Would the Minister explain what is meant by the words "for the purpose of sale" in line 2 of sub-section (1)?
Sea Fisheries (Protection of Immature Fish) Bill, 1937—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Does the Deputy think that these words might be usefully left out?
Yes.
I think the Deputy is right there. I will consider that point.
I hope you are not leaving out something that is necessary, or that would affect people in the trade?
The Bill is meant to cover people who are catching fish, and people in the fish trade, when fish are landed. It is a question of getting the best words to deal with the matter. It is certainly well worth looking into.
Are you deliberately leaving out some people by leaving out such words as "expose for sale"? Suppose that a person gets some immature fish, and that they are on a stand, is that person caught in the net of the law? He might claim that he had not sold or caught the fish, and that he did not come within the law. If the words "expose for sale" are left in, he comes within the law.
The matter requires examination.
It happened under other Acts of Parliament that there was a question of onus of proof, and it might lead to abuse or to a technical defence.
We have the words "in possession" in the Bill, and they make the position stronger.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Section 9 deals with powers of inspection, and refers to the position where a name or address is given which is known to the officer to be false or misleading. At the time the offence might be committed, the officer would not know that the address given was wrong, but he might have a suspicion. I think some of the officer's powers would be rendered ineffective if he was to know at the actual moment that the address was wrong. He will not know until he makes an investigation whether it is wrong or not.
Would it not be a serious thing to put into an officer's hands power whereby he could arrest on pretence—that, although he did not know the man, he thought the name and address given was false? I think that would be very wrong as far as the liberty of the subject is concerned.
If an officer knows that a name and address is false he can take action. It is a matter to be looked into.
Question put and agreed to.
Remaining sections and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, November 24th.