Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
THURSDAY 13 MAY 2004
DR DAVID
KING, MR
GODFREY WILLIAMS
AND MR
ARWYN JONES
Q80 Chairman: Is it a case of saying
that it should be possible to take action against the landowner
in those circumstances?
Mr Williams: I suspect one would
have to look at the enforceability of such a measure. Some landowners
are very conscious of this and are very responsible and do inform
their clientele about fishing licences and the way to fish. Indeed,
they employ their own bailiffs and do enforce some of the laws
themselves.
Q81 Chairman: By day as well as by
night?
Mr Williams: Indeed. To put a
legal onus on a landowner—I wonder how complex it might
be to take action against a landowner in the event that something
has happened, and prove that they have not advised people in the
appropriate way. Certainly we would like to register at a strong
level with landowners that they have a responsibility and we would
like to see that happen. It is a question of how enforceable it
might be to put that onus on them specifically.
Q82 Mr Thomas: We have touched already
on the marine environment. One of the striking things is that
since the Wildlife and Countryside Act came into effect 10 years
ago there have been lots of prosecutions and enforcement actions
and so forth on terra firma but there have been none at
all in respect of marine wildlife. As well as the fishing issues
we have touched on, are you concerned about the lack of vision
there, or is it a lack of enforcement?
Dr King: To seek clarification,
are you talking about enforcement of other than marine fisheries?
Q83 Mr Thomas: Yes, I am talking
about the wider marine wildlife, because now we have things like
special areas of conservation coming into the marine environment,
driven by the Habitats Directive and so forth.
Mr Williams: I think it might
have been a pertinent question for the previous group, English
Nature! From our perspective, looking at it as objective observers,
and looking at what we hear from colleagues from other organisations,
there is a difficulty about getting the robust protection of sites,
particularly in the marine. We have heard a little bit about the
landward sites and some of the complications about taking action
there, which seemed to be improving. In the marine situation of
course it is difficult. There are difficulties about understanding
what we mean by "favourable status" and so on in the
marine environment. The fact that it is pretty much out of sight,
out of mind, it is very difficult when damage occurs to nail it
down to particular individuals. I am not certain that the law
is currently framed to make easy enforcement action in those circumstances.
We are not in a position to take that enforcement action, and
I am talking as observers of what goes on elsewhere.
Q84 Mr Thomas: Are you aware that
the Defra review, which you mentioned earlier, is looking at this
area?
Dr King: The review that I mentioned
earlier was largely focused on marine fisheries enforcement and
conservation. The review that is more pertinent to this has been
the review of marine conservation, and where they have the Irish
Sea pilot, and how they could look after areas of protection.
Q85 Mr Thomas: Turning more specifically
to fishing and licensing issues with rod and line fishing, can
you say whether in general the number of licence-holders is increasing
or decreasing, or static?
Dr King: I am quite pleased to
say that the number of licence-holders is increasing. We like
to think that that is down to a number of activities by the agency.
Personally, we have seen a remarkable improvement in quality of
our inland waters, which in turn has seen an increase in both
the species range and the size of the stocks. In addition to that,
we have exploited every opportunity for promoting sales of licence
via the Internet, direct debit or the Post Office.
Q86 Mr Thomas: About how much does
the licence cost?
Dr King: It depends on what licence.
A coarse fishing licence is £22; salmon is £63; and
then there are concessions for juniors, pensioners and disabled.
Q87 Mr Thomas: You mentioned about
how you are making these more available. If I were to buy even
a £50 colour television set available at Dixon's or whatever,
I would have to give my name and address to prove I had a television
licence. Is there any obligation on people, when they buy angling
equipment, to say they have a licence, or show a licence?
Dr King: I do not believe there
is an obligation.
Q88 Mr Thomas: Is that a particular
problem? Do you rely on public awareness, or would you like some
enforcement?
Dr King: It would clearly help.
The analogous situation, I guess, would be much more serious:
you cannot buy cartridges for a gun unless you have a licence.
