ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 24 April 1934)

§ 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.

§ 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.