European Union (Amendment) Bill

I rise to support amendment No. 222. Ministers and bureaucrats in Brussels may well argue that the treaty is merely putting into words what is happening in practice. Indeed, we heard that from the Deputy Leader of the House when she summed up earlier. In previous written answers about the constitution, Ministers have stated:"““Existing Community competence over marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy derives from article 102 of the UK treaty of accession.””—[Official Report, 2 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1159W.]" No other treaty is this explicit, however, about taking away member states' powers over their marine environment and biological resources. It is certainly not that clear or explicit in article 102 of the accession treaty, which states:"““the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine conditions for fishing with a view to ensuring protection of the fishing grounds and conservation of the biological resources of the sea.””" I recognise that the legal arguments on the extent to which the article divides responsibility for fisheries between Europe and the UK have been raging for years. However, instead of taking the opportunity to clarify the arrangements and set clear red lines, enshrined in a treaty, the Government have stood back and are letting it slip away. Action to defend British interests could have been taken earlier, because the dangers had been recognised by the European Parliament, scientists and Labour MPs. Even the Government expressed concern over exclusive competence. When pressed in the European Scrutiny Committee by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on whether the UK Government were happy to see marine resources as an exclusive competence of the EU, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), stated:"““No, we are looking at this.””" Perhaps his mum wrote that bit; I do not know. Brussels tried to take more powers from the nation state in the marine strategy directive. During the European Standing Committee debate on that subject two years ago, the former Minister responsible, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), said:"““One thing that we are worried about, as I have said, is that the draft directive appears to be a power grab by the Commission in terms of competences and what could or could not be done. That is completely unacceptable.””—[Official Report, European Standing Committee, 14 February 2006; c. 7.]" In the Lisbon Treaty, however, the Government are prepared to hand over, perhaps once and for all, exclusive competence over our marine biological resources. That is widely regarded as unnecessary and will not bring benefits to our marine environment. The European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries has dismissed the proposed power grab, voting against it, stating:"““within the context of the other exclusive competencies of the EU which are detailed in the draft Constitution, the inclusion of the conservation of marine biological resources is anomalous and unjustified.””" I think that the quotation given earlier was the same, and it is very helpful. The committee expressed further concern"““at the attribution of exclusive competence for the 'conservation of marine biological resources' under Article 12 of the 'constitutional treaty'…since it will tend to marginalise the competence of national and regional authorities which have in the past succeeded in preserving resources which are now under threat and whose protection is sought.””" We also hear Ministers talk about taking a science-based approach to the marine environment, but that can have no credibility when they ignore the Royal Society of Edinburgh's recommendation that"““Ministers should reconsider their position over the EU exclusive competence for the conservation of marine biological resources, with a view to getting this deleted from the proposed EU constitution so that the principle of subsidiarity may apply to fisheries, as it does to other matters.””" The same report also recommended that Ministers should endeavour"““to have the existing 12-mile limits made permanent instead of being subject to renewal every ten years.””" That is something that the Lisbon treaty would put in jeopardy. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) chairs Labour's Euro-Safeguards campaign. In an article in his weblog, he notes the change from common fisheries policy to ““exclusive competence”” over the"““marine biological resources of the sea””." He goes on:"““We are told that most of the Constitution is already in earlier treaties. Much isn't and it also builds new powers on the back of earlier provisions…These and many other major changes are being presented as tinkering and 'tidying up', too unimportant for Parliament to discuss. This legislative confidence trick is unworthy of a government which should listen to the views of Parliament and people and allow full and free debate in Parliament before any referendum or surrender of parliamentary sovereignty or British laws and freedom. You can't win wholehearted consent by confidence tricks, half truths and closing down debate.””" The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have read his articles in The House Magazine, and I hope that I have not got him in trouble with Tommy the Whip or his wife—whichever he is more frightened of. However, I liked what he said earlier, and I apologise if I have got him into a pickle. He is right to say that we should co-operate with our European partners in improving the overall health of the marine environment and fish stocks, when possible—but the provisions in the treaty, left unamended and in their entirety, go much further. When the Environment Secretary was asked in a written question what the effect of the proposed change would be, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), decided to defer the answer to a later date. If there is to be no change, or if the proposed changes were merely ““tidying-up”” exercises, why are Ministers unable to respond to what is essentially a straightforward question? We need clarification of the responsibilities of the nation state and the European Union. The provisions in the treaty do not do that; instead, they potentially leave the door open to further powers being slowly sucked away from Britain by directives, regulations, European judges, and stealth. One of the biggest problems with the EU and the CFP has been discarding, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby noted earlier. Under the strict total allowable catch regime, it is estimated that between 40 and 60 per cent. of fish caught are thrown back into the sea, dead. Discard rates for the UK fisheries are high. The discard rate for North sea cod caught by English and Welsh vessels in the North sea stood at 43.8 per cent. in the last three months of 2006. Between April and June 2006, 42.2 per cent. of west of Scotland haddock was discarded by Scottish vessels. In total, 62.7 per cent. of west of Scotland saithe and 83.5 per cent. of west of Scotland whiting were discarded by Scottish vessels between July and September 2006. That means that a total of 246.3 tonnes of fish was discarded, but only 48.6 tonnes were landed—or that about 5 tonnes of fish were discarded for every tonne landed. That cannot go on. Such data are collected and sent to the Commission by this country, but other countries, notably France and Spain, do not provide the necessary information. Moreover, the European Commission does not appear to be taking action against those countries, and its discard atlas appears to have been kicked into the long grass. So what is the point of the EU wanting to give itself ““exclusive competence”” over"““the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy””" when it is not taking adequate responsibility for its existing powers and authority? Europe has got to get to grips with tackling discarding: under this treaty, that position will not change, and it could be made worse. Nor will this treaty guarantee greater fairness for our fishermen. For example, we have seen the Commission penalise British crews for over-fishing herring and mackerel, and subsequently they have had to ““pay back”” the extra fish over five years. Yet the French over-fished bluefin tuna—which is an endangered species—by 40 per cent. in 2005 and by 30 per cent. in 2006, and the Commission did nothing except waive EU penalties and negotiate an international amnesty. That is not providing adequate protection to marine biological resources. The opportunity to improve the management of fish stocks and the marine environment has been wasted. More powers will go to Brussels; it is enshrined in the treaty. The Government have ignored the Opposition, Labour MPs, the European Parliament and scientists. Our marine environment is not in safe hands. The provisions will do nothing to improve the situation. Therefore, we should accept the amendment.