Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [HL]

My Lords, we might be few in number but we are high in quality. The Second Reading debate on the Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill, introduced by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, gives us an opportunity to discuss the common fisheries policy. The last time the Bill came before the House my noble friend Lady Wilcox spoke on our behalf. Unfortunately, she cannot be here today so I am very happy to step into her shoes and so do. My noble friend supported the Bill in principle on the previous occasion, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, knows well. She raised some important questions, which I shall reiterate, and which I hope the Minister will answer today. On listening to the clear introduction by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, of her Private Member’s Bill, I am struck yet again by the sheer incompetence of the common fisheries policy to protect our fish stocks. A system that forces fishermen to throw back into the sea more dead fish than they land, that   causes substantial degradation of the marine environment, and that has destroyed much of the fishing industry is a disgrace and must not be allowed to continue. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was right to say that fishing is in crisis. The noble Lady is not alone in voicing those views. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, in Progress on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, 25th Report, Session 2002–03, noted that the CFP was due for a substantial overhaul. But the report added that the committee had,"““no confidence that the new basic CFP Regulation agreed . . .  will meet the objectives of sustainable fisheries and prevent irreversible decline of important stocks unless it is substantially improved””." The Bill would not of itself take us out of the common fisheries policy and that aspect of the problem but it would give the Secretary of State powers to do so, as the noble Lady made clear. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said—it is always awful to follow him in that regard—even now, when the common agricultural policy agreements are being reconsidered, it seems the more incredible that one is   not supposed to suggest a radical change to the common fisheries policies. We on these Benches wish to see the present system radically altered. To that end, my honourable friend Owen Paterson has spent many months visiting fishing industries within the United Kingdom and other countries to see how they organise their fish stocks. His visits to Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland, Canada and the United States have enabled him to produce a consultation document that we launched in January 2005. In presenting her case, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, drew our attention to some of the unacceptable practices that must be tackled if we are to reverse the devastation of our fish stocks. The use of total allowable catches, which is an inefficient system, results in the throwing away of immature fish and the landing of black fish. The   wicked practice of discards continues. Boats are scrapped and replaced by more efficient ones, which, through new technical improvements, catch more fish than those that they replace. The practice of pair trawling catches dolphins and other cetaceans. The garnering of sand eels in the North Sea has taken some 750 tonnes each year and pulped them for oil and meal used in salmon farming. These practices should be ended. If Charles Clover’s article in the Times on Thursday, 9   July 2005, is correct, it appears that Europe is expected shortly to ban sand eel fishing. On 17 December 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in col. 1273, stated:"““Certainly, we need to improve enforcement and do something about discards. The new process for discards will help the situation””.—[Official Report, 17/12/03; col. 1273.]" What was that new process, when did it begin and what success has it achieved to date? What scientific research has been and is being undertaken by the UK or jointly by the EU truly to evaluate current fish stocks? Without accurate statistics, how on earth can effective planning be undertaken? I turn now to some of the thoughts that have been put forward by my party in our consultation document. We recognise that the common fisheries policy is a biological, environmental, economic and social disaster—and it needs to be reformed. It is a 33-page consultation document. It is not finalised. If the Minister would like to have a copy of it at the end of the debate, I am more than willing to pass it to him—because what he and I and everyone in this House want is to improve the present totally unacceptable situation. In the document we maintain that fisheries cannot be managed successfully on a continental scale. They need local control. That is why Michael Howard has stated that the Conservatives will return our fisheries to national and local control and management. I shall highlight some of the issues that we wish to raise. We want the effort control to be based on days at sea, rather than fixed quotas. We want a ban on the discarding of commercial species. We want permanent closures for conservation. We want provision for temporary closures of fisheries. We would like to see the promotion of selection gear and technical controls. We would like rigorous definition of minimum commercial sizes and a ban on industrial fishing. We would like to see a prohibition on production subsidies and a zoning of fisheries. We would like to see registration of fishing vessels, skippers and senior crew members. We would like to see measures introduced to promote profitability rather than volume. At the end of the day, we want to   see effective and fair enforcement for fishing throughout the area. Therefore, in essence, our policy is for national and local control. National government would set the strategic framework which would include priorities for the restoration of the marine environment and the rebuilding of our fishing industry. New local bodies will take day-to-day responsibility for managing their fisheries. In our consultation document we recognise the need for local government to set that strategic framework, but even within the UK the needs of fishermen vary. The needs of fishermen in Scotland vary from those further down on the east coast of England and they are certainly not necessarily the same as those in Fleetwood or the south-west, so how can one policy fit all? In addition to commercial fishing, we recognise the economic and social values of recreational fishing. There are 1 million recreational fishermen who generate some £1 billion worth of economic activity. We believe that whatever consultation the Government undertake, provision must be made to accommodate that sector and its views should be taken into account. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, quite rightly referred to the need for this draft marine Bill to be brought before us urgently. We have often spoken of this matter and we are in total agreement. I hope that in enlarging a little more on what my noble friend Lady Wilcox was able to say when the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, previously presented her   Bill, I have underlined our desire to see a much more—aggressive is the wrong word—practical and determined stance taken by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is very new to his brief, but I have a high regard for his ability in the offices that he has held previously. While he may be unable to answer some questions, I hope that he will take them away and return with some very robust answers. I am sure that, like us, he wishes to see a successful and profitable fishing industry, conserved not only for UK fishermen—first and foremost, it should be for UK fishermen—but also for EU fisheries as well. There may be finer details in the Bill with which the Minister will struggle to agree, but I hope that he will   give it a fair wind and I hope that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is successful in getting it through this House and in it being presented in good time in the other place. I support the Bill.