§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)My Lords, this is quite a small Bill and I do not think I need detain your Lordships long in discussing it. Its object is 118 to enable Great Britain to ratify a Convention for the regulation of whaling which was concluded in September, 1931. The object of the Convention is to prevent the wasteful destruction of whales, particularly in the Antarctic, by ensuring that the carcases of whales killed shall be utilised to the fullest extent so that no more whales than are absolutely necessary for economic purposes shall be destroyed. Although this Convention has been ratified by many nations it has not yet come into force, as it provides that it shall not do so unless it is ratified by Norway and Great Britain, two of the countries most intimately concerned with this question. Norway has already ratified, and the Norwegian Government are at the moment criticising us rather severely for having failed to do so, more particularly as Great Britain was largely responsible for the initiation of the Convention. For this reason it is most desirable that the Bill should pass into law at the earliest possible moment.
It is proposed under the Bill to enforce regulation by means of a system of licences to be issued in the name of the Board of Trade by the Fisheries Departments. It is made an offence under the Bill to engage in whaling without the necessary licence, and a licence may be withdrawn in the event of non-compliance with its conditions. For the purpose of seeing that the conditions of licences are complied with, in Clause 8, your Lordships will see, power is taken to place Government inspectors on board whaling ships. The Bill also provides for the payment for licences of fees which shall be sufficient to meet the expenses of the administration of the measure. The length of the Bill—it was hoped to make it somewhat shorter—is due to the necessity for provisions regarding penalties, and for this reason it was not possible to confine the Bill to one or two clauses ratifying the Convention.
This Bill goes no further than was agreed in the Convention, except in regard to one or two comparatively small points. In Clause 2 there is a provision dealing with the United Kingdom waters. That, of course, is not included in the International Convention. In Clause 6, subsection (4), your Lordships will see a provision dealing with the taking of whales during certain close seasons. That is outside the Convention, but we con- 119 sider it a desirable provision. There is only one further point—it is really a Committee point, but it has been raised by certain noble Lords—and that is whether in Clause 1, which deals with the descriptions of whales to which the Act shall apply, the definition is satisfactory or complete. We are inclined to agree that it could be improved and we will see that that is done on the Committee stage. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, my noble friends have asked me to welcome this Bill very wholeheartedly and I may say it is a great pleasure to me to support a Bill introduced by the present Government. It is all the more refreshing an experience because I am afraid it is not very common. The intention of the Bill is altogether excellent in every way and I only want to raise a few questions upon it. I have given the noble Earl notice of some of those questions, but there is one point about which I did not give him notice because the matter only came to my knowledge since the noble Earl began speaking. I did not realise, and my noble friends did not realise, that this Convention was concluded in September, 1931. I should like to ask why it is only being implemented in a Bill brought before your Lordships' House in June, 1934. It seems rather a long interval.
From the noble Earl's remarks it appears that we are the last nation, or at least the last of the important nations, concerned to ratify this Convention. Ratification has been waiting until England and Norway were agreed—Norway being of course the leading whaling nation and England, I suppose, the second—and the Norwegians have been waiting for us. In view of the general acceptance of this Convention His Majesty's Government might have been a little more expeditious. I think some explanation is due to your Lordships' House on that point. May I in connection with that ask how many nations have now ratified the Convention and whether those nations include the United States? Is the United States a party to this Convention? I believe the Convention was come to under the auspices of the League of Nations or 120 one of its Committees. It is a very fine achievement for that much assailed body.
The questions of which I gave notice to the noble Earl and which I think are of general interest, are as follows. First, is it known how many licences will be grained altogether? Your Lordships are aware that this Bill is urgent because by the use of modern methods the stock of whales has been depleted throughout the seas, especially in the Antarctic. Secondly, of the licences granted how many will go to British whalers? The reason I ask that is that there was a time when we led the world in the whaling industry, when great prosperity was brought to Dundee and Hull and other ports by whale fishing. Then the supply of whales became depleted until modern methods enabled certain whales to be taken which it was impossible to take before. After that the Norwegians stepped in and they have taken the predominant position in the industry once occupied by this country. My question is how many licences will be granted to British ships. I hope the number will be sufficient to enable us to recapture part of this very valuable trade which offers, among other advantages, a great training for seamen even under modern conditions.
