Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I was very interested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and his reasons for supporting the European Union—which, he said, had kept the peace since 1945. That simply is not the case. The European Union was not formed until 1992 and it is NATO that has kept the peace in Europe since 1945. The only people who dealt with the Russian threat when it blockaded Berlin was the United States and the British, with just a little help from France. The Common Market, or the EEC, had not even been thought of, let alone formed, by then. After that little diversion, I should now like to congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on her persistence in this matter. Her previous Bill was agreed by this House without any difficulty at all but, as in so many cases, it got stalled in the House of Commons. But there is no reason why it should get stalled in the House of Commons this time. I hope that this House will give it an unopposed Second Reading today and that it will again proceed through all its further stages so that we can send it to the House of Commons. We have a Session of 18 months, so there will be no excuse of shortage of time in the House of Commons—or of lack of opportunity, since I believe that somebody there is already prepared to take it up and take it through the House of Commons if she should get the chance. Indeed, the composition of the Commons itself has changed; it may be that it is going to get a better hearing and a better approach than it would have done had we not had the election in May. So I hope that at this particular time, this particular Bill will reach the statute book; it has a better chance of doing so than the previous Bill that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was good enough to bring to us. I am not going to go into all the minute detail. The noble Lady has given us many reasons why we should repatriate the fishing policy, including the absurd discard system; the reduction of fleets, not only in Scotland but in the rest of the country; and, indeed, the criminalisation of many of our fisherman for doing very little wrong, and the amounts of money that can put them out of business. That all shows that something is radically wrong and has been wrong for a very long time. Indeed, the issue will not go away. I remember taking part in a debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on 14 February 1996. That is a long time ago—nine years ago—and we are still talking about the iniquities of the common fisheries policy. At that time, there was a full-blown crisis facing the fishing industry. British waters were then being over-fished by foreign fleets; British fishermen were being prevented from going to sea; they were burning their boats in protest and also burning the European flag. They were flying instead the Canadian flag and feting the Canadian High Commissioner as a great hero, because the Canadians had stood up to other people who were over-fishing their waters. This is a very longstanding problem—and what has changed? Fishing is still in crisis. Having a fishing policy run by 15 countries has proved disastrous; one run by 25 countries is likely to turn into a catastrophe. Since the CFP has failed miserably to protect and further Britain’s fishing industry and, at the same time, failed to conserve stocks of fish, it is surely time for the return of fishing policy to Britain—and indeed to the other nations of the European Union. It could hardly do any further damage to our fishing industry if that happened. A properly managed and policed policy would give better opportunities to our fishermen and better conserved stocks in British waters. When the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, introduced her Bill on 18 May, she could not in any way foresee the climactic events that were to overtake the European Union at the end of May and beginning of June, when   the French and Dutch people voted against the constitution—a document that would have entrenched the common fisheries policy, in Article 1.14. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is very able but I do not think that she has the power of foresight. Indeed, I do not think that many of us have. In my view current events have created a new opportunity to make the case for bringing powers back to the nation state, and among them the common fisheries policy. The Prime Minister himself has now realised that the common agricultural policy has to be reformed. Apparently, there will be a big debate about it this weekend. He believes that it should be reformed out of existence, so that it no longer exists. He is insisting on that before we give up our so-called rebate. He clearly does not believe that such an eventuality of   withdrawing from the CAP is impossible for agriculture. So why should that not be the case for fishing as well, where the common fisheries policy so damages us and costs our country and our fishermen a good deal in lost revenue? I am glad to say that the Conservative Party has already adopted a position of support for the return of fisheries policy to the nation states. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will confirm that this afternoon from the Opposition Front Bench. The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party also seems to be warming to the idea of powers being returned to the nation states, so all the omens for this Bill are good. The Prime Minister could be persuaded to support it. The Official Opposition are already in favour of withdrawal from the CFP. I hope that it is not impossible—we shall hear in a moment the speech of the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches—that the Liberal Democrat Party will also support such a policy. As I say, I hope that the omens are good for an all-party agreement to support this Bill and to get the common fisheries policy returned to where it should never have left; that is, under the control of the British Government and, ultimately, the British people. Therefore, I support the Bill. I hope that it is given a Second Reading today and that it passes quickly through its further stages. As I say, that will give the House of Commons plenty of time to debate the Bill and, I hope, pass it into law.