|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 605-i House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE environmental audit committee (sub-committee on environmental crime) Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime
Thursday 13 May 2004 MR TOM TEW, MR MARTIN FOX, MS ALISON FLOWERS and MR DAVID KING, MR GODFREY WILLIAMS and MR ARWYN JONES Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 105
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Environmental Audit Committee on Thursday 13 May 2004 Members present Mr Peter Ainsworth, in the Chair Mrs Helen Clark Sue Doughty Mr Simon Thomas ________________ Memorandum submitted by English Nature Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Mr Tom Tew, Regional Policy Officer (Operational Work), Mr Martin Fox, Site Protection Manager, Ms Alison Flowers, SSSI Enforcement Officer, and Ms Johanna Oldaker, Species Legislation Officer, English Nature, examined. Q1 Chairman: Good morning. Welcome. We notice in your memorandum that the outcome of a successful prosecution in relation to the unauthorised removal of gravel from the River Camel was due on 6 May for sentencing. Could you give us an update as to what resulted? Mr Fox: The case was actually adjourned for sentencing to June. That was a joint case between ourselves and the Environment Agency. When we know the outcome we will of course let you know what it is. Q2 Chairman: We would be very interested to know the outcome. Mr Tew: The court was busy. It is an anti-climax, but .... Q3 Chairman: It is a shame. Keep trying. We are trying to get a feel for the scale of wildlife crime. Throughout the evidence we have been receiving - and thank you for your written evidence, by the way - a theme has emerged that the lack of a national database to record wildlife offences means that it is very difficult to get any real idea of the scale of the problem. Would you agree with that? Mr Tew: Yes, we do agree with that. If I may deal with two things separately, species crime and site-based wildlife crime, as I think it is easiest to take them in turn. On species crime it is hard for us to comment because we are not the enforcing authority, but certainly we believe that for some species, particularly rarer species, such as perhaps hen harriers or red kites or bats, there is no doubt that wildlife crime can have a significant effect on the populations. It probably has a moderate effect on a range of other species, on badgers and great crested newts and so on. For sites, the scale of that we are much more in touch with because we are the enforcing authority and we can tell you how many enforcement cases we have progressed. The overall scale is that it only affects about 0.5 per cent of the sites. One might be led to think therefore that this was a trivial issue and not important but that is not the case. I hope the Committee will not jump to that conclusion because for some species which are restricted to very small numbers of sites an individual incident can have clearly a very damaging effect on the whole species. Some of the cases we have prosecuted (bryophytes in Cornwall or marsh orchids in Wiltshire or shingle on Dungeness) are instances where the crime is having a really dramatic effect on the individual habitats. But you are right, Chairman, the issue about recording is a key one for us. The majority of crimes, as you know, are not recordable offences. We would very much welcome a change in that status, because there is a legislative route whereby, if they were recordable, then there would be a national database. Another option which is slightly less legalistic is the PAW initiative. We are strong supporters of that initiative which is to set up a UK wildlife incident database. That, in the absence of a change in legislation, would be a good backstop. Of course, we are after an ability to have a strategic view on wildlife crime so that we are able to analyse trends and threats and therefore prioritise. At the moment we feel we and others are slightly lacking in that strategic view. Q4 Chairman: Who do you think would be best placed to set up and run a national database? Ms Oldaker: I think the best place might be the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit which was set up in 2000. They are already established, so that might be one possible outcome, although, perhaps, looking at the PAW secretariat, they might be able to give a better opinion of which is the better place for that. Q5 Chairman: Shingle at Dungeness, what was going on there? Mr Tew: Two third-party offences under regulation 23, vegetated shingle, in which I think eel fishermen were using all-terrain vehicles and ploughing across vegetated shingle. It does not sound a very exciting habitat but it is one of those that takes centuries to form and is destroyed overnight. It is very sensitive to damage. There are details in the back of our evidence. Q6 Chairman: Thank you. In your memorandum you produce some pretty horrifying figures. For example, incidents of damage by owners and occupiers has increased, you say, by 74 per cent between January 2001 and April this year. The rise in reported incidents of damage by third parties is even worse: 168 per cent increase over the same period. Does this reflect a genuine underlying increase in misdemeanours or better reporting and better attention by the authorities? Mr Tew: Of course, you have put your finger on the crux and it is actually difficult to tell. On the one hand we have better recording systems these days; on the other hand, the CROW Act has brought in more offences, so it may just be there is more recording. But, to try to answer your question, we do believe that wildlife crime is increasing, and particularly third-party crime. Q7 Chairman: What is the reason? Mr Tew: The bulk of this is vehicular damage to wildlife sites. We think there is just an increasing use of 4x4 and multipurpose vehicles out on to sites. At English Nature we must be careful about this, because we do not want to give the impression in any way that we are against access to the countryside. We are not. We are fully in favour of access to the countryside and it is great to see people out and enjoying the countryside but there is an issue about appropriate enjoyment and about educating and informing people about good ways to enjoy the countryside without damaging it. Chairman: Sitting in 4x4 trucks is hardly an environmentally