HL Deb 17 May 1938 vol 109 cc83-102

House again in Committee.

Clause 37:

Provisions for giving effect to convention as to meshes of nets and size limits for fish.

(6) With a view to enforcing any order under this section, any of the following officers, that is to say,— may, at all reasonable times, go on board any fishing-boat or enter any premises used for carrying on any business in connection with the treatment, storage or sale of sea-fish, may search for and examine any sea-fish in any place, whether on board a fishing-boat or elsewhere, and whether in a receptacle or not, and may seize any sea-fish which have been landed, sold or exposed or offered for sale by any person in contravention of this section, or which any person has in his possession in contravention of this section; and a local fisheries committee may take proceedings in respect of any contravention of this section occurring within the district of the committee. For the purposes of this subsection the district of a local fisheries committee shall be deemed to extend throughout the area of any council liable to pay, or contribute to the payment of, the expenses of the committee, except that the powers conferred by this subsection on the committee or any officer thereof shall not be exercisable in respect of any matter arising within the limits of any market under the control of the council of any county borough or county district.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved, in subsection (6), in the paragraph beginning "For the purposes," to leave out "extend throughout the area of any council liable to pay, or contribute to the payment of, the expenses of the committee, except that the powers conferred by this subsection on the committee or any officer thereof shall not be exercisable" and to insert: be the geographical county or counties within which the areas of the authorities represented on such committee are situate provided that the powers conferred by this subsection shall not be exercised in the district of another committee or.

The noble Duke said: In submitting this Amendment to your Lordships I do so as a member of a local sea fisheries committee, and also on behalf of the Sea Fisheries Association. This Amendment refers to the powers of officers of the sea fisheries committees to deal with the offence of selling undersized fish. It is desired to reduce the chances of the offence being successful, and for that purpose to extend the limited area in which such officers may exercise those powers. As the Bill reads now, an officer may only follow a suspected person into the area of a county borough which contributes to the expenses of the sea fisheries committee. It is contended that this does not confer wide enough powers on the officers for the proper execution of their work. It does not empower an officer to follow a suspected person into a county borough which does not contribute to the expenses of the sea fisheries committee, and in order to prove a case it is contended that an officer should be able to follow fish to its destination. At the present time certain county boroughs do not contribute and that is why the Sea Fisheries Association object to this method of definition of the area in which the committees may exercise their powers. It is submitted that the question of financial contributions has nothing to do with the desirability of an officer being able to follow fish inland, and the Association therefore ask that a description of a geographical area shall be inserted in the Bill.

The terms of this proposed Amendment set out a way of doing this which we believe to be effective. It may be argued that on arriving at a county borough boundary the officer may inform the police of the alleged offence and hand it over to them to continue if they think fit. There are, however, two strong objections to this. In the first place, a good many police would not know the difference between a flounder, as to which there is no size limit, and dabs and plaice and sole, which are subject to a legal size limit. Secondly, the change over in the middle of a case makes it much easier for an astute offender to dispose of the fish before the police are able to get to work. A parallel may be drawn to the difficulties which already exist in matters of ordinary crime when a case has to be handed over from county police to borough police and vice versa. Instead of the present division of responsibility it would lead to greater efficiency if the sea fisheries officer was able to follow an offender to his destination, without interference.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 33, leave out from the beginning to ("in") in line 37, and insert the said words.—(The Duke of Northumberland.)

