HL Deb 13 December 2004 vol 667 cc1157-70

7.7 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current state of the marine environment and what progress has been made in establishing a marine landscape classification.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, one does not have to live by the sea to value it. Indeed, the earliest and some of the happiest memories for many in Britain include days with bucket and spade messing about on the sand. For young people, that continues with the rise of the surfing culture. We are an island nation with thousands of miles of coastline and I think that we make the best of it.

I declare an interest. I spend many happy weekends sailing, walking by the sea and bird watching. Some of the most memorable events of last summer were the tens of thousands of jellyfish swimming up the Torridge estuary. Another memorable event involved sailing to Lundy to watch the birds and seals on the rocks.

The importance of the marine environment is fundamental. I shall return to the topic because it is the main subject of the debate. However, first, I emphasise its importance to the economy. The attraction of coastal areas is critical to many of our rural areas such as the south-west and East Anglia, and towns like Blackpool and Bournemouth. Recreational fishing accounts for £538 million annually. According to 2002 figures, the direct income from commercial fishing is £536 annually but there is a great deal of added value in terms of processing, and so on, which may account for up to another £1 billion. There is also shipping, offshore wind farms—we are shortly to have them—the possibilities of tidal energy and all the renewable energy resource that the sea can offer.

A lot depends on the sea, both environmentally and economically. However, in the world of politics and in Parliament as a whole, it is not really regarded as an important issue. The importance accorded it does not reflect the fact that ordinary people treasure in their hearts much to do with the sea, as I explained at the beginning of my speech. Successive governments have given the marine environment pathetically little attention, which is why I warmly welcome the media attention that was given to the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Turning the Tide.

The report addresses the impact of fisheries on the marine environment. Its conclusions make stark reading. I welcomed the fact that it was widely covered by many newspapers and radio programmes. However, the Royal Commission is by no means the first organisation to raise the alarm about the appalling state of our marine environment and the very pressing need for government action. It has been pointed out by the Marine Conservation Society, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, and Charles Clover in his excellent book, The End of the Line. The World Wildlife Fund has been running its excellent oceans campaign for at least a couple of years. The Royal Commission's report was simply one in a series of reports, none of which has so far resulted in decisive government action.

I thank in advance the speakers this evening for taking part in this debate. Several of them will refer to the common fisheries policy and blame that for much of the problem. To a large extent, I agree. The common fisheries policy has been highly damaging to our fisheries and our marine environment. However, it is not solely to blame. A great deal can be done by the Government besides negotiating the very needy reform to that policy. Calling simply for us to leave the common fisheries policy is not an answer. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is not in his place, but when he was a Minister in 1996 he said that leaving it was not a realistic answer. Nothing has changed since then. However, what has continued is a lack of urgency to address the question.

That is why the UK Government must do everything in their power, while negotiating the reform of the common fisheries policy, to make some of the changes that they have the power to make in UK waters. They must not wait for the end of the negotiation process. They should act urgently, because fish stocks are certainly in crisis. There has been a crash in fish stocks so serious that we face the death of an ecosystem. That will not affect only marine life but all life that depends on the sea, such as sea birds and the fishing communities themselves.

We do not differentiate nearly enough between the small-scale inshore fishermen with a keen interest in preserving their local fishery and the huge factory ships that trawl and move on. The Government must energise their work with our coastal communities, where fishing is still a very important part of community life, and commit to extending some of the excellent voluntary schemes. If the Government look around, they can see some good examples of work that could be built on, despite the common fisheries policy.

I am talking, for example, of the work in Lyme Bay off the coast of Dorset and Devon, where there has been some excellent action to limit the effects of trawling and to try to regenerate the whole of the bay for the benefit of the local fishing communities. It has received considerable success. Last year, the local sea fishery committee established a marine protected area around Lundy island. Although it has been going for only a year, it has produced some very interesting results. Is the Minister aware of those?

The second exciting development, for which the Government should take some credit for initiating, is the work being done in the Irish Sea on mapping the underwater environment and overlaying it with activity. That allows people to see where the gravel beds are likely to be fish spawning grounds, and where that might conflict with gravel extraction. That is one example of a conflicting interest. Another might be kelp forests where certain species breed but that are trawled through and destroyed.