friendly way to enjoy the countryside. Q8 Mr Thomas: On that point of 4x4 damage, I have recently seen something myself in my own constituency where there is a problem. There is a DEFRA consultation which has just ended on access. I think it is called byways auto traffic. Do you think that consultation and the measures proposed in that would be useful in trying to tackle some of the issues which you just mentioned? Mr Fox: It would certainly help to restrict the class of vehicles that can use the so-called green lanes. I think the thrust has been at the moment to base establishment rights on historical records, so you could be in the position where someone relies on the fact that someone 100 or 200 years ago used a horse and cart on a route, therefore that translates into a motorcycle now. I think anything that can ensure the correct level of access, the correct level of vehicle is used on the route, must be beneficial. Q9 Mr Thomas: Is the problem one where the routes themselves could be close to an SSSI or traverse an SSSI, or one where people use these routes to get access to upland and moorland and then just go off wherever they want? Mr Fox: I think the issue is that, whilst people legally use routes, as new routes are reconfirmed - and we should say, "Once a highway, always a highway" - there is more opportunity for a small minority to deviate from the route because people like an adventurous day out; they do not want to follow a strict line that goes from point A to point B. So there is the opportunity there, I think, for a small minority to stray off the main route. Mr Tew: But you are right, these routes into the heart of the big SSSIs open up areas to potential disturbance, and when you have sensitive species like ground-nesting birds or rare reptiles they are vulnerable to disturbance. We do not think this is a major issue. I do not want to leave the impression that this is a dramatic issue, but in isolated circumstances it can be serious. Q10 Chairman: Could you give us an idea of what proportion of reported incidents of damage turn out to be actual incidents of damage? Mr Tew: You have stumped us, Chairman. We do not have information on that. We could try to follow up. Q11 Chairman: I am trying to get a feel for the way you relate to the people who bring concerns to you. Perhaps I could ask a slightly different question: How many of the cases in which you are involved are initiated by you and how many by somebody else who comes to you and says, "We have a problem"? Ms Flowers: It is very often the case that some of the reports are made by the general public. In those circumstances, we would try to work with the general public or a local forum group and with local police forces and local authorities to try to raise the awareness to various users of the sites, so that they hopefully can then see that where they are going is not the right place. If the minority then carry on we can then decide on the appropriate course of action to take if that is required. Q12 Chairman: You say that is very often how it works, but presumably it is almost always that way, is it not? Because you cannot have English Nature enforcers crawling over the countryside waiting for people to do something wrong. We are really entirely dependent on the goodwill and interest of the public to bring these matters up. Mr Tew: We are greatly dependent on it, but of course our site managers at national nature reserves are very sensitive to looking for damage, so they will certainly have that in mind. Ms Flowers: We obviously recognise that we do have a problem in actually policing the sites on the ground. That is why we look to other people to help us, such as the police, and to see if they can use the Road Traffic Act legislation as well in certain cases. Q13 Sue Doughty: In your evidence you point to some successful prosecutions, but the numbers are relatively small in comparison to the numbers of offences reported. What determines whether or not you are going to take a case forward to prosecution? Mr Fox: Obviously, as a prosecuting authority we take our role very seriously. In that, we follow the code of Crown Prosecutors, and there are two clear tests within there. There is the evidential test: Do we have the correct level of evidence to take the matter to court? and there is the public interest test: Should we be taking this to court? Whilst we do not always take a prosecution, so far those cases which have arisen, those seven prosecutions, are cases which met the test and ended up in court. We have other mechanisms to deal with enforcement issues as well, such as cautions and warning letters. With cautions, we follow the Home Office guidelines. Q14 Sue Doughty: What are the barriers you find in bringing forward a successful prosecution? Mr Fox: I think we would perhaps group this into two: the legislation and the nature of the offence. In the legislation, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, because of the nature of the offence and how suspects are approached - we do not arrest them - we are not at the police station, so in fact they are not obliged to take part in the interview. Cleary, if somebody does not cooperate, you are then having to fall back on the evidence you have to hand in deciding whether you can take a case forward. We have no powers to stop people and demand names and addresses. It might seem an obvious point but, of course, if we cannot demand names and addresses, we cannot ascertain who the offender is, we cannot serve papers on that person. In relation to the third-party offence such as 28P(6) under Section 28, we have practicalities in proving beyond reasonable doubt that a person intentionally or recklessly damaged the site or that they in fact disturbed a species that was present, and in fact we have to show that they knew they were in an SSSI when they committed that act. So there are three key points there. In relation to where the offences take place - and we have touched on this before - often these things happen in remote locations, in anti-social hours; there may be a lack of witnesses or in fact a reluctance for witnesses to give evidence. So I think that is a key point. In relation to the third parties, we have practicalities with policing really. Sometimes the criminal activities are ongoing over large areas, large upland sites, so again we need to cooperate with others to address those issues. I think that would possibly