SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 7 June 1934)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)
My Lords, the primary object of this Bill is to increase the penalties for illegal fishing. The sea fisheries committees have for some time contended that the maximum penalty under the present law is quite inadequate as a deterrent in the case of illegal trawling, which is the most serious offence that commonly arises. The committees have also requested that the penalty for obstructing fishery officers in the performance of their duty shall be increased. I will state the increased penalties proposed by the Bill. In Clause 3, subsection (1), the penalty is increased from £5 to £50 in respect of offences for refusing to allow a fishery officer to exercise his powers. Section 3 of the Act of 1888 enables a local fisheries committee to impose as penalties for the breach of any by-law fines not exceeding £20 and in the case of a continuing offence an additional sum of i:10 for every day during which the offence continues to be committed. This Bill substitutes for these penalties the penalty of a fine not exceeding £50 for the first offence and not exceeding £100 in the case of a second or subsequent offence. Subsection (4) of Clause 3, as your Lordships will see, amends the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, which relates to offences by foreign sea fishing boats entering within the jurisdiction of this country, by increasing the penalties in the same mariner as I have already mentioned in regard to home fishing boats. Confiscation of catch and gear is no longer provided for in the present Bill as it is preferable and sufficient to rely on the increased amount of the fine that may be imposed. In spite of these increases the penalties are still very much lower than those which are in force in other countries, including Scotland, the Irish Free State, and such foreign countries as Norway, Denmark and Iceland.
At the same time advantage is being taken of the presentation of this Bill to deal with two difficulties of an administrative nature which arise under the existing 952 law. The first is that in practice great difficulty has been experienced in finding suitable persons with the necessary qualifications who are able and willing to attend the meetings of the sea fisheries committees. Clause 1 of the Bill, therefore, gives the Minister a wider discretion as to both the number and the qualifications of the additional members whom he appoints to the committees. The second point is dealt with under Clause 4 of the Bill, by which the Minister is given the same power to revoke a by-law relating to sea fisheries as he has in the case of salmon and freshwater fisheries under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with a point which was overlooked when the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act was passed, and it removes the doubt as to whether migratory trout is to be treated as sea or freshwater fish by putting it into the latter category. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

§ LORD RHAYADER
My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill at all, but I was staggered at the comparative indifference with which the noble Earl who introduced it referred to the increased penalties. He said that the main purpose of the Bill is to raise the penalties which are inflicted for breaches of the present law. He did not tell us that these breaches were very frequent, or that difficulty had been caused because they found that offences were continually repeated by the same person because the penalty was too small. I venture to suggest to the noble Earl that to bring in a Bill to increase penalties from £50 to £50—a tenfold increase—without any proof of necessity, without any proof that offences are frequently committed nor any evidence that increased penalties are going to diminish the number of offences, does seem to be a somewhat strange proceeding. The noble Earl quoted other countries to us. I hope that we in this country are more law-abiding than they are in other countries. I do not think that it is the existence of high penalties which prevents British subjects from breaking the law. I think that you will probably find that when penalties are too high, that fact has not the effect of diminishing the commission of offences but only leads to 953 greater ingenuity in avoiding conviction. I have made this small protest because I think that a Bill of this kind, mainly for imposing fresh penalties on British subjects, requires rather more justification than the noble Earl gave us in his rather light-hearted speech.