The scheme is not stopping activities, but planning for them and where they should be. A lack of planning is like building unrestricted industrial zones in our national parks on land. The problem has been that the activities happening under the sea are out of sight and out of mind. However, there is a chance now, with the Irish Sea pilot, to start to address what activities are suitable in which places. Is there a plan to roll out that project so that it can apply to all UK waters?

Beyond that, the Government could choose to extend the limit of our exclusive zone from six nautical miles to 12. That is an extremely important step that the Government could take now. They could introduce without delay legislation that could protect areas that need protection. I gave the example of Lundy, but many other areas will need protection. If one objection is raised to the creation of a marine protected area at the moment, that area will not be created. How ridiculous that 6,000 people could ask for an area, with one objection enough to overrule that.

Does the Minister believe that satellite monitoring of enforcement, to see where ships fish, is sufficient? If we expand our territorial waters to 12 nautical miles, we will need to know who is within them and who obeys the law and stays outside.

We need to strengthen local fisheries committees and expand their remit to be local marine committees. We must look at that scale, with real local involvement from those who love the sea and make their livelihoods from it, those who volunteer to look after its wildlife, those who earn their living from it in many other ways, and those who simply enjoy it for its own sake. It is from those people that solutions will arrive on a sustainable way to protect and look after our seas for all future generations.

7.18 p.m.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having asked the Question this evening; she has saved me asking one at a later date.

The report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is a remarkably interesting document. It is well set out and, as a bonus, contains many beautiful photographs of various types of plankton living on the seabed, which are a joy to look at. It makes a number of recommendations with regard to the fishing industry, and I shall concentrate on those. It was with a certain degree of cynicism that I read them, as those of us who have had the fishing industry and its future at heart for some years have been crying out to have some of those very same steps taken to preserve stocks while helping our fishermen to survive.

The first recommendation that I have in mind is the reduction of by-catch—the catching of species and sizes other than those which are specifically being fished for. A certain amount has already been done to try to reduce by-catch, but much more could and should be done. I was interested to read this morning that trials carried out by Marks & Spencer showed that it is possible to catch almost only haddock and hardly any cod by setting the nets at a higher level above the seabed. That would avoid damage to the seabed as well.

The second recommendation is the prohibition of the wicked practice of discarding fish over and above the quota allowed to be caught. This practice is the inevitable result of the total allowable catch and quota system, and it must be stopped. How can it be right from any point of view to catch more fish than the stocks will stand, and then throw them away because they cannot be landed? It is not the UK boats that are the worst culprits. Dutch boats discard 80 per cent of cod catches, and some French boats 100 per cent of them. Admittedly, those fish do not necessarily go altogether to waste, since they will be eaten by the sea's scavengers, such as cod itself, at the best, and predatory birds, such as skuas, at the worst. But there are too many of them and of a good many other predatory seabirds. I do not see how discarding can be stopped as long as there is the TAC and quota system. I do not think it can be stopped.

The report also presses for the banning of bottom trawling, gillnetting and longlining for deep sea species in EU waters. These methods have caused a great deal of damage to the seabed, whose plants and other marine life form the habitat and food of the fish they catch, particularly of the immature fish that should not be caught in any case. It is essential to stop the catching of immature fish to allow them to develop to maturity and breed in their turn. Our fishermen have increased the mesh sizes of their nets to allow more immature fish to escape, but I do not think that our European competitors have done so.

The report suggests the monitoring of the performance of individual boats by human observers or by electronic means. I have no objection to that, although some boat owners might have. Most important of all, and crucial to the above, is the decommissioning of a proportion of the existing European fishing fleet. About 60 per cent of the Scottish fleet has already been decommissioned. But, so far, such decommissioning as has been done by the rest of the EU fleet has been largely negated by the building and licensing of new, bigger and better boats with the help of EU grants. That has got to stop, but I do not believe that the CFP will ever stop it, and therefore it is essential that we take our fisheries out of the CFP.

