Lords Sitting of 24 April 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (COAL MINES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER (BLACKBURN) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHIPLEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
SUPPLY OF WATER IN BULK (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
ARBITRATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1933 (BACON (IMPORT REGULATION) ORDER, 1934).
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which was presented to this House on the 11th inst., be approved. This Order is in the main identical with the Order of 1933 which was approved by your Lordships on November 16 last, the day before the close of the Session. The object of revoking the old Order and substituting a new one is to close a certain loophole in the old Order which we found had been taken advantage of by foreign countries. The old Order prohibited the importation of bacon only from those countries which were substantial suppliers of that commodity, but it left untouched imports from countries whose supplies of bacon to this country were really infinitesimal. There was, however, a proviso that if imports from any such country exceeded the amount of 400 cwts. per week, the Board of Trade might make an Order bringing that country within the scope of the old Import Regulation Order.
Of course it was not intended that these unregulated countries (as I shall call them) should in every case supply up to the allowed amount of 400 cwts. per week, otherwise a serious situation would naturally arise. In most cases this has not been done, hut a few cases have arisen in which the practice has grown up of importing surplus pigs from other countries, curing them in a country not scheduled to the Order, and sending the resulting bacon to this country. This practice is clearly capable of almost indefinite extension, and we have therefore thought it necessary that some action should be taken to prevent this particular form of evasion. Therefore paragraph 1 of the new Order prohibits the importation of any bacon produced in any foreign country which is the product of pigs bred in another foreign country. Paragraph 2 incorporates the provisions of the first two paragraphs of the 1933 Order. In paragraph 8 the opening words of the corresponding paragraph of the old Order have been omitted, so as to give the Customs wider powers to require certificates of origin, and in paragraph 10 it has been necessary to define the term "foreign country," which appears in paragraph 1 of the new Order but did not appear in the
702
old Order. The provisions of this new Order, like the provisions of the old Order, do not apply to imports from Empire countries. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Act, which was presented to this House on the 11th instant, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, this Bill reaches your Lordships' House as an almost non-contentious measure—at any rate I may say that it passed in another place with the support of all Parties. It is designed to provide more adequate protection for the inshore fishermen, and in particular to deal effectively with the persistent offender against the law relating to illegal trawling. There are two means by which protection be given. The first is by increasing the penalties for contravention of the law and that is what is clone in this Bill. The other means which can be employed is by the provision of more, faster and better cruisers, and I will say a word about that later on. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this matter of illegal trawling was dealt with by Lord Mackenzie's Commission, which reported in 1924. No action, for various reasons, has been taken until to-day, but now the prevalence of this form of poaching and the increasing number of complaints of hardships caused to the inshore fishermen have prompted the Government to take this action.
With that preface I will, with your Lordships' permission, come to the actual clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 defines the penalties for illegal trawling. It increases the penalties for contravention of the law, especially in the direction of imposing progressively heavier penalties for second or subsequent offences by the skippers of trawlers. The present maximum penalty for an offence, whether first, second or subsequent, is a fine of £100 and the confiscation of gear, with two months imprisonment in default of

703
the payment of the fine. This has proved to be insufficient to deter certain skippers from repeatedly breaking the law. It is therefore proposed in Clause 1 to make the penalty for a second offence a fine of £200, or imprisonment for six months in the discretion of the Court, while the penalty for a third or subsequent offence may be both a fine of £200 and six months imprisonment.
As regard forfeiture of gear, a small change in the law is being made by providing that confiscation should take place only when an offence by the owner is involved, and that the warps should be excluded from seizure and confiscation. The reason for the exclusion of the warps is that it was represented to the Government that they are an essential part of the equipment of a vessel, and occasions might arise in which their absence would endanger the safety of a vessel at sea. The Government hope that the progressive penalties on skippers will have a marked effect in diminishing the number of offences. There is reason to believe, however, that a small minority of the trawler owners have in the past encouraged their skippers to break the law, and after careful consideration the Government have reached the conclusion that some penalty ought to be imposed on an owner if a skipper in his employ has been previously convicted and offends again.
The Bill therefore provides in Clause 1, subsection (3), that an owner whose skipper is convicted of illegal trawling, and has one previous conviction within the immediately preceding two years, or one previous conviction within the immediately preceding five years, following on another conviction, shall be liable to a penalty of £150; for second and third offences of this kind the owner will be liable to penalties of £250 and £500 respectively. Your Lordships will observe that subsection (6) provides machinery by which owners may ascertain whether a previous conviction within the prescribed periods has been recorded against any skipper whom they may be proposing to engage. The rest of Clause 1 makes provision for the detention of a vessel used for illegal trawling pending the payment of any penalty imposed on the owner, and for the levying of any such penalty by distress or poinding or sale of the vessel. This is machinery simply for enforcement.
704
There are two offences frequently associated with illegal trawling. Sometimes the poacher attempts to escape recognition by concealing the marks of identification on the vessel itself, and sometimes, when detected, he resists the sea fishery officer. In Clauses 2 and 3, therefore, provision is made for increasing the penalties for the former offence from £20 to £50, or sixty days imprisonment, for a first conviction, and £100 or three months imprisonment for a second or subsequent conviction, and for the latter offence, resisting the sea fishery officer —which happened in a recent case, as your Lordships will be aware—from a fine of £50 to one of £200.
