon to a railway, and perhaps 95 per cent of the fish that came to London was trawled; but the trawlers wont out 100 miles to sea. Whether the powers in question were excessive or not he did not pretend to say; but if sufficient security was not given by the publicity provided and the assent of a Secretary of State, perhaps his noble Friend in charge of the Bill would provide some further protection against the abuse by the Board of the powers proposed to be entrusted to it to the prejudice of the rights of trawlers.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Duke of RICHMOND and GORDON)
said, his noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll) was not present when the second reading of the Bill was moved, or he would have heard the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie) give very satisfactory reasons for the measure. Anyone who had taken the trouble to read the Report of the Commission presided over by the noble Earl would become aware of the enormous amount of damage which had been done to the line and net fishers by the trawlers; andhewas not at all surprised that the result arrived at by the Commission was that some such step as this was necessary to prevent the line and net fishing from being entirely destroyed. The Commission took evidence in various parts of Scotland, from the extreme North to the extreme South, and examined several witnesses who could scarcely speak the English language; and he was bound to say he thought the evidence completely justified the noble Earl in introducing this Bill. There were one or two points which he thought required amendment, and he had put down some Amendments which he should move presently. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) would see that whatever bye-law was proposed to be made by the Fishery Board should not have validity until it was confirmed by one principal Secre- 1169 tary of State; and he thought they might fairly conclude that no Secretary of State would give his consent to a bye-law unless it was proved to him to be necessary, and did not have a prejudicial effect on any interest concerned. It was stated that in consequence of the operations of trawlers in particular districts line and net fishers would find their occupation gone unless they were pro-tooted, and these were the men who, as his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) observed, were really a nursery for the Navy of this country. He was not prepared at present to limit the operation of the clause; but he should not be unwilling to accept any words which would satisfy the public that it would not have the very large effect which the noble Duke apprehended.

THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE
said, he hoped the noble Duke would withdraw his opposition to the clause. It was absolutely necessary that some such clause should be passed. There was no allegation that trawling destroyed small fish and spawn. The trawling net was a most efficient instrument for catching fish. The object of the clause was to compare the result at those places on the coast where trawling was in full force with the result at those places where trawling had been temporarily suspended. What they wanted to do was to find out whether trawling over fished a given place, and to what extent it did so.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, he would not trouble their Lordships to divide.