be the main points there. Mr Tew: In terms of success, we of course want to see the prosecution work, and we want to see the court take substantial action because we want fines to act as a deterrent, but in fact the main one for us is that restoration orders are made, so that the site is repaired as much as possible, so that wildlife is restored. The overall thing I would like to add is that a prosecution is in itself a failure because a prosecution in itself means that sites have been damaged. We would rather not see any prosecutions. We would rather see no one damaging these sites, but where damage is occurring we believe we are firm but fair regulators. Q15 Sue Doughty: Going on to what happens when you have a successful prosecution - and you have touched on restoration orders - when you are pushing for a restoration order, do you actually take into account the offender's ability to do the job, whether they are able to afford it or have the wherewithal in other ways to make good that damage personally? How far does that come into account? Ms Flowers: Just to cite one example, on the Sutton Lane case against which we took a prosecution, because of the management that was required to reinstate the grassland, we felt that needed to be carried out by a specialist contractor with supervision from ourselves. That was written into the restoration order that was granted by the court. In some cases, it may well be that the site is simply left alone by the owners and in other cases it may well be, as I have described, that it requires appropriate management by specialist contractors. Mr Tew: Of course, under caution people can agree to accept a caution and agree to restore the site. That is an effective way of dealing with the issue that may not involve prosecution. Q16 Sue Doughty: If in fact you do get a conviction and restoration is not what is going to happen here, are you satisfied about the level of punishment? Do you think it is really based on the person's ability to pay, that it is sufficiently punitive, that it takes into account the impact of that offence on the habitat or species? Mr Fox: With the cases we have had to date, certainly under the CROW Act we have been satisfied with the level of penalty. We have also included the penalties in the annex to our evidence. The courts have taken the matter seriously and they have dealt with it in a robust way. Q17 Sue Doughty: Looking at the situation, if you have robust penalties and you are reasonably happy about restoration, we then go on to re-offenders. Do you have any measures yourselves about prevention of re-offending? You were talking about a failure if these things come to court because the damage has taken place in the first place, do you set targets? Do you know how many people re-offend? Do you have any follow-up to stop re-offending? Mr Tew: The issue on these wildlife sites is that the management of the site is going to depend on the owner or occupier or land manager. It is a very strong emphasis for us in getting a good relationship with that owner or occupier. We do not want to have to keep going back, constantly bringing enforcement actions. We will of course go out of our way to make sure that a good relationship is maintained. Mr Fox: It is quite difficult to measure how effective deterrents are. In our cases, we do obviously keep a record of all the incidents reported to us, we keep a record of the prosecutions taken, and we can take those factors into account when we address issues again if they arrive on sites. Sometimes there are cases where there has been a piecemeal technical infringement of the legislation. We start off by dealing with things with warning letters and if the damage becomes at such a level that further enforcement action is taken, we then look at the next level up of action which might actually be the prosecution route. In terms of figures, we would not have figures as such, but we would know if somebody did re-offend on site. Q18 Sue Doughty: Then we have the situation when relationships break down altogether; in other words, you have done your best with the owner to sort it all out but you do have the powers of compulsory purchase in the case of an SSSI which is at risk of further damage. How often do you have to use these powers? Mr Tew: Compulsory purchase power has been used once since 1949. That was in 1979 and it concerned a large national nature reserve on the river with a small piece of land in the middle of it and no one knew who owned it. Eventually, after a great deal of digging around, it was compulsorily purchased, and I do not think they ever did find out who owned it. That gives an indication, I think. Never say never, but it is very, very rarely used. It raises a question of whether it is a useful tool. We believe it is, however, because it certainly focuses the mind of the people we are talking to. If they are aware the powers are there, it gives you that very severe backstop that you might need. But for us it is absolutely a last resort. Q19 Chairman: Do you threaten it quite often? Mr Tew: We point out that the powers are there in the legislation. I do not think we would ever threaten anyone. Mr Fox: Obviously since the strengthening of the provisions brought in by CROW, we now have a range of mechanisms that we did not have before to address issues on site, so we have broader prosecuting powers, management schemes and management notices which are there now to address neglected sites. Management notices come with an offence of failing to comply with that notice, so there are steps now that we can take without actually going down the CPO route. Q20 Sue Doughty: I was going to ask you about your processes for looking after those SSSIs, but clearly you are doing everything you can to avoid taking them on. Do you think you are likely to use this more in the future? I appreciate this is a measure of last resort. Mr Tew: We would hope not. Q21 Sue Doughty: It sounds as if you are very comfortable with the activities you are doing. We know from earlier written evidence that SSIs are occupied by a variety of different private individuals, corporations, local authorities or government departments. Who are the worst offenders? In other words, who do you have the major problems with? What are you doing to get them into line out of that wide range of owners? Mr Tew: If I may answer this question generically and then specifically. We have provided evidence to