TRAWLING IN PROHIBITED AREAS (PREVENTION) BILL. (Hansard, 14 July 1909)

HL Deb 14 July 1909 vol 2 cc517-24 517

§ Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pentland.)

§ LORD EVERSLEY
My Lords, it had been my intention to make some observations on this Bill on the motion to go into Committee. In this state of the House, however, I will not do so, but will defer what I have to say to some future occasion. I will also postpone to the Report Stage the Amendment of which I have given notice if my noble friend will promise not to take that stage to-morrow.

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly.

§ [THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

518

§ Clause 1:

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved to amend Clause 1, which ran— From and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful to land or sell in the United Kingdom any fish caught by the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling within prohibited areas as defined in this Act and fish so caught within such areas shall be added to the table of prohibitions and restrictions contained in section forty-two of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 and upon being brought to land in the United Kingdom shall be dealt with as goods imported and brought into the United Kingdom contrary to the said prohibitions and restrictions, by adding, at the end, the following proviso— Provided that nothing in this Act shall operate to impose liability to any other penalties under the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 in respect of the importation of prohibited goods. The Amendment was necessary because, as he believed, certain clauses of the Customs Consolidation Act which were not referred to in the Bill would come into operation in a manner not contemplated by those who were answerable for the Bill. The effect of Clause 1 of the Bill was to add fish to the list of prohibitions and restrictions under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act. Under that section the fish could simply be confiscated; but if their Lordships turned to Clause 172 of the same Act they would see it was there laid down that if any vessel or boat should be used in the importation, landing, carriage or so forth of any prohibited goods, which would now include fish, in certain circumstances the owners might be liable to a penalty involving the forfeiture of a boat not exceeding the value of £500. He could not believe it was the intention of noble Lords to subject boats which carried fish to that penalty, and therefore he had put down the Amendment, which he believed would remove all doubt on the subject.

§ Amendment moved— In page 1, line 14, after the word 'restrictions,' to insert the words 'Provided that nothing in this Act shall operate to impose liability to any other penalties under the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 in respect of the importation of prohibited goods.'"—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

§ LORD PENTLAND
My Lords, the noble Duke was perfectly correct in his I reference to the Customs Consolidation Act, Section 42 of which is imported into this Bill. But the omission, or rather the 519 application, of the further sections to which he took objection is not unintentional on the part of the Government. It is intentional, and I will explain why. I may say frankly there is no intention whatever of putting into force the further sections to which the noble Duke has drawn attention. But we are following in this case a precedent that has been adopted in the case of other articles which have been added to the prohibitions of the Customs Consolidation Act. Numerous articles have from time to time been added, and I think the last case was that of prison-made goods. The Scottish Office have in this matter acted in close consultation with the Customs authorities, and it is with their entire concurrence and approval that the Department have taken the course they have done in this Bill.
The Department consider that the exclusion which the noble Duke desires might weaken the executive powers of the Customs officers when they wish to board and detain vessels carrying not only illegally-trawled catches, as they would in this case, but in the case of the other articles to which I have alluded. They therefore concurred with the Scottish Office in desiring that the Bill should stand as it does. I may again repeat my assurance that it is not intended that the clause to which objection is taken shall be put into force against the vessels in question. It is literally and precisely sufficient for the Department's purpose that the first section should be put into force; but, after consultation, the Customs authorities desired that we should follow the precedent repeatedly adopted in other cases.

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said it was rather a late hour to enter into an argument on such a small point, but he did not know whether the remarks of the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland were satisfactory to the Committee. It seemed a strange proceeding to keep up these tremendous powers of forfeiting a boat up to the value of £500 merely for the reason that they had some fish on board which they ought not to have when it was never intended that the powers should be exercised. Surely it was a very slovenly way of legislating to have huge powers in operation in the sense of their being part of a Statute which they had not the smallest intention of putting into force. The case of prison-made goods, quoted by the Secretary for Scotland, did not seem to him quite to the point. The 520 inclusion of fish was not a question of Customs at all. Fish had nothing to do with taxation, and it seemed to him that the Customs ought not to have any voice in the matter. If they were going to put these unhappy trawlers under the Bill in the way proposed they should at least put them in the position of knowing what they were liable to. All they had to trust to at present was a verbal expression of an intention —a perfectly genuine intention, no doubt—that these powers should not be put in force.

