Examination of Witnesses (Questions 59
- 79)
THURSDAY 13 MAY 2004
DR DAVID
KING, MR
GODFREY WILLIAMS
AND MR
ARWYN JONES
Chairman: Welcome. You have had the benefit
of sitting through the last session. Welcome back to Mr Arwyn
Jones: we have seen you before quite recently. Thank you for your
memorandum as well.
Q59 Sue Doughty: You sent your memorandum
in which you referred to illegal fishing. I think it would be
useful to the Committee if you could set out what you mean by
illegal fishing. Is it fishing without a licence? Is it fishing
for the wrong fish? Is it fishing in the wrong place? Are there
any other aspects as well on illegal fishing? Could you give us
the background on that?
Dr King: Certainly. Illegal fishing
covers quite a broad spectrum. There is fishing without a rod
licence; there is the illegal deployment of nets and other fish
capture methods; there is the theft of fish. We would also classify
the illegal introduction of fish into water courses without adequate
consent. In addition to that, as conservation measures we have
both closed areas and closed seasons and you could have fishing
activity taking place during that time and that would be deemed
to be illegal.
Q60 Sue Doughty: Thank you. You refer
to your hotline. What is the process when you get a call on the
hotline?
Dr King: The hotline is a national
hotline centre, but once the information about location is received
and the nature of the complaint or report, that is then passed
on to our local area office. We have 26 of those covering both
England and Wales and then that is directed to the appropriate
area teams.
Q61 Sue Doughty: Do you have any
figures? Obviously you get reports of something that turns up
on the hotline and then you have offences and it may or may not
be an offence.
Dr King: Again in our submission
we have given an indication of the number of reports that we have
specifically with high impact illegal fishing, which is not just
about rod licences, and that runs to about 1,200 a year. That
has been reasonably static. But, obviously, through the follow-up
process, the number of prosecutions is significantly less than
that. It is in the order of about 30 a year.
Q62 Sue Doughty: How many of those
are unlicensed fishing?
Dr King: The number of unlicensed
fishing is into the hundreds or thousands.
Mr Williams: The number of offences
of anglers without licences that we take is in the order of 4,000
a year. We treat those as, if you like, a relatively routine offence,
but the other offences to which Dr King has referred, serious
fisheries offences—which is where there is a higher impact—those
translated to between 30 and 60 prosecutions, plus or minus cautions.
I think the difference is effectively down to the fact that in
not all of those cases are we able to establish the evidence we
would like to run a successful prosecution. Equally, the reporting
is after the event, if you like, and of course this is by members
of the public or by anglers and so on. We would not wish to dissuade
people from reporting these things because of course it all adds
to the intelligence and information that we collect, and perhaps
something that is reported on one day may generate some evidence
on which we can take a prosecution at a later time.
Q63 Sue Doughty: I understand. What
proportion of the offences are in inland waters and how many are
in coastal waters?
Mr Williams: I would say the majority
are inland waters. This is very much a figure off the top of the
head, but I would think something like 10 to 15% would be related
to coastal waters. There is an issue, of course, that coastal
waters run into estuaries. For salmon fisheries particularly we
find that quite a lot of the offences that we take are actually
within the estuary, where the fish are accumulating before they
migrate up the river. So there are quite a lot of offences on
estuaries, more in fresh waters and a lesser number actually on
the coast.
Q64 Sue Doughty: On to individuals
fishing illegally. Are these small scale incursions or are some
of them large scale incursions?—commercial fishing, effectively,
albeit illegal.
Dr King: Again, there is a wide
range but there is significant evidence that the individuals who
are often involved in fairly large scale operation of illegal
nets are also involved in a variety of other crime. They are pursuing
this for financial gain, so it may be poaching of salmon today,
it may be fly-tipping tomorrow, it may be theft of cars, etcetera.
They do operate across a number of different activities. To give
an example—and there is a little video that we can leave
with the clerk—the BBC put out Front Line, which
covers really enforcement activity in the northeast. On one evening,
there were something like 70 salmon in the net, and that was for
one set. Given the price of wild salmon, that is not an insignificant
amount of money, so it is quite significant.
Q65 Sue Doughty: Do you regard this
as organised crime, then?
Dr King: It is organised, yes.
Q66 Sue Doughty: Could you give us
an example where fish crime has had a serious impact on fishing
stocks or on the environment.
Dr King: I will give one example
which is in the pack and then defer to my colleagues. I will pick
the example of the fisherman in Dorset who was illegally deploying
fyke nets, which is the method of capture for eels. You will see
in that that he had something in the order of 60 illegal nets.