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

May I support my noble friend's Amendment? It does seem rather unfortunate that what we might call sanctuaries are created by this method of dealing with this matter. These county boroughs do not contribute because they are not interested, and those who have taken the small fish know full well that that is so, and would naturally rush over into those boroughs to get rid of their fish. The whole matter is really a question of time. To follow offenders you want to get straight after these men, and, as my noble friend has said, the police often really know nothing about the matter. He referred to the matter of ordinary crime, although you cannot compare a small matter like this with what happens in a great country like the United States. One reason wiry crime became so prevalent there was that nobody could follow criminals across the State boundary. Finally, they had to come to an arrangement whereby the Federal Police were able to deal with these matters all over the United States. I think this is a parallel, and I hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will be able to give us some satisfaction.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My noble friend the Duke of Northumberland, who has moved this Amendment on behalf of the Association of Sea Fisheries, has done so for the purpose of enabling an officer of a. sea fisheries committee to follow undersized fish to a market or shop in a borough which, although the council of that borough may not be a contributor to the expenses of the committee, is nevertheless contained within the geographical boundaries of the constituent county in which the borough is situated. The noble Earl, in support of the Amendment, has emphasized that to follow up these instances where undersized fish get to these county boroughs, which he has defined as sanctuaries, it is necessary for the officer of the sea fisheries committee to follow up the case. Although there is a very substantial case for leaving those county boroughs free outside the control of the sea fisheries committees, there is the possibility that the police are not so well equipped in the rules and regulations as the officers of the sea fisheries committee. But there is another side to that, which is, that the county boroughs which are not constituent contributors to the sea fisheries committee might well and properly resent a person of an exterior and outside authority coming within their boundaries to investigate a condition of this kind. Therefore, under subsection (6), you have power not only for the police to take such action, but to see any officer of the marketing authority.

Therefore, on the point with regard to the ineffectiveness of the police in assuming responsibility for this work, I would suggest that it is quite unnecessary for the officer of the sea fisheries committee to go further than the port at which the fish is landed. Your Lordships will appreciate that normally fish is sold at the port of landing, and it is at the port of landing, which in some cases may be not more than a bit of beach, that the supervision of the committee is desired. Besides that point, there is a further point, which is that in order to give effect to the International Mesh Convention the present Bill provides for the extension of the 1933 Act with regard to the prohibition of the landing of such fish. It is quite obvious, therefore, that it is on or near the coast that the committees may be expected to detect offences, and indeed have every opportunity for doing so. I think it would be quite improper for the officer of the sea fisheries committee to go travelling about the country by car or by train in chase of a consignment of fish which in fact he ought to have stopped from ever starting on its journey. And where are we going to stop, if such a power is given to a sea fisheries officer? It may not stop at the geographical boundary of the particular sea fisheries committee. Fish penetrate within a remarkably short space of time to the inland centres of this country, such as Leicester. If you carry the Amendment to its logical conclusion it might be said that it might be necessary for the sea fisheries officer to go beyond his county area. For these reasons I trust that the noble Lords will not press their Amendment further.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

I am afraid I am rather disappointed with the noble Earl's answer, but at this late hour I do not wish to press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 [Constitution of local fisheries committees]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 15, after ("committee") insert ("and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51 agreed to.

Clause 52:

Liability of owners of fishing boats for illegal fishing.

52.—(1) Where any vessel is used for fishing in any manner constituting a contravention of any by-law of a local fisheries committee having effect by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act, as amended by Section seven of the Fisheries Act, 1891, the skipper and the owner of the vessel shall each be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence, fifty pounds, or in the case of a second offence, one hundred and fifty pounds, or, in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding three hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine: Provided that in any proceedings which by virtue of this section are taken against the owner of a vessel in respect of an offence under this section committed by the skipper it shall be a good defence for the owner to prove that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of that offence.

(2) The preceding subsection shall, in relation to any vessel which at the material time is under charter, have effect as if any reference in that subsection to the owner were a reference to the charterer.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "1891" down to the proviso and insert: then if, at the date of the contravention, the skipper of the vessel is a person who has, within the two years immediately preceding that date, been convicted of an offence under any such by-law, or who has been more than once convicted of such an offence within the five years immediately preceding the said date, the owner of the vessel shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence, fifty pounds, or, in the case of a second offence, two hundred pounds, or, in the case of a third or subsequent offence, five hundred pounds.

The noble Earl said: I am speaking for the Sea Fisheries Association, as an ex-Chairman of the Association, and as Chairman of a fisheries committee for over ten years. I am afraid this is rather a complicated Amendment, and it is one by which the Association set great store. A second and a third alternative Amendment which appear on the Paper are really the ones which we should like to pass. The second Amendment on page 54, lines 1 and 2, is really an alternative suggestion if my noble friend does not accept the first, but, as I understand there is some difficulty about that, I suggest if it is allowable that we debate the two together. Perhaps I had better say a few-words on the whole matter to explain why we have one or two alternative suggestions.

