| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That will change!
Lord Carter: My Lords, I will not promise. I have a final point which has nothing to do with the Bill itself but relates to the marginal notes. The marginal note talks of 1967 and Chapter 70. I went to look up 1967 and Chapter 70 to track down the original Act, but 1967 Chapter 70 is in fact the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act. I do not know how it gets in here, but I am sure that there is a good procedural explanation for it. With those few points--the last points were entirely procedural and not about this Bill in particular--from these Benches we are extremely pleased to support the Bill.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Wilcox for introducing the Bill with great eloquence from her long experience, and her family's long experience, of the industry. I am delighted to be able to say that it is a measure that the Government can wholeheartedly support.
I do not want to detain the House by enlarging on our enthusiasm for the Bill. From what has been said, so long as I say that I join with everything that has been said today, that can be taken for granted. I should like to cover in a little detail some of the ways in which this amendment will be put into practice, were the Bill to be passed.
As my noble friend said, the 1967 Act enables several or regulating orders to be granted for molluscan shellfish. The purpose of both several and regulating orders is to maintain and improve shellfisheries, and as such they are a conservation measure. Several fisheries are so-called because they sever the public right to fish and give the grantee of the order exclusive rights to exploit shellfish in the area cited in the order. In return, grantees must cultivate the fishery by preparing ground to encourage new seed, and often by bringing in seed stocks to grow on in the fishery.
Regulating orders, on the other hand, are used to regulate the management of the fishery by the use of licences to control the number of people who may fish there, and by regulating their fishing effort. In that way, we can preserve fisheries which might otherwise have been at risk of over-exploitation.
There are at present in total some 30 orders in Great Britain, of which 21 relate to several fisheries, seven to regulated fisheries and two to hybrid orders; that is to say a mixture of the two. This low number, 30 in 20 years, illustrates how careful we have been in granting these orders.
Applicants for licences have to go through arduous and stringent procedures. Applicants must first obtain the consent of all those parties with rights in the area
concerned. They must then apply to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office, setting out their plans for managing and improving the fishery.Expert advice is sought from government fisheries scientists on the application and on whether the area is suitable for this kind of fishery. If this hurdle is overcome, the applicant must then consult all parties with a potential interest in the fishery, public bodies and utilities, conservation, sports and recreational groups and any other appropriate bodies including, in England and Wales, local sea fisheries committees. If the responses are satisfactory, and once any points raised have been taken into account, the order is advertised publicly; it is open to anyone with an interest to object to the proposal. Any objections must be resolved to the satisfaction of the objector or, assuming that they are not frivolous or irrelevant, a full public inquiry must be held at which anyone may raise their concerns, and all of the evidence is considered carefully.
These procedures are designed to guard carefully the rights of individual fishermen and others who may be affected by the granting of an order. Indeed, it might be argued that they are too onerous. But as these orders curtail public rights, it is surely right that they should not be granted too easily.
In the case of lobster fisheries, which occur mainly in coastal waters already exploited by fishermen, we would expect most applications to relate to regulating orders. It is possible that in some cases local sea fisheries committees, or groups of fishermen, will seek a regulating order in order to manage a wild lobster or crab fishery without any intention of stocking it. In such cases, the procedures I have outlined will ensure that the interest of all those who exploit the fishery will be fully taken into account before any order is granted. In any case, licences to fish in a regulated fishery are usually issued in the first instance to those with a track record of fishing the area. This, of course, ensures that a local fishery is fished by those traditionally engaged in fishing the area, and helps to protect it from others who might wish to move in to exploit a profitable fishery.
In most cases, however, we expect the principal interest in regulated fisheries for lobsters to be from those intending to improve the fishery by stocking it with juveniles. As my noble friend has indicated, some sea fisheries committees have already explored this possibility.
This Bill will extend to Scotland, where some 45 per cent. of the UK lobster catch was landed in 1995, but where there are only three several orders and no regulating orders in force. Although Scotland has less experience of these orders, a recent consultation exercise, as my noble friend has pointed out, has shown that there is considerable support among the traditional fishing sector for regulating orders, which would allow local fishermen to manage their local fisheries. I believe that this measure would benefit Scottish, as well as English and Welsh, fishermen. I am sure that my noble friend will have been encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in that respect.
The Bill before the House today is a very simple one. If it is to work as intended, we feel that it may need to be slightly extended to make some minor consequential amendments to the 1967 Act. We will discuss our concerns with my noble friend before Committee.
Perhaps I may again congratulate my noble friend for bringing forward this measure. If it is adopted, it will serve two valuable purposes. First, it will enable fishermen to benefit from important research into the feasibility of rearing and stocking lobsters. Secondly, it will help conserve for the future, and for future generations of fishermen, our coastal lobster fisheries.
Perhaps with my noble friend's permission I may trespass on her prerogative and offer some comments on the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The grantees of regulating orders and several orders can charge for access to the fishery. However, the money so raised must be used for improving and managing that fishery. It cannot be taken as a profit. Of course, the common fisheries policy covers that area. We are talking about fisheries within the six mile limit, which is the preserve of United Kingdom fishermen. However, we must notify these agreements to Brussels and one presumes that potentially they can be wound up in some future readjustment of the common fisheries policy, but--
Lord Carter: My Lords, is there any chance of quota hopping on lobsters?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, only within the six mile limit. That is not a consideration which applies. I do not wish to raise the familiar horrors of the common fisheries policy tonight. However, if, as we are totally committed to doing, we defend our six mile limit absolutely, the problem will not arise.
I always admire the noble Lord's forensic abilities in tracking down the way in which an Act is amended and how a Bill is put together. That is a matter which has proved beyond me since the noble Lord advised me of this problem. Why a lobster should cross the road is beyond me, too.
Finally, the noble Lord asked why an order-making power was not incorporated in the 1967 Act. There are two answers. First, it was a consolidating Act but I have not been further back to discover what Acts were being consolidated. Secondly, even as regards the greatest governments small mistakes are made. As regards the great Fred Peart, whose Bill this was, one ought to allow some measure of mistake--even to that great man.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. My noble friend Lord Lucas spoke most encouragingly on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill and I thank him. My noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal has great experience with the Shellfish Association and the Fishmongers Company. It undertakes excellent work on fish farming and fish development and it is lovely to see one of the great livery companies of the City still working and supporting its origins. On behalf of my industry, I thank my noble friend for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, most generously referred to my "fishy" background and spoke of local fishermen--in his case of local crofter fishermen--in a way that I remember so well. Years ago one tried to explain to them how the possibility of renting an area of the seabed could ever come about. I believe and hope that now the moment has come to support the local community in that way.
I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was attracted by the conservation and employment elements of this amendment Bill. He kindly gave me forewarning of his questions and I was somewhat prepared for them. However, I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Lucas was able to answer them. I feel happy with those answers and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, does too.
As regards confusion about the Road Traffic Act, I can think only that if it is brought into effect in this Bill it will at least control the lobster quadrilles. If the noble Lord has ever seen a crab's sideways scuttle, I am sure that he will agree that it is contravening the underwater traffic Act somewhere along the line.
The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 has worked well for molluscs, giving obvious conservation benefits, and it has allowed that part of the fishing industry to thrive. This amendment Bill will extend those conservation benefits to lobsters and other crustacea, while managing more of the country's marine resources. We now have the opportunity to expand shellfish farming, including stock enhancements, boosting our highly valuable British coastal resources in the years to come.
I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading. In doing so, I wish again to say how grateful I am for the support that has been brought to me at this late hour. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page