HL Deb 19 July 1990 vol 521 cc1063-5

7.4 p.m.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the authority was established in 1981 to replace both the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority. Its purpose is to promote the efficiency of the sea fish industry as a whole having regard to the interests of the consumers. It aids the marketing, and encourages consumption, of sea fish and sea fish products; provides training; carries out research and development; gives advice and information; and administers the UK national fishing vessels grants scheme.

For the purposes of financing its activities the authority may, under the Fisheries Act 1981, impose a levy on weight of sea fish or sea fish products landed in, or imported into, the UK or transhipped within British fishery limits. The authority is proposing to increase the levy from 1st April next year. Consultations with the industry are currently taking place arid once these are completed in September or October, a formal proposal for a levy increase will be made to fisheries Ministers.

The current levy is 7p per kilo or £7 per tonne. Under the Fisheries Act 1981, the maximum that can be collected is £8 per tonne. In order to accommodate any proposal to increase the levy above £8 per tonne it is necessary to increase the current ceiling. The purpose of this order is to increase the ceiling now so that the authority will be acting within its powers when the regulation is made in the autumn. The order increases the ceiling to £20 per tonne since it would not be sensible to have orders of this kind regularly. I must emphasise that the order just raises the overall levy ceiling; it does not increase individual levy rates for fish and fish products.

A decision on the actual rate of levy is, in the first instance, a matter for the authority which must prepare a new levy regulation at whatever rate of levy is considered necessary. The industry must then be consulted about the proposal. Finally, after taking account of the industry's reactions, it is for Ministers to consider, and decide upon, the authority's levy regulation and make an order. Raising the levy ceiling today does not therefore commit anyone to an increase in the levy, although it is no secret that the authority is thinking in terms of a 31 per cent. increase it simply provides the statutory basis for the authority to make a formal proposal.

I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for introducing the measure to us as clearly as he always does. We note the purpose of the levy and the permissive character of the increases. We also note that the negotiations as to the amount to be used under the powers in the order will be with the industry.

My only query stems from the common fisheries policy and in particular the quota system. Given that the limitation on landings of fish is now so severe, will that of itself result in the Sea Fish Industry Authority having to raise more money by way of the rate of levy than would otherwise be the case? In that context, while not wishing to engage the Minister in a major debate or even a discussion of the matter at this hour of the evening, can he say whether the role of the Sea Fish Industry Authority is being looked at in the light of the fact that for the foreseeable future the restrictions on catches under the common fisheries policy are of such a nature that the promotional aspect of the authority's work is likely to be somewhat reduced? I very much regret that; it is however a fact of life. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for welcoming the order. One of the difficulties for the industry at the moment, as he rightly says, is that the weight of fish landed has gone down considerably—particularly haddock in northern waters but also other species. That presents the SFIA with problems regarding the rate. The SFIA is setting its levy on the weight of fish landed. Thereby hangs the problem which it now faces about the size of the increase of the levy.

Having said that, it will not have escaped the noble Lord's attention that the value of fish landed has dramatically increased. Therefore, the catching side of the industry—although the processors have some problems—is quite satisfied with the very high levels of price it is obtaining for what used to be fairly low priced commodities; cod, haddock, whiting, and skate in the main.

The answer to the noble Lord's question regarding the role of the SFIA is no. The promotional aspect has perhaps taken a different turn in so far as, having now established its role as the promotional organisation for fish, the authority finds that it must spend a great deal of time evaluating how it can increase the intake of fish or the attractiveness of fish to the housewife. Although its promotional role has changed, it is still relevant because the fish must compete with other foods.

I hope that, without going into a detailed discussion of the fishing industry, which is not having an easy time at the moment, the noble Lord will understand that the difficulty for the SFIA is increased because it has to do its job and, to do that, it needs a levy. However, with fish landings having gone down and values having gone up, it has a problem.

On Question, Motion agreed to.