the Committee which shows the condition of SSSIs under the ownership of various different bodies ranging from MOD to local authorities to the Forestry Commission and because we have a very clear idea of the condition of SSSIs we are able to say what percentage of the sites in any one particular ownership is meeting or not meeting the targets. When you look through those figures, you see that the worst managers in percentage terms appear to be the water companies and Ministry of Defence, but I would like to qualify that remark strongly because that is actually reflecting the pattern of ownership. There are several big issues affecting SSSIs, such as climate change and coastal squeeze, or historic atmospheric pollution, or agricultural incentives to encourage overgrazing, which are actually outside the control of the landowners and so it is unfair to tarnish the reputation of those major landowners with the inaction to get the estate into good condition. In actual fact I would say that, via the DEFRA working groups on SSSIs, all of the major landowners now are working very positively and very well with us and with DEFRA to get the condition of sites back into good condition. That is my generic answer. My specific answer in terms of wildlife crime is that the Section 28G bodies, which is broadly public bodies and includes local planning authorities, we have had to take enforcement action against those. We have sent eight enforcement letters to Section 28G bodies to remind them of their statutory obligations towards SSSIs, and in every case that has done the job, so we have not prosecuted any. Q22 Sue Doughty: Thank you. You mentioned specifically MOD and the water companies . I ought to declare an interest, having worked for a water company at one stage promoting good care of their land assets to take account of conservation and biodiversity, but with the MOD and the water companies are you getting a better dialogue with them? You mentioned you also talk to people about being responsible. How is it going? Mr Tew: It is going well. I have to say that the PSA target which focuses all our attention on the condition of SSSIs is proving a very effective lever in increasing dialogue. The attitude of these other public bodies to SSSIs has undergone a quantum improvement in the last two or three years and we greatly welcome that. Q23 Sue Doughty: We have this issue though about the ones who are not doing so much. Are there any particular factors, such as they have a large amount of land? You mentioned that they are not responsible for the way the land is being used at any one time necessarily, but on the area of land or the fact that they have had it in ownership for a long time or a short time, is there anything in there which seems to be an aspect? Mr Tew: Both of those things certainly figure. I think the key for me would be that these major landowners, public or private, tend not to be owning the land because they like owning land that is of high wildlife value; they are owning it for other reasons. They are owning it to drive tanks around on or to protect water catchments. The key is to make them aware of their obligations in conserving these nationally important wildlife sites. For me, it is a key about education and awareness and we are working hard in that respect. Q24 Sue Doughty: We have talked about the sense of commission but what about the sense of omission and neglect. Do you have to deal with neglect or is it abuse to the area? Mr Tew: Neglect or absence of management is a much bigger issue than damage, deliberate or otherwise, but the new powers under CROW allow us to deal with that. There is a process of management scheme, management notice and then management enforcement that is very helpful. We are very pleased with those new powers under CROW. That for us was a major benefit from the new Act. Q25 Chairman: On that issue, you feel you are nibbling away at the fringes of what is a very much bigger problem. I was struck by the fact that Plant Life, for example, reckon that in the last 50 years we have lost 98 per cent of our wildflower meadows. Most of that has not been wilfully destroyed by people who do not like plants. It is not only neglect, is it? It is intensification of agriculture, urbanisation - all those issues. Our inquiry, it seems to me, is focused on a tiny part of what is a very much bigger problem. Mr Tew: Tiny but important. Remember that the sites themselves only represent 7 per cent of the land area of the country, so we are only talking about a small area, and, for sure, there are bigger issues in a wider environment. If you are talking about farmland birds or lowland meadows, then, yes, you do have to start looking at wider policy measures, particularly agro-environment measures. But, in terms of the sites, before CROW we were nibbling and now we are biting. Q26 Chairman: You are sound-biting! Mr Tew: The condition of SSSIs has gone from perhaps 55 per cent favourable three years ago and we are now 63 per cent. That 8 per cent shift I think has been the biggest forward shift in the condition of our nationally important sites for a generation. Q27 Mrs Clark: I would like to start off by saying how very pleasant it is to see you back with us so soon. Mr Tew: Thank you. Q28 Mrs Clark: I do not think I have sat through a session here for a long time when we have had witnesses who seem to be so thoroughly in agreement with what the Government is doing. I am glad you are now biting because of CROW and also because you actually praised the PSA target - which is what I would like to start off with. It states that 95 per cent of SSSI land area should be in what it calls "favourable" condition. As an ex-English teacher that word seems a bit woolly to me. What does it mean? What is "favourable"? Mr Tew: I fear I do not have time to run through the scientific definition of favourable, but there is a major point to be made here. Favourable can just be that the site is in good condition, in good nick, so that if a biologist walks on to the site he sees the birds and the plants and the animals there that say to him, "This site is in good condition." We have vast technical guidance as to what this actually means and our conservation officers are looking at the percentage of their ground cover, the height of the heather, the number of important invertebrates, so there is a long list of technical guidance about what good nick means. Q29 Mrs