Clause 52 has been the subject of a good deal of negotiation from time to time between the Sea Fisheries Association and the Ministry. The Association have always been dissatisfied with the clause in the original Act of 1888, under which we have been dealing with these matters up to now, because the penalties were so extremely small. The penalties only amount to £20, and when you are dealing with a catch worth several hundred pounds it is almost an incentive to a man to go in and get the larger amount of fish and pay the penalty. On the other hand, there is the power to confiscate gear and also the fish. The agreement come to was that penalties should be increased and the power of confiscation, both of gear and fish, surrendered. This was satisfactory to the Association, but when we come to the Bill we find that the proviso to this clause says: it shall be a good defence for the owner to prove that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of that offence. We do object to that very strongly indeed, because we consider that if an owner is prosecuted under this Bill he will escape every time. It is far too lax. The prosecution will fail, and the defendant might even get costs against a committee for vexatious prosecution on insufficient grounds. Really what it will come to is that committees will not try to prosecute at all.

We fully realise that there are good owners and bad owners of ships. The good owners very largely prevail. But the bad owner exists, and under this Bill as it is drawn it seems probable that even a notice hung up in the owner's office saying that a skipper must not go inside territorial waters, or even a paper handed to him to that effect, would vitiate practically any prosecution. In a court of summary jurisdiction if extenuating circumstances are suggested the court need not proceed to conviction at all, but may simply dismiss the case. Under the wording of this proviso we feel that the dice are absolutely loaded, and that it is practically a hundred to one that the owner will get off. We fully realise that the skipper can be prosecuted, but it is the bad owner that we want to get at.

The first Amendment is really in a form which was in the Bill when first introduced. We should prefer the second one, but as we have to take them together I must start with this particular one. In that case the owner will not be liable for prosecution if the skipper has not been prosecuted for two years, or if he has not had more than one prosecution within five years. But the Amendment we prefer is the insertion of the two subsections suggested after subsection (2). That particular wording has been borrowed from the Government's own Act for Scotland, passed in 1934. That surely constitutes a fair wording to deal with this case. It is, in effect, that an owner will not be liable to prosecution if he can show that his skipper had no previous convictions against him. Lists of convictions will be kept, as in Scotland, at various places, and the owner will have every possibility of knowing all about the man he is employing. I very much hope my noble friend will be able to accept one or other of these Amendments—I hope the second.

Amendment moved— Page 53, line 31, leave out from ("1891") to the end of the subsection, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Ilchester.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for having agreed, with your Lordships' permission, to take these three Amendments together. The noble Earl has informed us that the representatives of the sea fisheries committees have for a number of years been dissatisfied with the penalties which can be imposed for breaches of their by-laws, and have complained that these penalties are inadequate and ought to be increased. In order to investigate this statement it is necessary to see what the present law provides and what change is represented by the provisions of this Bill. Under the Act of 1888 a local fisheries committee may make by-laws imposing as penalty for the first offence a fine of £20; in the case of a continuing offence, an additional sum of £10 for every day during which the offence continues, and in any case forfeiture of any fishing instrument used or sea fish taken in contravention of or found in the possession of a person contravening any by-law. Under this Bill, in Clauses 52 and 53, the skipper and the owner of the vessel shall each be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the first case £50, which is an increase of £30 on the Act of 1888; in the case of a second offence, a penalty of £150; or in the case of a third or subsequent offence imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £300; alternatively to both imprisonment for three months and a fine of £300. To this provision there is also attached a proviso, the effect of which is that it will be a good defence for the owner to prove he has exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of that offence.

The net result of Clauses 52 and 53 is that whereas under the Act of 1888 the maximum penalty for a breach of the by-laws on the first occasion was £20, it is now £50, and both imprisonment and a fine can be imposed. These are very considerable increases in the penalties, and they apply not only to the skipper but also to the owner. In the opinion of the Government the final and most effective form of punishment, and indeed the final and most effective deterrent to a persistent offender, is imprisonment, and a severe penalty is provided in this Bill in that respect. The noble Earl has said that to obtain the severe penalties which should be imposed on the owner as well as the skipper a black-list should be instituted. In support of that claim the noble Earl has referred us to a list that exists under the provisions of the law relating to Scotland in the Act of 1894. As far as English law is concerned, a blacklist is objectionable for this simple reason, that the keeping of such a list is quite contrary to the principles of English criminal law, which regards the penalty imposed as expunging the offence.

