HL Deb 18 February 1895 vol 30 cc933-5
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

asked whether a fishing vessel sailing under a foreign flag was entitled to the same privileges as to landing fish in Scottish ports, whether it were commanded and owned by foreigners or by British subjects; and whether the Government would endeavour to secure, by Convention or otherwise, that all foreign vessels which were permitted to land fish in Scottish ports should conform to the regulations as to trawling and otherwise laid down by the Fishery Board of Scotland or by Statute for British vessels? He said that the subject to which his questions referred was very important to Scottish fishermen, and, indeed, to all British fishermen. There were certain parts of the sea adjoining Scotland, but outside the exclusively British fishery limits, which were by International Law open to all vessels, but which, under a bye-law of the Scottish Fishery Board, made in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, were closed to British trawlers. Foreign vessels, however, could trawl within these extra-territorial waters. That being the case, he wished to know whether foreigners were entitled to land in Scottish ports fish caught in these waters. By the eighth section of an Act of Parliament passed in 1889, it was declared— That it shall be unlawful to land or sell in Scotland any fish caught in contravention of this Act or any bye-law. Prima facie, therefore, it would appear not to be possible to sell in Scotland fish caught in contravention of the Act. It was, however, the opinion of counsel that foreigners in foreign vessels were entitled to land in this country fish caught in waters closed to British fishermen under the bye-laws. If that opinion was well founded foreigners enjoyed a very unfair advantage over British fishermen. A further point for consideration was this—What was the definition of a foreign fishing vessel? Was it enough, to constitute a boat a foreign boat, that it should fly a foreign flag; and was the action unaffected by the nationality of the owner and the captain?

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)

said, that the noble Earl's question was founded upon a mere hypothesis, because, no instance had occurred, as far as he could ascertain, in which a foreign boat, having fish caught in extra-territorial waters, where fishing was prohibited under the bye-laws of the Scottish Fishery Board, had attempted to land such fish at a British port. He was aware that the Moray Firth Fishing Association asserted that such a case had occurred, but on inquiry he had found that there was no reason to believe that there was any truth in the statement. There was no foundation whatever for the belief that the particular vessel referred to had caught fish within the prohibited extra-territorial waters. He thought that foreign-owned vessels, fishing under foreign flags, were not likely to fish often in these waters, which were very close to the Scottish coasts, foreign vessels were not likely to fish there for the purpose of profit. He understood the noble Earl to be of opinion that Clause 8 of the Act of 1889 was intended to prohibit the landing of fish caught in these circumstances in Scottish ports. There seemed, however, to be no doubt that that clause was of no effect as against foreign-owned fishing boats. The noble Earl asked whether there would be any difference between vessels owned and manned by British subjects but fishing under a foreign flag, and foreign fishing boats manned by foreign fishermen under a foreign captain. He thought there would be a great difference between the two cases. In the first place, he did not believe that a foreign Power would consent to allow the use of her flag to an English or Scottish fishing boat. But supposing that such an advantage were granted by a foreign Power to the owners of such a boat, the Act would apply and the law would operate in personam against the skipper arid crew. The noble Earl asked whether the Government would be prepared to enter into a new Convention on the subject of fishing in the North Sea. In his opinion there were many subjects on which it was desirable that there should be agreements among all the Powers whose subjects fished in the North Sea, the greatest fishing ground in the world. He could not, however, shut his eyes to the fact that the Convention of 1868 was not agreed to without difficulty, and he thought it would be a very serious matter to consent to re-open such a subject as this on the grounds set up by the noble Earl. As he began by saying, the noble Earl's question was founded upon a mere hypothesis, and to enter into negotiations to provide against a remote contingency was a course which he could not lightly agree to take.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLEY

believed that the Lord Privy Seal was in error in thinking that no case such as that contemplated by the noble Earl had yet occurred. He was informed that a case had occurred and was to be the subject of litigation.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

complained of the indirect character of the answers given to the questions by the Lord Privy Seal.