Clark: How are we doing against that definition and that target? Mr Tew: At the moment 63 per cent. As of 1 May, exactly 63.0 per cent. Q30 Mrs Clark: Are you relatively satisfied with that? Mr Tew: Last financial year, we started at 58.9 per cent; the target was to hit 62 per cent and we hit 62.9 per cent. Q31 Mrs Clark: Earlier on the Chairman was talking about enforcement officers and saying that it surely was not feasible for English Nature to have loads and loads, bands, armies of enforcement officers going up and down the country. I do not necessarily take that view. I take the view that perhaps there should be more rather than less. Perhaps you would like to tell us how many you actually do have, the precise number nationwide, then going on to the sort of preparation and training that they are getting and the remit of their task in terms of scale and area. Is it in fact easy to get people to do this job? Mr Tew: We do not have a job description of enforcement officer. We have conservation officers which are based in our area teams and work across the country and we have our field staff, our site managers, who work across our national nature reserves. I confess I do not have those figures off the cuff but I estimate perhaps 250 staff across the country doing those jobs. Q32 Mrs Clark: Not very many. Mr Tew: Not very many. Only a small part of their job is to spot wildlife crime and damage to sites and there are 4,000 SSSIs covering over one million hectares. That means that for some of those sites we will only visit once every four or perhaps six years. Six years is a minimum, because we have an internal target whereby we will visit a site every six years, and for the majority of sites we visit much more frequently, but you are right if you are alluding to the fact that noticing and reporting damage may be an issue. That is why we feel strongly that we need to work in partnership both with the police and with other voluntary bodies. Q33 Mrs Clark: We have talked about CROW and have praised the strengthening of the powers. Are there any barriers to you using the enhanced powers fully? Mr Tew: It is good legislation but they say no legislation is perfect. There are a few items that we would like to raise where we feel, both under part 1 and part 2, the powers could be improved. Q34 Mrs Clark: In what sort of way? Ms Oldaker: Under part 1, which deals with species issues, where we are not the enforcement body for that, from the powers point of view and what the legislation actually says we are broadly happy with what the legislation contains, but one area that perhaps needs attention is dealing with non-native species, because the release of non-native, invasive species is recognised as a major threat to biodiversity and perhaps the legislation needs to be amended to tackle that issue. Obviously legislation is only one of the different ways that we are going to tackle that issue. Q35 Chairman: Let us be clear about non-native species. We are talking about flora rather than fauna, are we, or both? Ms Oldaker: We are talking about both, but the legislation is particularly weak in relation to flora. It is an offence already to release many fauna that are non-native but the legislation is particularly lacking in relation to plants and needs to be looked at in relation to non-natives. That is something of which DEFRA are already aware. They have had a review of non-native issues but the legislation is one of the things that needs addressing. Mr Tew: American mink pushing out water voles; American and signal crayfish pushing out our native species. There are good animal examples. Q36 Chairman: Alien bluebells. Mr Tew: Spanish bluebells. Q37 Chairman: It gets a bit dodgy, this conversation! Mr Fox: Could I take a step back to when we were talking about enforcement officers because it would be remiss of me to skip over the point. We do have an enforcement officer and an assistant enforcement officer who sit within the unit, so in that context we have two officers who deal with the process of taking forward enforcement cases. Moving on to part 2, we have mentioned some of these things before: stopping people in vehicles within SSSIs to request their names and addresses we have touched on and it would be very handy for us, for example, to be able to formally speak to a contractor and say, "Hello. What is your name? What are you doing here? Who is employing you?" That is one key issue for us. Actually to be able to require restoration following damage to an SSSI without having to take a court case. As we say, we are reliant upon voluntary restoration. It would be nice if we had something like the local planning authorities have in relation to historic buildings, to be able to serve a notice saying, "Please restore this site because you have done this." There would obviously be possible powers of appeal that came out of that, but that is something to address at a later date. Also, if we look at preventing activities being carried out which are simply a breach of the legislation: if somebody is about to commence something or they have just started to do work on a site, we would look at that as being akin to a local authority stop notice in relation to planning. It would also help us if we could demand statements from people. That is perhaps a more tricky issue because there is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that says we cannot do that but it might help us if we could speak to people and say, "We require you to give us a statement because you are the contractor on this site, who has employed you? How long have you been here?" Also, in relation to being able to require information of persons having an interest in SSSIs, sometimes land for various reasons is not registered with the land registry. It might have been in the family for a long time and it has passed through various generations, although a new occupier might be on the site, and it might there be handy, if we go through all the routes of doing the land registry and are unable to find out who the owner or occupier is, possibly to be able to affix a notice to ask if they would come forward and identify themselves. These points we make in the evidence. I was comforted to see that the Environment Agency also made similar points to ours within the Environmental Justice Project which came out previously. Mr Tew: I do not think these are harsher laws, Chairman; I think they are better laws and