The proposal of the noble Earl is that the offence should continue to hang over the skipper, if not for the remainder of his life, at any rate for a considerable period during which he would, on account of an offence for which he had already paid the penalty, be prevented from earning his living in the vocation for which he was trained. It is perhaps too late an hour in your Lordships' House for me to go fully into the implications of this matter of principle with regard to the administration of English criminal law; but when the matter was brought before my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture he stated that he knew of no analogous instance in the penal code of this country whereby an offender should have a record of that character against his name for such a long period. It is open, under the normal criminal procedure of this country, to the prosecution to obtain between the proof of guilt and the date of sentence a record of the offender, and consequently, if it is found by a court of summary jurisdiction that there has been more than one offence in this particular respect, it will be necessary for that court to consider fully the penalties which are imposed by this Bill and, if necessary, go up to the maximum.

After this explanation, I cannot but think that noble Lords representing the Sea Fisheries Association, on further study, may be satisfied to some extent that the penalties imposed in this Bill are of a much stronger and more severe character than any penalties we have had in existence up to date, and that the Bill should thereby very materially improve the present position, which we recognise has in many respects been unsatisfactory. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I am afraid I did not make it clear to my noble friend that the Association entirely agree with the penalties, but what is the good of penalties if you cannot enforce them? Our point is that the Bill is so loosely drawn that we shall practically never be able to get a prosecution. However, I do not intend at this late hour to divide the Committee upon my Amendment, which I beg to withdraw. I shall not move the other Amendments upon this clause but I shall move the Amendment to leave out Clause 52.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved to leave out Clause 52. The noble Earl said: My Association would very much prefer, as the noble Earl has not been able to meet us on the other two suggestions, that the whole clause should be deleted and that we go back to the working of the 1888 Act, even with its small penalties. We feel that the words which I have recently complained about make the Bill so lax that the clause is practically unworkable in that particular respect, and an unworkable clause is surely a bad clause. We think that the penalties under the Act to which I have referred are far too small, but the Association would rather go back to that position than be regulated by Clause 52 as it now appears in this Bill.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 52.—(The Earl of Ilchester.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

It is perhaps somewhat difficult for your Lordships to appreciate the logic of the noble Earl. In a previous Amendment he specifically requested more stringent provisions and penalties to obviate the offences named by this Part of the Bill; yet he now says that the increased penalties to which I have referred are of no value, and that therefore it would be better to revert to the provisions of the Act of 1888. In the first place I do not think that the noble Earl need fear as much as he emphasized the working of these specific provisions. If the prosecution have reasonable grounds for complaint there can be no danger of the offender, even if there is no judgment and even if he is exonerated from the offence, suing for damages. Under ordinary commercial law, when an individual is charged before the court, he gives up his time and his practice, if he is engaged in a profession, to attend the court to hear the charge. The case is sometimes dismissed, but seldom, to my knowledge, has an offender appealing before a court of summary jurisdiction the right to sue for damages. Therefore on that ground I do not think the noble Earl or the Sea Fisheries Association need be so alarmed as to the working of this provision.

The chief reason why the noble Earl wishes to maintain the provisions of the Act of 1888 is that the provision for forfeiture holds good under that Act and is done away with in the present Bill. But we have taken the course adopted in this Bill because the provision in the 1888 Act is regarded as objectionable, at any rate as regards gear, unless the skipper is also the owner of the vessel. If the skipper is not also the owner then the owner is penalised without being brought into court for the action of a skipper over whose actions he has not for the time being any control. For this reason the Government decided to repeal this provision and only impose the increased penalties. I think the noble Earl will appreciate the justice of that and that he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment to delete Clause 52.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I am deeply disappointed that the noble Earl is unable to meet us on any one of these points.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 agreed to.

Clause 53:

Increase of certain penalties.