The noble Baroness said that that would not help. It might not help marine conservation as much as it would help fishermen, but it would help fishermen and that is what I care about. Moreover, since one of the recommendations of the report is that 30 per cent of fishing grounds in British waters be closed to all commercial fishing, the time has come to preserve the remaining grounds for our own UK and, particularly, Scottish fishermen, who mostly do not want to fish in the Bay of Biscay, the Atlantic, or the Mediterranean, which are the traditional fishing grounds of French and Spanish boats. The CFP has never been of any benefit to this country. Joining it was the price we paid to join the EU. It has not been worth it.

I have one last point to make. The Government have been recommending that everyone eat at least two portions of fish a week, of which one at least should be oily fish as a source of polyunsaturated fatty acids. That advice, if taken, will not help the situation at all. I was very interested to learn recently that hemp oil, which may be obtained from various supermarkets, provides an excellent source of the polyunsaturated fatty acids found in oily fish. Hemp grows perfectly well in this country and has done for centuries. Its cultivation provides an excellent alternative crop for our hard-pressed farmers, and, if expanded, would help to relieve the pressure on fish stocks. Linseed oil is also very good. Moreover, hemp, flax and other crops could replace some of the fishmeal and fish oil at present used in aquaculture, further relieving the pressure on deep-sea fish stocks.

7.25 p.m.

Baroness Wilcox

My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the National Lobster Hatchery, where we grow lobsters in seawater and safety until they are five months old and then return them to the sea to breed naturally. We call it "ranching". Each one of the little dears is fitted with a homing device to suit the fisherman who has the licence for his little area, or will have when the enabling orders are completed by the Government. I am quite sure that this new report will very much approve of what we are getting up to in Padstow.

I welcome the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The report is a magnificent piece of work, as befits a Royal Commission, and addresses, among other things, the impact of fisheries on the marine environment. I particularly wish to address my comments and question to our parish environment within the European Union.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for asking Her Majesty's Government to tell your Lordships' House what is the current state of the marine environment and what progress has been made in establishing a marine landscape classification. The noble Baroness and I have served on Sub-Committee C and on Sub-Committee D of the European Union Committee, which covers fishing. I know, respect and agree with most of her views in this area.

As the noble Baroness knows, in one area I am prejudiced. For many years, I have been involved, with my family, in the fishing industry, particularly in West Country inshore boats that pass down the generations. I have involved in catching, landing and processing all species of fish and crustacea. Our livelihoods have depended on the sea and, until recent times, we have been careful guardians of her as a resource. We have often even been secretive about our passed-down knowledge of fishing grounds, in order to save them for the morrow and to protect our family's future.

Three things happened to change that. The first was our entry into the European Union, where our politicians—Conservatives, to my shame—did so little to protect our country's fishing interests. Secondly, science and technology have given us a window on the sea. Echo sounders and fish-finders allowed us to rape her, biting into shoal after shoal of fish, particularly, in my area, the pelagic shoals. The third thing was the entry of the southern fleets into the European common fisheries policy, particularly the Spanish fleet. It is bigger than the whole of the rest of the Community fleets put together. It is determined to fight for whatever it needs to fund the 38 per cent of protein in Spain eaten in the form of fish, mainly because there is a desert in the middle of the country. Within 10 days of the Spanish fishing fleet entering Channel waters, we saw something like 12 boats arrested within the seven-mile limit. It made the Armada look like a friendly visit.

Since January 2004, the mighty fleets of our European partners, particularly the southern fleets, have been able to enter the northern box and Scotland, and our English deepwater fleets have watched the flouting of limits of catch, dangerous net sizes and huge discards on to our seabeds going unpoliced, as we can police only our own country's fishermen's actions. We do it with a common-law effectiveness, efficiency and keenness that has our neighbour countries laughing at us.

I believe that over 80 per cent of all the available fish in the European Union are to be found in British waters, the others having fished out most of their own. It is hard to have to stick to a quota and to behave honestly on discards in our own waters and in our own boats while watching other fleets that we cannot patrol or police go completely unpoliced. Amazing quantities of discards are thrown down on to our seabeds. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, spoke very eloquently in that regard.

I ask the Minister to assure the British fishing industry that it can be encouraged to embrace environmental measures if it knows that the British Government will press our European Union partners to establish quickly multi-country policing and enforcement covering all the EU fishing effort. I look forward anxiously to her answer. I say that because we have asked the same question over and over again.