At first sight, that may seem insignificant but you have to view
it against the background that the eel population across Europe
has been in significant decline. Indeed, there is now a European
initiative to try to rebuild the stocks, for example. We are only
seeing 10% of the elver returns that we saw in the seventies,
so illegal fishing does have a huge impact. In addition to that,
these nets were deployed without otter guards, so again it is
not just about the impact on that particular fish but also on
the wildlife. That is an example of impact, but again my colleague
will have other examples.
Mr Williams: Going back to the
northeast, we had experience in the mid-nineties of collecting
evidence from an individual at the end of the year, in October,
who had been involved with two to three colleagues over the previous
five months. The evidence was in the form of receipt books, which
he inadvisedly kept, that showed to us that over that period he
had taken 600 salmon and sea trout from the River Tyne. He and
his colleagues had made about £8,000 from that. The weight
of those fish was something like 4,500 lbs. Looking at the translation
of that, that would have been about one and a half million eggs
that otherwise would have spawned into the River Tyne and contributed
to that population. Thankfully, the River Tyne is one of the rivers
we have which is recovering as a salmon river and doing extremely
well, but that would have limited that recovery if that had happened
in one of our other rivers around the country. There would have
been a serious, damaging effect on rivers under threat. Another
area where we have not got a specific case, but in terms of fish
movement and introductions, we are very concerned about illegal
fish movements because they bring with them the dangers of transfer
of disease. Some of these diseases can have the effect of wiping
out entirely a stock of fish. Some of the specialist fisheries
we have now developed are providing really good venues for people
and good value for recreation in the south of Britain of, for
instance, carp and if you have the introduction of one of these
diseases into that, then you have lost those fish. The value of
some of those fisheries is up to about £63,000 per acre,
so you can see that the value could be extremely considerable.
Q67 Sue Doughty: It is quite shocking
when it is put in those terms. You referred earlier to fish movements
and imports, and the various aspects. The written evidence stated
that in 2003-04 you gave consent to over 9,000 legitimate fish
removals and you investigated 150 reports of unconsented fish
removals. How many of those reports that you received were found
to be genuine, and how many were found to be on a large enough
scale to justify prosecution?
Mr Williams: In terms of those
150 we could probably say we reported them because they all demonstrated
some sort of illegal element to them; they were introductions
that had not been consented by us. I am again working from memory,
but I believe the number of cases taken to court in the last 12
months is something in the region of 5-10, so that was a relatively
small proportion; but the issue there is about having the appropriate
evidence to be able to take the case—again it being timely;
but looking at the legislation we have to work with, there are
grey areas around the law in terms of fish introductions, and
we are careful about which cases we take forward in order to achieve
successful prosecutions rather than those that go against us.
Q68 Sue Doughty: You gave an example
in your evidence of the impact on salmon stocks in Norway of a
parasite called Gyrodactylus salaris, which came in from fish
that were moved from the Baltic region. What risk do we have in
the UK from this sort of activity, and could we have a fishy foot-and-mouth
or tail or fin rot, or whatever fish get?
Dr King: Foot-and-mouth is perhaps
a good analogy. Building on what my colleague has said, there
is always the potential for that, and that is why we put significant
effort into monitoring fish movement. Carp are particularly susceptible
to a viral infection, and we probably see a dozen or more of those
outbreaks every year, and they can wipe out 60-70% of the stock.
We do not know specifically whether they are due to illegal movement
or not, but potentially they could be.
Mr Williams: Referring to Gyrodactylus
salaris, there is a risk that that could come into this country,
and we do have evidence that salmon in this country would be susceptible
to it. Research suggests that it takes a year to two years to
reach the situation they had in Norway, but it is very much a
potential scenario. We have been working with Defra and other
bodies across the United Kingdom in recent years to develop a
contingency plan in respect to some of these introductions, and
particularly around gyrodactylus, because this country is extremely
nervous that it could be introduced and cause the same sort of
effects. Our salmon stocks are under sufficient pressure at the
moment, without introducing a disease of that sort.
Q69 Sue Doughty: Do you feel your
contingency plans are adequate, should we have an outbreak?
Mr Williams: I would say they
are still in development. I believe publication of the final contingency
plan is due later this year. We would like to see that coming
forward, but we work extremely well with Defra and with CEFAS,
the scientific arm. For fish imports, we have a joint database
and work very closely with them. All of the bodies are so acutely
aware of the potential for this disease that a very close watch
is being kept on imports and fish movements within the country.
Q70 Chairman: There must be a limit
to the planning you can do to prevent a disease of that kind.
In order for it to happen, would it necessarily involve somebody
importing and installing, as it were, fish from a particular area
from a different part of the world?
Mr Williams: Unfortunately not.
There are other means by which it can enter, in terms of coming
in on equipment that has not been properly disinfected.