give us streamlined, more effective, quicker powers. Q38 Mrs Clark: I was just thinking that at some point in the future we ought to do an inquiry into the operation of the CROW Act because you have given us a lot of ground to think about here. In some of your evidence you go into detail about the circumstances in which an occupier or indeed owner of an SSSI could actually take the case up to the Secretary of State against you, against a decision you have come down in favour of. Is this frequent? In what circumstances do you think the Secretary of State might support the owner or occupier rather than yourself? Ms Flowers: That would be in relation to the notice of consent regime in Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. There is a route of appeal there. Q39 Mrs Clark: Could you tell us a bit about it. Ms Flowers: It is a formal notice and consent mechanism. Owners and occupiers are legally required to give us notice before they carry out activities on SSSIs. We now have the enhanced power through the CROW Act to be able to refuse consent, condition the consent, give a straightforward consent if we are happy with their proposals. If we refuse the consent or we condition the consent, there is a right of appeal and that appeal can be heard by the Secretary of State. There is also a route of appeal in relation to management notices that we serve as well. I do not have the figures on the number of appeals that we have had through on the notices of consents, but I can say on the management notices that as we have not done any we have not had any appealed as yet. Mr Tew: Once again, I think we would view that as a failure on our part to communicate effectively with the owner and occupier about the value of wildlife and the reasons we would like it to be managed properly. Q40 Mr Thomas: Could I ask a general question about all the evidence we have heard so far. It has all been about England and I wondered how you coordinate with the bodies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales - in fact I am not sure what the situation is in Northern Ireland. Do you coordinate with them on these matters? Do they have broadly similar concerns? Are there specific national or regional differences in these wildlife crime issues? Ms Oldaker: From a species point of view, we do get together with CCW, S and H and even Northern Ireland, and we met with the police, because the police asked us particularly to identify what were the nature conservation priorities for their wildlife enforcement work and on a national level we agreed what the national priorities were (that is, the particular species that were most at threat from wildlife crimes) so that we could focus the police's limited efforts. But we obviously need to follow that through at more regional and local levels as well. The PAW initiative is a nationally based initiative and it does capture people from all corners of the country. Q41 Mr Thomas: Also the point you have just been saying about the possible changes in legislation that would help you, presumably, as far as you know, that would be shared by the other agencies as well. Mr Fox: I do not know if we can actually speak on their behalf but I am sure they will make their views known. I should just say, under part 2, that I was party to that with Jo, at the same meeting we set our own priorities there. Recently obviously the legislation in Scotland has changed, as it has in Northern Ireland, and we have had enforcement officers visit us to find out how we do enforcement so that they could take away ideas, and we are in contact with those people. Mr Tew: We hope to ensure best practice lessons are learned both ways across the border, and of course there is the JNCC, which is the UK coordinating body, which serves as a formal forum for that to happen. Q42 Chairman: There are quite a lot of different organisations with different powers and responsibilities involved in this area. Do you think that is a disadvantage? Ms Flowers: One of the principles we work to in enforcement action is working with the other agencies as well, particularly when incidents have happened on site, so that we can decide on the most appropriate enforcement action to take and who has the most appropriate powers. It may not always be English Nature that takes the enforcement action as such. Q43 Chairman: You are not conscious of duplication of effort or gaps in the regime caused by the fact that there are discreet lines of responsibility involving different organisations. Mr Tew: I do not think there are too many cooks involved, no, but I would have to say that that was not necessarily due to terrific communication in the past. I think more effective dialogue is something we are looking forward to, just to make sure that is not the case. Q44 Chairman: In relation to that specific issue, because I noticed in your memorandum you said the dialogue had not been that hot, what role do you think the NCIS could play in pulling that cooperation together? Ms Flowers: We have submitted evidence to the NWCIS recently in relation to wildlife crime, both on SSSIs and species. We understand they will be issuing a report on the findings from that survey when it is carried out. Q45 Chairman: Do you think they will take a strategic lead here to help dialogue and cooperation between the various organisations involved? Ms Oldaker: From a species point of view, I think the PAW initiative, from my understanding, is the best place. It has a large membership and has many sub-working groups and conferences that happen nationally, and there is one in Scotland and one in Wales as well. So I think they are often a good place. They definitely attract the majority of police wildlife crime officers who obviously are usually at the frontline of those cases. I think that is usually a good place to draw them together. Mr Fox: Whilst PAW are primarily focused on species, they do wish to broaden out their remit to include things such as SSSI crimes now, so they are working closely with them. Mr Tew: The strategic overview, you are right, is crucial, because actually we need to start picking up whether the 4x4 damage happening in one part of the country is part of a national trend and look at best practice on how that is most effectively dealt with. Secondly, we are able to give guidance to the police on the strategic issues. For instance, we have been working with them on the hen harrier and they are