53.— (3) Section three of the principal Act (which relates to penalties and forfeitures for the contravention of by-laws) is hereby repealed, and so much of any by-law made by a local fisheries committee as imposes penalties or forfeitures on persons contravening by-laws so made shall be deemed to have been revoked.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved, at the beginning of subsection (3), to insert "So much of." The noble Duke said: I will deal with this Amendment and two Amendments following it together, with your Lordships permission. They all relate to subsection (3) of Clause 53, and are held to be necessary because this subsection proposes to repeal Section 3 of the principal Act. That section sets out penalties which may be imposed by by-laws and includes the statutory power to seize and obtain an order for the forfeiture of gear and fish illegally taken. In the opinion of the Association it is essential that the forfeiture of fish illegally taken should be retained for two reasons. In the first place it may be necessary in order to prove a case to produce some of the catch in court, and, secondly, it does introduce a new principle that fish taken in contravention of the law may be retained by those committing this offence.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 21, after ("(3)") insert ("So much of").— (The Duke of Northumberland.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I think for the reasons stated in the debate on the last two Amendments, the noble Duke will appreciate that it is impossible for me to accept this and the following Amendments. With regard to the question of forfeiture, with which I have to some extent dealt, there is no danger as far as I can see that the seizure of fish for which we have allowed will constitute a difficulty in the sea fisheries committee taking action and bringing both equipment and fish forward as evidence, and that no compensation will be allowed for that. It is, therefore, for the reasons I have stated, impossible to accept the noble Duke's Amendment.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND

I am very sorry the Government cannot accept the Amendment, but I do not wish to press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to add to subsection (3): and subsection (2) of Section six of the principal Act shall have effect as if in paragraph (c) of that subsection for the words 'liable to be forfeited in pursuance' there were substituted the words 'taken or used in contravention'". The noble Earl said: By repealing Section 3 of the principal Act, that is, the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, subsection (3) of this clause takes away from local fisheries committees the power of requiring the forfeiture of fish taken or instruments used in contravention of their by-laws. It is not, however, desired to abrogate the power conferred on officers of the committees by Section 6 of the principal Act to seize fish or gear taken or used in contravention of a by-law, as this power may be necessary for the purpose of producing evidence in court. As the principal Act stands, officers are given power to seize only fish or gear liable to forfeiture and therefore if the penalty of forfeiture were abolished the power of seizure would lapse. This Amendment is intended to rectify this state of affairs by enabling officers to seize any fish taken or gear used in contravention of a by-law.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

The Sea Fisheries Association have not the smallest objection to this Amendment, but they do ask the Ministry to add forfeiture as well. Otherwise, apart from the fish which are taken to be brought into the court, the whole of the rest of the catch presumably remains in the hands of the offender to do what he likes with. Surely that is a very curious position. Fish taken from a forbidden area surely is stolen fish. Is the thief to have the stolen goods returned to him at the end of the case? That is really what it comes to. If my noble friend had a case of jewellery stolen from his house, and prosecuted the thief, would he at the end of the case take off his hat and present the thief with the jewellery? It is the same thing. I cannot understand the attitude of the Ministry in this matter.

There is another question I would like to ask. What is the position of the prosecutor if between the time the case is taken up and adjudication of it the fish which had been taken go bad? Is the prosecutor going to be made liable? I would ask my noble friend to look into the matter. I should like him to realise that the Association in putting forward these Amendments are only trying to assist the Ministry in making the Bill workable. We are not in the least hostile to the Bill. In many ways we welcome it, but there are these small points which seem to us quite unworkable. Though probably my noble friend may think it is heresy to say so, I think that very often local knowledge of what is going on and what is likely to happen is better than the knowledge in Whitehall. I hope my noble friend will consider the question of forfeiture.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I very greatly appreciate the statement of the noble Earl that his representations on behalf of the Sea Fisheries Association are intended to assist the operation of this Bill. He said that local persons engaged in the industry are well able to calculate the degree of harm done and the necessary means of eliminating it, but with regard to this question of retaining forfeiture as well as seizure I would say that if in the course of proceedings the fish go bad it is natural that those fish will have to be thrown away and destroyed. That will be a loss to the owner or the skipper responsible for the offence, or to both of them. I do not think in those circumstances either the owner or the skipper would have any statutory right to demand compensation. It would be, in fact, forfeiture. In regard to the instance of robbery quoted by the noble Earl, there are innumerable other offences where the offender is incapable for one reason or another of making good damage he has done. Except in particular cases of restitution, the booty acquired very often is not returned to the proper owner. I cannot accept the analogy. With this further explanation, taken in conjunction with the former remarks I made with regard to the whole question of forfeiture, I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55:

Extension of powers of local fisheries committees.