§ LORD PENTLAND
My Lords, if I may be allowed to supplement what I have said, I should like to point out to the noble Duke that the intentions will be more than verbally expressed. The Customs will act in this matter on the initiative of the Fishery Board, and will act, therefore, on instructions given by that Board. The noble Duke has alluded to prison-made goods, and he asked why the Customs should have anything to do with the matter at all.

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
I meant with fish.

§ LORD PENTLAND
I agree. The Customs, I may say, are our only machinery for preventing the landing of any goods we do not wish to have landed. That is the reason why the Customs are employed in this case. The danger of the objectionable sections being put into operation is still further lessened by this consideration, that the sections have never hitherto been put into operation against non-dutiable goods, and in that category both prison-made goods and fish would fall. It would be entirely a breach of precedent if the Customs authorities were to put into force these objectionable sections against trawled fish. I think I can safely assure your Lordships that there is not the least possibility that there would be any breach of the practice which has hitherto been followed by the Customs in all such matters. I would, therefore, on behalf of my own Department, but not less on behalf of the Customs, who desire that there should be no breach of their practice in this matter, ask your Lordships to consider what I have said on the point.

§ LORD SALTOUN could not see the object of putting in these sections, but suggested to the noble Duke that he should leave his Amendment over until the Report stage. In the mean time there would be an oppor- 521 tunity for further consideration of the subject, and perhaps when the Bill was again before the House the discussion might take place at a little earlier period of the evening.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to press the point, but I would remind him that it is one of those minor points on which, as a rule, we defer to the wishes of the Department. I confess I think that if the noble Lord opposite wishes to make his laws and regulations easily intelligible to these fishermen it would seem better to deal with the whole question in the Bill than to have one half of the regulations in an Act of Parliament and another half Departmental regulations. It should not be difficult to make it clear that people who contravene the provisions of the Act would be liable to have their fish forfeited but not their vessel. What will happen now is that they will have to scan the Bill, which will tell them that their fish will be forfeited, and then they will have to look in the Departmental regulations to find that their vessel will not be forfeited also.

§ THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND said he would withdraw his Amendment at this juncture, and bring it up again on the Report stage.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 1 agreed to.

§ Clause 2:

§ LORD EVERSLEY asked if the Secretary for Scotland held that in the event of a foreign fishing boat carrying fish caught in the Moray Firth to a foreign port and discharging that fish into a vessel which brought it to England, the fish would come within the prohibition of the Bill, or was the Bill only to provide for the case of fish being transferred from one trawler to another as was not uncommon in the North Sea. If it was the latter the Bill was intelligible, but if it was intended to apply to the case of a trawler taking fish to a foreign port where it was put on board a vessel in the ordinary course of trade, say a boat from Ostend to London, he thought they would be carrying the Bill to a very dangerous extent. It would mean 522 giving a very dangerous power to the Scottish Fishery Board. At present all he wanted to know was, what was the exact intention.

§ LORD PENTLAND
My Lords, the exact intention is that if a trawler is sent in the Moray Firth for two months that trawler shall not be allowed to land and sell its fish in this country. I should think the Bill covers both the cases which the noble Lord mentioned; but the second case which he puts is not thought to be a practicable procedure. If the fish is landed in Ostend, we will say, and sold, so far as the original trawler is concerned it is done with. It is certainly meant to cover the first case which the noble Lord put.

§ LORD EVERSLEY said it certainly did that, but what he wanted to know was whether it covered the second one, because it was a dangerous power to give the Scottish Fishery Board. Take the case of a Belgian trawler. It caught fish in the Moray Firth and conveyed them to its port of origin—namely, Ostend—and at Ostend the fish were put on board another vessel for the purpose of being taken to England in the ordinary course of trade. Would it be in the power of the Fishery Board to notify the Customs that that particular vessel was not to be allowed to land her fish?

§ LORD PENTLAND
Not the new vessel.

§ LORS EVERSLEY
Then I think the noble Lord ought to make it clear.

§ LORD PENTLAND
I shall be glad to consider the point suggested by my noble friend.

§ Clause 2 agreed to.

§ Clause 3 agreed to.

§ Clause 4:

§ Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 4."—(Lord Pentland.)