---

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I had better start by declaring an interest: I have salmon netting rights on the River Forth. That said, I am glad that my noble kinsman Lady Saltoun of Abernethy has brought forward another Bill seeking to address the problems of the control of the British fishery and the imbalance in the common fisheries policy, and, in so doing, has given us the chance to debate these issues for the overall management of the North Atlantic fishery. I will muse on my approach to the Scottish Fishery. I need to set out my approval of the European Union. I am in favour of it because it has kept the peace in Europe for 60 years, with the obvious exception of the Balkans. I am not at all surprised by the enthusiasm of countries previously behind the Iron Curtain to join and to do so both for economic and defence reasons. That said, we must accept that the British and Scottish fisheries were, as my noble kinsman has already said, largely given away in the EEC entry negotiations. In simple terms, the fishery in Scotland was very significant to the small country that is Scotland, but insignificant to the much larger state, the United Kingdom. That parallels the approach taken by the United Kingdom Government to North Sea oil revenues. A prudent, full-autonomy Scotland should have created an endowment fund similar to that of Norway. And yes, I do concede that some Scottish politicians might well have spent it there and then instead. Hindsight is great and even better is counter-factual hindsight. The case for reduction in fishing in the North Atlantic is well made. That can be seen in those areas administered by Norway, the Faeroes, Iceland and Greenland. Is it a real surprise that European Union and, hence, common fisheries policy membership has been rejected in Norway and Iceland? Is it not interesting that two devolved areas of Denmark are not in the European Union, despite Denmark joining at the same time as the United Kingdom? The Faeroes voted not to join and the Greenlanders were compensated by the European Union when they voted to leave the European Union. What this means, to me at least, is that devolved areas of European Union members are allowed to withdraw from the European Union and/or, presumably, the common fisheries policy, or indeed not to join when the senior partner joins. That may be good news for those who would seek for the devolved Scotland to leave the   common fisheries policy, while those seeking full autonomy for Scotland—with UN, NATO and EU member status—would have the opportunity completely to renegotiate participation in the common fisheries policy. Since the rejoining package would presumably, and I hope, be put to a Scottish referendum, there would be greater control of the fishery, at least at the outset; or else, there is membership of the EEA to consider. Sea fishing is a long-standing tradition, giving economic activity to many remote areas. The product is   a necessary part of the life of the people. The conservation of the fishery was achieved in the past by smaller boats and their limited range, which have dramatically increased in capacity over the years as new technologies have evolved. Now there is a continuing need for catch-limitation measures. The question is, how should this be divided up among the fishermen? The answer is that a greater balance of the fishing should be undertaken by local boats. Further to that, the conservation management should be repatriated to the nearest country. In conclusion, I wish my noble kinswoman well with her Bill. I shall be interested to hear the approach taken by my noble friend and by the Minister.