HL Deb 05 August 1909 vol 2 cc944-50

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Pentland.)

*LORD EVERSLEY had given notice that he would move, on Third Reading, the insertion of the following new clause— (1) This Act shall cease to be in force on the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twelve, provided that if within one month preceding that date the Secretary for Scotland certifies his opinion that trawling has practically ceased to be carried on in the Moray Firth; it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to direct that the Act shall continue in force as regards Scotland, notwithstanding this clause, and in such case the Act shall continue in force as regards Scotland until Parliament shall otherwise provide. (2) The by-law of the Scottish Fishery Board prohibiting trawling in the Moray Firth beyond the three mile limit from low water mark shall be in force so long only as this Act shall be in force as regards Scotland.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not my intention to move the new clause of which I have given notice. That clause was for the purpose of inserting a time limit in the Bill. I find that there is considerable difference of opinion amongst those who think there ought to be a time limit to this Bill as to the particular form of the clause, and it certainly would not be worth while to ask your Lordships to occupy time in discussing the form of such a clause, the more so as I had not intended to press my Amendment if Lord Pentland on behalf of the Government objected to it. But I hope your Lordships will permit me to say a few words on the Third Reading of the Bill. The question I put is this, whether the Bill as it is now framed will, in fact, carry out its purpose of putting an end to foreign trawling in the Moray Firth and in the other prohibited areas in Scotland. I think everybody admits that the prohibition of British trawlers to fish in these areas while foreign vessels are permitted to trawl there with impunity is a very great scandal and one which ought to be abated.

The question is whether this Bill, which proposes to put a stop to foreign trawlers fishing in these areas by the indirect method of prohibiting the sale of their fish in British ports, will be successful in its object. On that point a good deal of light has been thrown by some information given to the House after the Committee Stage of the Bill in answer to a question put to my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland. Lord Pentland then informed the House that in 1908 no fewer than 39 foreign vessels, or vessels under foreign flags, were observed trawling in the Moray Firth. Of these, fourteen were under the Norwegian flag, ten under the Belgian flag, and the others were sailing under the Swedish, Danish and Dutch flags. It may be, and probably is, the case that a very large number of these 39 vessels are, in fact, what my noble friend called pseudo-foreigners—that is to say, they are practically British-owned vessels registered in foreign countries but manned and commanded by foreigners. So far as I have been able to ascertain, that is the case with the vessels which have been registered in Norway and Belgium, but it is not the case with the vessels trawling in this bay which are registered in Denmark, Sweden and Holland. My noble friend gave some further information bearing on this subject. He told us that of the 39 vessels observed in the Moray Firth 29 brought their fish to market in British ports, the remaining ten taking their fish to foreign ports. It is quite certain that those ten vessels will continue to fish there and to take their fish to foreign ports. Therefore, so far as those ten vessels are concerned the Bill will be in-operative. The question is whether the other 29 will be precluded from trawling in the Moray Firth by the fact that they will be prohibited from bringing their fish to British ports in future. That, of course, is a matter of surmise. On this point, again, I think a good deal of light is thrown by the statistics given in the report of the British Fishery Board.

One of the most notable facts in the North Sea of late years has been the enormous increase in the number of foreign steam trawlers fishing there. As recently as the year 1904 there were 179 foreign trawlers fishing in the North Sea, and three years later the number had increased to 376. Of these, the German vessels in 1904 numbered 118, but they had increased to 239 in the later year. During the same period the number of British vessels, although very much larger than that, had not increased substantially in number. Therefore the increase of fishing in the North Sea during the last three or four years has been mainly confined to foreign trawlers. These vessels fish in every part of the North Sea, and evidently find no difficulty in securing a market for their fish in foreign ports. It seems to me that if the Moray Firth is open to fishing by foreign vessels these steam trawlers owned by foreigners will find their way there, and will experience no difficulty whatever in selling their fish in markets in the North of Europe.

