Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and his colleagues on the Front Bench for a gentle little amendment to conclude today’s proceedings. At this comparatively late hour it has raised one of the most significant issues in the Bill. There is no doubt that the integration of our conservation policies with those on commercial fishing go to the very heart of the Bill, so I am not surprised that the amendment has brought forward a number of heartfelt contributions. Noble Lords have raised a range of questions, not all of which I am confident of being able to answer satisfactorily, but I will do my level best to give reassurance in crucial areas and bear in mind the points that have been made in others. Our objective is clear: we want to create a legal framework enabling us to make the best use of our abundant marine resources over the coming decades, and we want to find space in our seas for all sectors of the marine economy while ensuring that the natural environment, which provides so much support to the marine economy, is adequately protected. If I had been in any doubt at all, several of the contributions to this short debate made it clear that in some cases commercial fishing can have an adverse effect on the natural environment, and that in the past commercial fishing has been subject to some imperfections in the overall policy that has sought to control it. The noble Lord, Lord Eden, made that point strongly. I believe his phrase was that there had been "imperfections" in the common fisheries policy, although I have heard things expressed even more trenchantly than that about the policy. Suffice it to say that we are not alone when we identify weaknesses in the past. As the Committee will be aware, the common fisheries policy is due for a major review in the near future, by 2012. We have learnt some severe lessons from the past, some of which have been reflected in the anxieties expressed here today and on other occasions. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said that something needs to be done. That is the Government’s view too, which is why we will be participating in that work on the common fisheries policy against a background where we will also have this legislation, indicating the role that we need legislation to play in terms of protecting the marine environment. The other dimension that came through strongly from the beginning from the noble Duke and was then reflected faithfully from all parts of the Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was as trenchant as any—was that we do not want to disadvantage our fisherman against those from other territories and countries. I will not be able to give total satisfaction on all those points, but I bear in mind the strength of the representations, and we will do a great deal of thinking about them. We need to recognise that EU law, through the common fisheries policy, places restrictions on the measures we can take in some of the UK marine area. The authorities will, of course, assess these factors and many others and will make the best judgment on the available evidence and expert advice on the balance between fishing and the necessary conservation measures. The amendment would add two new subsections to Clause 113 which clearly recognise the tension here. It would oblige Ministers to seek agreement in Brussels, under the common fisheries policy, where any necessary restrictions on fishing activities need to apply to the vessels of another member state. Let me reassure the Committee that, of course, the Government recognise that as a most crucial obligation and it is something we will do. It is obvious that we need to ensure agreement in Brussels for the totality of this legislation, together with other aspects of our fishing policy, to be effective. We are fully seized of those points made in the debate this evening and the strong representations that we need to take those points on board. But we are obliged to take them on board—we are already legally bound to seek agreement for the six to 12 nautical mile zone, by Council Regulation No. 2371/2002 which is referred to in this amendment. It requires us to seek such agreement. Beyond 12 nautical miles, as we are all aware, the common fisheries policy applies in any event. So although I emphasise that not every marine conservation zone will necessarily entail restriction on fishing, it is inevitably the case that some work in this area will, and we will need to get agreement as far as the European Community is concerned. What the amendment also seeks to do is to ensure that UK fishing vessels are treated in the same way as those of other member states. That is certainly the Government’s aim too, but the Committee will know the realities of the situation and will expect me to be frank about those realities. We have the ability, under the common fisheries policy, if we so choose, to apply more stringent regulation to UK vessels than required by the common fisheries policy. If we did, of course, that would apply to UK vessels only, and I am all too aware of the strength of feeling on this point, which is contained in the amendment.