now targeting the hen harrier as a key species where enforcement may be a major help in the survival of a particular species. Lastly, we are producing a toolkit for the police to use which we hope will give guidance and support to officers, and there is separately a similar initiative for the judiciary called "Costing the Earth" in which we are also having input. We think these are terrific examples of good integration and joined-up thinking. Q46 Chairman: Good. So getting better. Mr Tew: Getting better. Q47 Chairman: We have talked about the desirability of establishing a national database, but I wondered to what extent you have access to other people's databases. For example, how long does it take you, should you wish to, to gain access to the Environment Agency's Flycapture data? Is that readily available to you? Q48 Mr Fox: At the moment it is not, but we have not made particular positive moves there to establish a link. We are working more closely with, for example, the police. We have set up our own database specifically aimed at third-party activities, so that incidents can be reported to us and we can share the data with the police. That is one initiative that we are taking forward but we are always looking to form a relationship with others to share data. There are obviously data protection issues as well to consider. Ms Oldaker: With the RSPB we work well and share their data that they have about reports of wildlife crimes particularly related to birds and they obviously ask us for information and we ask them for information and it seems to work well. We share information. Q49 Chairman: So data protection issues are not a frustration to you. Mr Fox: Not necessarily in relation to our database that we are setting up with the police. It would be in relation to the prevention and detection of crime, and it will help us address that issue that we raised earlier in relation to third parties, to help to demonstrate that a person knew that a site was a SSSI; that is, if they have been stopped before by a police officer or a member of our staff and the matter has been reported to us. The policemen perhaps come to us and ask, "Has this person been stopped before?" We check the records and say, "Yes," and that would inform future action there. Mr Tew: We are not good enough at that yet. Q50 Chairman: What are you doing to get better? Mr Tew: It is the ongoing dialogue and the fact that everyone now is taking it seriously. There are positive steps in place. Q51 Chairman: We have heard an awful lot this morning about the dreaded 4x4s and the damage that they are doing. What kind of access do you have to DVLA? Ms Flowers: We do have an arrangement with the DVLA. Where our staff have obtained vehicle numbers on sites, we then can obtain that information through the DVLA. We also obviously look to the police as well for that kind of information. Q52 Chairman: Do you get that information on a timely basis? As a member of the public, I tend to find DVLA not always the most responsible and efficient organisation to deal with. Is your experience better? Ms Flowers: When we have requested information, it has come back within the working week. Q53 Chairman: Is that soon enough for you? Ms Flowers: Yes, because we will then take important action which is writing to that person, the registered keeper of that vehicle. Q54 Chairman: Why should it take a week for them to be able to identify the owner of a car? Mr Fox:You will have to ask the DVLA. Q55 Chairman: The information is there, is it not? Ms Flowers: Yes. Q56 Chairman: It is sitting on a computer. Mr Fox: I suspect it is the volume of inquiries. Q57 Chairman: They do not get many from you, of course. Ms Flowers: No, they do not get that many from us. Q58 Chairman: And you have been able to take prosecutions, have you, on the basis of information you have had in this way from DVLA? Ms Flowers: Not yet. We have not taken any prosecutions against third party illegal vehicle use on sites as yet. That is not the obstacle in the way there. We are obviously raising awareness, issuing information leaflets to people. As we said before, we are having a problem in relation to proving various elements of the offence in relation to this kind of activity. Mr Tew: Once again, Chairman, prosecution does not represent success to us; it represents failure. The best example I can give is a local motorbike club who were damaging a site, Thames Basin heaths. After several months of good work, not only did they stop damaging it but they turned up in their leathers on Sunday to repair the damage they were doing. We would rather go that way than prosecute people. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. We have no further questions. We are very grateful to you for your time. Memorandum submitted by Environment Agency Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Mr David King, Director of Water Management, Mr Godfrey Williams, Fisheries Policy & Process Manager, and Mr Arwyn Jones, Executive Manager, Environmental Management Process (Acting), Environment Agency, examined. 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? Mr 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? Mr 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. Mr 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 1200 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? Mr 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 10/15 per cent 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. Mr 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? Mr 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. Mr 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 per cent 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 60 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 reparation 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 2003-2004 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? Mr 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 per cent 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 salaries, 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 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? Mr 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 tht 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? Mr 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? Mr 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. Mr 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 6 nautical miles. We also have the sea fisheries committees, and then the sea fisheries inspectors who have a 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. Mr 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? Mr 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. Mr 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. 