Without that European-wide will for enforcement, the impact of fishing on our marine environment will continue to worry environmentalists and the example we could be setting to bring into line marauding fleets like the Japanese and Koreans off the Falklands will come to nothing. Marine landscape classification and other worthy endeavours, along with the hopes and recommendations outlined in the Royal Commission report, will also lead to nothing but new wars at sea and Great Britain withdrawing from the common fisheries policy to take back care, control and responsibility for her marine environment and the livelihoods of this most maritime of peoples.

7.32 p.m.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton

My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap and I apologise to the noble Baroness for not putting my name down earlier. I welcome the debate and declare an interest as the president of ACOPS, the Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea, which for many years has been involved in the marine environment.

I want to make a point of calling for marine legislation. It may have happened in the last Session of Parliament, but it is essential to bring it forward. It is the only way to ensure that we signal the importance of our Parliament and the country to the development of our marine environment. The legislation should not be merely restrictive, but forward looking and inspiring. It should energise investment in technology and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, revitalise local marine communities.

Technology enables us either to exploit or to protect, a point made by other noble Lords. It is now vital to bring together marine security and the environment. Only a clearer national and international policy, utilising technology, will enable us to keep them in balance.

7.33 p.m.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer for initiating this debate. It is long overdue and is vital to the future of our marine environment. I have been concerned about this matter for many years and have watched the deterioration of the sea with my own eyes. Bays which used to be rich in seaweed no longer have any because of chemical pollution. It is not possible to swim at the seaside where I used to go, or at least I would not swim in it because I can see the pollution—and that despite a 10-year improvement programme.

The role of the Environment Agency is extremely important, given that a lot of pollution is created by run-off from the land. Officers have local knowledge and, in many cases, can take local action. Pollution with heavy metals has taken place in other parts of the UK, and in some areas even sheep dips have been damaging marine environments, along with silage run-off.

The impact on fisheries is important and one can understand Thor Heyerdahl burning his boat in the ocean at the end of his voyage. That happened a long time ago, but he saw the level of manmade pollution.

We have heard several interesting speeches. My noble friend Lady Miller made many necessary points, highlighting the neglect by successive governments of the marine environment, which is to their shame. Indeed, the report of the Royal Commission, which has featured in all the contributions to the debate, is an invaluable measure of the state we are in so far as concerns the marine environment.

Turning to the common fisheries policy, which has been mentioned by a number of contributors, it is marked by a huge lack of urgency. There is no question but that the UK Government should take action. I should like the Minister to take away from this debate the suggestion that when we hold the presidency of the EU in the second half of 2005, the Government should make this issue one of their top priorities. Much concern has been expressed about the state of our fisheries, while the conclusions of the Royal Commission are extremely dire. We need only look at the Grand Banks off Newfoundland to see what can happen when the waters are fished out. There is no way back. I believe that we are teetering on the brink of that situation and this is now an emergency.

Many speakers have said that we are a maritime nation and we need to put protections in place. I agree with all those who have said that, as a starting point, the inshore fishery should be extended from 6 to 12 miles. Little-known legislation has come through from Europe which has given Spanish fishing boats access to the Irish Sea. Not only does that impact on marine fish, but also on important migratory fish stocks. Salmon, sea trout and other fish of that kind sustain many rural communities on the mainland.

The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was right to draw attention to the level of discards and by-catches, bottom trawling and longlining, all of which are mentioned in the Royal Commission report. I believe that the Prime Minister should bring up the whole question of decommissioning when Britain takes over the EU presidency. While we need not necessarily scrap the common fisheries policy, it requires radical reform. Indeed, the proposal that 30 per cent of all fisheries should be closed down comes not a moment too soon.

All these issues must be addressed. When the Prime Minister is in a position to chair meetings in the EU, he must do something about them. Sub-Committee D of the European Union Committee, of which both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I were members, considered the whole question of technology creep with regard to fisheries. It is a matter of great concern. Our inshore fisheries have rightly been highlighted as being sustainable, but technology creep in new methods of fishing by industrial fishing units has had a devastating effect. All this has to be controlled if we are to have any fish stocks left and seas that can sustain their ecology.

The Government need to take home a lot of what has been said in this debate. They must sort out the priorities into something meaningful and, at that point, action must be taken.