Then it is said that, even if this Bill should fail in prohibiting foreign vessels from trawling in the Moray Firth, it will, at all events, strengthen the hands of our Government in their negotiations with other Powers in the direction of some general understanding with a view to a general prohibition of vessels trawling in the Moray Firth and other prohibited areas. This was dealt with and exposed by Lord Fitzmaurice last year in the course of the debate which arose on the Motion of Lord Heneage. Lord Fitzmaurice then said that for the last twelve years the British Government had been endeavouring in vain to come to some understanding on the matter, but the other countries would not give their consent to any such arrangement. He added very significantly that in order to induce them to give their consent the British Government would have on its part to make concessions to other Governments which might be detrimental to British fishermen. I think, therefore, we may dismiss from our minds the possibility of other countries in the North of Europe coming to an agreement with our Government for a general prohibition of trawling in the Moray Firth and other prohibited areas. Looking, then, all round at the question, it seems to me most improbable that this Bill will result in preventing trawling in the Moray Firth and other prohibited areas.

I admit the extreme difficulty of the whole question, and I am very far from saying that my noble friend, looking at public opinion in Scotland on the subject, was not justified in making this experiment; but I believe it will be the last experiment in the direction of endeavouring to prevent foreign trawlers fishing in the bay. I cannot but think that this experiment will not succeed, and that in two years time we shall have again to face this question. My belief is that the better plan, on the whole, is to throw these prohibited areas open to all countries. But I am not a fanatic on the subject, and if this Bill should be successful in its operation I should prefer that solution to the existing state of things. At the same time I feel bound, on the Third Reading, to say that, having given the subject great consideration for many years, it is my conviction that the Bill will not succeed in its object, and that Parliament will be compelled in a very short time to reopen the question and deal with it in another manner.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, before this discussion closes I should like to say a word or two in answer to the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am very glad, indeed, that he is not proposing to put any time limit into this Bill. I think that if that proposal were made and carried it would have this bad effect, that it would seem to imply that the Government of this country were not in earnest in endeavouring to stop trawling within these narrow seas. I believe that the Government of this country are in earnest in this matter if they can possibly bring it about, and I think they are supported in this proposal by an immense majority of those of both political Parties at all events around the coast of Scotland.

I think this matter has a very much wider aspect than the mere question of whether a certain number of trawlers, be they foreign or British, should trawl in the Moray Firth. In my humble opinion the matter goes very much deeper than that. It really goes to the whole question —a very much larger one—of whether or not we are really depleting the stock of fish in the North Sea. I know that the noble Lord does not agree with the theory that the stock of fish is being depleted in the North Sea. I am bound to say that such evidence as I have been able to consider shows that certain kinds of fish are getting scarcer, that greater exertions have to be made to get a paying take, that those who fish for certain classes of flat fish have to go further asea to get a paying take, and considering the number of men employed and the size of the vessels engaged in this trade the returns of the catches conclusively show that there is a real danger of the supply of fish in the North Sea being seriously diminished.

I do not go into the narrower question at the moment of whether or not this proposal will really put an end to trawling in the narrow seas. I believe it will, and I do not think that those who prompted the noble Lord to place his Amendment on the Paper and to make the dismal prophecies he has put forward are not the people who will do their utmost to bring those prophecies to a successful realisation. The people who have been opposing these proposals are just those who place every obstacle in the way, and give the idea abroad that this country is not in earnest in the matter. I believe that if this Bill passes, as I think it will now pass, we shall have a better foothold for negotiations with foreign Powers which may have the desired effect of securing certain areas secluded from trawling in order that they may be preserved as breeding grounds for certain classes of flat fish. There can be no doubt that vast quantities of undersized fish of the most valuable kinds are caught in the Moray Firth and in other similar areas.

