Sea Fish Industry Authority (Hansard, 20 November 1991)

§ Mr. Curry

Officials from Fisheries Departments were asked to carry out a fundamental review of the Sea Fish Industry Authority's future role, and the levy and basis of industry funding on the fisheries industry which would be necessary to support these activities. Their report is being made public and copies placed in the Libraries of the House. Certain other recommendations to the chairman on organisation and staffing will remain confidential.

The report recommends that the SFIA should continue to carry out the majority of its functions but should cease its generic advertising campaign, allowing the levy rate to be reduced to the level which applied before the most recent increase. The report also makes a number of other recommendations about the application of the levy, the constitution of the SFIA board and improvements to efficiency.

Fisheries Ministers have considered the report carefully and accept the broad thrust of its conclusions. We consider that the SFIA, since its creation in 1981, has contributed 190W substantially to the development of the sea fisheries industry. We endorse the review's finding that the research and development and training role of the authority is, in general, strongly supported by the industry. We feel that it should continue to work broadly along existing lines. We agree that various functional and organisational changes should be made to make the SFIA more efficient and cost effective.

We endorse the reviewers' conclusion that the SFIA should terminate its generic advertising campaign, but should continue its more specific marketing and promotional programme. We also agree with the view from the industry that a reduction in the levy would be desirable, as it would help to lighten the industry's financial burden. The saving from ending generic advertising would be £1.3 million out of a current budget of £8.3 million and would enable the levy to be reduced to £7 per tonne. We propose asking the SFIA to take the necessary steps.

We also agree with the recommendations that the levy should not be extended to salmon, trout, canned or bottled fish or applied on an ad valorem basis.

Fisheries Ministers wish all sectors of the industry to be satisfied that their views on the SFIA's plans and budget have been properly considered and that they have 191W adequate representation on the SFIA board. However, we feel that these issues can be taken into account without the need to amend primary legislation if the SFIA and the industry work together to follow up the report's recommendations for greater industry participation in SFIA advisory committees and in drawing up nominations for the SFIA board. We propose to ask the SFIA to consider adjustments to its organisational structure in the light of these and of the various other recommendations for improving efficiency.

Officials are today writing to organisations with an interest in the SFIA giving them a further opportunity to comment on the action now proposed before final decisions are taken. I have also met the chairman of the authority. To end the period of uncertainty about SFIA's future, our intention is to make a final announcement before the end of this year.