7.40 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, on her immaculate timing for the debate. She had the initiative to wait for when the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution was likely to report and put down her Question accordingly. It has been a wonderful coincidence and has given great structure to the debate.

This is a very important issue which goes much wider than the British fishing industry and British fisheries; it is a major international problem. It is worth noting that those countries which still have successful fisheries are those which are able to control them out to the 200-mile limit. It is also worth noting that the reason the Grand Banks of Canada have not recovered is that the main nursery area for that fishery lies outside the 200-mile limit and is still fished by heavy industrial fishing boats. As long as that continues, the cod cannot get back. So we are not dealing only with national policy; if we really want to see the recovery of the oceans, we will have to deal with international policy.

Modern mobility, modern endurance and modern technology have made possible the worst effects of the old nomadic way of living of slash and burn. Of course we cannot see what is happening on the sea bottom, but what is going on down there is, in effect, slash and burn. It is not satisfactory. It is going on everywhere. I have seen reports which suggest that something like 90 per cent of the world's fisheries are over fished and that the other 10 per cent are vulnerable. The report deals with the United Kingdom aspects of the problem but we need to think carefully about how we handle the situation because, in part, as has been mentioned, it is also a European problem.

But no system of fisheries protection and conservation works without adequate policing and people working to ensure that everyone complies with the rules. If we want that to happen, the fishing industry has to be involved in the administration and regulation of the industry. But, however one looks at it, the Brussels establishment is not equipped to do that job. It would not see it as its job, and it is not equipped to administer it because it cannot deal with fishermen and fisheries on a local basis.

The other great fishery off the east coast of the United States of America—George's Bank in the Gulf of Maine—is controlled by a regional fisheries body right out to the 200-mile limit. That fishery is recovering. But every boat that goes out has to record everything it catches and, when it comes in, it has to record accurately how the catch is sold, and all that has to be reported. The merchants who buy the catches have to record what they buy, and that also has to be reported. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to cheat. The administration is working and that fishery is recovering.

Somehow we have to find ways of putting into position a similar scheme that could work over here. It is all very well to say that we need to take control of our waters out to 12 miles. For heaven's sake, we need to take control of our own waters much further out than that, or the Brussels' system must adapt its ways so that that kind of detailed control is possible and workable. I am not talking about the RCEP report at the moment. Without that kind of policing, no system of conservation will succeed.

I am sure that the Government will work—particularly in the light of the Royal Commission's report—on the Brussels Commission to try to persuade it to tighten up. But the question has to be asked about what will happen if Brussels, through the common fisheries policy, either does not react or cannot agree to act in a sufficient timescale to allow the fisheries to be rescued—and they do require rescuing. If Brussels cannot be persuaded or will not agree, I see no alternative but to do what has already been suggested and take control of our fisheries out to the limits that international law permits—and, in my view, that is not 12 miles. We have to recognise that we live in a closely surrounded maritime environment with other nations on three sides, which is a problem, but it is an issue that has to be faced.

Although so far I have spoken with a broad brush about the common fisheries policy, I should refer to some of its perverse effects in detail and the way in which it works. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, has mentioned the way in which you can control your catch by the way you set your nets.

A colleague of mine went out with a trawler from Fleetwood because he had become concerned about the issue. He invited the skipper to set two nets, one at 80 millimetres—which is what the common fisheries policy requires him to do if he is fishing for plaice—and one at 110 millimetres. If he were to fish with the 110 millimetre nets all the time, he would lose five of his 22 fishing days per month for using the larger net.

When the two nets were drawn in—one from either side of the boat—after three hours, the 80 millimetre net produced a full cod end, which is the net that holds the fish, of which 90 per cent was discarded as juveniles. The 110 millimetre cod end was only two-thirds full but—and this is the point—80 per cent of that was saleable adult fish. The discard from the larger mesh net consisted of dogfish, jellyfish and crab as opposed to juvenile fish. My colleague was so shocked that he asked the skipper to repeat the performance. It had a similar result.

So we have the extraordinary situation where the common fisheries policy penalises a man five days' fishing for using the net size that catches the marketable fish he goes out to catch, but he catches juvenile fish as a consequence of using the CFP-required nets. It is a truly horrific tale of how the system works in detail.

