SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SEA ILSHEIUES BILL. 



3 Maixh 1904.J 



Sir Thojias Elliott, k.c.b. 



[Continued. 



Duke oi Ahercom — continued. 



— Tliat is a question upon which a good deal of 

 diii'erence of scientific and practical opinion exists, 

 hut it is undoubtedly the fact that a consider- 

 able proportion of the fish taken up are not 

 returned promptly enough to the sea to give 

 them a chance of life. 



Marquess of Huntly. 



61. 1 understood you to say that it would not 

 be fair to our own trawlers if foreigners were 

 still to fish on these banks at a time when our 

 trawlers were not using them. Do you contem- 

 plate that other countries would make similar 

 regulations so as to prevent the sale in those 

 countries of these undersized fish ? — 1 think 

 there is very good reason to hope now that other 

 countries would follow our lead in this matter. 

 But I may say with regard to that that im- 

 portant resolutions were arrived at by the 

 International Conference which sat at Hamburg 

 a few days ago. My colleague, Mr. Archer, 

 attended that conference and will be able to give 

 your Lordships direct information as to the 

 resolutions the Conference arrived at. 



62. It would be a great grievance, of course, 

 if our trawlers were barred during those months, 

 which I understand are March, Aprd, May, June 

 and Juty, and foreigners were still allowed to go 

 indiscriminately? — The foreign trawling industry 

 is very small indeed as compared with ours. 

 We undoubtedly should direct our efforts to 

 getting foreign countries with their small 

 trawling fleets to do what we are proposing to 

 do \vith regard to our great trawling fleet. The 

 representatives of the trawling industry in this 

 country do not suggest that there would be any 

 material hardship. 



63. Then I want to ask you about Clause 2 of 

 the Bill, which proposes to put under the Board 

 of Agriculture and Fisheries the powers which 

 under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, Section 

 2, are with the local fisheries committees. Do 

 you apprehend that there may be any clashing 

 between the Orders that would be issued by the 

 Board of Agriculture and, perhaps, orders that 

 would be issued by the local fishery committee ? 

 — I do not think so. We should be able to 

 deal with the cases in which there are no sea 

 fishery committees, and it is also conceivable 

 that, in concert with the local fisheries com- 

 mittees, we might be able to make identical 

 regulations with regard to nursery grounds 

 which extend somewhat beyond the territorial 

 waters. We have been told by the Lancashire 

 Fisheries Committee that they would welcome 

 an extension of the power to make bye-laws 

 to nursery grounds which are outside the 

 territorial waters. It is also conceivable that 

 some of the local fishery committees may not 

 take a sufiiciently wide view of this question 

 and that their action might be detrimental f,o 

 other parts of the coast. We want, in fact, to 

 be placed in the same position as the Scottish 

 FisHery Board and as the Irish Department of 

 Agriculture. 



64. Then does this clause as it stands give you 

 power to supersede the local fishery committee 

 if you wished to ? — It would give us an inde- 



Marquess of Huntly — continued , 



pendent power, undoubtedly, but it would not 

 be the power of supersession. We have the 

 same power with regard to diseases of animals. 

 Sometimes a local authority is, perhaps, guided 

 too much by purely local considerations, and it 

 is desirable in that case that there should be an 

 authority which is able to take a somewhat wider 

 view of the matter. But, of course, we avoid 

 conflict with the local authority if we possibly 



can. 



65. As a matter of fact, in these local fisheries 

 committees their powers under this section have 

 been curtailed by the action of the members of 

 the Council who represent the inland sections, 

 and they have not been able to do the work so 

 thoroughly or issue bye-laws in such a thorough 

 manner as those who represent the coast divi- 

 sions would wish ? — I should quite concur in the 

 view your Lordship has expressed. It very often 

 happens that ;. local authority is unable for 

 local reasons to do exactly what it thinks 

 desirable, and is rather glad to shelter itself 

 under the central authority. 



66. Then do you think it is quite clear under 

 this clause that the Board of Agriculture and 

 Fisheries would have the power to step in and 

 make bye-laws which would supersede — I do 

 not know whether that is the right word, but 

 would be authoritative over the head of the bye 

 laws issued by the local fisheries committees ? — 

 Yes. The intention of the clause, whatever may 

 be the fault of its drafting, was undoubtedly that 

 we should be in a position to make bye-laws 

 affecting the territorial waters which might be in 

 excess of the bye-laws made by the local 

 authority. 



67. And you think this clause gives you that 

 power ? — The clause was certainly intended to 

 give us that power. I think it does. 



Lord Tweedmouth.] As I understand, the 

 intention is that the Board of Agriculture should 

 have power from time to time to vary the size 

 limit ?— Yes, if they find it to be necessary. 



68. And also that they should have different 

 size limits for different fishing grounds ? — Yes, 

 that is so, using the term fishing grounds 

 in a very wide sense. 



69. I mean the different areas in the North 

 Sea might have different size limits applied to 

 them ? — I do not contemplate that. I think 

 that it would be difficult to administer the laws 

 if you had separate size limits for different 

 fishery grounds — at any rate in the North Sea. 



70. That was exactly my point. I was going 

 to follow up my question by asking you : do 

 not you anticipate that there would be great 

 difficulties in a variation of size limits ? — Yes, I 

 think that the variation of size limit which your 

 Lordship suggested would be extremely difficult 

 to carry out administratively. 



71. If that be so, would it not be the wiser 

 course absolutely to fix the size limits in the 

 Bill ? — I think not, because it is so difficult to 

 say once and for all what the size limit should 

 be. Our figures go to show that the size limit 

 of plaice at the outset should be either 10 or 11 

 inches for fish caught by deep sea trawlers in 

 the North Sea nursery grounds. I think that 

 a size limit of 10 inches might be found 



sufficient 



