HL Deb 06 July 1989 vol 509 cc1338-40

7.17 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House, on 6th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these regulations are necessary to correct a technical breach (albeit an important one) in our Community obligations in relation to a levy imposed by the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The instrument is therefore made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, and amends the Fisheries Act 1981 which established the Sea Fish Industry Authority.

Under the 1981 Act the authority has a general duty to promote the efficiency of the sea fish industries by carrying out certain activities. These include carrying out research and development, giving advice, providing training and promoting the marketing and consumption of sea fish and sea fish products. For the purpose of financing these activities the Act provides for the authority to impose a levy on persons engaged in the sea fish industry. The levy is raised by weight on first-hand sale of sea fish or sea fish products landed in the UK (including imports) or transhipped within British fishery limits.

We are obliged to make the amendment because the EC Commission considers that the 1981 Act, as presently drafted, does not ensure that exporters from other member states, including fishermen who land their catches here, receive benefits from the SFIA's activities commensurate with the amount of levy they pay. It appears to the Commission that under the terms of the 1981 Act the receipts from the levies could be allocated only towards work which would be of direct benefit to the UK industry.

I should stress that the Commission agrees with us that the levy arrangements do not in practice discriminate against other member states who land fish here. That is why I referred to a technical breach in my opening remarks. Nevertheless the maintenance in force of the present wording contravenes the obligation on all member states not to expose imports from other member states to any form of financial burden in excess of that imposed on similar domestic products.

The amendments proposed are set out in regulation 2 of the draft instrument and concern Sections 2, 3 and 14 of the Act. Section 2 is to be amended to provide for the sea fish industries of member states other than the Untied Kingdom to receive benefit commensurate with any burden borne by them in consequence of the levy—the proposed new regulation 2A.

Section 3 is to be amended to ensure that the requirement to recover fees in respect of services provided to persons connected with the sea fish industry other than in the United Kingdom shall not apply to services provided for such persons in other member states.

Finally, a slight consequential amendment is required to Section 14 concerning the definition of the sea fish industry. These amendments have been cleared with the Sea Fish Industry Authority who do not anticipate any difficulty in complying with them.

Although the proposed changes are perhaps in the nature of a cosmetic exercise they will nonetheless help ensure the continued approval of the Commission to the authority's levy as a legitimate state aid. A successful challenge of the levy arrangements by the Commission in the European Court, albeit on technical points, could threaten the funding and therefore the future of the authority's vital work on behalf of the whole sea fish industry. The proposed amendments would avoid such a step. I commend these regulations to your Lordships and seek approval of them. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Trumpington.)

Lord Carter

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the regulations. Perhaps I may repeat the comment made in another place when the order was discussed: is this a case of Mr. Delors strikes again?

I understand that the regulations are required for technical reasons and to bring the Fisheries Act 1981 into line with Community requirements, but I have two questions. Can the Minister explain how it is proposed to achieve the equity with other member states that is envisaged as a result of the operation of the Sea Fish Industry Authority levy, and how will this be done in practice? Secondly, is it correct that non-members of the European Community, for example Norway and Iceland, will not be covered by the regulations?

We appreciate the need for the regulations and support them from this side of the House.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, in this case I feel like a fish out of water. I shall therefore content myself with saying that on these Benches we have no objection at all to the regulations.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords very much for their welcome to this small but necessary step. To answer the two questions of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Commission accepts that the existing levy arrangements do not in practice discriminate against other member states' fish landed here. In giving approval to the SFIA development programme 1984–89, the Commission accepted the authority's guarantee that SFIA marketing and advertising activity does not feature the country of origin of fish; the results of all R&D are available to other member states; all SFIA training activities are available to nationals of member states; the SFIA does not employ levy funds to promote the export of fish from the UK to the detriment of other member states; and the authority does not employ levy funds to finance wholly or partly schemes of financial assistance to which only United Kingdom interests are entitled.

On the other point, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is perfectly correct. Third countries do not receive any direct benefits. I am most grateful to both noble Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.25 until 8.5 p.m.]