It leads to another matter on which the Minister may have a view—I certainly do—and that is the question of rejected catches being simply thrown overboard. Such action is not a part of acceptable fishing practice. It ought to be banned and every fish caught should be landed. If it happens to be juvenile and unmarketable, that is tough on the fishermen. However, we should not be chucking dead fish back into the sea and going on netting and netting until we have a net full of marketable fish. That is completely wrong ethically. That is a practice that has got to be changed whether or not it comes from the CAP—I am told that it does. It makes me very angry.

I have a great deal of sympathy with our fishermen, but we will not find a solution to this problem until we get fishing policy that is properly policed and largely controlled as it would be controlled in the right circumstances and with the correct policies by the local fisheries people themselves—the local fisheries committees.

To return to my earlier remarks when I was talking about George's Bank, that fishery is run effectively by local communities right the way out to 200 miles.

At that level it works and the industry operates. That is where we have to go. The question is: how do we get there?

7.51 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for opening this debate. Her concern for the marine environment is well known to this House. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have taken part.

The Government's vision for the marine environment is a simple one—clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. We set this out in our first Marine Stewardship Report in 2002 together with a package of reviews and initiatives seeking to turn this vision into reality.

One key initiative was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—the Irish Sea project. This concluded in early 2004 and its findings fed into the review of marine nature conservation working group's recommendations, which were presented to the Government in July. We hope to publish our response in the spring. The pilot's marine landscape classification work is being rolled out across all UK waters through a multi-partner project which starts this month and is due to complete in April 2006. It will also be used in the Government's marine spatial planning pilot project which is now underway.

The Marine Stewardship Report pledged the Government to prepare a state of the seas report, which we will publish in the spring. Overall, there are encouraging signs that, at least in some respects, the seas around the UK are in a more healthy state than in the past, reflecting actions taken to minimise or prevent pollution over the past 20 or so years. However, set against those positive achievements, there are also some negative findings, particularly on climate change and fishing. Noble Lords have rightly expressed concern over unsustainable fishing practices. For example, we recognise that the regulations currently in place under the complexity of the common fisheries policy lead to discards of fish and we have argued strongly in Europe that that is an issue that must be faced up to and addressed.

Many commercially exploited fish stocks are in a seriously depleted state as a consequence of excessive fishing. As noble Lords have recognised, bottom trawling can also damage fragile marine habitats and cetaceans, particularly dolphins and porpoises, have also suffered high rates of mortality as a result. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked whether we were taking action to address those threats under the reformed common fisheries policy. We are: they include recovery plans for depleted fish stocks and protection of the Darwin Mounds cold water coral reefs off Scotland.

The noble Lord, Lord Livesey, raised the issue of the opportunities presented when we assume the presidency of the EU. We expect that the Commission will publish the EU marine environment strategy during our presidency and it will fall to the UK to start the debate in the Council. The contributions of noble Lords tonight have been helpful.

We also led the way in persuading the EU to adopt, for the first time, measures to address the problem of cetacean by-catch and we are working with our EU partners to develop these further. In the UK we are banning bass pair trawling out to 12 nautical miles off the south-west coast of England and are introducing a licensing system for UK vessels beyond the UK 12-mile zone. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked about new vessels. The reformed common fisheries policy has banned the state aiding of new vessels and that is a measure that we welcome.

The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report on a sustainable fishing industry for the UK, Net Benefits, published last March, makes wide-ranging recommendations on fisheries policy. We are developing an action plan in response to the report in consultation with stakeholders and will respond to the Strategy Unit's recommendations in the spring.

The report of the Review of Marine Fisheries and Environmental Enforcement was published in July. It sets out the current position and prospects for enforcement and related tasks in England and Wales and makes recommendations for improving the organisational, legal and financial framework—a need that was recognised by every speaker in this debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, specifically raised the issue of fisheries enforcement, as did other noble Lords. Each EU member state has a duty to ensure compliance with the CFP both within waters under its jurisdiction and by its fleet wherever it fishes. Fair, proportionate and effective enforcement across the Community is a priority for the Government. We spend some £24 million annually on enforcement in the UK and have announced a series of measures to strengthen fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance in the UK—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Arrangements for enforcement co-operation between member states and the Commission are stronger under the new CFP, and a new Community Fisheries Control Agency is to be set up by 2006.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, fisheries enforcement applies equally to all EU vessels. Any vessels found using incorrect mesh—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith will be dealt with appropriately. As the noble Lord made plain, we must look at experience in other parts of the world.

