---

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): Last but not least from this side, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure my right hon. Friend that history is important. The Queen's Lancashire Regiment won 19 Victoria crosses and more battle honours than any other regiment, and it has fought on every continent. However, that is no reason
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 369
 
for its continued existence. Does he agree that that should depend on its continued ability to recruit its full strength from Lancashire, without encountering problems? Also, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Typhoon announcement, but noticed that he made no mention of the A400M.

Mr. Hoon: There is no satisfying my hon. Friend. I anticipate that, in the months ahead, I shall learn a good deal more about the history of the QLR, and I shall be delighted to do so. In the course of my attendance at the Farnborough air show yesterday, I was able to visit the Airbus stand. I was thanked profusely for the British Government's commitment to A400M. Of course, I mentioned my hon. Friend's name and said that he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Government's commitment.

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): The Secretary of State said that the Army is to be reduced in size by 6 per cent. and that there will be four fewer battalions. However, he also said that the new structure would be based on regiments of two or more battalions. He made no reference to any regiments being merged or closed. Will he explain how he will achieve his objectives? If he has managed to square that circle, and if there are going to be regional regiments of two or more battalions, may I invite him to reverse a Tory defence cut of 1992 and reinstate the 3rd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment—the former Essex Regiment?

Mr. Hoon: Of course, the Royal Anglian Regiment is the perfect example of a successful regional organisation that is multi-battalion and that can provide a degree of stability. It is a lesson to the rest of the Army in proper organisation and recruitment. That is one of the reasons why the Army Board is so keen to establish a more consistent structure across the country. That is why the hon. Gentleman is right to assert the interests of the Royal Anglians. I regret that in the circumstances I am unlikely to be able to provide the answer to his question that I know he would like.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): The Secretary of State talks about increased capability and agility replacing the shameful cut in numbers, but that will require the training that is required for professionalism. Will he tell the House why there are so few major exercises planned, and why Warminster, which is the heart of the infantry's professionalism, is being temporarily stripped of its demonstration battalion? Will he even answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the future of Cultybraggan training area?

Mr. Hoon: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions can be found in the observations that he and other Opposition Members have made consistently on several occasions. Our armed forces are extremely busy and engaged in real operations around the world, in difficult environments such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. Inevitably, in such circumstances, the number of exercises is bound to fall.

 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 370
 
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): The King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots have proud military heritages and are woven into the fabric of the communities of south-east Scotland. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he is talking about disbanding a battalion in Scotland rather than a regiment? Will he clarify how the KOSB and the Royal Scots will fit into the new divisional structure in Scotland?

Mr. Hoon: The precise answer is that it is necessary for the Army to discuss with the battalions in Scotland and other parts of the UK how best to satisfy the need to end the arms plot and to provide the diversity and consistency that is required for the members of the armed forces and their families. Those issues will be discussed publicly by the Army in different parts of the country and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make appropriate representations on behalf of his constituents and the Army units in his area.

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge) (Con): I assure the Secretary of State that I will ask the many men and women who serve in the Royal Air Force in my constituency what they think about his statement today. Will he now answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) put to him and confirm the survival of the RAF Regiment?

Mr. Hoon: Yes, I can confirm its survival.

Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle) (LD): I cautiously welcome the Secretary of State's statement, especially his keeping the door open—or not closing it yet—for the Nimrod MRA4 project. I understand from local press reports in the Cambridge area that Marshall Aerospace of Cambridge has won the contract for the test phase for Nimrods 1, 2 and 3. Can he tell us whether the production phase, if it goes ahead, will take place at BAE Systems in Woodford?

Mr. Hoon: Those matters are still under discussion. As I said in my statement, we still need to find an appropriate financial package to allow us to be able to deliver that capability. It is an important capability that I regard as essential to the commitments that I have made today to ensure that our armed forces have access to high-quality technology and network-enabled capabilities.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): To conclude the questions, may I ask the Secretary of State about the article peddled in a major splash in The Daily Telegraph on Monday about his intention to run down and close Dartmouth royal naval college? Will he make it plain that he has no plans to do so and that it will not be downsized?

Mr. Hoon: I know nothing about the article in The Daily Telegraph other than what I saw when I opened the newspaper. There is a defence training review, but we have not reached any conclusions about its implications. As soon as we do, I will inform the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members.
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 371
 

Fishery Limits (United Kingdom)

2.54 pm

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union; to amend the Fisheries Limits Act 1976; to make provision about fishing and the discarding of fish; and for connected purposes.

Everybody knows that I am no Euro-fanatic. I have always been somewhat sceptical and am against further political integration. Nor do I see any merit in the constitution. I certainly do not suffer from Europe hysteria: I am perhaps more of a Euro-pragmatist and a Euro-realist. The Liberal Democrats would vote for the constitution and the euro, and they back a federal Europe. They do not favour referendums. That explains why the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and for St. Ives (Andrew George)—I see the latter in his place—have declined to sponsor this measure.