Q89 Mr Thomas: There are two aspects
to this. One is that the licence money brings in about 60% of
the money that you use in enforcement. Clearly, if you could increase
the number of licences, you would be able to deal with some of
these issues better. Secondly, do you have any idea about the
number of people who do fish, even if it is only occasionally,
and simply do not ever bother to get a licence?
Dr King: We sample about 15% of
anglers every year, and our best estimate is that about 4% are
fishing without a licence. Again, in the angling fraternity there
is a degree of churn, for a better word; and some people fish
one year and do not fish the next.
Q90 Mr Thomas: I am not quite sure
who sets the level of licences.
Dr King: It is for the Agency's
Board to recommend to the Minister.
Q91 Mr Thomas: Why does the licence
only cover about 60% of the money you need? Is that a deliberate
policy?
Dr King: No. The income stream
from fisheries has two components. The licence accounts for some
60%, and then there is grant in aid. In money terms, what comes
in from licences is in the order of £17 million, and about
£6.9 million in grant in aid. The money for coarse fish covers
both enforcement and habitat enhancement, et cetera; but
the enforcement is largely funded by grant in aid, and that is
the most vulnerable part of our income stream because it is clearly
dependent on what other pressures are on the Government.
Q92 Mr Thomas: Would you think that
in principle it would be better if the angling community paid
its own way? We all have to pay for the environmental costs of
what we do; would it be better if the licensing regime paid for
the enforcement, education and awareness?
Dr King: We would certainly subscribe
to the beneficiary paying, and over time a greater component has
come from the licence fee than it has from grant in aid, because
that gives us greater security.
Q93 Mr Thomas: The 4% that you found
were fishing without a licence—what action do you take against
those?
Dr King: Again, if you are caught
fishing without a licence, that is an offence, and we would take
a prosecution against those individuals.
Q94 Mr Thomas: On every occasion?
Dr King: Not on every occasion,
but in the majority of occasions. It is difficult because clearly
the enforcement sends out a strong signal to the licence fraternity
and it would not take very long to get around that fraternity
if you were not following up with enforcement.
Q95 Mr Thomas: A successful prosecution
presumably leads to a fine.
Dr King: Yes, a fine, but the
level of fine—
Q96 Mr Thomas: Is it more or less
than the licence?
Dr King: It is on average about
£60.
Mr Williams: The Agency proposes
the licence duties, but the Minister confirms them. We would generally
propose duties, and we do propose duties at what we believe are
affordable and marketable levels, and we do carry out market surveys
to establish what the level of licence ought to be. We are trying
to maximise our income, which means looking at how we can ensure
that the most people buy the licence, but within the range that
they are likely to be able to afford. In terms of whether they
should pay for everything, we would like to think that good fisheries
are part of the public good as well, and that anglers should not
be the only group paying towards the work that we do to maintain
them. We see legitimately that there is a role for government
taxation to contribute towards that effort.
Q97 Chairman: Do you get to keep
the fines?
Mr Williams: No, we do not. We
are actually talking to the Government at the moment about the
potential to keep fines, not only for fisheries offences but for
broader environmental offences as well.
Q98 Chairman: Are they listening?
Mr Williams: I believe they are
listening.
Mr Jones: It is part of our initial
evidence, where as part of the wider Home Office review as to
whether the prosecuting authorities get that back.
Q99 Mrs Clark: I would like to turn
to the whole area of co-operation with other organisations, and
start off with the police. When we were listening to the evidence
of English Nature, they seemed to indicate they had a very good
relationship and co-operation. Would you say you have the same
sort of support in the work that you do?
Dr King: We certainly have a significant
number of interactions and co-operation not only with the police
but with a lot of other organisations as well. Particularly where
you are talking about poaching on a commercial scale, and when
the individuals that you are dealing with are not the most pleasant,
that often requires a combined enforcement activity with the police
and ourselves, and there is sharing of information and data.
| 
