§ 11.7 a.m.
§ Baroness HORNSBY-SMITHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the legal penalties applicable to foreign vessels trespassing within inshore fishing limits are adequate, in view of the development of Soviet factory ships whose 647 "vacuum cleaner" methods and immense capacity enable them to poach in a few hours catches far in excess of those which a traditional inshore trawler could net in a week, and whether they will make a Statement.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government share the anxiety felt by the noble Baroness about the danger to fish stocks caused in part by the development of highly efficient methods of fishing, which is not confined only to Soviet vessels. It is essential to control fishing around the United Kingdom in order to conserve stocks. The noble Baroness will already be aware that Her Majesty's Government intend to be ready to extend the fishery limits of the United Kingdom early in 1977, and that we are pressing for a decision by all Member States of the Community to do this together. As regards penalties for fishing within the limits, the Government are aware that the present level of fines would not by itself be adequate in serious cases. But the courts also have power to confiscate the catch and the gear of an offending vessel, and that is a very severe penalty indeed.
§ Baroness HORNSBY-SMITHMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very encouraging reply, which I am sure will be very warmly received by inshore fishermen. Is he aware that even if we get a wider limit than the present 12 miles, we still want effective means to stop this poaching? Also, is the noble Lord aware that the trawlers used in the West Country vary from a hand liner, with a catch capacity of only 10 tons, to a long liner, which may have a capacity of 40 to 50 tons, but that these poaching vessels from the Eastern European countries have a catch capacity of 2,000 tons, and at yesterday morning's mackerel prices such a cargo is worth £108,000. Although I accept what the noble Lord said about the courts having power, does he not think it absolutely derisory that in a recent case in the West Country the skipper of one of these vast fishing vessels was given a reprimand, and that in another case the skipper was fined £565? I hope that what the noble Lord has said today will have some effect on the local courts, and that they will bear in mind that in two similar cases of 648 poaching in Irish waters recently the courts implemented the full fine and the confiscation of catch and gear, which amounted to £78,000—
§ Several noble Lords: Question!
§ Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH—and if we could have some penalties like that it would help this country.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I am sure that there is a great deal in what the noble Baroness has said. I agree that under present legislation the fines are probably not adequate in the light of the problems of today. But I may remind the House that, as I said in my Answer, the catch and the gear may both be confiscated which, as the noble Baroness has said, is a very large deterrent. I may say that the Government are reviewing the level of fines in the light of the proposed 200-mile limit.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the phrase "the fine is not adequate" is clearly an understatement? If the evidence which has been given by my noble friend about what happened in Ireland is absolutely correct, it gives the impression that our courts are being very sloppy about a matter where sloppiness does not bring the answer that we want?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I will certainly bring what the noble Lord has said to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Viscount ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, it is easy enough to confiscate gear when it is in the form of nets, but will the noble Lord tell us how it is intended to confiscate the "vacuum cleaner" gear which is part of the main structure of a ship? Will the ship be confiscated as well? This will be interesting indeed.
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, as the noble Viscount has so rightly said, the Government are aware of the serious damage to fish stocks that is caused by industrial methods. In our view, the important question is to establish an adequate conservation régime within adequate limits so that stocks can recover.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, is not confiscation of the catch also an 649 empty threat? What on earth would the Government do with 2,000 tons of fish landed at some remote West Country port?
Baroness VICKERSMay I ask the noble Lord whether he would consider increasing naval vigilance? We have very few ships in the West Country and I think that the noble Lord will understand that the West Country fishermen are absolutely exasperated not only by the Russians but by other people from France and Scotland who come to poach. Surely we could have better naval patrol?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I am sure that it is a very good point which the noble Baroness has made, with her great interest in the West Country. I am glad to be able to tell her that several more Island class vessels have been ordered and further Nimrod aircraft.
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, could we take the matter a little further? The noble Lord said that we were going to be ready when the extension of our fishing limits came in, but could he tell us what urgent steps are being taken in view of the fact that 50 per cent. of the fishery protection fleet sank the other day in the Firth of Forth? We are going to be a little pushed, are we not? A 10-knot ship was sent out to arrest this vessel and the Russian captain is reputed to have laughed until a frigate appeared. Is this really the situation?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I will look into the points which the noble Lord has made. If he likes to put down a Question, I will answer it.
§ Lord BURTONMy Lords, is refrigeration equipment considered to he part of the gear?
§ Lord STRABOLGIMy Lords, I should need notice of that question.