My concern is the criminal destruction of the environment, the horrendous devastation of fish stocks, and the impact on the ecosystem, resulting in a distortion of the balance of nature in and around our waters. What kind of policy actively encourages catching millions of fish, only to throw 50 per cent. back dead? Eating more fish is essential for a healthy diet, but we are signed up to a policy that exhorts fishermen to destroy the very fish they catch—what madness in a world where millions go hungry!

Two thirds of Europe's main commercial fish stocks, such as cod, hake, plaice and sole, are on the verge of collapse, with undersized fish, which could have matured, being discarded and left dead to pollute the seabed. The largest fish at the top end of the food chain are caught en masse leaving smaller fish lower down multiplying at an increased rate. Such fish are swallowed by massive industrial fishing vessels to feed farmed fish, about which serious health questions have already been raised. The ecosystem has flipped over, with the fish that were formerly low down the chain now being at the top. The only living organism that is safe in the seas is plankton. I am told that the CFP has plans for them as well.

One hundred years ago, one acre of good North sea fishing ground produced a ton of fish a week; it now produces just a tenth of that. A 90 per cent. decrease in fish stocks around our shores inevitably has major repercussions. If wildlife on the plains of Africa were savaged in the way the seabed is, there would be a worldwide outcry. Although national game reserves have been created to protect animals and we have national parks to protect the environment, similar arrangements have not been made to protect underwater life.

If the CFP resulted in fish being caught to feed people, that would be one thing, but it does not: it is just a massive, indiscriminate destruction of underwater life. Among the victims are cetaceans such as dolphins, and it has been estimated that 10,000 dolphins and porpoises are mindlessly killed in the English channel and the Bay of Biscay each year, with ever-increasing numbers being washed up on the coasts of Devon and Cornwall, the victims of the bass trawler nets. If in an attempt to maximise beef and lamb output we stretched mile-long
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 372
 
nets across the European countryside, there would be utter devastation: homes, trees and whole landscapes—not to mention all the living animals—would be scooped up. Why, then, do we tolerate such devastation of the ancient landscapes of the seabed? The coral reefs in the English channel will take 100,000 years to grow back, having been destroyed by trawlers hoovering the sea bed.

Fish are not the only inhabitants of our seas, nor are dolphins. Thousands of birds die in fishermen's nets every year because they feed off live fish just below the surface. Dead fish that have been thrown overboard from fishing boats have caused a tenfold increase in scavenger birds, such as gulls. That is an extremely interesting fact.

Subsidised tuna-fattening operations in southern Europe have caused the overfishing of one of the ocean's most prized assets, the blue fin tuna, which I note is on the menu in the Adjournment restaurant in Portcullis house this week. I hope that colleagues will boycott that and go for the pork cutlet instead.

The basic problem with the common fisheries policy is the concept of "common" responsibility. The Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which I piloted through Parliament, was designed to safeguard common land on Dartmoor from over-grazing. As no one owned the land, farmers took advantage of it; so, too, with water that is common—there is no sense of responsibility. People use it for individual gain and with no recognition that the activities of one fisherman impact on another. Again, the fact that fishermen from different nations are all involved in the plunder of the stock makes it a free for all—anything goes, any time, anywhere. The fisheries protection vessels never stand a chance.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union said—I paraphrase—that the problems of fisheries management are compounded by an interaction between biological and economic factors, which leads to the failure of the free market to deliver an acceptable solution. Such problems are overcome only when fishermen are given a long-term interest in the health of fish stocks, and the ecosystem on which they depend, by being allocated some form of property rights.

Existing tools for fisheries management, as far as Europe is concerned, are excessively reliant on total allowable catches and quotas, which have been demonstrated to be wholly ineffective. Furthermore, fisheries management in Europe has become excessively politicised, largely due to the haggling by the Council of Ministers when it renegotiates total allowable catches each year.

As the House of Lords Committee concluded, the widely supported proposals made by the Commission to reform the CFP have been emasculated and held hostage by some member states acting quite perversely in the short term, with the interests of their fishing constituents uppermost in their mind, rather than the long-term common good—the conservation of marine resources for the whole community.

As we go into the summer recess, the whole House should feel deeply uneasy that millions of fish will be slaughtered for no rhyme or reason, but simply due to a bureaucratic policy that has got tangled up with political expediency and European rules and
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 373
 
regulations. The seas are a huge death trap. In this country, we are custodians of the sea bed and we should be responsible for conserving not only the fish but the ecosystem and the checks and balances that exist around our island.

The common fisheries policy prevents national and local control; its concept is a socialism of "common" sharing and "common" responsibility, and it does not work. It never has worked and it never will. The policy must be abandoned so that we can take back control of our fishing grounds—whether to the median line or to the 200-mile limit is a matter for debate. We are net contributors to the EU and major players in the EU. After 30 years, it is quite wrong that we should remain silent and accept the environmental devastation for which all in the House must bear responsibility.

I seek the leave of the House to bring in a Bill that will start a process of repair, regeneration and renewal.

---