The whole desire of the Scottish Office and the Scottish Fishery Board has been that for a period of years the experiment should be practically tried of whether by leaving these breeding grounds undisturbed you will not do something to prevent the depletion of the stock in the North Sea. I quite agree that it is impossible to look with complacence on the fact that people who are fishing under foreign flags, whether they are really foreign subjects or only colourably so, should have an advantage over genuine British fishermen. None of us desire that, but we want this experiment tried over a series of years to see whether it will be successful. The point is that it never has been tried. If after a reasonable period of years the experiment is proved not to be successful and not to be increasing the stock of fish, then there will be a very much better case than there is at the present time for doing away with the whole policy of these restrictions.

I conclude by expressing an earnest hope that when this Bill is passed the British Foreign Office, in spite of past discouragement, will approach other Powers to see whether they cannot come to some agreement, which I believe would be for the advantage of all countries concerned. I do not want to keep the Moray Firth as the only protected area. If this subject is approached from the broad and wide standpoint of what is best for the general food supply you will have a much better chance of success. I believe that the authorities of other countries are becoming alarmed on the subject. They are finding that it is not so easy to get supplies of fish as it once was. Prices have gone up, the catches are not so remunerative as they were, and I believe that if the question is approached, not from a selfish standpoint but from the standpoint of general advantage, a much better chance will be afforded of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. I congratulate my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland on having got this Bill through both Houses of Parliament, and I sincerely hope that, having got it, the Government will do what they can to carry the matter a step further and see that the experiment, which for the last twenty years many of the most enlightened persons have desired should be tried, shall be tried under the best auspices.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

My Lords, if by powerful interests ranged against the Bill the noble Lord who has just sat down meant the very large trawling industry which exists all along the East Coast of England and up to Aberdeen, I venture to think that is an industry and an interest which your Lordships cannot afford entirely to neglect. I cannot help feeling that there may be difficulties in the administration of this Bill. There have been such difficulties in the past, and mistakes have been made. On several occasions the wrong number has been taken, with the result that the wrong vessel has been prosecuted, and it is quite likely that mistakes that have occurred in the past may occur again. Therefore I am somewhat sorry that your Lordships decided, on the Report Stage, to reverse the decision which had been arrived at by the Standing Committee, and which eliminated certain words giving to the customs authorities under this Bill all the powers conferred upon them by the Customs Consolidation Act. These powers are very extensive indeed, and amount to the seizure of the ship. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill, in urging your Lordships to go back upon that decision, gave an intimation that it was not the intention to do more than to confiscate the cargo of fish and to take legal proceedings against the owner of the vessel; there was no intention to confiscate the vessel itself. I will not ask your Lordships, on Third Reading, to reverse the decision you came to on Report, but it would be satisfactory to those who are concerned in trawling operations along the East Coast of England if we could have from the noble Lord a distinct and categorical assurance that it is not the intention of the Government, by the retention of those words, to impose all the heavier penalties which can be imposed under the Customs Consolidation Act.

LORD PENTLAND

My Lords, I am obliged to your Lordships for the consideration with which this Bill has been treated this evening, and to my noble friend Lord Eversley for having foregone the moving of the Amendment he had placed on the Paper. Perhaps your Lordships will excuse me from entering on this occasion into a discussion of the prophecies which have been made as to the ultimate effect of this measure. I think there is some ground for believing that its operation will be effectual, and I share the hope of Lord Balfour of Burleigh that that will be the case. In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who asked me a question as to the intentions of the Government in respect to putting into force the penal clauses, I repeat with pleasure the assurance which I gave at an earlier stage of this Bill. There is no departure from precedent in including in this Bill the penal clauses of the Customs Consolidation Act, but there is no special intention in this Bill, no greater intention in this Bill than in any other similar Bills which have included these penal clauses, of putting into force the further and more drastic clauses to which he has alluded. The view of the Government all along has been that it is desirable that these clauses should remain in the Bill more as sanctions to procedure under the Act than for any other purpose; and I hope that what I have now said will operate in some degree as an assurance to any of those who are apprehensive as to the course being followed which Lord Onslow has named.

On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.