Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in   thanking the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for introducing the Second Reading of this Bill. I thank her for her support of British Ministers over the years in this area. I know that my honourable friend and colleague, Mr Ben Bradshaw, is a stalwart supporter of British fishing and those who work in the industry. He is the Minister for Fisheries in Defra at present. It is clear from this very good debate that some noble Lords see attractions in regaining unilateral control over the management of our fisheries and in replacing what are difficult negotiations in Brussels, in which we as a country participate every year to agree fishing opportunities for our fishermen. I acknowledge that the common fisheries policy has its flaws—of course it does—but that policy was reviewed by the Council of Ministers, as we have heard, during 2002 and the result was, we believe, a revised and much improved framework regulation. That new regulation includes a much more robust commitment from the Council of Ministers to conserve or, where necessary, recover fish stocks in accordance with scientific advice. It puts environmental considerations at the heart of the CFP and reiterates relative stability, the mechanism for dividing EU fishing opportunities among member states in accordance with their own historical fishing practices. It renews the rights of coastal member states out to 12   nautical miles. It also provides for the setting up of regional advisory councils to give fishermen and all parties with an interest in commercial fish stocks a more direct input into their management. The Government have misgivings about the approach adopted in the noble Lady’s Bill with regard both to its legality and to the practicability of achieving its purported objectives, even if it was legally sound. I appreciate that under the terms of the Bill, any decision on whether to withdraw would be taken by both Houses. However, the Bill effectively recommends unilateral withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. That is impossible under EU law as it stands and therefore only achievable—if at all—through a complex series of negotiations with other member states. Such a renegotiation is not on the agenda and, even if it were, the chances of achieving the necessary unanimous agreement would be remote. The Bill seeks to take back UK control of fisheries within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. It would do that by giving the Fishery Limits Act 1976 priority over Community law, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972. It would restrict the licensing of fishing to UK vessels and those of other countries, where authorised, and require fish caught in UK waters to be landed in UK ports, except where otherwise agreed, under reciprocal agreements with third countries. Even if Parliament chose to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, in so far as it applies to fisheries, our treaty obligations would continue to apply. The UK would remain subject to the obligations it took on under the treaty, so the repeal would leave the UK in breach of the treaty and therefore of Community law. That would leave us open to infraction proceedings and, in the case of an adverse judgment in the European Court of Justice, daily fines. So the idea that there is some viable legislative approach that would spirit us out of the common fisheries policy is an illusion.