On enforcement against foreign fishing vessels, sea fisheries committees only operate within the zero to six-mile zone, where foreign vessels are not allowed to fish. Beyond the six-mile limit enforcement is carried out by the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate, and other vessels are treated no differently from UK vessels. I know that there may be examples where those who are actually fishing out at sea see examples of bad practice and it is important that they are reported and dealt with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about satellite monitoring of fishing vessels. All UK fisheries departments have now agreed to fund the installation of tamper-resistant satellite tracking devices and an approved supplier has been appointed following an open tendering exercise. Installation will begin shortly. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the sufficiency of the action that we are taking.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is right. Despite the progress made to date, we recognise that more needs to be done to protect and manage our seas in a sustainable way, but that we must work with the industry.

In opening the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report, Turning the Tide, on the impact of marine fisheries on the environment. The report is an important addition to the current debate on fisheries. We will carefully study this intensive and detailed report. I am not in a position to comment on the specific recommendations so soon after receiving the report.

I believe that it was the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who referred to the superb presentation in the report. I think that the presentation may have contributed to the interest that the media took in the document. I am hoping that this debate will continue that interest. It is a detailed report and needs very careful consideration.

My noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton raised the issue of appropriate legislation—a marine Bill. A key announcement in Defra's five-year strategy was our proposal to bring forward a marine Bill. This will provide an invaluable opportunity to protect marine resources better and simplify regulations so that all uses of the sea can develop sustainably and harmoniously. I notice that my noble friend, and I am sure other noble Lords, were disappointed that the legislation was not proposed for this Session. It is not lack of urgency; the protection of the marine environment is a complex issue. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, recognises, we must consult the stakeholders and get that legislation right.

Marine protected areas are an important tool in conserving marine ecosystems. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned the Lundy no-take zone, where the first year of a five-year monitoring programme has shown positive results. In congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on raising the Padstow scheme, we are delighted that there were three times the number of lobsters within the no-take zone compared with the control or reference location outside it.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raised the issue of designating adequate sites. In answer to him, I would say that we do wish to act urgently on this. However, we do not believe that it would be logical government policy to achieve arbitrary percentage targets. We need to look in detail at what is needed, as I think he recognised.

Perhaps I may address the issue of withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. I begin by saying that withdrawal from the common fisheries policy will by itself not solve the problem for anyone, and neither would it alter the depletion of fish stocks. Fish do not recognise national boundaries, and withdrawal from the common fisheries policy would not deal with the fundamental problem of low fish stocks or restore them to healthy levels. We must act through the common fisheries policy, as both the Strategy Unit and the RCEP concluded.

As a member of the EU we can and do negotiate improvements to the common fisheries policy. In any event, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, even if withdrawal were desirable, it would be possible only by a complex renegotiation of European Union treaties with other member states. Unilateral withdrawal without first securing the unanimous agreement of all 25 member states would leave the UK in breach of our treaty obligation. In answer to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that could risk action being taken against us in the European Court of Justice and heavy fines that would be a cost borne by the British taxpayer.

I have tried to answer the questions that have been raised. In answer to the question about decommissiong, at the moment it is difficult to see additional money being made available for this. However, we need to work with stakeholders to plan carefully for the future.

I close by re-endorsing the congratulations that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, expressed to the producers of this document. I should also like to say that I think it extremely important to note that other legislation will have an impact on our marine environment, such as the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill which will deal with litter on our beaches, a fact that is important. Living as I do so close to Blackpool, I cannot but endorse the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the importance of beaches and references to the record that we have now of improving the quality of our bathing waters. I only wish that, occasionally, without wanting global warming at all, they were a little warmer when one got into them.

I thank the noble Baroness. If I have missed any question raised by noble Lords, I will of course write to them.

House adjourned at six minutes past eight o'clock.