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 ten 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? Mr 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 burning 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 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? Mr 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? Mr 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? Mr 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? Mr 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? Mr 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 per cent 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? Mr King: We sample about 15 per cent of anglers every year, and our best estimate is that about 4 per cent 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. Mr King: It is the Agency. Q91 Mr Thomas: Why does the licence only cover about 60 per cent of the money you need? Is that a deliberate policy? Mr King: No. The income stream from fisheries has two components. The licence accounts for some 60 per cent, and then there is grant in aid. In money terms, what comes in from licences is in the order of £17 million, and about £5.7 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? Mr 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 per cent that you found were fishing without a licence - what action do you take against those? Mr 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? Mr 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. Mr King: Yes, a fine, but the level of fine ----- Q96 Mr Thomas: Is it more or less than the licence? Mr 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? Mr 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 budgeting 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. Q100 Mrs Clark: They do take these crimes as "real" crimes and do not think it is just something to do with the environment and therefore not really a crime. Mr King: No. As I pointed out earlier, quite often when you are dealing with poaching on a commercial scale, the individuals involved are often involved in other crime. Q101 Mrs Clark: What about regional variations in terms of police forces? Are some really more in tune than others? Mr King: I suspect that when you look across the country there will be variations. Obviously, where we have a lot of enforcement activity, there is a degree of consistency. Mr Jones: There are two levels in which we interact with the police service. One is at a very tactical level where our local field officers forge very strong links with local police and other agencies; and by and large they work very well. But that is framed by a memorandum of understanding that we have with ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, which sets out the framework by which we will interact with the police service, and that has been very beneficial. There are some variations in how we do the work with some police forces, but we now have a very strong link through the Chief Constable of North Wales, who has the ACPO lead on environmental crime, and I have met him several times over the last 12 months. We are looking at how to review that and strengthen the crime element within that. Q102 Mrs Clark: You have singled out in your memorandum the Durham Constabulary and a fascinating strategy of theirs called Get Hooked on Fishing, which sounds very appropriate. You are saying that what is good about them is that they are working with you to prevent offences and to promote social inclusion and good behaviour. Would you like to say more about that? Mr King: It is a phenomenal success. Mr Williams: We have singled out that particular one because it is so good, but I would like to support the police in saying that is spreading. I think they have forged an example of best practice, which is now being picked up in other places. In essence, the idea did come from Durham Constabulary, and it now involves a partnership that involves us and local authorities and angling organisations. It is looking at identifying those youngsters in a locality who potentially are vulnerable to getting involved in crime, and then providing the opportunity to engage in a programme of fishing development, something that is of interest to them getting out in the countryside and enjoying angling and so on. Q103 Mrs Clark: It seems to happen in these deprived areas. Mr Williams: Yes, and they have had an extremely good success rate. Every youngster that has been through their programme has not re-offended, and whilst you would not expect all of them not to re-offend, you would think some of them might do. Q104 Mrs Clark: Can you send that to us? Mr Williams: Certainly. I have quite a lot more material on that. There is an example from there of one youngster who had failed at school who subsequently won the Young Angling Journalist of the Year Award by becoming involved in that initiative. That is a very good example of trying to move people away from the opportunity before they start. Q105 Mrs Clark: We have not talked very much about local authorities. Do you think they are fully up to the mark? Are they properly engaged in the work with you, and again are there any that you would single out for praise? Mr King: You have got to look at the different component parts of the fishery story. We do have good co-operation with local authorities, and just like the police we have a memorandum of understanding that underpins the co-operation with local authorities across a wide range of activities. There are a number of local protocols in support of that, fly-tipping being one of them, although there is not one on fisheries. At a local level we have had good co-operation. There is an example in the pack of an elver fishery in the Severn, which again is quite a valuable fishery and highly susceptible to poaching, and where there is good co-operation between the Agency, British Waterways and Gloucester County Council. On the marine side there is co-operation there through the sea fisheries committees. Chairman: Thank you. That has been very helpful and we are grateful to you for coming along. |