55.—(1) A local fisheries committee shall have the following further powers, that is to say— (c) if the committee or any of its officers is authorised in that behalf under subsection (4) of Section seven of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, the committee may institute proceedings for any offence under that Act committed within the district of the committee.

(2) In this section the expressions "harbour" and "works" have the meanings respectively assigned to them by paragraph (4) of Section two of the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER had Amendments on the Paper to insert "and" at the end of paragraph (a) in subsection (1), to leave out "and" at the end of paragraph (b), to omit paragraph (c), and to insert the following new subsection: (2) A local fisheries committee may institute proceedings for any offence under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, committed within the district of the committee as constituted by an order under Section one of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888: Provided that the power conferred by this subsection shall not be exercisable in or in relation to any matter arising within the limits of a harbour coming under the control of a harbour authority as defined by the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922.

The noble Earl said: The whole of the Amendments to this clause stand together. The effect of them is to provide that the fisheries committees should have the right to institute proceedings in their districts as in the case of oil pollution, but we do not ask for it in harbours. Under the Bill as it is drawn committees will only have the power if they or any of their officers are specially authorised. Surely it would be an invidious thing for the Ministry to select two or three of the fisheries committees and say that such-and-such a committee may institute proceedings, or that they should pick out certain officers of these committees to institute proceedings and not give that power to every one of them. These powers were specially asked for in 1922 when the Act for the prevention of oil pollution was brought in, but the fishery committees were not given it. We understood that the Minister was now in favour of granting it, but apparently the Board of Trade stepped in. From a letter which I have been shown and which was forwarded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, one of their reasons is that such powers would give rise to objections or requests for similar treatment from other quarters. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will explain to me what that means. We have not the slightest idea what those objections are, or what the other quarters are. I would remind him that, if it be said that there are too many different officials authorised to do it, in Clause 37 of the Bill no fewer than five different classes of persons are cited to institute prosecutions in respect of undersized fish.

I stress the importance of being able to get a quick prosecution. That is the whole secret of being able to catch these offenders. In a case which happened in 1929, a member of my own committee was sailing in a yacht race and crossed the stern of a ship going West opposite Ryde. This boat was quite clearly pumping out its bilges, because there were streaks of oil for two miles behind it, which, from the smell, had evidently just been thrown overboard. We could only take the matter up by writing to the King's Harbour Master in Portsmouth or to the Board of Trade. We referred it to the King's Harbour Master, and after five months we heard that this boat, which was apparently a yacht, had been chartered by an American and was now in the South of France, and they were quite unable to get the skipper, who said that he had not upset this oil. With a quick prosecution we could probably have got that man. As it was, we received the thanks of the Admiralty for trying to institute a prosecution. I therefore hope that this power may be given us. I am not at this late hour going to talk oil, as I have on several occasions to the House, because I shall very soon have to bring the matter up again. I am sorry to say that the position is very nearly as bad as it was, and our reports on birds for the last three or four months on the southern coast is lamentable. Here is a chance for the Board of Trade to give us powers which we believe would help enormously in preventing this pollution. Under the old Act there has, so far as I know, never been a prosecution; yet the Board of Trade are continually saying, whenever I have brought the matter before your Lordships, that they are most interested and wish to do everything they can. Here is a case, and they refuse to allow us to have the powers which we believe we ought to have.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 16, after ("Act") insert ("and").—(The Earl of Ilchester.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The noble Earl, with his very extensive knowledge of pollution by oil in navigable waters, will of course know what provision exists under Section 74 (4) of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, which provides that proceedings for an offence under the Act shall not be instituted in the case of an offence committed in or in relation to the waters of a harbour except by the harbour authorities, and in any other case except by a person authorised in that behalf. By a general direction of February, 1923, the then Minister of Agriculture gave local fishery committees power to institute proceedings for an offence under that Act. It was, however, subsequently found that the committees, being corporations, were not entitled to institute prosecutions. Furthermore, the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, under which the committees are constituted, did not specifically authorise them to incur expenditure for this purpose. By Clause 55 (1) (c) of this Bill, both those disabilities are removed, and local fishery committees or their officers, if they are so authorised by the Minister, may proceed against offenders under the Act of 1922. I rather thought that the noble Earl had failed to remember that provision, and the fact that under Clause 55, if the Minister gives the necessary general sanction, sea fishery committees will be empowered to act and that that power will not be abortive. Therefore the sea fishery committees and their officers are placed on precisely the same footing as officers of the Ministry. I believe that, to carry out the important purposes to which the noble Earl has referred, they would find this power amply sufficient.