Clause 4 provides that when a vessel is within the prohibited area the boards of the trawl and the net shall be inboard. This will assist in the prevention of illegal trawling, because if the gear is inside the gunwale it is not so readily available for a quick illegal haul. I may point out that the Mackenzie Committee recommended that in such circumstances the trawl gear should be stowed away. It was felt, however, that this requirement would be unduly onerous on the crew of the trawler, and accordingly the requirements in the clause were substituted for it. For many years there has been dissatisfaction with the manner in which the law relating to protection of inshore fisheries has been disregarded by certain skippers and owners of trawlers, and the Government have sought in this Bill to deal justly, but at the same time effectively, with the poaching trawler and to give the inshore fisherman the protection which is vital to the pursuit of his calling. I should add that the Government fully recognise that a mere increase of penalties alone is not enough, and active steps are now being taken to increase the efficiency of the fishery protection service by providing some new and speedy cruisers. It may be of passing interest to your Lordships to know that, in the process of renewing the patrol fleet, attention is being paid to the provision of ships which will embody some of the features and qualities of Q-ships, combined with necessary speed. I trust that, with that explanation of the Bill, your Lordships will see its necessity and will be willing to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I desire on behalf of the Opposition to express our entire approval of this measure. The noble Lord has indicated in very explicit terms the need for this Bill. Scottish Members in another place have for some years past endeavoured to secure legislation of this sort, and the Government are to be congratulated on having succeeded at last in bringing in a measure which has every prospect of becoming law. There can be no question of the need of it, and the penalties which are in the Bill are by no means excessive in order to put an end to this class of very serious offence. We should all be unanimous in feeling the greatest admiration for the seamen who are engaged in the trawling industry and who, often at the risk of their lives, are carrying on this most important trade. But the industry does requires protection, and I think that the Bill meets the need in an appropriate way.
I do not want to trouble your Lordships by putting down any Amendments on the Committee stage. I feel that it is unnecessary to duplicate Amendments that have been put down in another place and have been rejected, but there is one point to which I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention, and on which perhaps he would be prepared to make a concession, although it was not accepted in another place. The point is this. In Clause 1 (3) the penalty to which the owner becomes liable on a second conviction is £250, and on a third and subsequent conviction £500; whereas, in the case of the skipper, he is liable to imprisonment. Objection was taken by honourable friends of mine in another place to this discrimination between the owner and the skipper. I feel that that is a point which the noble Lord might reconsider. Obviously the offence is a most serious one when it occurs for the third time, and the responsibility of the owner is greater really than that of the skipper, who may be obeying the orders of the owner. It appears to me that the extreme penalty of imprisonment should also be imposed on the owner as well as on the skipper. Except for that one point, which is rather one of strengthening the penalties, the rest of the Bill has our entire concurrence.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said about this Bill
706
He was good enough just before the debate began to inform me that he intended to raise this point about the penalty of imprisonment which it is suggested should be imposed upon the owner have not had time to go into it very fully, but I understand that the position is that, it is very difficult to prove this crime except by imputation. The view of the Government is that the trawler owner is liable to be deterred by the heavy punishment of £500 on a third offence, and they consider that for such a crime, which is so difficult to prove, the imposition of imprisonment would be unfair. As, however, I have not had time to discuss this with others in the office which I represent, I will do so, and, should it be possible to make any concession, I will inform the noble Lord, and put it down later.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses agreed to.
Schedule [Minerals to which this Act applies]:
LORD STRABOLGIhad two Amendments on the Paper, proposing to add "building stone" and "chalk" to the Schedule. The noble Lord said: My first Amendment would acid "building stone" to the list of minerals named in the Schedule, which includes, of course, granite, limestone and the other building stones, but I understand it is not intended to include gravel. The reason for this Amendment is that we hope that there will be a great increase of building in the country, and that we shall use

707
our own materials as far as possible, instead of importing them from abroad. My noble friends and I think that anything that will make the use of building stone easier should be inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("building stone").—(Lord strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In dealing with the Amendments which the noble Lord has placed upon the Paper, I will, with his permission, take them together. I am sorry that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendments to insert "building stone" and "chalk" as he suggests, and I think I should again emphasise the point that facilities already exist for all minerals, including those to which he refers, under the principal Act, which is the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act of 1923. It is very doubtful if mineral workers themselves are properly aware of the powers which they have under that Act. Indeed the Mines Department Advisory Committee, to which I referred in my speech on the Second Reading, used these words in their recent Report:
"We have been surprised in the course of our inquiries to find to how small an extent mineowners both in the iron-ore and non-ferrous industries are aware of the remedies available to them under the Act of 1923, and there is no doubt that what is true of the metalliferous mineowners is equally true of the quarry owners."
Further steps are to be taken to bring these remedies to the notice of the industry, and they are at the moment in contemplation by the Department.
The Act of 1923 contains very wide and valuable rights, including not only the right to work minerals but also surface occupation rights, rights of way, rights to dispose of water, and so on and so forth. The reason it is not necessary to include in this Bill the two minerals which the noble Lord proposes to include is, as I am advised, that they are already included in the 1923 Act. The House will remember that this Bill, which I introduced the other day, is to extend to certain minerals only the provisions of
708
Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, whereas the Amendments to include building-stone and chalk, which the noble Lord proposes, I am advised are amply dealt with in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. In view of this I hope the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am not averse from withdrawing the Amendment, but perhaps the noble Earl will give us one further point of explanation. In view of what he has said, why is it necessary to introduce this Bill at all? There may be a very good reason for it, but I think some word of explanation is required. In the 1923 Act, to which the noble Earl refers, are not these metals also included, or does it only apply to coal and building-stone? The reason that chalk has been put down is because of its great use for cement-making, which is on the increase. The Amendment was put down at the instance of a very experienced member in another place who is very closely concerned with mining operations, and who thought that these additions would be useful, but if the noble Earl can give us an explanation it would satisfy my noble friends.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The 1923 Act is one that includes all minerals of any sort or kind found under the surface. This Bill is to extend to certain other minerals which are set out in the Schedule the provisions of Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1926. I think that meets the point the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD STRABOLGI: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before five o'clock.