§ Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
§ Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
§ LORD HENEAGEMy Lords, I have taken the somewhat unusual course of proposing, on the motion for the Third Reading, that the Bill he read a third time this day three months, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that I have good and substantial grounds for the action which 1 am now taking. This Bill I may almost say slipped through its Second Reading without any real Debate, without any explanation as to the novel and unprecedented principle which the Bill involves, and also without the knowledge of those most interested in it. The only protests against the 239 Second Reading were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Russell of Killowen, and the noble Earl the Secretary of the Board of Trade. This is no new Bill. It is the Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons two years ago by some Scotch line fishermen, supported by the Scotch Fisheries Board, and it was then opposed by the representatives of the fishermen and also by the Board of Trade; and, so far as I know, neither the fishermen nor the owners of fishing vessels nor the Board of Trade have changed their minds in the slightest degree with regard to their objection to the Bill. In Scotland the trawlers, and in England the whole of the fishing industry, are opposed to it, and the sea fisheries boards repudiate the Bill altogether. What is the necessity for this Bill? No attempt has been made to prove the necessity for it. On the Second Reading the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland gated that the present laws had not been the failure they were represented to be, although he approved of the Bill in a somewhat modified form. The noble Earl the Secretary to the Board of Trade pointed out—and I specially press this upon the notice of your Lordships—that the Board of Trade considered the penalties too severe for the offence, and that the Bill would impose penalties upon British trawlers which would not be applicable to foreign vessels guilty of the came offence in territorial waters. This is the decisive opinion of the Board of Trade, after having considered the question for three years. But this Bill includes all British and Irish territorial waters as well as the waters which are under the bye-laws of the Scotch Fisheries Board. What case is there, my Lords, for these fresh penalties? One would have thought, when a harsh and severe penalty was being proposed, that some case would be made out showing that the law had been broken throughout the length and breadth of the land. The Board of Trade returns, however, show conclusively that the law has been obeyed, and that no fresh legislation is required. In the last seven years in English and Scotch waters there have only been six cases of a second offence and one of a third offence; that is to say, one ease per annum during the last seven years, and yet the principle contained in this Bill is proposed for adoption. In Scotland it is very difficult to tell what have been the offences 240 in territorial waters, because the offences the during the last three years are added together, and no attempt is made at differentiation between the offences in territorial waters and the offences under the bye-laws of the Moray Firth. I very much doubt, my Lords, whether there have been many offences in the territorial waters of Scotland. I believe the offences have been committed by Scotch vessels in the Moray Firth, which is in an exceptional position. They have there one-sided and harsh bye-laws, which are in direct violation of the law of nations, and have not that respect which they ought to have from law-abiding people. They protect foreign vessels, but not British vessels. In Moray Firth foreign vessels can fish without any restraint or penalty, but British vessels are not allowed to enter the Firth without being subject to the bye-laws of the Scotch Fisheries Board. We who look after the interests of sea fisheries desire to see the law observed; but still it is a very difficult thing indeed to impress upon men the necessity of obeying the law when it is repudiated by them and is against the national conscience. Weave "conscientious objectors in this matter. We believe if Moray Firth is open to foreigners it ought to be open to British vessels also. The principle of this Bill is resented by all British smackowners and fishermen as insulting and unnecessary, especially at the present time when diplomatic negotiations are going on with Denmark with regard to their new and harsh rules. This is not the moment to bring in a Bill of this kind. It is proposed in this Bill to suspend the certificate of registration of a trawl vessel for six months where the master shall have been convicted of a second or any subsequent offence.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe Bill provides that the order shall be made for any period not exceeding six months, which is the maximum.