Q71 Chairman: Can I ask you about
your powers and resources? You say in your memorandum to us that
the Defra response to the review of the salmon and freshwater
fisheries that reported in 2000 has led to some work that you
are doing with Defra to take forward some of the recommendations
of that; and that as a result of that you are hoping to extend
your powers. What powers do you think you need to extend and what
new powers would you like to have?
Dr King: If I could make a general
comment first, the freshwater fisheries review had something like
195 recommendations, and many of those have already been implemented,
but there are about 50 recommendations that would require primary
or secondary legislation. Many of them are, when looked at individually,
quite small, but when you put the basket together they would make
a significant difference to our effectiveness. Again, Godfrey
will give some details.
Mr Williams: In terms of the powers
of our officers, at the moment people are appointed to enforce
fisheries law, and they have the power of arrest but only at night.
We have powers of consort and so on. We would obviously like to
extend that power of arrest to do it 24 hours a day. That power
of arrest allows us to take people under arrest to police stations
and interview them ourselves, and we specially train our people
to carry out these operations. To be able to do that would enhance
our ability to operate.
Q72 Chairman: Would that change require
legislation?
Mr Williams: Yes, it requires
an amendment to the current legislation. We would also like to
be able to examine, inspect and take samples without necessarily
having to suspect an offence, which is largely the way the current
law is framed. It would be highly beneficial, particularly in
the area of fish movements, to be able to examine the fish and
to take a sample of those fish in order to be able to nail down
evidence or assure ourselves that things are safe. We would like
to be able, in terms of developing the law, to have more flexible
and immediate provisions. I think Defra are very much with us
on this because at the moment, in order to bring new legislation
through bye-laws and orders, it generally takes us something between
18 months and two years. Obviously, if we have got a particular
issue that needs additional protection, we would like to be able
to bring in subsidiary legislation more speedily to be able to
control matters.
Q73 Chairman: Is the absence of progress
on these issues a worry to you, in the light of the remarks you
have made about the dangers of an outbreak of disease on a grand
scale?
Dr King: It is safe to say that
we are certainly eager to see fisheries legislation come forward.
Q74 Chairman: Do you have any sense
of when that might happen?
Dr King: It certainly is not going
to be in the short term. Defra colleagues have done a lot in preparation,
should the opportunity present itself.
Mr Williams: We know that the
Minister has asked for the draft legislation to be available this
year, and in order to assist with that we have been working very
closely with Defra to help develop draft legislation. At the moment
there is no visible knowledge of parliamentary time to take legislation
through.
Q75 Chairman: A familiar story.
Dr King: Another review that is
relevant to this is Defra's recent review it has commissioned
into marine enforcement. I understand that they are due to open
consultation on that later this summer. The area of marine enforcement
is certainly one where there is a significant need to improve
the joining up of the different agencies. We ourselves have responsibilities
in terms of salmon, sea trout and eels up to six nautical miles.
In addition to the Agency, enforcement is also carried out by
the Sea Fisheries Committees and the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate.
The latter primarily focusing on the enforcement of the Common
Fisheries policy. The sea fisheries committees are woefully under-funded,
and the funding for that comes through local authorities. In many
cases, because of lack of funds, they have been pretty ineffective.
We effectively act as the sea fisheries committee in many of the
estuaries. We believe that there could be much greater efficiency
and effectiveness in marine enforcement if that responsibility
was given to the Agency.
Q76 Chairman: Forgive me, but I am
not clear what the duties of the sea fisheries committees are.
Dr King: They are primarily focused
on the enforcement of commercial fisheries in estuaries, but that
is both shellfish and indeed other fishing. They are primarily
focused on commercial fisheries with far less interest in recreational
fisheries.
Q77 Chairman: When you say "enforcement"
are we talking about vanishing stocks or health and safety?
Dr King: It is a combination.
It is about the wise utilisation and rational management of the
resource. Many of our estuaries are nursery grounds for fish stocks,
and that does require adequate enforcement. Again, as you have
heard from my colleague, there is a significant amount of activity
on illegal fishing in estuaries.
Q78 Chairman: You are picking up
the work that the local authorities ought to have been doing themselves.
Dr King: The local authorities
fund the sea fisheries committees through a levy, and it is a
question of whether that feeds through into the sea fisheries
committee.
Q79 Chairman: Can I ask you about
the duties and responsibilities of landowners in terms of making
it clear to people fishing on their land what they are entitled
to do and what they are not entitled to do? What responsibilities
exist at the moment for them?
Mr Williams: Essentially, they
are able to apply their own rules to let people fish within their
own property. We obviously encourage landowners to inform their
clientele of the licensing that is required—because everybody
who goes fishing requires a licence from the Agency—and
also of the relevant laws. There are no powers to insist on that,
and there is nothing that can be done against a landowner if he
does not do that.
| 