The third question has a bearing on the other two. How many modern whaling ships are there in commission now? Your Lordships will know that the modern whaling ship is comparatively small, but that a very large floating factory is sent out to deal with the whales caught by a number of the smaller whalers. The information which I should be very grateful for is as to the number of these factories at present in use and the number of whale fishing vessels in commission. That will have a bearing on the future issue of licences. Obviously if we are going to issue through the International Committee licences broadcast then the position will be little bettered from the point of view of preservation of these very valuable mammals. Of these ships and factories how many are British? I understand the international edible oil firm of Unilever have a great interest in this industry and that whale oil is very largely used for the making of margarine for the British markets. It would be interesting to know how many British ships are engaged apart 121 from the financial interests, which I believe are predominantly British.
I would like to raise this further point. I do not know if the noble Earl is in a position to say how it is intended to enforce this Convention, this system of regulation against foreign ships. It is not quite clear from the Bill itself. Under the Bill inspectors will have the right to board any whaler under the British flag and a commissioned officer in His Majesty's Navy will have a similar right. Will there be any power enabling them to board a whaler suspected of fishing without a licence—a poacher, in other words—under a foreign flag? Under the old slave trading Convention any commissioned officer of any man-of-war could board any ship suspected of carrying slaves. I hope that it has been agreed, or will be agreed, amongst maritime Powers, that any commissioned naval officer shall have authority to board any whaler suspected of poaching or of fishing without a licence. I think some safeguard of that sort is necessary.
The noble Earl referred to the definition of whales in Clause 1. I rather think that that excludes the killer whale. I suggest that it would be a very good thing to encourage the destruction of the killer whale. It is practically useless for commercial purposes, but it does enormous damage. It attacks the young sperm whale and calves of the right whale and it does terrible damage amongst seals. It is altogether a horrible and dangerous brute. If something could be done to encourage the slaughter of the killer whale it would help in the preservation of the more valuable mammals. Those are the questions which I should like to put to the noble Earl. The Bill is, in our opinion, of very great importance and altogether admirable, and we are very glad to support it.
§ EARL DE LA WARRMy Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord for the warmth of his support of this Bill. He has asked me why it was not brought forward before. Really the reasons are partly Departmental—we have been extremely busy on other fishery problems—and of course partly Parliamentary, because, as I think the noble Lord will admit, there has hardly been a Session of Parliament during the last two or three years when the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have not made very 122 considerable demands on the Whips' department. The noble Lord asked who have ratified the Convention? He will find at the end of the Convention a list of those who have signed, seventeen of whom have ratified. He asked also a number of questions with regard to the number of vessels which would be affected. I have the figures here, but they really are somewhat numerous. I do not know whether it would satisfy him if I gave him the particulars rather than read them out?
§ EARL DE LA WARRYes, I will circulate them in that way.* The noble Lord raised a further point on the question of policing. Each country will be responsible for policing within its own coastal waters. The noble Lord's last point on the question of killer whales is one which I should like to look into. I have already said that the whole question of definition in the first Clause has to be revised. It is undoubtedly not quite satisfactory as it stands at the moment, and at the same time as I am going into that matter I will go into the question of the killer whale.
LORD STRABOLGIBefore the noble Earl concludes may I say that I do not think I made quite clear my question about methods of enforcement? Will a British fishery inspector have the right to board a suspected whaler under another flag, or will an officer of His Majesty's Navy have a similar right? It is not a question of coastal waters.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI think that is quite clear, as the noble Lord will see if he will look at Article 13 on page 12 of the Convention:
The obligation of the High Contracting Party to take measures to ensure the observance of the conditions of the present Convention in his own territories and territorial waters …I think that shows that each High Contracting Party has full responsibility within his waters, no matter what flag the particular ship is flying. I think that is the reply to the question of the noble Lord.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThat is a point which I think I would like to look into.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
§ *Following are the figures referred to by Earl De La Warr:
| Number of vessels affected by Convention, if accepted. | Factory Ships. | Catching Ships. |
| (1) All Nation | 57 | 367 |
| (2) British, including Dominions and Colonies. | 12 | 111 |
| 3) United Kingdom | 6 | 39 |
| Number of vessels operating during season 1933–1934. | Factory Ships. | Catching Ships. |
| (1) All Nations | 19 | 123 |
| (2) British, including Dominions and Colonies. | 8 | 49 |
| (3) United Kingdom | 3 | 18 |