LORD STRABOLGI
My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to say a few words on this Bill, and particularly to give our point of view on one important aspect of it; but first of all I would like to protest on grounds quite different from those of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House. My protest is as to the way in which this Bill is drawn. It is a very bad example of legislation by reference, and when it is remembered that this Bill has to go to all kinds of people on these local committees, it is very unfortunate that it cannot be understood—for I defy any noble Lord to understand this Bill—without reading through at least three old Statutes, of 1883, 1888, and 1891. I have a suggestion to make to the noble Earl, whose great interest in fisheries and legislation concerned with fisheries is, I am sure, known to everyone. My suggestion is that when this Bill finally passes, if it does pass, through Parliament and receives the Royal Assent, you should issue with it to the public, at an extra charge of a halfpenny over the penny which the Stationery Office charge, an explanatory memorandum giving a reasoned account of the old Acts of Parliament which are amended. It may be said that all the existing sea fisheries committees have the old Acts with them, but then all kinds of other people are concerned—fishermen, fishing vessel owners, and so on—and I throw out the suggestion to the noble Earl, and to the Government in the case of all similar Bills, that information and guidance and assistance should be given to the people affected by this legislation.
The second point, which I will make very briefly in view of the lateness of the hour, is a point on which my noble friends place considerable importance. It is that extra persons are to be appointed as additional members of these local fisheries committees, who are to have knowledge of the industry or of the needs of the industry. The actual words are these: such number of additional members, being persons acquainted with the needs and 954 opinions of the fishing interests of the district, and including one representative, at least, of any fishery board having jurisdiction within the district. Although I know there are certain difficulties in many parts of the country in carrying out what I am now going to propose, I think it should be laid down a little more clearly, nevertheless, that wherever possible fishermen themselves should be represented on these committees. You might have committees composed of local county council representatives, none of whom might be fishermen, and of the local trawl owners, or net owners, or private people with no general knowledge, and no representative of the fishermen in the area coming within the jurisdiction of the committees. The difficulty, of course, is in finding suitable or retired fishermen, or representatives of the fishermen, who could give their time and afford to sit on these committees.
That brings up another point. Under the existing regulations and laws I think I am right in saying that the local fisheries committees can only pay travelling expenses. I am not now referring to the county council or the local authority representatives. The additional members can only be paid their bare travelling expenses in certain cases. Now the whole trend of modern legislation, in controlling the other industry under the noble Earl's Department, and in order to get the best and most suitable people who cannot afford to serve, is to pay not only travelling expenses but compensation for broken time. You cannot be sure otherwise of getting representatives, in this case of fishermen, as has been recognised in the case of agriculture. In the case of agriculture you cannot get the small farmers or the milk producers. In this particular case of fishing I think the Ministry of Fisheries itself might perhaps try to do something to help the representatives of the fishermen where such help is needed. I should be very much obliged if the noble Earl would look into that question and see whether anything can be done. If there is no great objection, and the Government see their way to accept it, we would like to move an Amendment, not to implement what I have just said about expenses and compensation for broken time, but to insert some form of words that wherever possible representatives of the fishermen themselves shall be appointed.
955 There is one other point that I have to make, and that is that this Bill is at present incurring serious opposition from the deep sea fishing section of the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, was surprised at the light way in which the increase of the fines was apparently dealt with by the noble Earl, and the noble Earl did not want to keep your Lordships waiting, but I am sure he is aware how this is looked upon by the trawler owners. I have a letter here from which I am only going to read two brief extracts. I will leave out the other part, which is highly complimentary to myself. It comes from the Hull Fishing Vessels Owners' Association, Ltd. Hull is the second fishing port in the world, and in some years has been the first fishing port, having in the value of its catch exceeded its great rival Grimsby. The Hull fishing vessels are those which specialise in long-distance voyages. We have gone in for very fine sea-going vessels, and they have suffered from this tendency to come down most heavily upon fishing vessels who contravene the by-laws.
These are the extracts which I feel it my duty to read to your Lordships: I am to state that the producing side of the fishing industry has decided at the various ports that the Bill should be opposed on principle, and the British Trawlers' Federation has been asked and will take such steps as may be possible, when the Bill comes before Parliament. The second extract is as follows: The industry objects to any increase in the penalties, which are considered to be sufficiently ample to meet the situation. The number of cases of alleged illegal fishing in the last five years is insignificant, and certainly does not justify the proposed increase. The Bill is regarded as an attempt to follow the lead of the Scottish Fishery Bill, and there is no justifiable reason why it should be followed to create an ever-widening circle, ultimately spreading to the Scandinavian countries, whose penalties are already excessive and out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence. That is a very strong letter, and I have felt it right to read it.
At the same time I want to say that I believe there is some misapprehension in the minds of the leaders of the fishing industry as to the real extent of the penalties. My reading of the Bill—and here we come to the disadvantages of legislation by reference—is that in the case of British fishing vessels, under the old 956 Act they were fined £10 and £20, and £5 and £10, and their gear, nets, trawls, and so on were liable to be confiscated. Now, the part dealing with confiscation of gear and catch, which may come to many hundreds of pounds on the modern fishing vessel of the latest type, is repealed. Therefore, if my reading is correct, the increase of penalties is not so heavy as might at first appear. Equally, in the case of foreign fishing vessels, under a section of the Act of 1891, which is not repealed, a foreign vessel still can have its trawl and catch and gear generally confiscated. So the foreign fishing vessels stands to be fined more heavily than our own. Lord Rhayader is a great internationalist. Nevertheless, I presume he would like to see foreign vessels which poach more heavily fined than British vessels which, generally by accident, contravene some by-law.
This Bill wants explaining to the industry and I ask the noble Earl to give us this assurance, that when these Bills are brought in every possible step shall be taken to ascertain the views of those intimately connected with the industry. I think that should be done in all such cases. I know that the officials do their best in all these matters, and I know that the noble Earl would not close his doors to any representation made to him from the industry, but in this case there certainly does seem to be a misunderstanding which ought to be cleared up. I would therefore ask for an assurance that this very hard-pressed and important industry will really be satisfied that it is not being treated unjustly, before the Bill is proceeded with further.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he has raised, because they are very important points and require to be dealt with. I am sorry if I was not quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, as to the reason why this increase of penalty was required. But I certainly meant to mention—I am not sure that I did not—that we are bringing in this Bill at the express request of the sea fisheries committees, which are the bodies specifically responsible for administering the existing law controlling fishing in territorial waters. Further, I would emphasise the point again—although he said he does not think it important—that actually it will still leave 957 our penalties in this country lower, I believe, than in any other fishing country. That includes not merely foreign countries, but also Scotland and the Irish Free State.