The noble Earl has referred to the information that he has received from the Board of Trade, and he asks me to explain objections that the Board said would arise from other quarters. I should like to have further notice of what those specific objections may be, and I cannot here and now answer him upon them. If, however, this Amendment were to be passed, it would be necessary to leave out offences involving sanitary authorities and joint boards. I understand that the Ministry of Health would insist to the best of their ability that proceedings should not be taken against those two authorities—which, of course, would mean that one department of a local authority would be taking proceedings against another. I fully recognise the need for quick prosecution which the noble Earl has emphasized, but provided that the Minister gives the general sanction for sea fishery committees to act, there is no reason why this prosecution should not be effected very rapidly indeed.

THE EARL OF ILCHESTER

AS regards my noble friend's point that he wants further notice of the objections, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have been specifically asked by our Association some weeks ago what those objections were and I think it is rather hard to come now and say that further notice is wanted. As regards the whole matter I fully realise that we might possibly be allowed to institute prosecutions if the Minister so wishes, but we have not been told definitely that that is going to be done; and we should have much preferred to have seen it in the Bill. In the circumstances I will withdraw my Amendments to this clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Constitution of the Commission.

5. It shall be the duty of the Ministers to satisfy themselves, with respect to any person whom they propose to appoint to be a member of the Commission or who is a member of the Commission, that that person will have or has, as the case may be, no such financial or commercial interest as is likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a Commissioner; and any such person shall, whenever requested by the Ministers so to do, furnish to them such information as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under this paragraph.

Meetings and Proceedings of the Commission.

10. Subject to the preceding provisions of this Schedule, the Commission shall have power to fix and regulate its own quorum and procedure.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

With your Lordships' permission I will take the first three Amendments, in paragraph 5, together. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule as it stands infers that there is a continuing obligation on the Ministers to satisfy themselves that a member of the Commission does not acquire such financial or commercial interest as would be likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a Commissioner. It is considered sufficient that Ministers should so satisfy themselves only from time to time and these three Amendments are designed to effect this.

Amendments moved— Page 60, line 24, leave out ("or who is a member of the Commission") Page 60, line 25, leave out ("or has, as the case may be") Page 60, line 27, after ("Commissioner") insert ("and also to satisfy themselves from time to time, with respect to any person who is a member of the Commission, that he has no such interest as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My last Amendment to the First Schedule, in paragraph 10, and the Amendments to the Second Schedule may conveniently be explained together. It is considered that paragraph 6 of the First Schedule and paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule of the Bill sufficiently imply that the Commission or the Council, as the case may be, has power to fix its own quorum and it would appear to be unnecessary therefore to give specific power in paragraph 10 of the First Schedule and paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the Commission and Council respectively to fix their quorum. The words "to the preceding provisions of this Schedule and" which appear in paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule also appear to be unnecessary.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 17, leave out ("fix and") and leave out ("quorum and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule [Incidental provisions as to White Fish Industry Joint Council]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 62, line 22, leave out ("to the preceding provisions of this Schedule and") Page 62,line 24, leave out ("fix and") and leave out ("quorum and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule [Provisions with respect to the making, confirmation and publication of Commission's regulations]:

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 12, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("a").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule: