HL Deb 13 January 1997 vol 577 cc82-91

7.34 p.m.

Baroness Wilcox

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Britain's shellfish industry produces nearly 125,000 tonnes of various types of molluscs and crustaceans a year, worth about £145 million. Those valuable catches provide an essential living for British fishermen, growers, processors, traders and retailers around our country's coastline. However, there are now indications that some stocks are being over-exploited and the need for extra protection in the form of conservation and controls is becoming a priority.

This Bill will provide the legislative changes needed to extend the conservation benefits of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 to lobsters and other crustaceans.

The Act makes provision for the establishment, improvement and maintenance of fisheries for lobsters and other crustaceans. It will allow inshore fishermen in England, Scotland and Wales to benefit from lobster stock enhancement schemes and other conservation measures under the rights of several and regulated fisheries.

The lobster is one of the UK's most valuable shellfish. Landings in 1995 had a first-sale value of £12 million and this crustacean, which is caught in baited pots, is eagerly sought after by British fishermen.

Not surprisingly, catch rates in nearly all of our traditional fishing areas have fallen and there is now an urgent need to increase stock levels. The UK lobster stocks are only protected by a single conservation measure—the minimum legal landing size, which is now set at 85mm carapace length (just under a one-pound lobster in weight).

Lobsters are slow growing and it takes five to six years for a female to reach maturity. Furthermore, while the mother lobster may carry up to 100,000 eggs depending on her size, only a very small proportion of this number survives in the wild.

A further increase in the legal landing size would protect more breeding females, but this move will result in a short-term loss in landings. To compensate, fishermen will set more lobster pots and stocks will become further depleted. Some control on fishing effort seems necessary and I believe that this could be done on a local rather than national basis.

Lobster stock enhancement could be a further way of replenishing local stocks and could involve inshore fishermen. MAFF scientists working since the late 1970s have developed a hatchery system for rearing lobsters under controlled conditions. Eggs from wild broodstock were grown to market-sized adults, but it was too costly to make "lobster farming" seem economically viable.

Encouraged by the Shellfish Association of Great Britain and the lobster industry, MAFF turned to the idea of ranching, which involves the release into the wild of hatchery-produced juveniles on suitable areas of seabed.

In 1983, a programme of lobster stock enhancement was started to assess the survival of hatchery-reared juvenile lobsters in the wild. More than 90,000 juveniles, each three to four months old, have now been released in trials by MAFF, the Sea Fish Industry Authority and the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee. Each baby lobster was marked with a coded microwire inserted into a leg. This minute "tag" is not lost when the lobster moults to grow and it can be detected later with a magnetometer. This innovation has made it possible for the first time to make a proper scientific evaluation of the benefits of lobster stock enhancement using hatchery-reared animals.

Lobster catches at the ports adjacent to the release areas in England, Scotland and Wales, have been screened for the presence of these marked lobsters. Scientists at sea have checked fishermen's catches and field sampling with traps has also been done. The results are most encouraging. With survival rates estimated to be between 50 to 80 per cent., the trials have been biologically successful and demonstrate that hatchery-reared lobsters can survive and can improve a fishery.

The UK now leads the way on lobster ranching because these results provide quantitative evidence that juvenile lobsters released into the wild on lobster habitat can survive to fishable size in substantial numbers, enter baited pots set by commercial lobstermen, and can contribute to commercial catches and the breeding stock. Lobster stocking therefore seems feasible biologically and requires to be tested economically and on a larger scale. However, to prevent future benefits of lobster stock enhancement being dissipated by increasing fishing effort it will be necessary to manage access and harvesting effectively and possibly in the long term to grant individual ownership rights.

The Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill seeks to extend the original 1967 Act, which covers only molluscs, to give protection and enhancement to lobster stocks. Cockle, mussel and oyster fishermen in England and Wales have benefited for over 30 years by having several and regulated fisheries which they manage themselves or with the aid of sea fisheries committees. There are now in place 28 fishery orders in England and Wales and two several orders in Scotland. Individual fishermen have their rights protected. All applications for fishery orders are rigorously scrutinised by fisheries departments and Ministers have powers to limit the size and duration of the orders granted to applicants. A well established consultation procedure ensures that traditional fishermen are not disadvantaged by curtailing their rights to the public fishery. A recent consultation exercise by the Scottish Office showed that regulating orders were welcomed by many inshore fishermen who responded. They were seen as helping local fishing interests by the management of local stocks and preventing their over-exploitation.

The new Bill will enable suitable sites to be considered for lobster stock enhancement, possibly using artificial reefs to help create or extend existing resources for the public good. This Bill which is supported by the Shellfish Association of Great Britain is essential if we are to progress crustacean management and conservation schemes like lobster stock enhancement in the future. The Bill will help to extend the protection and conservation of inshore lobster stocks up to six miles from our coast. It will give greater opportunity in future years to boost traditional lobster fisheries by stock enhancement and give extra protection to breeding females by V-notching schemes—measures that fishery scientists predict will be necessary to conserve the UK's valuable lobster fisheries in years to come. The Cornwall sea fisheries committee, backed by the county council and local fishermen, already plans to build a lobster hatchery at Padstow using grants from the Millennium Fund and the EC. The plan is to rear 80,000 juveniles a year for release on selected over-fished lobster grounds around Cornwall. So that this effort is not dissipated, my Bill will help conserve and manage lobster release areas to benefit the local industry. Similar schemes are planned for Shetland and other parts of Scotland.

As well as managing the country's marine resources, we have a unique opportunity to expand shellfish farming, including stock enhancements, and boost coastal resources in years to come. Our fishing industry has suffered badly in recent years. The great deep-sea fleets have dwindled away. Modern technology let loose and our fish-hungry neighbours have combined to ravage our seas and upset the fragile balance of nature's marine life. Twenty years ago I watched from the bridge of my own ship two purse-seiners with a cod-end net scoop mackerel into a mile long trace so accurately guided by the then new electronic fish trackers. I realised then that wild fish from the sea would soon become a rare and expensive luxury on a restaurant menu. I knew then that part of the future harvest of the sea would lie in sea meadows, sea ranching, sea farming and harnessing science and technology to work for new growth. So it is proving. Allied to good husbandry, sound conservation methods and effective regulation and distribution herald the dawn of a new era for the industry to which I and generations of my family have turned for our livelihoods.

This Bill will provide the legislative changes that are needed to help British fishermen and farmers of lobsters and other crustacea to secure a new future. With the support of your Lordships, this could be good news indeed—new opportunities, jobs and horizons, locally-owned initiatives, the revitalisation of local communities and the conservation benefits of the Sea Fisheries (Shell Fish) Act extended to this most precious resource.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Wilcox.)

7.45 p.m.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, looking at my noble friend, she makes a rather improbable crew member of a fishing boat. However, I am carried away by her enthusiasm and wish to support her. She has also produced a commendably (and almost uniquely) short Bill. I hope that it will be regarded as an example to all but particularly to the Government. My noble friend makes a formidable case and has made the purposes of her Bill exceedingly clear.

I speak as a council member of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain which expresses the strongest possible support for this Bill. My livery company, the Fishmongers Company, also strongly support the Bill. Indeed, financially and in other ways it has supported the programme of lobster stock enhancement for a number of years. As my noble friend has said, there is now evidence that this system works.

The inevitable corollary of the release of young lobsters into the sea is a degree of control of over who is to catch them. In any case, lobster stocks all round the country, certainly in my part of the world (off the west coast of Scotland), are now under great pressure, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is well aware. If something can be done to rehabilitate the stocks and protect the livelihood of fishermen, that is good news.

An excellent example of what can be done is the Thames estuary cockle fishing industry. One crucial feature of the benefits that have been derived from its success is the fact that these committees are local in nature. Their efforts are devoted to bringing about benefits to all. I only wish that that could be said of so many other attempts at fishery control that have not been so significantly successful. It may be that a wider lesson is to be learnt from this admirable Bill. I congratulate my noble friend and hope that her Bill will have a speedy and unimpeded passage through both Houses of Parliament.

7.48 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on tabling this Bill. It is an example to us all. Others should have brought forward such a measure some time ago. She is an example of the excellence of the life peerage system. It brings to the House people with background knowledge, expertise and a history in the fishery business. I mean that in the best possible way. More than expertise, she brings a certain passion for the whole question of sea resources.

The excellence of the Bill is demonstrated by the fact that two small amendments make it possible. That is itself a great virtue.

I have been aware of this problem for many years, because 30 years ago I was the Member of Parliament for Caithness and Sutherland. We had a great deal of trouble then with a sort of warfare between the islands and the mainland. Seine netters from Shetland and Orkney used to come around the coast to John O'Groats. They would drop 300 creels around the coast, return a couple of days later, move off with their catch and leave the local boys bereft of their living.

I had a great supporter called Jock Mowland, who was a crofter fisherman at John O'Groats. He was a frank and outspoken man. I was explaining to him that there was a case for renting a section of the coast to local fishermen. He recoiled in horror and said with genuine passion, "The sea is free to all". That was because he believed that he was suffering under a landowner on the land, whereas at least the sea was free to all. He came round, and the fishermen have come round, to the view that modern technology is denuding the seas and that we must do something about it.

The excellent technical details produced by the noble Baroness and the brief that I have have been extremely useful. They show that a great deal can be done, and will have to be done around the coast, or we shall be wholly dependent for our fish on the large corporations employing people and the countryside will be denuded of people like my friend Jock Mowland, now long dead, but no doubt enjoying on the heavenly shores a plentitude of lobsters and a high price for them. We can preserve the independence of the communities that we all know that we must keep if we are not to degenerate into an industrial society.

I was interested in the figures supplied. I see that lobsters are worth about £9,000 a tonne, while crabs are worth only £1,000 a tonne. However, they are both worth preserving. The lobster in particular is worth preserving. The methods described must be adopted all around. It will take a great deal of work because it is not just a question of organising the areas and the local fishermen who will take part; it is a question of organising the hatcheries, the distribution and the research necessary, because I cannot believe that the last word has already been said on this. It will need constant research and assessment into how it is going. If we can do that, it is obvious from the high prices paid for lobster that it will be a major factor in preserving the sort of life that we all want to see around our coasts and in our communities.

The Bill is excellent. I applaud the initiative of the noble Baroness, and I trust that the Minister will do all that he can to see that the Bill goes through quickly.

7.54 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing the Bill. It is clear that she wants to do for lobsters what Molly Malone did for cockles and mussels. She gave an excellent explanation of the Bill, so I can be brief. Of course we support it from these Benches. It is a sensible Bill. We are attracted by the arguments that she produced about conservation and employment.

I shall ask just a few questions about the Bill. As I understand it, the effect of the grant of a several order is to give exclusive access to a group of fishermen or individuals. That removes temporarily the public right to fish for the type of shellfish specified. If the effect of a regulating order is to allow the public the right to fish, which is then subject to control by the grantee of the order—it is a point I put to the noble Baroness outside the Chamber—is there any cost to the public? If the public are granted the right under the order to fish, which has been specified by the several order, is there any cost to the public?

There is a question which I hardly dare ask. Does the common fisheries policy have anything to do with this area of fishing? I should be interested to know whether it does. If it does, there may well be problems in the future, because we know that the CFP is in an awful mess. I shall be interested to know whether any aspects of the CFP bear any relationship to the Bill.

I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that it is a pity that when the 1967 Act was first drafted there was not an extension by regulation so that the Minister could bring forward an affirmative order to change the Bill, instead of having to take up time with primary legislation, as she has had to do.

As I understand it now, with the new wording, the relevant section of the 1967 Act will read: Cockles, clams, lobsters and any other molluscs or crustaceans", of a kind specified in regulations made by the appropriate Minister. Presumably, that means that in future any other crustacean which it is wished to include would be picked up by regulation. It is a pity that no regulation-making clause was included in the original Act.

I have a final procedural point. We always have a problem when a Bill amends a previous Act. When one goes to the Library to look up the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 there is no mention of clams or molluscs. They come in a later amendment. It is still not possible to pick up a copy of an Act which includes all the amendments over time so that one has the final draft. That is a procedural point that we have had before. I am not sure that there is any answer to it. It makes it hard for those of us without the resources of the Government to track down the various amendments and so forth.

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.