of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 



L9 



officers and men was prepared and submitted to the Secretary for 

 Scotland and the Treasury, but was not proceeded with on the ground 

 that it would require legislative sanction. 



Such, briefly, is the history and composition of the machinery at 

 the Board's disposal for the policing of the fisheries. 



(b) Powers of the Board's Officers. — The statutory provisions setting 

 forth the powers and duties of fishery superintendents and sea fishery 

 officers are numerous, and to some extent they overlap. They may 

 be divided broadly into two categories, viz., Herring Fishery Acts and 

 Sea Fisheries Acts. The latter were directed to be enforced by sea 

 fishery officers appointed by the Committee of the Privy Council 

 appointed for Trade and Foreign Plantations — subsequently the 

 Board of Trade — and by certain other officers in H.M. Service. The 

 Herring Acts, on the other hand, fell to be administered by the Super- 

 intendents created under those Acts. 



Under the North Sea Convention the only country which retained 

 the right to appoint commanding officers of fishery cruisers other 

 than commissioned officers of the Navy was Belgium. The Board's 

 officers have in this way been debarred from exercising any authority 

 over foreign fishing craft outside the territorial limits, and this handicap 

 has in some instances operated to the disadvantage of our fishermen 

 in prosecuting claims for compensation in respect of damage caused to 

 their gear by foreign fishermen. In so far as the territorial waters are 

 concerned our officers have similar jurisdiction over foreign craft as 

 naval officers, and it is understood that in practice any foreign vessel 

 violating these limits and trying to evade capture is pursued and 

 overtaken outside the limits. 



(c) Future Arrangements. — Apart from any discussion as to the 

 obligations of the Admiralty to provide a gunboat or its equivalent, 

 in the form of a grant or otherwise, there can be no doubt that it 

 will be necessary to consider whether the existing arrangement is the 

 best that can be devised for securing adequate fishery protection, and 

 in so far as my experience of over thirty years goes I am inclined to the 

 view that the most efficient and economical results will be secured by 

 placing the policing under the control of the Fishery Departments 

 concerned. Dual control in this as in other directions is fatal to efficiency, 

 and it is essential that the Department responsible for making the regula- 

 tions affecting fisheries should be in charge of and in direct contact with 

 the machinery for enforcing it. Naval officers-have never been enamoured 

 of police work outside their legitimate sphere, and it is probably better 

 that in the interests of recruiting for the Navy they should come as 

 little as possible into conflict with those who have proved to be the most 

 valuable material for service in the Navy — our fishermen. The Board 

 has had some experience of dual control at sea in its own domestic affairs, 

 as an attempt was made for a brief period to enforce fishery regulations 

 simultaneously with the conduct of scientific investigations, with the 

 result that no satisfaction was secured in respect of either service, and 

 the arrangement was soon dropped. Another disadvantage arising out 

 of the comparatively short period of service permitted to naval officers 

 employed on fishery superintendence is the lack of opportunity to 

 become thoroughly aufait with the various fishery statutes and regula- 

 tions and the different fishing communities along the coast — a most 

 essential factor in securing the goodwill of the fishermen and their 