§ LORD HENEAGEIf the certificate is suspended for any time it means that the vessel is to be prevented from earning dividends for its shareholders for the time under six months during which the certificate is removed if its skipper has violated the law in disobedience to his masters' orders. I think your Lordships will recognise that that is a very strong 241 order indeed. I would remind your Lordships that in England We have been able to enforce the law by means of a mild penalty of £5, and 1 venture to say that the proposition contained in this Bill is a novel and monstrous one. It is unknown in any other country, and unknown in any other trade in this country. I would ask your Lordships what you would say if a proposition were made to suspend the certificate of an ocean liner because it had come into collision with another vessel on the high sea, or if you were asked to prevent an omnibus being run in London because it had offended against some police regulations, or to prevent a railway engine from performing its duties because the driver had been guilty of some offence. Yet this is the very principle which is proposed in this Bill for the fishing industry. Under these circumstances, I do not think your Lordships can be surprised that the fishing industry feel that this is an unjust and extraordinary thing to do. I would ask your Lordships to consider what your position is in regard to the Third Reading of this Bill. It is utterly impossible that the Bill can pass into law this session.
§ LORD HENEAGEBecause, as a private Member's Bill, it will never get through the House of Commons. If your Lordships vote in favour of this Bill now you will be voting in favour of this principle being applied to Great Britain, where, as the statistics have given yon show, the law is obeyed and the additional penalty is not needed. But if you pause, and adopt my motion, it will be perfectly competent to consider the matter more fully and better on another occasion. I would suggest to my noble friend behind me who is in charge of this Bill that he should withdraw it, as he has no chance of passing it this session, and that Her Majesty's Government should undertake to look into the whole question, not only from its local aspect as it affects Great Britain, but from its imperial and international aspect, and deal with it if necessary next year. My Lords, I move that this Bill be read a third time this day three months.
§
Amendment moved—
To leave out 'now' and add at the end of the Motion 'this day three months."—(The Lord Heneage.)
§ * THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLELGH)I expected the noble Earl who brought in this Bill, and who has carried it through its previous stages, would have answered some of the observations which the noble Lord has just made; but as he evidently expects me to say something I will accept the challenge thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Heneage. I am bound to say, however, that I am afraid the discussion we are engaged in to-night is a somewhat academic one. We are engaged in discussing the question whether a certain Bill introduced into this House by a private Member shall or shall not be read a third time. I am afraid that under the conditions which exist in another place the friends of the noble Lord who has last spoken will have thoroughly effectual means of preventing the passing of the measure. I could not help thinking, when the noble Lord was addressing the House, that he was disguising, or at any rate passing over, the real case which exists for this Bill. I am not going to say that it is absolutely perfect, but a case does exist for legislation upon the lines contained in this Bill. There is no intention whatever, by any of the provisions Of this Bill, to interfere with the legitimate operations of those who are engaged in the industry of trawling. For those who offend against the law not as a regular practice I perfectly admit that the existing penalties are sufficient, and I would not be in favour of increasing them; but there is a small minority of those—I will concede that it is a small minority—who make it an habitual practice to offend against the bye-laws and against the limits which have been imposed, for reasons which it is not necessary now to discuss, upon their industry. The noble Lord referred to figures, and quoted some remarks which I made upon the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. He omitted to remind your Lordships that the case for this Bill rests upon the fact that there are a small minority of vessels Which make an absolute practice of hovering round the three-mile limit, and, under cover of darkness, and when they think the preventive service is not at hand to detect them, of making incursions into the places where 243 they know they should not go. One of these vessels has been convicted no less than eight times within a short period of years. Others have been convicted six, five, and four times within the same short period. I am perfectly certain, though I cannot prove it, that they deserve to have been convicted a greater number of times, and I constantly receive reports through the Fishery Board of vessels which are well known being sent out under cover of darkness to pursue their nefarious operations. The noble Lord says that the law has been obeyed. I admit it has by a large majority of those engaged in the industry; but I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that it would be better for the industry in which he takes so large an interest if he could make up his mind to abandon the cause of those who break the law and confine his advocacy to those whom he thinks are being unduly interfered with although they do not habitually break the law. The noble Lord says the law is obeyed because there have been very few convictions in recent time, but