§ LORD RHAYADER
Do I understand that they ask for an increase because the offences are numerous and they think that the penalties are insufficient? Do they give any evidence of the existence of the necessity for the increase, or is it merely a request which comes from them without reason given?

§ EARL DE LA WARR
I should not like to say that there has been a large increase, but there has certainly been no diminution. It was considered necessary therefore. But I can confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that Clause 3 (3) does repeal the liability to have the gear confiscated, and therefore to that extent the increase is very much less than it might seem to be under the Bill. With regard to the drafting of the Bill, I do not think that Lord Strabolgi will expect me to give him any assurance at the moment. I will look into that matter, but the language is not really so difficult to read as he thinks, because, after all, it is very largely a matter of the alteration of figures from 5 to 50 and so on, and is comparatively easy to understand. With regard to the constitution of committees, of course the real difficulty is the difficulty we have of getting anybody at all to serve on these committees, and that is why under this Bill we are taking power to give the Minister greater freedom of choice. We do at the moment pay travelling expenses, but nothing more. Whether we could get a representation from the fishermen themselves I do not know. I am inclined to think it would be difficult to get them to attend. But I note the point that the noble Lord has put about the payment of the expenses. I will go into that.

LORD STRABOLGI
And broken time?

§ EARL DE LA WARR
I do not know whether I can hold out very much hope at present. It is something we are prepared to consider.

LORD ST. LEVAN
On the fisheries committee on which I sit there are representatives of the fishermen—there are 958 actually fishermen representatives on the committee.

LORD STRABOLGI
I am very much obliged. That is not required by Statute. It is only the good sense of the local people.