Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am saying that we could negotiate the policy away, if that were possible, within the EU. On the other hand, we could repeal the 1972 Act. The point that I am making—I do not think that it is seriously legally challenged—is that the treaty would subsist. If the treaty subsists, we either keep to it or we breach it. If we breach it, there are consequences, as there are for any country that breaches treaties. Although there are serious legal obstacles, they are not, in the Government’s view, the key issue. The common fisheries policy exists because we share stocks and waters with other countries. Just a few moments ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, made the point that I am about to make: it is obvious that many commercial fish stocks do not remain static in our or anybody else’s waters. They swim around; they do not respect national boundaries; they spawn in one place and move on to feed in another place; and they migrate, sometimes over long distances, during their lives. There are patterns of fishing going back over many years through which numerous countries exploit the different stocks. That means that we cannot conserve stocks by applying unilateral national measures. On the contrary, conservation can be achieved only through concerted management measures agreed among all the countries that exploit the stocks. If some magic wand could be waved to grant the noble Lady her wish and we found ourselves outside the CFP, we would immediately have to set up negotiations with the EU, the EU and Norway, the EU and Greenland, the EU and the Faroes to conclude arrangements that would cover precisely the same ground. Leaving the CFP would only create a necessity for us to negotiate a series of separate agreements that would probably be similar to the CFP but might be less in our interests than the current arrangements. We do not think that that would be a sensible or economical way of proceeding. Indeed, the truth is only too clear: the solution to the problem of an inadequate common fisheries policy is not to leave it but to ensure that the arrangements now in place work effectively and to negotiate improvements, where needed. Making progress within the framework of the policy is a frustrating and time-consuming business—I do not claim anything else—but it is the only way. I want to highlight the encouraging signs that there is a growing will among EU member states to remedy the shortcomings of the common fisheries policy. Since the reform in 2002, we have seen the creation of the first regional advisory council, the North Sea Regional Advisory Council, which involves the fishing industry and other stakeholders in decisions on fisheries matters. The noble Lady asked, I believe, about the regional advisory council. The first one was launched in Edinburgh last November and has, I am told, given good advice already on issues involving cod and plaice. Other regional advisory councils are due to be set up this year.