I would remind him that convictions are to a great extent matters of chance. This is one of the evils of the present system, under which very few of the boats engaged in the detective service are devoted to the work of detecting vessels guilty of illegal trawling. During the last two or three weeks we have been more successful in finding out those who have been disobeying the law, and if he takes the figures of the more recent operations during this year the noble Lord will find that the law has not been so well obeyed as he represents to the House. As I have said, I do not think this Bill is absolutely perfect, and efforts were made in the Committee to see whether, if concessions were made to the noble Lord, he and those for whom he speaks would withdraw opposition in another place; but the policy of the noble Lord was soon declared, and his policy was to get everything he could from us in the Committee, and not to come under any obligation of any kind with regard to dealing with the small percentage of trawlers whom, to us in the Committee, he frankly admitted should be subjected to further penalties. The noble Lord has commented upon the severity of the penalties imposed in this Bill. But it must be remembered that the severe penalty is only to be imposed after the second or subsequent offence over a short period. It is perfectly clear 244 that it is a maximum penalty. I do not think the noble Lord himself is seriously alarmed that any real injustice will be done under this Bill, for the safeguards are amply sufficient. This penalty will only be inflicted in cases where there is repeated and deliberate intention to disobey the law, and therefore I think that part of the measure in every way justified. Although the Bill has no chance of passing into law this session, I hope your Lordships will not go back upon the decision at which you arrived when the Bill was read a second time and referred to Committee. During its progress through Committee it has been made much more simple, and the power of inflicting the very large penalty—that of preventing a vessel from going to sea—has been taken away from the local courts and transferred to the Board of Trade. The object is not to put an unduly severe penalty on the owner of the vessel. The clause as it is now framed allows the vessel to be used for other purposes than fishing, but I think your Lordships will see that if in the process of fishing an owner allows his vessel to be habitually used for breaking the law, it is not unfair to say that his vessel should not be allowed to go to sea as a fishing boat for a period within six months, although it is not to be altogether suspended from operations other than fishing. It is not my business to make out a case for this Bill. It is not necessary for me to say, and I do not say, that either my Office or the Board of Trade think it incapable of improvement. I simply desire to say that at this stage I think it would be a mistake, and it would certainly be misunderstood, if the House were to go back upon the decision previously arrived at, and I therefore hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a third time.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, I do not at all complain of the somewhat unusual course which has been taken by the noble Lord in moving the rejection of the Bill on the Third Reading, because I know that when it was read a second time he was not able to be present. At the same time I would respectfully demur to the remark he made that the Second Reading was slipped through. As a matter of fact, due notice was given of the Second Reading, and noble Lords who entertained any objection to the Bill had ample opportunity of 245 being present. The point your Lordships have to consider to-night is not whether the Bill is likely to pass into law. If we were to limit the Bills we read a third time to those which we were fully convinced would be passed into law, I feel sure the number of Bills that we should pass would be considerably curtailed. With regard to the merits of this Bill as it stands it is hardly necessary, after what the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has said, to remind your lordships what the Bill does and does not do. The noble Lord (Lord Heneage) has indulged in very strong epithets in regard to it, and has said how monstrous it would be if your Lordships were to pass it. I think his epithets are hardly warranted by its provisions. I desire to impress upon your Lordships that this Bill does not make any alterations in the existing law; all that it does is to provide an alternative and severer penalty on a second offence. That is the Bill. It has been considered, as your Lordships have heard, by the Select Committee, who made this material alteration in the Bill: that instead of allowing the severer penalty to be imposed on the first occasion on which the offence was committed, as the Bill stood, this more severe penalty should not be imposed until the second offence. There is, I contend, a good ease for a more drastic penalty than that which at present exists, as repeated fines fail to prevent the offences being committed. The number of trawlers convicted of disobeying the law are a very small proportion indeed of the number of those who break the law. I have heard, although convictions have not taken place yet, that there are grounds of complaint in Ireland as well as in Scotland, and that the Irish Office have looked at this Bill and are of opinion that it might with advantage be extended to that country. I do not think it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships at any greater length, and I will conclude by asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Third Reading.
§ On Question, whether "now" shall stand part of the motion, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.